Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will begin by setting out the context in terms of the facts as to where we are, namely, in a climate emergency on a planet that is in a dire situation due to the impact of emissions. Yesterday, in the budget, it was again acknowledged that the science is uncompromising and that the world is burning. In that context, peatlands are the largest natural terrestrial carbon store that we have.Peatlands sequester more than 0.37 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide each year. When we damage peatlands, they emit emissions. Damaged peatlands are responsible each year for 6% of the all carbon dioxide and biogenic emissions that are driving and accelerating global warming.

This is the context we are in. Peatlands are one of the last things we have which can either help to save us or, if we let them be damaged, will help to accelerate the destruction of our planet. It is clear, and has been clear, that we are not only talking about restoration, which would be ideal in a scenario where we are talking about biodiversity. There must be investment in that area and it must be accelerated. Rewetting the peatlands so that we stop the damage becomes crucial. We must realise both the potential of peatlands to help us and the possible danger that could result if we allow them to be damaged. This has all been clear for years. The science in this area has been clear for years. We have also had approximately a decade of clear EU regulations and guidelines on this issue.

Let us be clear when we point the finger today at which Minister has been responsible for what. The finger should be pointed back at the policies and practices, which were supported by some but not all in the farming lobby as well, of over-the-top illegal extraction on a massive scale in the last decade. It takes ten years for 1 cm of peat to form. It has taken thousands of years for the peatlands we have here to form. I am passionate about turbary rights. I have submitted amendments to legislation in this regard to support turbary rights because I believe in the intergenerational relationship that people have with the bogs. The reality, however, is that multiple generations that may have had that experience of exercising turbary rights have been betrayed by commercial harvesting of peat on a massive scale. Hundreds of years' worth of peat has been used up in decades. That is what we have seen. When we talk about the scandal of imports, then, we must not forget the scandal of exports and that we have been exporting peat to the world.

That is the context and that is what has brought us to where we are now. We must bear in mind that in recent years we have not designated the special areas of conservation, SACs, that we were meant to. I was here just two or three years ago when we were trying to the dedesignate protected areas and natural heritage areas, NHAs, to allow for cutting. The line taken then centred on comparators. The question being posed at that stage was why it should be necessary to preserve a bog when it might be possible to find a better bog and suggest that it be preserved instead. That was the line taken then and the same approach is being taken now, in the form of suggestions that it might be possible to find someone worse. We seek a worse option and point at that as a way of justifying us keeping going with what we are doing. We are using that same excuse in respect of data centres, peatland extractions and farming and cattle.

Something has to give. We cannot simply use the excuse that we can find somewhere worse where this could happen and use that to justify us doing what we want to do. The same arguments are used in every country, and particularly in wealthy countries that have already used up their fair share of resources. How can we then expect developing countries, which are suffering the impact of climate change and that have not had the decades of economic prosperity, to carry the can because we do not want to change our industries? This is the context here and we must be honest about it. Coals to Newcastle is a good example, because we need to get out of coal, in Newcastle and everywhere else. We must end peat extraction and exploitation here and everywhere.

That said, I strongly support two proposals from the IFA. One is the need for more funding for the research and development which must be carried out in this area. It should have started earlier and that undertaking should have been allocated more funding. All the alternatives to peat, such as coir, softwood pine bark and wood fibre, require more research. It is needed and it should have started earlier. If we get that right, then that will be the new industry. I state that because horticulture happens everywhere, and this is going to be the future for Ireland if we can lead in this area. I also support the other proposal from the IFA, that of a just transition fund. It would compensate the industry, because this is one of the industries that must make radical changes and compensation should be provided in that regard. I believe that 100%. I add funding for climate justice as well. As well as the need for a just transition fund for the industry here, something similar is required concerning the Congo Basin blue fund. The Congo Basin, one of the poorest areas of the world, has peatland and there is pressure to exploit it for oil. It would be disastrous for our climate if that were to happen. We must fund the people there, and they are seeking such funding, to enable them to develop alternative uses for their peatlands. Let us take a stand on this issue.

I am cautious about whatever emergency measures might be taken. They must be for only one year. I think that 2021 is mentioned here. Regarding planning, however, I have an issue with exempting peatland extraction from the planning process. I have a clear issue with that because it has been the failure to apply proper planning and to meet proper standards in planning in how we have treated peatlands in the past that have got us into this situation. That is what has led us to this situation now where we have the level of degraded bogs that we do and where we have been in such trouble with our European targets. It also explains why Bord na Móna has had to accelerate its exit from this area. All of that has resulted from the failure to have proper planning in this regard. It was not just that planning failure, however, but also the failure to have dual consent. We must look at this context from the perspectives of agriculture and heritage and it is appropriate that we would do that. Bad planning is a disaster and it sets up problems for the future. Storytelling about things will not work. We must be applying the laws properly. I remind the Minister of State about the separation of powers as well. It is not appropriate that we would plan, as the State, to intervene in the planning process to the point whereby we would not be abiding by or fulfilling the requirements of EU laws on the environment.

I sympathise with the horticultural sector. I understand the problems being faced and it is an important sector. It has often been the poor relation, however. On the planning aspects, I also note the road safety concerns which exist regarding the proposed roads. Again, this issue was used as a flag when the horticulture industry was being thrown under the bus in the press to destroy our hedgerows and damage our pollinator pathways. Those pollinators are part of the environmental and biodiversity element which is crucial for the delivery of sustainable horticultural practices in future. In addition to research on growing media, far more investment is needed in soil health. Far more research is required into how we can build and improve our soil health. There has been degradation in that area and that will also have consequences. Soil health is also a part of the agricultural industry.

I am sorry not to be able to join in fully with the consensus in this regard. I have been speaking about the issues regarding how we manage our peatlands for more than seven years in this Chamber. I regret that it is being presented now as an emergency, when in fact it was entirely manageable with foresight.