Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is not compatible with EU law or with the achievement or maintenance of 1.5°C of global warming. Peatlands are the largest natural terrestrial carbon store. They store more carbon than all other vegetation types in the world combined. Damaged and drained peatlands are no longer a benefit or a carbon store, however; in fact, they become major emitters. It is estimated that between 5% and 6% of all global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions each year come from damaged peatlands. To be clear, when we allow the damaging of peatlands to continue, we lose twice. We lose on the carbon we do not sequester and on the emissions that are going out. There is a double cost to the environment from this measure.

Worldwide, this is a disaster waiting to happen. I agree we should be looking to the global implications. We should not be importing from Sri Lanka.We certainly should be supporting, for example, the Congo Basin to keep its peat in the ground rather than it being pressed to export it.

The restoration of peatlands has been stated as a priority, which we have heard mentioned many times. It is one of the few cards Ireland has to play in terms it being a climate sink. It is one thing we have said we will do. To be clear, it has been calculated by the top peatland experts that we could reduce our greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions by 15% if we restored peatlands. That is important because the European Commission has set a target of 2035 for net zero carbon on land use. This is one of the most efficient, achievable emission reduction instruments we have at a time when not only the horticulture sector but every sector will have to change. We are in a climate crisis and every sector will be making changes. Just transition is about addressing every sector. I support just transition but it is about supporting those in the industry, not about delaying the transition.

The environmental information is clear. The legal aspects are also extremely clear. Let me address what the Bill provides. It will give a derogation, which could extend to 2030, into the next two carbon budgets to 2022, 2026 and potentially to 2030. If we say this is about the small horticulture businesses and not the big peat contractors, which, as we have heard, have exported 500,000 tonnes of peat last year and 900,000 tonnes of peat the previous year, but the alarm bell for peat extraction was sounded in 2019. We have already had our temporary or emergency period for transition. That happened in 2019 and that is a charitable interpretation. The need to exit from horticultural peat has been clear since the 1990s and even in 2014, Ireland was being criticised by the European Court of Justice for its failure to designate special areas of conversation or natural heritage areas. I hope the Minister of State will address the point. I was in the Oireachtas after that 2019 ruling and instead of seeking address the crisis, perhaps by having Bord na Móna as the one extractive body whose actions we could control, we were seeking to de-designate new bogs. That is what was being used as political capital. The Fine Gael Party and the Fianna Fáil Party put forward those motions and they were the parties in the previous Government. I spoke about these issues. It is not as if a sudden alarm has arisen about peat extraction.

One of the most shameful pieces of political theatre concerns the 4,000 tonnes of peat that has been imported. That has deeply discredited the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, and others who supported that language. How can we engage with them credibly on the climate debate, as we want to, if they have been putting out the figure of 4,000 tonnes of peat in terms of imports, while not discussing the export of 500,000 tonnes of peat?

Let us be clear, the Bill allows for the continuation of exports of horticultural peat. Extraction is not limited for the purposes of only domestic horticultural peat. The Bill also rewards those who have been recklessly extracting peat during the past year and half with full knowledge of the 2019 ruling. Section 3(1)(b) of the Bill states "nothing ... [should be] affected by any previous unauthorised peat extraction ... or associated unauthorised development". Again, we will reward those. This legislation is the last chance saloon. People will extract what they can quietly, the previous Government had a non-action approach to it and this Government is asking that we apply blinkers again. This is effectively a nod and wink Bill to the effect that we should again turn our backs and a blind eye to the extraction that has been taking place.

Clearly, this Bill is not compatible with the 2019 landmark High Court ruling. Neither is it compatible with the environmental impact assessment directive or habitats directive Crucially, I do not believe it is procedurally, legally compatible with Articles 9(2) or 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. Members of the public have a right to a say in environmental decision-making that affects their future.

The Bill is not legally sound and it will not stand up to scrutiny. I urge that the Minister of State does not make unnecessary inappropriate concessions that tie our hands for the next five or ten years up to 2030.If we do so, we will send a signal to every sector that political theatre will be rewarded. Let us be clear, if export miles are the issue, then let us have scope 3 accounting for everything, so we measure the miles attached to the supply chain in both directions for all our agricultural produce. That is something I will support.