No apologies have been received.

I will read a note on privilege. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means a witness has full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to publication by them, outside of the proceedings held by the committee, of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in a committee meeting where their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts. Any attempt to do so will result in them having their online access removed. Deputy Cleere is attending online today and everybody else participating is in the room.

The agenda is horticultural peat. The committee will hear in the first session from Growing Media Ireland. I welcome Mr. John Neenan, chairperson; Mr. Kevin Mahon, managing director of Klasmann-Deilmann Ireland Limited; Mr. Val Farrell, chair of the Irish Farmers Association's Irish hardy nursing stock association; and Mr. Frank Corbally, a consultant from the horticultural industry. Their statement has been circulated to members, who have had an opportunity to read over it. I will give five minutes to go through the opening statement and we will then proceed to questions and answers with the members.

On behalf of Growing Media Ireland, GMI, and the wider horticultural sector, I thank the committee for inviting us here today. I am chairperson of Growing Media Ireland, GMI, the representative body for the majority of horticultural peat and growing media producers in Ireland. As the Cathaoirleach said, I am joined by Mr. Frank Corbally, Mr. Kevin Mahon and Mr. Val Farrell. We appreciate the committee's continued interest in this issue, which has significant implications for Irish horticulture, food production, rural employment and the future competitiveness of an important indigenous industry.

The future of Irish horticulture is uncertain not because of unrealistic EU regulation but because of an unworkable, incoherent and impracticable system that is in place to control the harvesting of horticultural peat. Irish horticulture is a significant contributor to the economy. In 2025, the sector contributed approximately €644 million to agricultural output and supported 7,000 jobs in primary production and an additional 11,000 jobs in amenity and downstream services.

The issue before us is not whether Ireland should transition towards peat alternatives. That transition is well under way. GMI members have invested heavily in the development of alternative growing media and continue to lead research and innovation. However, every major Government review of the issue has reached the same conclusion, namely, that while alternatives continue to develop, Irish horticulture will continue to require a limited supply of horticultural peat for the foreseeable future.

The amount required is extremely small. The entire Irish horticultural sector requires approximately 600 ha of peatland to meet its needs. This represents less than 0.004% of Ireland's peat resources and a tiny fraction of the 4.5 million tonnes of peat previously harvested for the power stations and briquette factories.

Successive reports, including the working group on the use of peat moss in horticulture, the just transition report, the Irish Rural Link report and the KPMG report on the future of horticulture, have all recognised the need for a limited and sustainable supply of horticultural peat during the transition period.

We are not seeking deregulation and are not asking for environmental standards to be weakened. We fully accept that extraction must be subject to appropriate environmental safeguards, including environmental screening and, where required, environmental impact assessment and appropriate assessment. Our concern is not the existence of environmental regulation but the absence of a clear, consistent and workable regulatory pathway.

The current regulatory system is not working. Unfortunately, while there has been no shortage of reports, there has been a shortage of implementation. There remains considerable uncertainty regarding the appropriate regulatory pathway for sites below 30 ha. This results in confusion for operators, regulators and local authorities. Most European countries regulate horticultural peat extraction through more streamlined and integrated consent systems. The current framework here has created prolonged uncertainty, while increasing Ireland's dependence on imported peat and imported growing media components, including coir.

I am skipping parts of the opening statement because it would take more than five minutes. The recently enacted Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2026 has been amended to expand regulation from current activity to include past and potential activity, which means small peat producers - less than 30 ha - may now be reclassified as part of larger historical areas. As a result, most remaining domestic peat suppliers would be pushed over planning and-or licensing thresholds and forced to close their operations.

We propose a practical solution for sites under 30 ha. What we are seeking is a regulatory system that is proportionate, efficient and capable of producing decisions. We believe that a new approach is required for horticultural peat extraction on sites under 30 ha. We also believe that recent legislative changes, which aggregate current activity with historical and potential future activity, require careful review. Small-scale operators should not find themselves automatically captured by regulatory thresholds because of historical activities carried out decades ago under different ownership and different regulatory systems.

