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.