Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As we have a quorum, we will commence the meeting. Before we begin, I remind members, witnesses and those in the Public Gallery to switch off their mobile phones. The purpose of today's meeting is to undertake an examination of the impact of peat shortages on the horticulture industry and, in the second session, to discuss the environmental impact of local emissions. In the first session, the committee will hear from Mr. Seamus Boland from Irish Rural Link, while in the second, it will hear from Mr. Dan Brennan. All those present in the committee room are asked to exercise personal responsibility in respect of Covid.

Witnesses giving evidence within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means such a witness has a full defence against any action regarding anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and they may be directed to cease giving evidence at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. I remind witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity.

Witnesses who are to give evidence from locations outside the parliamentary precinct are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online in the committee meeting from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurance regarding speech made by those outside the parliamentary precincts and members should be mindful of this when they contribute. I call Mr. Boland to make his opening statement.

Mr. Seamus Boland:

I am very sorry I could not be here in person because of commitments. On the other hand, I wanted to ensure the committee had the opportunity to hear from me and, therefore, I was quite happy the remote appearance could be managed, for which I thank the committee. I am available at any time if members want further consultations on this issue.

I am not going to go deeply into that; members have the report and a selection of slides. I will skim through them because of time but I am sure members have had a chance to read them. I was tasked with this because of my knowledge of bogs, which goes back nearly 30 or 40 years, and of policy, going back 20 years. I come from a long family tradition. My grandfather supplied turf during the Second World War to places like Athlone and Roscommon, for example. I am steeped in this situation. We were given this task to assess the levels of suitability of current peat stocks across all peat suppliers in Ireland. The assessment was to include all available peat stocks; their level of suitability for different horticultural uses; to determine whether any hobby or other peat can be identified on various peat bogs for Irish horticultural growers; and to obtain locations of any additional brownfield peat sites that may be suitable for horticultural growers. This was against the background of the reality caused by the sudden decision by Bord na Móna to stop peat production and the urgency, expressed by all parties in the peat industry, particularly the horticultural and mushroom industries, which were impacted by this shortage of supply.

In that context, as part of our approach, we interviewed many people such as Growing Media Ireland, Kildare Growers, mushroom industry representatives, Bord Na Móna, ICL, JBA consulting ecologists and planning consultants. As somebody who knows this industry well, I talked to hundreds of growers, potential bog owners and contractors I know well who did not want to be mentioned or included in the report for reasons which I understand, in terms of their exposure. We contacted many people in the industry and outside it regarding clarifying their understanding of the situation concerning locations of peat stocks etc. When we looked at the potential in terms of sites available, we had to dismiss many sites. Many of the Deputies will be aware of this because they come from rural areas. They do not need me to explain in detail but we had to dismiss sites for reasons such as turbary right questions, ownership, access, peat quality and legal issues. The management of transfer of bog was not as efficient as the transfer of land in agriculture, so there are many questions still about people who believe they own bogs but in fact could be tested. Many of the people who might have had sites suitable for this quickly reminded us that their original site was used for turf excavation and if that changed to anything else, others in the community might have something else to say about it. Therefore, they were also unwilling to let their sites be considered. There are many other complex issues such as legal and planning, which I will come to in a moment.

We could have finished the report at that stage, but we redirected it because we wanted to see if there were solutions. One might have been the 30-ha site; it meant that one would need to find a 30-ha site somewhere. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine was excellent and is still excellent. It is open to suggestions from anywhere in this country of such a site available. It will do everything possible to help and assist in that sense. There was a major effort put into in finding out if these sites existed. The following conditions applied, whether we liked it or not, first, it would only be available to the indigenous industry, such as mushrooms or horticulture. One could not consider virgin bogs, for obvious reasons linked to the Harte Peat court decision, which I will not go into; suffice to say that the decision brought hydrology into the picture. Digging up virgin bog, particularly mined peat, as in going down to the sand and gravel, was, to say the least, risky. Nobody, even owners, was prepared to look at that as a possibility; no virgin bogs. We also suggested a strict track and trace process in the report. In other words, if we could find such a bog, if would have to be on the basis that the peat excavated would only go to the purpose it was intended for, to ensure that the environmental damage was curtailed. That was an issue. For example, over a period of five years, the first year would go 100% to current consumption and then be reduced as the years progressed. From talking to the industry, particularly horticulture and mushrooms, they want this as a temporary solution because they believe alternative solutions of peat substitutes can and should be looked at and found. They were reasonable in terms of what they were looking for; I salute them for that.

The three recommendations we put forward are for discussion; they are not definitive, they cannot be. They require more discussion with stakeholders, including owners and the likes of Bord na Móna etc. They also need to be discussed at Cabinet, Government and local authority level. The terms of reference of our report did not allow us to get into those discussions and we also would have needed more time and resources to move into that space. These recommendations should and could form a basis for moving forward; that is a health warning I will give at the very beginning. The first recommendation was to try to move section 5 exemption and clarify the confusion. In the industry, there is massive confusion and fear that this process is too complicated and complex. There are issues regarding local authorities; some might know a lot about it, while others might not. The confusion is so great that many of the people who might have had sites simply will not get involved in that process.

We suggested that a guided process with certain protections be managed to bring certain volunteers with sites through the process, in order that we could see and learn how best to simplify it, bearing in mind that one has to ensure that planning deals with things like environmental damage etc. On section 5 exemptions, we recommended that the industry be made aware that in the case of mined peat, it was very unlikely they will ever be able to avail of a section 5 exemption. This is due to their interaction on the Y-axis - we are getting a bit technical there. In other words, because of mined peat requirements, you need to go down right to the sand and gravel, which has implications for hydrology. One of the reasons the virgin bogs could not be considered was that many of them are far too close to rivers and lakes. Contractors who know this business very well pointed out to me that you could do tremendous harm to the underground water system.