Irish horticulture is not asking for special treatment. We are asking for a workable system that protects the environment and complies with European law, supports domestic food production and rural employment and provides a clear and lawful route to consent, and where environmental assessments demonstrate that peat extraction can proceed sustainably.

Accordingly, we respectfully ask the committee to support the following practical measures. First is the development of a nationally consistent assessment and decision-making process for horticultural peat extraction on sites under 30 ha, supported by appropriate specialist planning, ecological and environmental expertise, including consideration of shared-service arrangements or expert support structures for local authorities. Second is the publication of national guidance and service standards for local authorities to ensure that applications which have successfully completed the required environmental assessments are determined within a clear and reasonable timeframe. Third is a review of the practical operation of the current regulatory framework, including the treatment of historical extraction areas and aggregation provisions, to ensure that small-scale horticultural peat operations are not subject to unintended or disproportionate regulatory burdens arising from historical extraction activities. Finally, the establishment of a formal interdepartmental working group involving the Departments of agriculture, housing and climate, together with local government representatives and industry stakeholders, to oversee the implementation of a workable consent pathway for horticultural peat extraction. These reforms would not-----

I will have to stop Mr. Neenan there. The opening statement has been circulated to members. I thank Mr. Neenan for taking time to go through it. Members will have had an opportunity to review the statement over recent days. Peat is hugely significant for the horticultural sector and continues to be at the centre of ongoing environmental, economic and regulatory debates.

I will now open the floor to members who will have six minutes each in the first round. I will keep sharply to that time because it is tight.

I welcome all the witnesses. I thank them for their presentation, which we had an opportunity to read in detail. They will be aware that representatives of the Environmental Protection Agency will come in later with another perspective on peat. I want to declare that I have worked in horticulture all my working life. I studied horticulture and understand the sector very well, from the mushroom and nursery stock sectors to soft fruits and the commercial side. When I spoke to growers at Bloom recently I was struck by their reliance on peat. We are talking about horticultural milled peat.

I acknowledge the presence of Val Farrell from the Irish Farmers' Association. He might convey to the IFA my thanks for its detailed budgetary submission which Members of the Oireachtas received yesterday. It included a substantial section on objectives for horticulture, which is to be welcomed. I am conscious that we have a national horticultural strategy for 2023-2027. If it is the Government's intention to see even half of those objectives successfully realised, peat will be a critical part of that. As a keen gardener and having spoken to growers in the past week, I know that the products available for bedding plants are a convoluted combination of all bits of recycled stuff. This material does not retain moisture, for starters. If it dries out, it is impossible to rewet. There are no nutrients in it. There is an issue there. I am now making my own compost. In terms of the horticultural sector remaining commercially viable, we have to address that issue.

Moving beyond peat is clearly an objective of Teagasc. I do not think it is happening fast enough. Members of the committee have gone to the Ashtown site and looked at trials but that seems to have slowed down. Will the witnesses share their understanding of where the beyond peat trials with Teagasc are? That is an issue.

What is the situation with regard to the importation of milled peat into Ireland? Will the witnesses share with us the agents, tonnage and the volumes of peat coming in from outside the Republic? We know there is some peat coming from the North but what kind of tonnage is coming from outside the country?

Mr. Neenan's opening statement nailed the key message that Growing Media Ireland is not seeking deregulation and is not asking for environmental standards to be weakened. I am glad he made the point and I endorse it. It is positive because there are a lot of myths and spin that somehow this industry does not take its environmental obligations seriously.

I know that is not the case, but this is a strong message that the organisations need to keep echoing all the time. At the end of the day, if we want to have a successful horticultural industry on the green isle of Ireland, then we need to address peat. I understand this point and I know its significance.

I want to give the time to the witnesses. I ask them to flesh out an answer to one question. I support the four recommendations and the key asks for this committee. They have my support. On the final one, regarding the establishment of a formal interdepartmental working group, the witnesses might just set out very briefly the timeline for this and how they see it working. I think that horticulture is in crisis, including the ornamental, commercial, vegetable and soft fruit areas. Every part of the horticultural industry is in crisis, so I welcome this intervention and I support it fully and absolutely.

