Mr. Fintan Kelly:

I will respond to the two points Deputy Fitzmaurice made on the forestry targets and the rewetting of organic land targets. I come from the same neck of the woods so we will both speak straight to each other. That is our way. I was quoting those particular targets because they are targets that have been put forward by the Climate Change Advisory Council. One of our jobs as an environmental NGO is to analyse these various policy drivers or policies that might be adopted by the Government and to try to give a view of what the environmental or socioeconomic impacts of that might be. We would then give some advice or indication of what the best pathway forward might be. I totally agree with the Deputy on the target.

I think it was something like 200,000 ha per annum but based on the track record of afforestation figures, that seems totally unfeasible.

As an environmental NGO, we would not be supportive of a roll-out of the forestry type on which the current model of forestry in this country is based. It would have devastating impacts on biodiversity, water quality and the socioeconomic well-being of many rural communities. Having looked at what the Climate Change Advisory Council is saying, if we are to achieve anything like the target figures, we need to see radical change in the type of forestry we plant. That change needs to be informed by science, covering the best tree in the best place and with the right management. There also needs to be real engagement with communities because the planting figures we are seeing now indicate that people are voting with their actions. What people's behaviour tells us is that they do not like the forestry model we have. I agree 100% with the Deputy on the feasibility of the figures.

On the re-wetting of agricultural soils, I also agree that there would be massive resistance to the reclamation of improved agricultural land. One of the key points we are making today is that we see targets and ambitions but we do not see how the Government is proposing to meet them. We see real constraints, although we also see opportunities. Ms Duggan spoke about the conservation status of breeding waders. Obviously returning some of that land to a wetter condition or to wetland would have massive benefits for biodiversity, climate change and water quality but if farmers have to give up their land and return it to a wetland state or a lower management intensity, they should be compensated.

To go back to the earlier point about the purpose of CAP, while it was originally designed to be a system to subsidise food production, the CAP we have now is much fairer for farmers because it reflects the multiple goods and services that farmers provide to society. If a farmer who is managing reclaimed land at the moment is incentivised or rewarded for managing it less intensively, is happy to do that and delivers certain public goods and services, then that is a win-win. We are not saying farmers should be dictated to, their land should be take off them and their ditches blocked overnight. What we are saying is that there is a real need to recognise the scale of change that is required and in that context, there is a need for engagement, open dialogue and for everyone to learn from each other. We have our perspectives but every time we engage with farmers, we learn something because they are environmentalists as well. They are experts too. Our message is that there is a need for massive change and the CAP as it exists currently is not capable of delivering that. We need to see a better roadmap for how we are going to get to where we need to be and we need to bring everyone together.