We have to be aware of that. Effectively, we are stuck with having to have a comprehensive planning situation for that particular case.

For recommendation 1 we looked at a pilot scheme in Offaly and Kildare. We also said there are a lot of used bogs that should be looked at. They are more than likely to be in the hands of Bórd na Mona but some are not. They are more likely to cause no damage to the environment and therefore might be worth looking at. On this recommendation, there is a lot of work to be done in persuading stakeholders, if the right protections were in place, to go through that process.

In recommendation 2 we mentioned Rochfortbridge, but that should not be taken as the definitive venue. There may be other venues like it. We did not find them but that does not mean they do not exist. The reason we picked Rochfortbridge is there is already a project where they are digging out peat to quarry stone. It is operated by Cement Roadstone Holdings, CRH. When we looked at that site, there was a big pile of peat, very much polluted in the sense that it was mixed with sand and gravel. Had we been thinking, we could have had the contractors with the expertise, and they were the ones who told us this, to dig this out in such a way that it could be drawn off site to the industry and used as needed. Therefore, that site is already more than likely suitable because they are digging it already. What we were suggesting is to get different specialist contractors in this area, dig it up, as they are doing at the moment, and draw it away. It would save CRH a lot of money because it still has to deal with the problem and it would have solved it. There will be considerations among the community in that area. A lot of discussion with the community and the local authority would be needed. We were saying this provided a short-term, relatively easy solution. I say relatively easy, but there would still need to be engagement with a range of stakeholders to bring that about. However, it is doable or there may be other sites like it.

Recommendation 3 is more for milled peat. Mined peat is needed for the mushroom industry because it is of a certain quality, blackness and wetness. Milled peat is needed for more normal horticulture applications. In terms of milled peat, we mentioned Prosperous bog in Kildare but I think there would be many examples of used Bórd na Mona bogs around. There would be no legal issues in terms of ownership so we could move quickly on that issue and the planning. They have a rewetting programme in Prosperous, so more than likely that is under way as we speak. It was not at the time but I suspect it is by now. Going back to the industry sources, if they could be sure they could get planning in their bogs, they would be quite happy to manage the rewetting in such a way that it would quickly enhance the bog and they would make sure the environment was not affected.

This is a whistle-stop tour through our report. I commend the producers in the mushroom and horticulture industries on their openness, sometimes anonymously, and the peat stock owners who are waiting to receive much more consultation. One aspect of and thought on the survey is that we did not get the results we would have wanted, despite the fact we consulted the people involved when writing the survey. I emphasise that I understand why they did not return the survey because they do not have confidence in the planning system and, as a result, were afraid to submit their bogs for scrutiny. I had a long conversation with one person, whose name I will not mention because he asked me not to. From our conversation, it was clear his bog was perfect for the project, but the issues of legality, access and possible objections by people in the community as well as not trusting the planning made him refuse to engage.

I am very sorry they are not the ideal answers we would have all liked. If the members of the committee look at those three sections, I believe they form the basis of resolving this problem. I do not know what the alternatives are. We are still open to hearing from any bog owner who feels that their bog could be used in the research, and they can contact me or the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We would welcome and assist them and assure them of the confidentiality they require.

I will stop at this point and I thank the committee for its attention.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Boland. It has been a good while since we crossed paths on the Irish Peatland Conservation Council, IPCC. Mr. Boland has said that some of the bog owners did not co-operate. It needs to be put on the record that, in fairness to the industry, it sent emails to each of us and it would contradict that. Growing Media Ireland has said it has engaged and some smaller operators have said the same. I am not getting into it one way or the other because it is about resolving the issue. It is also of concern that ten months have gone by, another year basically, and nothing has happened. I am not saying that is Mr. Boland's fault.

I know the place near Rochfortbridge that Mr. Boland talked about. I worked near it some years ago. It is ironic that for taking out gravel, the bog can be bulldozed out of the way and then 22RBs are used and the sand is washed. The bog can be bulldozed out of the way, but if someone wanted to use that same bog for milling peat, they could not do it.

The witness is correct in saying there are large amounts bulldozed in one place. Maybe that would help in the mushroom industry. I do not know what area is needed for that. For the horticulture industry I think something in the region of 1,400 ha or 1,500 ha is needed around the country. That would be 50 of these 30 ha sections.

I met Mr. Boland on the bogs issue. LiDAR surveys have been done throughout the country. We have worked with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS. Every bog is different and there are different surfaces underneath. The hydrology and ecology of bogs, depending on the amount of lock or sand or the type of whatever is under it, can determine an awful lot. Upwelling is also an important consideration. The nub of this issue is that people were led to believe that if it was under 30 ha, that 30 ha had to be hydrologically separated from everything else. Even if it was separated by a drain, you would have to be able to show that there was no upwelling from one part to the other.

What I can not understand is why we cannot implement the 30 ha right around the country. I have seen the science done. It will show that depending on the bog, the distances range from 150 metres and 250 metres outside that where there may be an effect. I am talking about special areas of conservation, SACs, which are held to a higher standard than what we are talking about here, which are not designated bogs. Many of the bogs have the drain around them that would be down to the lock or the marl, whatever you want to call it.

