Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

Before getting into the curve modelling, I have a follow-up question to Deputy Kenny's very relevant query. Specifically in regard to situations where we have forestry on peatland that has recently been or is about to be felled, and, indeed, where we had forestry on peatland that has, in effect, collapsed from the impact of storms and so forth, it seems to have been suggested that in that scenario of an existing footprint of forestry that has been clear felled - we are not talking about managing a forest but, rather, about a site that had been afforested and has been felled - there would be replanting. Is that the case? The RePEAT strategy that was mentioned sounds like a repeat of the strategy we have done in other areas whereby we hypothetically look to the science to see whether we can find a future scientific argument but we will come up with that science in five years when we have a new 40-year lock-in of something, when the science is already crystal clear that this is not appropriate for peatlands. It seems we have to do five years of trying to find a way around that, and while those five years are going on, we will be tied into 40 years.

I say this because we, as a committee, look at the carbon budgets as a whole and we see Ireland is up against it. We are looking at failing to meet our carbon budgets, which is very significant. It is not an abstract mathematical exercise but an issue of failing to meet our target. Has there been consideration of some kind of join-up whereby those farmers who were previously in an afforestation scheme and are now clear felling would be given a direct route - a linked route, rather than a separate or parallel process - into something like peatland rewetting or restoration, which is an underfunded area, as an alternative to replanting?