Taking the last part of the Senator’s question, in most other European countries all the stakeholders come into play. In Ireland, the producers are not involved at all. This is the first point.

Turning to the second point the Senator mentioned, about people trying to comply when the legislation was introduced, in the form of statutory instruments, in January 2019, the vast majority of the producers at that stage started doing their assessments to get regulated by the EPA. Unfortunately, in July 2019, those two regulations were turned down. Nothing has happened since then, and all we have had are reports. That was over seven years ago.

I contrast this situation with the issue where the EPA had a problem in a court case on 31 July 2024. The EPA used to say it was trying to include everything, but the Court of Appeal ruled that it did not cover the past or the future. Within 17 months of that date, the law was changed and it was implemented. Here we are with the EPA, which I would suggest is part of the establishment, and we are part of the country folk. We have been left for 84 months without anything being done by the Government, and then we have another organisation which got a response within 19 months. I am sorry, it was 19 months. The court case was held on 31 July 2024 and the law was implemented in March 2026. We have been left there, however.

I would also say that section 5 was recommended by the then Minister, Deputy Charlie McConalogue, and the former Minister of State, Pippa Hackett. They said we should go the sub-30 ha route. A supplier to one of the members of GMI did the section 5, had the AA screening, had the EIA screening and there was even a hydrological report. That was submitted in June 2024. It was deferred by the local authority to the EPA and a decision was due to be made on it on 3 June 2025. We are now on whatever date in June 2026 and there has been no decision. The Minister and Minister of State at that stage told us that was the system. I can say categorically here that if that section 5 is passed, because there is no reason it has not been-----

I need to move on to Senator Paul Daly.

I welcome all the witnesses. I will be very brief and give Mr. Neenan the opportunity to conclude his point and to say whatever else he feels he needs to say. I know the time restrictions are not helping the situation.

I compliment GMI for its submission and for how fair and commonsensical it is. It is accepted that the end of peat is in sight but not immediate. I think the issue here is the transition. GMI also accepts and has done a lot of work on the replacement for peat. This is not going to happen overnight and GMI acknowledges this too. That is to be appreciated. I see the irony in the expectation that peat will be cut out overnight, because it is not possible. This is at a time when the Department of agriculture recognises itself that there is a serious crisis in the tillage and horticulture sectors and that this situation is not helping in any way.

I would like to get some elaboration. We will have the EPA in after, as the witnesses know. I can see us going forward then with the Departments and meeting them. I said “Departments”, and, unfortunately, the biggest part of the problem is that it is interdepartmental. When more than one Department is involved, stuff falls between the cracks. That is what is happening here. Every time their backs are to the wall, they are looking for a report. Quite rightly, the witnesses referred to the reports that have been done, but that the recommendations of those reports have not been accepted or enacted. Being honest, that is wrong too.

If the witnesses were in our shoes when we meet the EPA and the Departments, is there anything they would like us to specifically highlight or ask? Mr. Neenan had to cut some of his response short. I read the submission from GMI and its briefing note. I would like Mr. Neenan to give us a little bit more of a briefing on the composition of the exports. I am referring to the numbers being quoted for exports. From reading the submission and the briefing note, sometimes what is being recorded as a tonne might only contain a fraction of peat. It is being recorded, however, as a full tonne of peat. I would like Mr. Neenan to go through this and explain that a little bit more. I would also like to get a little bit more detail on the number of sites that are being quoted as being in production, but that GMI has done the homework and research on and found out that a lot of those sites have not been in production since 2019, 2020 or 2021. There are four minutes left and I will not say any more. We want to hear from the witnesses.

Yes. The export figures are taken from the CSO figures. Mr. Mahon will explain this in more detail. For example, if a product is being exported that contains a number of different ingredients, it is classified as whatever is the highest percentage ingredient in the product. I quoted an example where you could have 35%, it could be imported peat, 30% imported coir, wood fibre, bark and maybe green compost. All of that is classified as Irish peat.