On top of that I cannot understand why a directive is not given or a recommendation made about a 30 ha site with a buffer zone around it. There is an idea out there at the moment - it was promoted by certain people years ago as Mr. Boland will remember - that a bog is like a plastic bag in that if you punch it in one spot, the water will run out of it. The RPS Group and people from Queen's University Belfast have done scientific peer-reviewed research on that subject. It depends on the white, brown and black turf that is in a bog. Mr. Boland understands what I am talking about. Why can a recommendation not be made that if an owner can show a buffer zone around the 30 ha - a certain amount of scientific research must be done to show all this - a directive can be given to councils to allow for that, especially in the areas already being milled, as those are private property? It is as simple as that. No one can force the owners to return the bogs or rewet them or anything. People will become angrier if we go against them. We must work with them to try to resolve the issue. I wonder why something like that was not looked at in the recommendations.

Mr. Seamus Boland:

I thank Deputy Fitzmaurice. I appreciate that we go back. I am sure he knows his bogs better than I ever will, but I know them. I am familiar with the issues he raised. These are solutions and perhaps a combination of them will work. The reason we could not put forward the recommendation the Deputy mentioned relates to discussions we had with scientists and especially hydrologists. I remind the Deputy that the Harte Peat decision needs to be looked at and clarified. It may even need to be tested but at the moment it is there. We were told that a buffer zone can be put in place, as the Deputy suggests - I am not dismissing this as a possibility - but we were told in no uncertain terms that to stand over a recommendation like that, we would have to be absolutely certain that the underground water systems that could be affected in such a plot will not be disturbed or affected. As one scientist pointed out, the water schemes in an area could be dried up if you were not careful. No one presented a proposal - and we looked for it - on how that buffer zone could be managed to guarantee that the water systems that could be affected would not be damaged and would not destroy water in the area. That was the main reason that Irish Rural Link, and I personally, could not stand over that. I was not convinced that a buffer zone would work.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I put it to Mr. Boland that the reports the RPS Group published on the national parks were peer reviewed. A hydrologist from Queen's University Belfast did the research. This is not about damaging water in an area. The scientists, or whoever Mr. Boland spoke to, could do with looking at the research. It was carried out in 14 different places. It was not a one-off. The upwelling is what needs to be watched in the hydrology of a raised bog, not draining a well up or down the road. The upwelling and the type of soil under it are what need to be watched.

I am not an expert in horticulture but I have learned a good bit about it. When the bog near Rochfortbridge is bulldozed, I understand, a minimum of 3 m is needed and that there is a danger of contamination that would knock it out. Is that correct?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

Yes.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not inventing something new. When we work on a report we need to go to nearly every door and to study hydrology and ecology on a bog is a lot of work. There is no point in saying it is not. Someone has to make a call. I am not saying it is Mr. Boland. He can write a report but a Minister must make a call through a legislative process to make provision whereby you can show that within a buffer zone, you are not damaging the whole integrity of a site. That is copying the habitats directive on not having an adverse effect on a site . The area is always degraded where peat was milled before, to put it simply. Generally these areas are bigger than 30 ha at the moment, so the buffer zone will already be there no matter what is done. A Minister must make a decision that with the buffer zone and the 30 ha, if an owner can show that a bog will not be damaged hydrologically and ecologically up or down the way, it is a solution and it should be exempt in the process. That is the way forward. That is coming from someone who has been looking at bogs all his life.

Mr. Seamus Boland:

Deputy Fitzmaurice is an authority on bogs and I would never say he is not. He knows them and has worked them. I know that for a fact. All I can say is that there is merit in what he is proposing. The problem I came across was twofold. Unfortunately for the Deputy's point of view, enough people said they did not believe a buffer zone that would work has been designed yet. That might be wrong but unfortunately, it was simply impossible for me to stand over a recommendation knowing that had been said.

The second point is that some people who knew we were doing this survey made it clear they would be worried about their areas if a bog was used in that way. I do not in any way dismiss the Deputy's suggestion as I have huge respect for his knowledge. I suggest that this particular recommendation could be followed up with that view in mind. At the moment, I do not have enough evidence to conclusively stand over it. Given that I could not get anyone else to do so either, I had to walk a bit back from it.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Boland for coming before the committee and for providing a very good report. Anything that can break the impasse we have in the peat sector at the moment must be commended and welcomed. I will hone in on recommendation 1 and the exemption clarification. It states the aim of the recommendation is to restore confidence in the current procedures and to give the necessary support tools to local authorities to make decisions where possible. Mr. Boland probably hit the nail on the head in that there is a degree of paralysis or fear in local authorities causing them to be afraid to advance or make decisions and they are deferring to other agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. That has in part led to the impasse. It is good that the report sets out what appears to be an immediate solution. It does not require changes to legislation and the key is that it will restore confidence in the process. The report sets out an idea for how it should be done in a pilot scheme. It suggests starting with one local authority rather than a region. I would be interested to hear why. I suggest that perhaps the initial just transition or former Bord na Móna counties could be covered. That would include five or six counties, in the same way as the midlands region would implement a homelessness task force across a number of local authorities.

Given that we have ten to 15 years to crack this nut and resolve this issue, we need some power behind whatever initiative we do come up with. I agree that if we can get the expertise within the local authorities and get them to come together and buy into this, that is probably our best solution for advancing it. Mr. Boland has clearly set out that the stock is peat and the peat is there. It would enable us to ensure production in horticulture and ensure that we would not need to resort to imports. In terms of questions, I would like him to focus on the practicalities of running that initial pilot across a number of counties. What does he see as the barriers to local authorities coming together to do that? If there are barriers, what can we, as a committee, do to get rid of them and ensure this can happen?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

I thank Deputy Flaherty for the kind words.

