Mr. Fintan Kelly:

I refer to Deputy Whitmore's first question on engagement. Speaking on behalf of the environmental pillar, there has been engagement with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage on the nature restoration law. We sought meetings on those matters and we clearly communicated our concerns on Ireland's position. We stated that at an EU level the nature restoration law was overly onerous.

We were very clear in communicating that the nature restoration law targets are less ambitious than our existing national commitments, and what has been recommended by organisations like the EPA and the Climate Change Advisory Council. There has been no engagement with the relevant Departments on the Government's position. While there has been discussion there still is no clarity on exactly what Ireland's position is on various aspects of the nature restoration law in ongoing negotiations.

Speaking to the land use review, phase 1 has taken place and culminated with the publication of various reports. There was a public consultation that called for evidence but there was no engagement around the gathering of that evidence or the assessment of what the evidence might mean or the implications of the synthesis report. My understanding is that stakeholder engagement will happen during phase 2 but so far there is no clarity on exactly what that will involve. So we have called on relevant Ministers to make sure that farmers, environmentalists and all relevant stakeholders are engaged with.

On economic assessments, the Commission did provide a broad economic assessment to accompany the proposal of the nature restoration law. The assessment clearly identified that Ireland would benefit at a national level from improving ecosystem services provided by things like peatlands, carbon sequestration, water regulation, etc. The assessment was not clear about the fact that Ireland has in the past failed to reward landowners and farm owners for the public goods that they provide, which is what the farming representative organisations have spoken to. Therefore, I agree with those organisations declaring that we cannot repeat the mistakes made in the past around designation and the failure to provide farmers with the right schemes and level of payments. I agree with the earlier comments that farmers need to be incentivised to carry out these measures. They need to be fundamentally involved in the design and implementation of these measures at all stages. Yes, I fully agree that the people who provide the public goods that generate benefits that accrue to society must be rewarded.