It is classified as a tonne of Irish peat.

Yes. If a company in the North of Ireland exports a product, and it could be peat or imported peat, through Dublin Port or any other port down here, that is also classified as Irish exports of peat as well. All we are saying is that the CSO figures are Europe-wide, so it is not just an Irish situation. That is the way it is.

Turning to the EPA’s report in June 2025, I saw that report. I finished working in the peat industry at the end of 2014, but I still have an interest, obviously. I went to the nine county councils involved, under freedom of information, and I got details of the sites the EPA referred to. I work near Longford, so I looked at Longford first. The EPA referred to four sites there. One was up in Abbeylara and it was owned by Bord na Móna. It was closed in 2020-21. The second site was around Legan on the Longford-Westmeath border. Klasmann-Deilmann Ireland owns part of it and Bord na Móna owns part of it. That site closed operations in 2021. The third area was just beyond Newtownforbes and consisted of 14 acres. How do I know that? That is what Longford County Council had in its report. It visited the area and said it was approximately 14 acres. The fourth area referred to was in Derrymore near Ardagh. It was a bog where the operator was brought to court, but the court ruled that it was not possible to prove it was over 50 ha. The area referred to as being in operation was 27.4 ha. That was the area that had gone in for a section 5 declaration. I then looked at Westmeath as well. It was said there were eight areas operational in Westmeath, but five of those sites ceased operations since before 2022. I cannot see how the EPA can say there were sites operating in June 2025 that had closed in or before 2022. I am sure it will be the same if I were to go through the other ones.

I ask Mr. Mahon from Klasmann-Deilmann Ireland to explain the detail. The company is probably the main producer of growing media in Ireland. I ask him to talk about the different ingredients and alternatives.

We are producing peat-free materials. In fact, our largest UK customer is completely peat-free, so that gets reported in the export statistics as coir. It can only be recorded as one particular component, but it contains bark and wood fibre as well. Our next two largest customers, however, are taking mixes with between 50% peat and 60% peat.

They get recorded. Roughly speaking, each of those two customers would take 100 truck loads per year and it is only 40% or 50% peat, but is recorded as 100% peat. In our factory at the moment, we still are running approximately 50% peat, primarily for vegetable propagation.

Is that native peat or imported peat?

We are using locally sourced peat. We have imported peat from Latvia but currently we are using locally sourced peat.

I thank the witnesses for attending the committee. I am also from Longford.

On the EPA regulations, a hydraulic report was mentioned. A number of reports must be carried out for a site to quality for an EPA licence. Is that correct?

Yes, if people have more than 50 ha, they have to get planning permission and an EPA licence. The situation that arose included Bord na Móna. When the law was amended in 2012, there was a lot of toing and froing until the end of 2018 when a judge ruled that planning permission and an EPA licence are required for areas larger than 50 ha, planning permission is needed for areas between 30 ha and 50 ha, and planning permission may be required for areas between 10 ha and 30 ha . I will go back to the bigger ones first.

I will throw out a few questions and the witnesses can answer them all together. How many active sites are bigger than 30 ha? How much peat are we importing at this time to sustain our horticulture sector? How much peat is being exported? How much peat is used at home that the witnesses are harvesting? Do they have those figures?

Mr. Mahon can explain why companies like Klasmann-Deilmann Ireland Limited have to export. If they did not, they would not be here.

A criticism often levelled at us is that we are exporting peat and not keeping it for the domestic market. The reality is that a company like ours would not stay in Ireland to service such a small market. The Irish horticulture sector is so small it would make no sense for us. We would not reach our break-even point. The only reason we are still in Ireland is that the UK market is on our doorstep. When we were originally established 44 years ago, it was because we had peat resources on our doorstep. That is no longer the case, so our competitiveness has been undermined, particularly as we move away from peat because-----

We were importing peat from Latvia.

We have imported it, but not recently, because we have been sourcing peat from local producers, which are the local sub-30 ha producers. To be honest, the quality of the Irish peat is superior to what we can get in the Baltics.