What we have to understand is that peat required for normal horticulture, rather than mushrooms, should be more easily found and more easily available. I believe it is. However, as I said and as the Deputy picked up, I am afraid the problem is the mistrust or lack of confidence in the planning industry. Unfortunately, many of the potential suppliers do not want to engage in that because of the hassle they feel it causes them. There is no particular reason we would not increase the number of counties. That is a consideration and maybe you would get a greater buy-in. We said it too, simply because we wanted to try to allow the process to go a little quicker. If you bring in three or four more local authorities that involves the machinery of each of those authorities and people need to be in place. I know at the last sitting on this issue Deputy Fitzmaurice pointed out that planners and local authorities are under fire as it is. The barriers are that if there are more local authorities involved it will take longer to do.

What we wanted to do was basically supported by Cabinet. It was to pick one or two areas, guide the process and put the experts together, and give support to those who want to submit their properties for this planning exemption. They would not be losing sleep at night because they are worried about the costs, etc. We can at least try to simplify what is a very complex planning system. Two counties might make it happen quicker. There would still be the same expertise, but because you are not covering all four or five you do not have the same delay.

Deputy Flaherty was right to point out that we need to crack this nut very quickly, and I would argue that with support at Cabinet level this could happen.

Joe Flaherty (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has Mr. Boland engaged with any of the local authorities on this in terms of planners?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

We spoke to individual planners and local authorities. Again, they were a little nervous or reluctant to be drawn too much or certainly to be quoted individually in this report. We came across a number of planners who, with their permission, I would share with the relevant officials. They would have been interested and excited in being part of this, although some more than others. They are a little confused too. They are trying to do a whole range of different planning. We have not really done this before. As all who know about bogs are aware, the bog and the complexity around it is unfortunately not much part of the planning system. Therefore, a lot of new learning needs to be done.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Boland. I am thankful that he notes in page 7 of his report that some suppliers, particularly in the mushroom sector, are precariously close to exhausting all supplies and termination of employment is a risk in areas of Ireland. I say this because the Department has made efforts at downplaying this fact and telling us that there is no real worry there. It has come in and told the committee this on several occasions. That is not what we are hearing in the committee. I am sure Mr. Boland has probably heard on the ground that places are really struggling. The only recommendation that even provides a glimmer of hope is the question on the current condition of bogs suggesting that rewetting be paused. The suitability of peat from the quarry bog is also questioned. Mr. Padraig O'Leary from Walsh Mushrooms from my county - the Chairman will know it - said that he still does not see that as a short-term solution. He said diluting peat is driving up costs by 40% to 50%, and he also suggested that as you narrow the providers of peat the prices will also increase. Does Mr. Boland have anything to say on that?

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could you hear Deputy Browne clearly, Mr. Boland?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

I am afraid I missed some of it but let me clarify what Deputy Browne asked. He spoke about the Rochfortbridge peat. I missed the bit about his colleague. I am sorry about that.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was talking about Mr. O'Leary from Walsh Mushrooms in Golden in Tipperary, where myself and the Chairman are from. He said he does not see a short-term solution in sight. He said diluting peat is driving up costs by 40% to 50%. He also suggested that as you narrow the providers of peat, the prices are going to increase. Does Mr. Boland have any opinion on that?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

Sometimes I can confuse myself, but I am not sure I was saying that we dilute the peat. There are two kinds of peat. There is mined peat and there is milled peat. The mined peat, if you look at the Rochfortbridge site, is mixed through sand and gravel. Deputy Fitzmaurice pointed that out. It is extraordinary that we are digging this up. If we had the expert contractors in place, you could draw it away and use it immediately. You would not need to do anything with it. You just draw it away and use it in the industry. That was certainly not diluting peat. I do not think we said that, nor would we be diluting normal milled peat. You would just be digging what you can in as safe an environment as possible under planning regulations and using it.

Turning to the price, the Deputy is certainly in the right place, but there is a way of looking at it. The price will be increased because of its unique nature, but buying it in from Moldova or places like that is even more crazy and a lot more costly. It is a reality that we have to face, and both the horticultural and mushroom industry were sanguine and very clear about understanding that they need this as a short-term solution. I hope I have gotten the Deputy's question right. If not, I apologise but certainly we would not see diluting the peat as a solution.

On the question of short-term solutions, I think if we knew all this was happening and the mushroom industry was in trouble it would have been a good idea if somebody had gone to Cement Roadstone Holdings, CRH, and asked permission to redo the way it was digging up the peat. They could ask for the specialist contractors to go in and take it away, save CRH a fortune, and draw it up to the mushroom farms. That would have been a brilliant solution.

It is similar for others. I am hoping I have not confused Deputy Martin Browne as well with my answer.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is okay. Mr. Boland also pointed out that no sub-30 ha sites can be identified. We have had industry representatives claim that a number of them were pointed out. Can Mr. Boland explain why there is such a difference between his recommendations and what these stakeholders are telling us?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

First, let us be clear about the stakeholders and we met the stakeholders also. Let us also be clear I have huge regard for them because they are in a difficult situation and as I said certainly the peat stock owners do not have the same belief in the planning system. The simple reality is that we have never said there are none available. There were simply none available to be put forward and that is the slight difference. Yes, we would argue there are available sites. In order to be available for use they have to effectively offer it and somebody has to come forward with his or her own property and say that it is available and that he or she is willing to go through the planning system and all the hassle that goes with it. That is the difference. I am not saying they are not there or do not exist, of course they do. Again, will they go the next step and ring me or ring the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, either of us will help, to say they wish to put forward their 30-ha site for examination and to let us take it from there? They did not want to do that.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Boland saying they have not come forward with sites to him or to the Department?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

