Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will pick up a little where the previous speaker left off. It will be really important as we move forward that the plans around the CAP intersect and that we have intersection between the multiple plans. There is a question, which I will come to in a moment, regarding some of the critiques that have been made about Ireland's plan. It is important to ensure that this plan works in conjunction with nature restoration plans and our commitments on biodiversity, delivers social cohesion for rural communities for that purpose and common goal and that it is thought through. Some of the environmental biodiversity schemes can sometimes end up being on the fringes. Consider the model relating to forestry. We literally see a few native trees around the edges of the big Sitka monoculture. It is really important that the environmental aspects and aspects relating to sustainable natural resources are not left on the fringes and seen as being on the fringes of the CAP. We must be fundamentally honest about land use and how it is connected.

Sadly and unfortunately, Ireland's plan has attracted some valid criticism. According to report by the European Court of Auditors, the CAP plans "are greener than in the previous CAP, but do not match the EU’s ambitions for the climate and the environment". Ireland did not meet the CAP funding requirements up to 2024. The eco-scheme payments require that at least 25% of money be spent on greenhouse gas emission reductions and the 35% of rural development funding should have a meaningful environmental effect. These were critiques of Ireland having it there on paper but failing to ensure that the way we deliver our policy plans genuinely reduces greenhouse gas emissions and has a positive and meaningful environmental effect. This is with regard to rural development funding.

Christine Schneider of the European Court of Auditors noted that Ireland has kept its funding requirements very much the same as in previous schemes and has not shown enough ambition for increasing the targets and being clear about the qualitative impact that the schemes would have. There is a move towards a performance-based approach. What does that mean? It should not just be around more red tape in the sense of paperwork or more forms to complete; it should be meaningful. I challenge some of the simplification of what is involved. Simplification is no longer enough when we are living through what has been referred to as the sixth great extinction. It is called that in light of the large-scale loss of nature and species, which is hugely detrimental to the well-being and survival of all, not to mention the impact on pollinators and horticulture. It is extremely important that we get to the detail and start talking about actual baseline measures required in respect of nature and biodiversity and about proactive nature restoration. It cannot simply be business as usual; we need to move into proactive mode. The challenge for the Government is to make sure that it proceeds in a way that is manageable and supportive and that it gives smaller farmers in particular the supports for managing something that is going to become more complex. It will be more complex, but if we give people the right supports, they can deliver. Many small farmers tend to be have a few different strings to their bows in the context of how they operate. They are well able to manage, but they need resources.

I am concerned about some of the figures. The plan seems to heavily favour large farming operations. It will continue to distribute payments based primarily on farm sizes. I am concerned that we will again end up in a situation where a disproportionate amount - I believe it will be 80% - of the direct supports on offer will likely to go to just 20% of farmers. Doing things a little differently through ecological schemes and schemes that align with our nature restoration measures could end up shifting the balance somewhat and give greater supports to smaller farmers as opposed to those supports almost solely going to those who operate on a large, almost industrial scale. We do not really have transparency as to how the performance-based approach will be monitored or evaluated. What supports will be given to smaller farmers in the context of monitoring and evaluation?

I echo the points that other Members made about young farmers. We know that the new generation of farmers coming through is very important. We also know that those who lost out on previous schemes will now lose out on the new scheme. That should be looked at.

There is a concern that the proportion of the plan that is tied to rural development - approximately 40% - is insufficient in the context of rural infrastructure and service needs. We want a plan that works for those who live in rural communities and are involved in farming rather than solely for the owners of or shareholders in very large farming agribusinesses. It must deliver for communities and families whose existence is based around farming. That balance is still not there.

I will highlight two areas in respect of which revision and change need to be looked at. They both relate to a Bill I have previously highlighted. It would be timely to consider them now. My mandates for nature Bill looks at the mandates of Coillte and Bord na Móna. These are outdated mandates from the 1950s or 1960s and the 1980s, respectively. In the case of Coillte, its mandate is the business of commercial forestry. That mandate is solely around the cash-generative potential of forestry rather than what I propose as a new mandate, which would involve the economically, socially and environmentally sustainable use of what is 7% of State land.

With regard to forestry and the Commission, one of the reasons there were such delays a couple of years ago in any new scheme coming through was because the Commission came back and said Ireland was still taking a business-as-usual approach to forestry. We had schemes on the edges but we were failing to deliver. We still had such an emphasis on monocultures and Sitka spruce. With Storm Éowyn, we saw again that there are issues when one supports a monoculture approach to crop growing and cutting rather than adopting a continuous-cover approach or an approach that supports native tree planting at scale. It will be even harder for Ireland to get those schemes renewed in the future. It was claimed that we were looking for an exemption from state-aid rules at the time on the basis of the fact that our forestry plan was going to deliver on environmental targets. It is clear, however, that the approach we are taking in respect of forestry will not deliver on environmental targets. Coillte is part of that. The way we approach what we grant and what we support through the CAP will be important in that regard.

I also wish to highlight peatlands. Again, Christine Schneider of the European Court of Auditors specifically noted the court's regret that there seems to be no effort to properly restore peatlands to scale. Ms Schneider referred to peatlands that have been transformed into agricultural land and the effort to restore them in order to use them as carbon sinks. She said there is not much of this in the Irish national plan.This is the easiest, shortest and quickest thing we can do to try to meet our carbon sinks goals. The Irish Fiscal Advisory Council has estimated that protecting forestry and rewetting peatlands would hold a cost of €1 billion, and potentially €11 billion in other costs, compared with the €26 billion Ireland might pay in fines for missing our climate targets. Why do we not have at scale - not small pilot schemes, grants or individual initiatives - the resourcing of rewetting, which is the base point, and, where possible, the restoration of peatlands on land the State owns? Moreover, in these schemes, why do we not genuinely reward drives for rewetting? That would brings early rewards in reduction. Planting forestry might take 20 or 30 years before it will deliver in emission reduction, while rewetting has a much earlier impact. I hope the Minister will focus on peatlands and rewetting and why it is not being brought to the scale it should be, especially given that the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council and the European Court of Auditors have pointed to it. It would also benefit farmers in the west, where I am from, and other rural areas.