There is no peat coming in from-----

There is not into our factory. I cannot-----

What about into Ireland at this time?

I do not know. I know for sure that through Northern Ireland, several vessels come in every month.

This is all about looking at the carbon footprint. How much does it cost to take peat from Latvia and ship it across the world to Ireland? If we are realistic about it and looking at the carbon footprint, it costs a huge amount of money. I support the witnesses 100%. I cannot understand how the EPA can just close down sites of 30 ha overnight and for that to be acceptable. It is a business. Families are affected by this and I understand 100% that it has a huge impact on families in Longford, especially around Legan and Ardagh. It has a knock-on effect on the economy. Where do we go with a request to the Government about this? Are the smaller sites sustainable under EPA licences?

Under 50 ha, it is the local authorities, but the EPA has control over the local authorities and it is putting pressure on them to act. The EPA would say, rightly, that it is trying to implement the legislation that is in place. Under the legislation, planning permission may be required for sites smaller than 30 ha if an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment is required. If people do a screening for an EIA or AA that indicates they are not needed, they do not require planning permission. Our problem is that no one is prepared to take the bull by the horns and say planning permission is not required because the screenings have been completed and the sites are under 30 ha and that conditions can be put on the site.

Does that come down to a local authority making the decision? Who makes it?

The local authorities will say, and rightly so, that they do not have the expertise to make the assessment. They mentioned that at an Oireachtas environment committee hearing last December. That is why we are calling on the Government and Departments to provide the local authorities with the expertise to assess these section 5 applications.

I thank the witnesses for their submission and reports. I will follow on from what Senator Brady was saying about the sites. Would it be fair to say that the majority of sites that are extracting peat at the moment are smaller than 50 ha?

The vast majority are smaller than 30 ha. There may be one bigger than 30 ha.

The sites that are in contention, which are smaller than 30 ha, may not need planning permission. The witnesses' difficulty seems to be that no one will say whether they do.

That is absolutely correct.

The witnesses do the screening to find out whether an assessment is needed. They send that to the local authority.

Yes.

Is it also sent to the EPA?

No.

It is just sent to the local authority. Then it seems to disappear into a black hole and they never get a response.

No, the local authority refers it An Coimisiún Pleanála.

That is where the black hole is.

We have been waiting for two years. If we want this to be sorted out, local authorities need to be facilitated to be able to make decisions.

The reason local authorities refer it to An Coimisiún Pleanála is they do not have the expertise, particularly the environmental expertise, to assess the appropriateness of it. Does An Coimisiún Pleanála have the expertise? Is that why it is so slow coming back to the witnesses?

It might see this as a very small issue compared with-----

It is still its responsibility, small or not. Someone has to be responsible. We can throw blame around everywhere, but there is a difference between blame and responsibility. Responsibility is someone stepping up and saying, "We need to deal with this". Whether it is covered by the regulation and whether planning permission is needed, a decision is required. To date, from my understanding from what I have read and from the witnesses' opening comments, there seems to be a reluctance for anyone to make a decision.

Yes. The law is clear that planning permission may be required for sites smaller than 30 ha, if an environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment is required. However, it they are not required, planning permission is not required, but no one is prepared to act on that.

Is the issue about the size of the site? In point three, Mr. Neenan mentioned that "small-scale horticultural peat operations are not subject to unintended or disproportionate regulatory burdens arising from historic extraction activities".

Is that where a person is having an extraction on a site which may be 15 ha but because they are on a bog that is much bigger, and on which extraction may have happened in the past, they are being punished for that? Is that one of the issues that comes into play?

It was a concern that prior to the Court of Appeal decision, the EPA was trying to bring together a lot of areas which it said were hydrologically linked. The Court of Appeal made the clear decision that the area that was actively being harvested was the area that could be controlled.

Only the areas harvested can be assessed.

However, now the new legislation has been brought in to say past areas, current areas and future areas can be brought in to measure in order to decide.