They have not officially offered them in a formal way to us. That does not mean they are not there but again, we need them to say they are prepared to offer their site and put it through the planning system, which none of them trusts. That is the difference.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The report also recommends a number of options to secure supply of horticultural peat. However there was no considered role for the private sector in the supply of horticultural peat. Given the past experience these people have had and the companies operating in Ireland, why does the report more or less ignore that sector and does that not undermine the report itself when such a large-scale sector is left out of the report?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

I would argue strongly that we did not ignore that sector at all. Again if the Deputy remembers what I said at the beginning, there were a lot of sites that simply could not be considered for a whole range of legal, access and planning reasons. They had to be ruled out and also they were not suitable. Second, those that could have been used still have to go through planning even for normal, what we call, horticultural production. We are still stuck with the reality that they will have to go through the planning system. No, we did not in any way ignore them and as I said at the beginning, if people are listening, if they do have a site like that, let me know or the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine know.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. As I missed some of the meeting, Mr. Boland may have answered on this point already. One of the recommendations relates to the pilot scheme in which the plan is that local authorities will work as swiftly as possible to process the planning applications. Can Mr. Boland outline how this pilot scheme would work in practical terms? His report indicates that the planning process here does not seem to be a priority despite the importance of a sector that supports 17,000 jobs.

Mr. Seamus Boland:

Yes.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why does he feel that is the case?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

First, I completely agree with the Deputy in terms of the importance of the sector and this is why Irish Rural Link should probably have run away from this, or I should have run away from this. I still think of the fact that we cannot afford to lose rural jobs and that is why we decided to really go looking for a solution. As for how it might work in local authorities, we put forward a template in the sense that we could get people who were willing to put their sites forward to be exposed and to go through the planning system and to learn from the planning system. Obviously, you apply for planning through the local authorities and therefore they are involved. You would like to think they would put in planning specialists to process that and to examine why this has to be considered. The earlier questions on buffers and all of that need to be examined forensically and specialists need to be in place. Above all, you need a commitment from the local authorities to do it. That does not mean that people in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications or at Government level cannot come up with a different way of involving local authorities but my argument in the report is very strong and stark. The planning system is not really used to taking these kinds of planning applications and we have to start somewhere, hence the pilot. The pilot might just show us how to do it right, rather than making it up as you go along, even for the sake of the environment as well.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage or the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine be responsible for the establishment of the scheme and what would a timeframe for that be? Would it be across Departments like we have had and everything gets muddled up or would it be better with one Department taking it or the other?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

That is another debate, Deputy. I have no strong view but obviously the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications would want to be involved and probably talking to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine as well. Again I would not be definitive on that because there will be plenty of affected Departments in the Government that will need to have a say on this. It it a cross-departmental issue and we did not go that far into it because we wanted to allow space for the Government to look at this and perhaps come up with a much better idea, but to at least do the pilot.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Finally, this is the latest in a series of reports and waiting for each of these reports is wasting valuable time for the industry itself. Some people will claim that it will buy time for the Departments involved. This is the fifth report or working paper or whatever you want to call it that the Government has undertaken. When can we expect the Government to act on this report or will it be thrown on a shelf again?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

I do not know is the answer. This is a matter for the Government to make these decisions and we did it as quickly as we could. We did a lot of footwork, pedal work, burnt a lot of petrol on it, and phones. We did it as quickly as possible but I cannot answer that unfortunately, Deputy.

Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is okay for now.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, it is a pleasure to see Mr. Boland. We were both in an area of employment very far removed from here 30-odd years ago and I do not think either of us every would have predicted we would be conversing at an Oireachtas committee meeting.

Mr. Seamus Boland:

That is true.

Paul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is unpredictable how life can take turns. I was delayed at the Seanad Chamber so I will look back on proceedings and I do not want to go over old ground. I came in at the end of Deputy Fitzmaurice's contribution about Rochfortbridge and it would be remiss of me to not discuss that also. Derryarkin is very close to me and it is close to the M6 which is even more important. The final line in the section of Mr. Boland's report on Rochfortbridge notes that further research on quality, quantity remaining and viability needs to be carried out. Does Mr. Boland know if anybody is taking on the mantle in that regard? Is anyone even looking into it because it is a startling figure in his presentation that there is enough peat in that pile to do what the mushroom industry would be using for 22 years? It is a lot shorter draw to the four corners of Ireland from Derryarkin and Rochfortbridge than it is from Moldova, as he said himself. It will sit there in a pile unless we or someone else uses it and it will be a nuisance and a bigger issue down the line. I would like to know if anybody has taken the mantle on Mr. Boland's last point about looking into the viability and the possibility of using it?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

First, it is a pleasure to see Senator Paul Daly. Yes indeed, we soldiered in all those years and it was a great experience. As I said at the beginning, we mentioned Rochfortbridge as an example. There may well be somebody who will trump up behind us and tell us to forget it and that it is not possible. The reason we mentioned it as an example was, as Deputy Fitzmaurice also pointed out, they are already digging up the peat and they are already in there.

Huge amounts of bog are being lifted in order to get to sand and gravel. As I said earlier, if we had thought about this correctly, we could have created a situation where the peat, which is only suitable for mushrooms, could have been properly dug by the expert contractors and drawn away. To us it was such a simple solution that it could not be ignored. As for the question about anybody taking the mantle, the answer is "no", not so far. As mentioned in the report, there are a number of stakeholders like Cement Roadstone Holdings, Westmeath County Council and others that need to be involved in this discussion. The relevant Minister or Ministers need to be involved as well. For us it was an example. There may be another quarry like that around the country. We did not see it but there may be. Nobody has yet taken up that mantle.

