Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

My next question is for Dr. Farrell. Bord na Móna has been doing work on several bogs throughout the country. It speaks about preserving bogs. It is looking at Daingean where it has done a lot of work. In the midlands it has made an application for wind turbines near Mount Dillon. This will involve digging out a lot of bog and putting in roadways. How is this going on when Bord na Móna speaks about conservation? With regard to consultation, Bord na Móna is working on Attymon bog. Farmers in the area have told me there has been no consultation with them with regard to bogs or land. I have sent an email to Bord na Móna to ask it to engage with people in the area.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae raised the issue of the 450 jobs. I believe there will be redundancies as I do not see any plan for other jobs.

In its land division, or its move from the west to put it bluntly, there will be no jobs west of the Shannon in producing peat for Bord na Móna. With regard to the restoration of bogs, would it not have been a good idea to hold onto people in Derryfadda and other such areas who have had great expertise with machinery over the years? Anyone who worked on a bog was driving machines. Would it not be advisable to give them priority, even if it took only two or three years, and give them redundancy after that or they could get another job? From my understanding, no headway is being made in the tonnage of willow and it will take seven years for the fish project. There is no immediate rainbow on the horizon with regard to jobs for these workers, particularly in rural areas.

Do the witnesses agree we have moved to speaking about climate change and various issues but the habitats directive was the reason the 53 bogs were closed? They were closed to preserve them because parts of Europe, as Dr. O'Connell rightly pointed out, had dug away all they had. I want clarification on this.

I would also like the witnesses to comment on my next point. We are at a stage whereby no problem in this country will be solved, whether the witnesses like it or not, unless they bring the landowners and communities with them. Dr. Farrell spoke about 80,000 ha belonging to Bord na Móna but many private people have turbary rights or ownership of the bog. In fairness to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, over the past two or three years, Mr. Lucas has tried to get relocation sites as close as possible for people.

I should clarify that I am chairman of the TCCA. It is acceptable to move people from A to B, to where there is high-quality turf nearby, such as four or five miles away. They are working on that.

When the NPWS or other interests are trying to preserve those 53 - or 57, because a few areas, such as the River Moy, have multiple bogs - bogs, it is not helpful. Do the witnesses agree? Bear in mind, there could be a 3,000 acre designated bog and one might want 50 acres or 100 acres to give to the people. Do the witnesses agree that it is not helpful to have objections being submitted? It has been a problem particularly in Kildare in the past month or two, from what I have witnessed. It is a problem whether people like it or not. I own a bog in a so-called SAC, although I do not know if it is an SAC yet, as do other people around the country. I will not leave it until I have the choice of another bog. It is as simple as that. If we want to solve the problem, we must address the environmentalists who have objected and others. If a refusal is issued every time there is an objection to move people from one of those so-called raised SAC, as they are known in parts of the country, we will not solve the problem. It is bread and butter stuff. The people need to be brought on board and, in fairness, the NPWS is doing that and have contracted RPS Group, for example, to review the sites.

Allegations were made earlier about the science and it was claimed that less than 1% of the original area is available for growing peat. What did we know we had? Was there science to back it up? In the 1980s, before the habitats directive was introduced in 1997, it is now estimated that our science was up to 40% wrong. If I start doing something 40% wrong, I can never get it right. In fairness, a full re-evaluation is being done of those bogs to establish where exactly we are going, what we can restore, what is degraded bog, what we can get going and how much active raised bog we have. Do the witnesses agree that there should be some benefit given if one of those SACs performs well down the road? Notwithstanding the habitats directive, if someone's bog ends up doing well, should there be a carbon credit or financial reward for it? In fairness to the NPWS and its reweighting - and I presume Bord na Móna has done more than what I have been able to mention within the time - it is liaising with communities. While there are problems in certain areas - there is no point in saying there are not - the NPWS is liaising with communities as much as possible.

Mr. Fogarty referred to sheep. Farmers farmed the way they had to farm over the years. There was a destocking of sheep on mountains and, as he noted, sheep destroyed the mountain. That part of it is being addressed. Is it fair that a farmer in Connemara, on a hill in Sligo or in Donegal who has a few cows or sheep on the side of a mountain and wants to erect new stakes must apply for planning permission? I think it is wrong. Under the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine's regulations, the farmer is obliged to prevent his or her cattle from mixing but is not allowed to erect a fence. There are certain matters that the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht needs to get to grips with. If there used to be a fence, a fence should be allowed to be put up. We are putting people in their land through a type of torture in respect of planning permission, and then some genius will object.

On the raised bogs, Dr. O'Connell referred to the Dutch, and she is correct, as Queen Beatrix has a connection to Irish bogs. The Dutch are mighty; they cut all their bogs away. Is that not correct? They then told us what to do and what not to do.