It is the entire bog complex, if you like. We all know areas of bog can sometimes be connected to each other. The entire bog can be taken into it, which means that an area could be well below the 30 ha, from the point of view of the person doing the work. I am trying to get to how and why there is such a reluctance to make a decision. Is it because there is not the capacity to do the environmental research or is it because all of it is being linked into larger areas?

If anyone else wants to come in, they should indicate.

I will give an example of what the reluctance is. In January 2019, the Government introduced the peat regulations to overcome the problem of this retrospective application of planning permission to bogs. It took some years to establish that fact. In 2019, the peat regulations were struck down. In May 2020, we submitted to An Bord Pleanála an application to be granted substitute consent. Permission was being sought for retrospective planning permission. It took An Bord Pleanála two years to come back to us, and it did so in 2022. It granted us permission to apply for a substitute consent. Within two months of being granted permission for substitute consent, that decision of An Bord Pleanála was challenged. An environmental charity sought a judicial review of it. That was in July 2022. It is now June 2026 and the case has not even been heard. We have 250 ha of bog sitting idle in the midlands that we have not been able to do anything with. I can understand that people with under 30 ha of bog, which is their only source of income, do not want to get caught up in a situation where they think they will end up in the High Court trying to fight for a decision to let them be regulated. That is what this is about. If we never harvest on our 250 ha, I do not care. Now, I do care-----

Mr. Mahon wants a decision.

-----but if those small guys are able to produce, that is fine. That will keep our factory going for the next few years. Year on year, we have been gradually reducing the amount of peat by typically 5 percentage points each year. It is not us who drives the market; we are responding to it. These are small family farmers who produce a bit of peat, and they have not produced very much this year at all given the situation.

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for their opening statement. It was mentioned that in 2025 the sector contributed approximately €644 million to agricultural output and supported 7,000 jobs in primary production and an additional 11,000 in amenity and downstream services. That is a major boost for rural Ireland and something we need to try to protect. It was mentioned that an area of 600 ha would be needed to sustain the needs of the sector. Roughly how many tonnes of peat could be achieved out of that area?

It depends on the type of harvest. On average, it would be 500 cu. m or 600 cu. m per hectare per year and then 3 cu. m per tonne. I have not done the maths but it depends on the type of peat. For some peat, it could come down to 2 cu. m per tonne while others could be from 3 cu. m to 4 cu. m per tonne. It varies. I really want to focus on the area of the 600 ha, which is split between 25 to 30 different producers. They vary from 10 ha or 11 ha up to 27 ha or 28 ha. I know that everyone here understands what 600 ha is, but to put it into perspective for other people, we are talking about 82% of the size of the Phoenix Park. The NGOs seem to be hell-bent on just closing it down. From all my discussions, it seems they would prefer we imported coir from India and Sri Lanka and peat from the Baltic states than to regulate and produce this small amount of peat required for this market.

I will ask Mr. Farrell and Mr. Corbally to explain the horticultural industry a little.

I have a few more questions I would like to ask within the time and they can explain it afterwards. Can the horticultural sector in Ireland survive without peat? What impact would not using peat have on food security?

The peat used by our industry would amount to 0.48% peat of all the peat harvested by Bord na Móna and others in 2019. We use a minimal amount. The peat harvested is used and reused. It is not burned or destroyed; it is used for propagation. I represent the majority of the nursery growers in Ireland. Typically, the larger nurseries would have between 300 and 500 varieties of plants, which need different nutrition and different compounds. I spent the morning in Teagasc in Ashtown, in discussion with Dr. Michael Gaffney who has done a lot of research on peat alternatives. He gave a very good talk on "CountryWide" last Saturday on what is available and what they are able to do. There are alternatives available but there are not consistent quantities available that would suit our industry because we have so many varieties and different types of plants that have different requirements. It has taken 70 years of production, using peat, to gain the knowledge we have now on what is best for peat, and we are still learning.