Regina Doherty (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witness for the body work he has done. He did not have to do it and I know that he genuinely cares about this issue and our rural future. In a way I feel like I am going to shoot the messenger so I ask that the witness not take this personally. We received the report a number of weeks ago. Unfortunately, on that day, the Minister relied very heavily on the questionnaire that was given to 100 people by Mr. Paddy Moloney and the fact that very few people actually responded to that questionnaire. It was cited that the industry did not co-operate. The witness's presentation talked about in-depth interviews that were held with Growing Media Ireland, Kildare Growers, the mushroom industry representatives and Bórd na Mona. It was a long list of people who co-operated. I would suggest that the questionnaire was flawed in some ways. Many of the questions on it did not relate to most of the people it was sent to. As a result, they did not see the need to reply to it. The reason I say this is that it was used at length here to illustrate the reasons we are frustrated as a Government that we cannot move forward on this issue. It did a real disservice to the work of the witness and to the industry. The industry is in crisis and we are trying to find solutions.

People I have engaged with tell me that the quality of the peat at Rochfortbridge is not good enough to be either classified as mined or milled. Therefore, it does not necessarily come to us as a recommendation. As the witness suggested, this was only an example. Somewhere else could produce better quality. I will focus on recommendation 1. I have a site that could be construed as ready for a pilot project tomorrow. In my opinion, as a Government Senator and the Leader of the Seanad, the three parties represented have done everything in the last number of years to delay and object to clearly needs to be done. The planning process needs to be changed. It needs to be simplified. The witness referred to confusion among the landowners. It is far more than confusion. I think it is frustration.

In the pilot project suggestion and recommendation - as I said, I have a site and a landowner ready to go in the morning - are we suggesting that it has to be subject to the current planning laws, EIA, and licences?. I know the witness's intentions are good but we will be here in four years' time and we will not have taken one shovel of mined or milled peat from the ground. We are talking about an industry in crisis. The report took ten months but in the previous two years we have had other reports. All of them recommended that we need to change the two step process and bring forward primary legislation. That is the only way we are going to clear the frustrating paths that our landowners have to go through. This will enable them to provide this industry that is on its knees and crying for help the raw material that is needed.

Is the pilot project subject to all of the conditions that currently exist or is the witness suggesting to Government, as I am told he has said in private, that we need to change the planning laws? We recognise that they will be challenged. Based on the previous judgment from the High Court, the criticism was that what we tried to do it by a statutory instrument when what was needed was to do it by primary legislation. Can that be a recommendation and why is it not?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

If the Senator was shooting me, it must have been quite soft because her points were well put. The questions reflect the frustration of the owners, site owners and the people. We sat down with people to design the survey. If we got it slightly wrong, I have no problem with going back again. However, we designed it based on the input we got from those we were trying to survey.

In terms of the planning system, the Senator said that she has a site available. I would talk to the owner of that site and quickly ascertain its suitability and the reality in terms of planning. Unfortunately, we talked to many site owners who thought they had the ideal sites but when I investigated I realised that there was a serious amount of planning to be done in order to make them available. Some of it has nothing to do with the quality of the peat. It has to do with the access, the legal ownership and the other things that can come into play before you even start.

This is why we recommended the planning system. I am very pleased that all of the committee members have concentrated on that recommendation because I thought they might not have. To my mind, the crux of the issue is planning. The one message we got, survey or no survey, was that people did not believe they could trust the planning system. They did not believe it was fit for purpose in this area and therefore were reluctant to go forward. Senator Doherty is absolutely right that the planning system needs to change. You can say it needs to be modified or whatever you want but the planning system does not instil confidence in those whose sites might be available so it needs to change.

On the other hand, we also got submissions from people who were very worried about any more excavation. There is a very clear reality there that the planning needs to deal with the possible dangers caused in terms of hydrology. It certainly needs to manage that. It needs to ensure that no disasters happen afterwards. As rightly pointed out, it is people's right to object. If the planning system is diluted so that people cannot object, that creates another issue, probably a constitutional one, but I am not a lawyer so I will leave it at that.

I would be happy to speak to the Senator, or to anyone, in more detail about potential sites and the difficulties. However, we need to be clear that the planning system is not used to managing applications of this kind in terms of bogland and peatland. Until it is, we either go with our proposed recommendation or Government can look at a more fundamental examination of how it works.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witness. I am very familiar with the witness's work with Irish Rural Link, particularly during my time as a county councillor. The witness's research was often cited favourably at meetings of Monaghan County Council.

I have a few questions. Just for background, will Mr. Boland tell us how he came to be commissioned to carry out this report? Did he apply or was he approached by the Department?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

The Deputy must be joking that I applied. I certainly did not. In fact, if I had more sense I would have thought better of it and kept away. I was asked by the Department. I have done this kind of work before, including through Irish Rural Link. I thank Deputy Carthy for his kind words. When I was approached the only thing that attracted me is that I really do care about jobs in rural areas. We have seen too many of them being lost. Peat harvesting, which we have pulled out of, is a huge activity in the place I live in the midlands. I am very sad about that. I was really persuaded when the Department asked me to look at it and suggested that with my knowledge, I might see something. As the Deputy has probably gathered by now, my knowledge is not as good as I thought it might be. That is how I did it. I do not really regret it, despite my humorous words there, but it was a tough one and I understand the frustrations.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The working paper indicated a report would be produced in the short-term. Was Mr. Boland given a specific timeframe?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

There was a certain amount of due diligence with the Department because it had to properly manage the process of asking me to do it. I think I was asked some time around January. I cannot remember precisely but it was at the beginning of the year. It was hoped we would get it done by the end of May but it ran until the end of August because the due diligence had to be done, as we would expect, so that everything was above board. Unfortunately, some of that got in the way. We also extended it because we were not getting the solutions. We redirected it a bit and asked for a little more time. We had the report more or less done by August or the beginning of September. We worked as hard as we could on it. I apologise if it took longer than expected.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I am just trying to get a sense of that. I see the report scope, as mentioned in the presentation, was:

To independently undertake an assessment on the levels and sustainability of current peat stocks across all peat suppliers in Ireland. This assessment is to include available peat stocks, their level of suitability for different horticultural uses, to determine whether or not hobby or other peat can be identified on various peat bogs for horticultural growers, and to obtain locations of additional brown-field peat sites which may be suitable for Irish horticultural growers.

