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

308. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the basis upon which site clearance grants under the RUS scheme was determined as reflecting a cost of €2,000 per hectare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26809/24]

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

309. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the basis upon which the climate action performance payment has been capped at €5,000; his views on how this cap does not reflect the additional cost incurred in removing older trees as opposed to younger ones; if he intends to review this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26810/24]

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 308 and 309 together.

Under the Reconstitution Scheme for Ash Dieback, the Site clearance costs were actually doubled , from €1,000 to €2,000 per hectare. These grant costs were approved by the EU Commission under the new forestry programme last year and have been accepted as reasonable by the independent group who reviewed ash dieback supports.

The Climate Action Performance Payment Scheme is an additional payment which recognises the action of clearing sites and replanting and the contribution that these actions make to climate change mitigation measures. The payment is not related to the cost of actions/operations under the reconstitution scheme. In arriving at this payment my Department was cognisant of the need for fairness, equity and value for money under the public expenditure code, the requirements under State Aid Regulations, and national and international deforestation obligations.

The entire financial package for addressing Ash Dieback is in excess of €230 million which is a significant commitment by government towards dealing with this challenging issue.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

310. To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will give an undertaking that the re-wetting of land under the nature restoration Bill will be on a voluntary basis for farmers and that it will not be made compulsory in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26857/24]

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government, and I through my position on the AgriFish Council, secured additional flexibilities in the legal text of the Nature Restoration Law (NRL) to both support farmers and to recognise our specific Irish circumstances. As a result of this intervention, the targets for restoration and rewetting of drained organic soils were reduced from the original proposal. This means the total area for restoration now targets 50% of such area by 2050, rather than 70% as originally proposed, with a third to be rewetted, rather than a half.

The legal obligation to achieve NRL targets is on the Member States not individual landowners. The existing national commitments to rewet 33,000 hectares of Bord na Móna lands are sufficient to deliver the NRL rewetting targets without recourse to privately owned land to 2050. This fact is a strong reassurance to farmers that there will be no obligatory requirement on farmers to rewet land due to the NRL. Any restoration measures that landowners choose to participate in will be voluntary and will be appropriately incentivised.