The small producers supply the bedstock of peat in Ireland. Most nurseries, including mine, are reducing the use of peat. We are using coir, which comes from Sri Lanka. I do not know what the environmental impact of that is but it is being imported. We have reduced our peat content by 30%, replacing that 30% with coir. Some have reduced it by 40% or 50% and some are working at even greater numbers, but it is creating difficulties. One of the main ones is that the more coir is put in, the less shelf life a plant has in the supermarket or garden centre because there is a problem with water retention. It must be remembered that when Mr. Neenan was giving tonnages of peat, and he was saying that it was 4 tonnes or 5 tonnes, that could be 60% water, not actual peat. The weight of it is in water. The imported peat from Latvia for the mushroom industry has to be over 80% moisture content. We are importing 80% water because peat is not available.

I had discussions with the Minister, Deputy Heydon, prior to this meeting. I have a letter from him, dated 25 May.

I will just read the last paragraph:

My Department has explored the recommendation in this report cross-departmentally and as a result, my Department is currently engaging with the county council city management agency to discuss the progress and recommendation of the aforementioned report concerning a pilot scheme with local authorities for peat extraction on some 30 ha of peatland. The specific objective of this engagement is to try to find a workable and legally compliant solution for the supply of peat from the horticultural sector.

That is from the Minister, Deputy Heydon, on 25 May.

That is fair enough. I thank Mr. Farrell very much. That is an important letter. I call Deputy Newsome Drennan.

I thank the witnesses very much for coming in. We are going to have officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, coming in and they are going to tell us that this is destroying our countryside and all the rest. However, the figure of 600 ha relates to 0.004% of Ireland’s peat resources.

Irish peatlands, I suppose.

It is tiny in relation to what was used previously, which cannot be recycled. It was burned and whatever. What they are saying is that 370,000 tonnes of peat are exported. As we said, that is a fraction of a mix of it, so nobody can give the figures. Mr. Mahon might go through all the maths and say a truckload has only 40%, so that is whatever tonnage that is. It is not quite as simple as saying a certain amount of peat left the country. Then, we do not know how much water was in it. Do we test it to see how much water is in it and take away that weight? They are saying that Ireland imported 30 tonnes of peat. Was that actually peat or was it some alternative to peat? Do we have the figures for the peat that is coming in through Northern Ireland? How much of that is coming down here and how much of that is then going out from here? That is classed as going out of Dublin and it is classed as Irish peat. The figures they are going to come in and quote us are completely unknown. We cannot do the maths on it and nobody has tried to. I do not even know how we would try to trace what is coming down from Northern Ireland, is repacked or whatever way it goes back out again, and is classed as Irish. I do not know.

My son got a bit of summer work in a nursery in County Kilkenny so I suppose we will learn all about the plants in time. In terms of food security, I know we have to get away from peat or cut down on it. There is work being done on that. I am sure all the witnesses would like to see more work and this maybe progressing a little bit faster with proper timelines as to when we are going to get to this stage. The lack of that is the frustrating thing because nobody seems to want to take the bull by the horns and just get something done or get something on paper, at least, and make a start. I just cannot understand it. It is like putting in an application for planning permission, where it takes two years and you are still none the wiser. The officials are going to come in later and tell us that people are operating illegally. When people are not doing their work, questions have to be asked. What are they doing that they are not getting the planning back, right or wrong, whether people have it or do not have it? Either way, people need to know.

I will leave this to the witnesses. Is there anything they want to add, even with regard to what is coming in from Northern Ireland?

The Deputy mentioned food security. Mr. Corbally will talk about that.

To reference back to food security, I have been working with mushroom and horticultural growers and producer organisations in Ireland for over 30 years. Everybody is aware of the environmental impact of harvesting peat and everybody wants to move away from that. The horticulture industry has invested a lot of money in alternatives and in investigating alternatives. The Beyond Peat project is continuing and there is a lot of work going on. It might be worth contacting Teagasc to get an update on that.

Certainly, across producer organisations over the last three years, my estimate is that €3 million has been invested in alternatives and research and development of that. What is coming out of that is that we are getting nearer to hitting the yields that we can hit on peat but we are still some distance off that, perhaps at 90%. They are very challenging in terms of growing. We have to change our watering and growing and disease control methods. There are a lot of questions around that.