I do not see broader terms of reference in the report. How much more direction was given by the Department beyond the report's scope?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

No, that was it. The first question the Department wanted us to figure out was if we could find a site anywhere of 30 ha or something similar. It was then to assess where we could find available peat stocks. There was even a belief that there may be peat stocks dug and just lying there, which may be suitable for the horticultural industry itself, rather than mushrooms because that is a specific requirement. The terms of reference were quite tight in that sense. If we were to do a much broader study on that, it would have had to have been properly tendered for, because this was done on a very low budget.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask because there are restrictive proposals within each of the recommendations. We will come to those in terms of their feasibility or otherwise. I wonder where in the terms of reference or the scope they came from.

Mr. Seamus Boland:

They were not outlined in the scope or terms of reference to that detail. However, once we got into it we realised that there were natural restrictions that needed to be highlighted. We did highlight those restrictions. In a sense, we effectively found ourselves having to dismiss certain bogs or areas for a whole range of reasons. That meant, because we were trying to get to a quicker solution, we felt that following all of those broader solutions would have taken forever. We did not have the time and nor has the industry.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like Mr. Boland, I am far from being an expert in this area. I meet people who tell me we should not extract a single ounce of peat, and everything in between. One of the questions that comes up constantly is how come, right across Europe, horticulture can be cultivated without the types of delays that exist in Ireland. That is a question often asked of me and I have no answer. I have to say that I am surprised there does not appear to have been any effort to answer that question in the report and analyse what is happening in other parts of Europe to assess what we are doing so wrong here, if in fact we are doing something drastically wrong that has led to the crisis.

Mr. Seamus Boland:

The Deputy raises a valid point but, as I said, to do that kind of work would require a more expansive and extensive report. What I was at pains to point out is that the Department and the Government were looking for a much quicker reality and solution. I can surmise, and I know something about the situation in Europe. We have stronger planning laws. We also have stronger environmental laws. The hard peat decision also came into the middle of this. I say this cautiously, but certainly some parts of eastern Europe do not have the kind of stringent planning that we have because of environmental concerns. I offer that as an explanation to Deputy Carthy, but not a conclusive one. We did not have the time to expand on the realities in Europe.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the back of the report, it must be noted that we are told that the reason our planning laws are the way they are is to comply with EU legislation. I assume the witness is not suggesting that any of those countries are in breach of those EU regulations or directives.

Mr. Seamus Boland:

Absolutely not. Some of those countries may be outside Europe. I am thinking of Moldova and places like that. I do not offer myself as an expert in what is happening there. All I know is the situation in Ireland is very restricted. I think that is the best phrase to use.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The report seems to boil down to three recommendations. The first is essentially a pilot scheme for either a single authority or a number of local authorities to draw in all of the expertise and see how fast this can be done under the current framework for plots of above 30 ha. Is that essentially it?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

Our remit was really the 30 ha remit.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The question the committee has asked of a number of different stakeholders is how quickly this could be done, if it were done perfectly. We are told that within the current dual licensing system and a potential judicial review, the best-case scenario would be four to six years. Does Mr. Boland agree?

The suggestion is a pilot scheme that would potentially run for six years before being replicated. That means that by the time we got to a working planning system, it could go beyond the period after which the Government has stated the use of peat will be prohibited entirely.

Mr. Seamus Boland:

The Deputy has hit the nail on the head. I hope that the three to four-year period does not happen. We were hoping that 12 to 18 months on recommendation 1 would be the maximum time. That is why we looked for a pilot system supported by the Department, local authorities and other stakeholders. In other words, there would be a team effort to get it done as quickly possible. If that is managed, many more of the sites mentioned already could be opened up. That is how we look at it but it needs to be acted on fairly quickly.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the Rochfortbridge concept, as mining of another product is taking place , the proposal is that the peat that is being dug through would be made available to the horticulture sector. The witness has mentioned that it would only be used for domestic purposes. I have put questions to the Minister of State because she has cited the export of peat. I have put on the record that I would have no difficulty with a ban on the export of peat being implemented. She has told me that EU law would prevent her from imposing such a ban. The witness mentioned engagement with some legal experts as part of the report. Did any of those experts suggest any difficulty with being able to put a limitation on this peat for domestic purposes?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

No. We talked about track and trace and about clear parameters around such a system. As a country, we seem to be committed to not excavating any more peat from anywhere. That is a decision that has been taken. If we are going to start excavating peat for this purpose, which I think is essential, then we have to make sure that we do not in any way waste it or use it unnecessarily. All the people we talked to seemed to think that the track and trace system, along with clear regulation as to what can happen to the peat or in other words, it goes to where it is supposed to go and not for export etc., would be effective. It is up to others to say that is not possible or otherwise but we did not get a sense of any problems with that recommendation regarding limits and restrictions as to how it would be used.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to go back on a point the witness raised and perhaps he can tell me if I am misquoting. If I heard correctly, the Mr. Boland said that as a country, we have taken a position that we are not extracting peat for any purposes.

