Ms Anja Murray:

I will take the question on why the expert advisory body should be independent. After ten or 15 years working in this sector, most NGOs will observe that serious difficulties can arise when advisory bodies are constrained by being too tightly contained within a particular Department. The fiscal advisory council is a very good example of a body that is capable of releasing statements, highlighting scientific evidence and making recommendations to Government which the latter can choose either to accept or reject but must, in either case, give an explanation for its decision. That is the importance of having an independent body. Many of the measures that will have to be taken if we are to meet the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be politically unpopular in the short term. It is important that recommendations are not curtailed politically before even being put in the public domain.

The question regarding the economic value and cost of peatland restoration efforts is an excellent one. Several studies in this regard have been carried out in the United Kingdom. For example, the commission of inquiry established by the International Union for Conservation of Nature carried out a cost-benefit analysis of peatland restoration and found a return of 30 times the investment in terms of carbon value. In Northern Ireland and Britain, water companies are funding peatland conservation because it is cheaper for them to supply clean water if it comes from a catchment with an intact bog as opposed to having to treat water which contains peat sediment. There are many similar examples right across Europe. On one occasion when I raised this issue at an event, a representative of Bank of Ireland who was in attendance expressed considerable interest in the possibility of investing in peatland restoration. There are strong economic arguments for it.

In terms of land-use planning, issues include the location of renewable energy responses and so on. It is important that this Bill would state very clearly that there shall be no negative environmental impacts on protected species and habitats from mitigation and adaptation strategies. We are seeking an overarching commitment in this regard within the legislation.