Mr. Seamus Boland:

That is my assumption. When Bord na Móna pulled out of peat production, this country effectively stopped. I acknowledge there is turf cutting going on in bogs. There is even one close to me where we relocated from Clara bog so I am well aware of that. However, the mass peat production that was going on in Bord na Móna has stopped. It does not look like this country wants it to start again. That might be a better way of phrasing it.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Several Ministers across three Departments have disputed the terminology on the extraction of peat for horticultural purposes. It appears to me that Mr. Boland's starting point was that essentially we are working on the basis that there will be no extraction.

Mr. Seamus Boland:

I am quite prepared to accept that there is no official ban in the way the Deputy describes it. There probably is not but in effect, let us face it-----

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think Mr. Boland is right but that is disputed by the his paymasters, in terms of this report, in the Department. He mentioned a couple of points where additional research will need to be conducted. Regarding the Rochfortbridge concept, is it fair to say that Mr. Boland has no idea how many potential sites are available or how much peat might be available from those sources for horticultural use?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

No, not really. We would need to commission another report. Each of these recommendations requires further in-depth research, if you will pardon the pun. Obviously, we did not have that remit.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding the workability or otherwise of recommendations 1 or 2, there has been some scepticism voiced here. I do not believe there is any prospect of either Bord na Móna or any Minister directing that peat be extracted from bogs that have been designated for rehabilitation and where the work has already started. Therefore, I put it to Mr. Boland that recommendation 3 is not a realistic option

Mr. Seamus Boland:

I am in a very personal space when I say this. The Deputy could be right but I remember being told the same thing when we started out on the road in terms of relocation bogs. I remember distinctly being told that there was no way anybody, especially Bord na Móna, would make bogs available. We persisted at the time and we got them. All I am saying is that we are putting this on the table. The question that must be answered is whether the mushroom and horticultural industries are in an emergency situation and whether we need to save them. If that is the case, then we have to declare the kind of national emergency you need to do so. If we do that and people refuse to make bogs available, we have to find out why. I am speaking off-report at this point but the question is whether we are determined to save the industry. I know that people within the Department are determined to do so and are working hard on the issue. Bord na Móna probably does not want to put it forward and the Deputy may even be right in his assessment. In my working life I have always put the ridiculous questions out there and if someone shoots them down, then fine.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge that the report took a huge amount of effort on the part of Mr. Boland and a great deal of engagement but it has three recommendations that could be looked at with cynicism of which, at the very minimum, would require much further research. However, there is no recommendation to the Department that commissioned the report. There is no recommendation to the Government regarding legislative changes. The measures that the committee has been told repeatedly are required are completely omitted from the report. What does Mr. Boland think needs to be done next if it is to be considered an emergency situation?

Mr. Seamus Boland:

I think that these recommendations need to be brought to Cabinet and the appropriate body, group, committee or whatever needs to oversee the further scrutiny of them and decide which of the options to pursue. Then there should be engagement with the relevant stakeholders, including producers, horticulturists and everybody else and the investment should be put into making one of those recommendations work. We can not do that and we were never asked to do so.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make one quick prediction. The Department will pursue recommendation 2, which is the Rochfortbridge model, by stating this is all to do with private sector bodies that should sort it out among themselves and that it will wash its hands of it once again.

That is my concern.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank God the turf cutting industry is alive and well, in case anyone thinks it is gone. It will not be gone for a long time. Mr. Boland is talking about the mushroom industry with respect to Rochfortbridge. We should engage with people involved in the mushroom industry. My understanding is that Rochfortbridge is going to be turned into a lake, correct me if I am wrong. You could not fill the hole there unless you were to bring all the stuff you needed from ten Dublins. It is a fair depth and it is good-quality sand. The bog will be in the way when it is closed off. A prudent person would almost embrace whomever came for peat that is in it, particularly in view of the value of that peat.

I will discuss the matter with the other members of the committee. I have had some contact with those in the industry. They have engaged with people in respect of the science aspect to which I refer, the buffer zone and all of that. Did the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine commission Irish Rural Link to do this? My understanding is that it did, but the biggest problem we have is that this comes within the remit of a different Department. I refer to the Department with responsibility for planning, which is going to have to work on the system I am talking about. I am suggesting that if owners of bogs tick boxes A, B and C, if they show hydrological and ecological evidence, along with information on their buffer zones, they would be exempt. Something will have to be written out clearly by someone in the planning section of the relevant Department and will then have to be given to planners throughout the country. It will have to be there in black and white. We had to do this in the bogs. We had to make sure, scientifically, hydrologically, ecologically and so forth, that if someone took a case, we had all the proof necessary to be able to beat them out the door. We had to make sure we had our stuff lined up.

Mr. Seamus Boland:

Deputy Fitzmaurice is on my page in this regard. I completely agree with him. There is nothing more to say. I think he is right. It needs to be written down in black and white, and we need to get to the crux of the matter.

On Rochfortbridge, his points are well noted. We put it forward as a possibility. In my opinion, it was two plus two equals four. I do not know how we did not think of it sooner. As Deputy Fitzmaurice stated, it is about will and desire. As already stated, that is why the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is trying to solve it.

Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee, I thank Mr. Boland for his frank answers and for going through his report in such detail. Unfortunately, we have not climbed a summit in making peat available to the horticulture and nursery industries, but what Mr. Boland has put before us is most definitely well-intentioned. We will discuss this matter at a private meeting in order to see how we can advance the cause of the industry in the aftermath of his report.