The other big problem we have is that the alternatives are much more expensive. The question was asked as to how much is peat imported from the Baltics versus Irish peat? It is twice the price, essentially. Any of alternatives we are developing at the moment will hopefully in time reduce in cost but at the moment, they are three to four times the price of Irish-dug peat. It is also important to state that while Senator Boyhan referred to milled peat, there is a whole range of peats, such as milled peat, wet peat and everything in between, and very specific mixes for different crops. While there is a demand in the marketplace for reduced peat and peat-free, unfortunately, in the marketplace, they are not prepared to pay extra for peat-free growing product.

If we are going on a more expensive substrate, immediately the costs are going up. Typically, growing in food, we are probably saying that the peak cost, depending on the crop, is 2% to 4% of the costs. If we double that, it is getting uncompetitive. We are competing with countries outside Europe that can grow their product. Either we are exporting to them or they are exporting to here. If we put 2%, 3% or 4% on to our costs or maybe more than that for some of the alternatives, we are immediately uncompetitive. There is absolutely a food security issue here in terms of growing product in Ireland if we have to either move sharply away from peat or import it. A large section of the growers will become uncompetitive or will lose competitiveness and be more vulnerable to imports or not be able to export.

Some other countries have taken steps. The guys have spoken about it from the regulatory point of view. I am not experienced in that but we do see it from a food security point of view and for protecting producers. We want to see a licensed, regulated means whereby we can say in the industry where the peat product has come from. Right throughout the food industry, we tend to have very good provenance. We can say where all the ingredients come from. There is traceability. However, this is one area where we cannot have that because, effectively, the regulation is unworkable. It is important for us, therefore, that we can have that to maintain food security going forward.

First, I thank everybody for coming in here today. Even from what we have been listening to, I cannot believe we are even discussing this today. Honest to God, if the people who went before us were looking down from above, if there is such a thing, and listening to what we are doing at an agricultural committee meeting, they would come back up out of the grave. That is all I can say.

I want to make a couple of points before I ask some questions. We are talking about bringing this in from Latvia, Russia and all these countries. It is 70% water. There is no screening of it. What are we going to do? Are we going to end up with another ash dieback scenario? Is that what we are looking for when we can produce this in own country? It is despicable that we are even discussing this today. We are talking about 0.48%. That is all we need for the Irish market. I do not see why we cannot do that and why we cannot deliver that. I understand exactly where we are going with the 30 ha. I understand exactly where the local authority is going; it is going to put it over to An Coimisiún Pleanála or whatever. The point I want to make is that, of course, that is going to take two to three years. We were given alternatives before whereby anybody with 30 ha could do it and do a screening test on it, if needs be, and anything else that was to be done from that point of view. People were willing to do that but instead of that, now we have nothing. I live beside Cúil na Móna so I know what I am talking about from that point of view. I saw the amount of stuff that was taken. I saw it go all over the world. It was the best and the most sought-after peat in the world. There was going to come a day when it stopped because of the amount that was being extracted. We must remember that a lot of it was going into the peat stations at the time but that has stopped as well. In my opinion, there could have been a scale-back. There was no need.

It was all or nothing. That is what happened in this country. It was all or nothing. It should have been scaled down. That is my opinion. It was being regulated. We are talking about 0.48%. That is all we wanted. It makes no sense to me.

I have some questions. Why have successive Government recommendations on horticultural peat not been implemented? What single change would provide the greatest regulatory certainty?

On the licensing, the other witnesses might be better able to deal with that.

On the thresholds, we are focusing on sub-30 ha because it is less onerous. Anything over 30 ha requires planning permission, and anything over 50 ha requires a licence.

Even under 30 ha, people cannot do it now. What is wrong with the current concept process for sites under 30 ha?

It gets referred to An Coimisiún Pleanála. It will be open to challenge, and it will go on for years. That is what we have experienced personally. These guys, the small producers, cannot afford to take that risk. That is why they are holding off. They are looking at us and saying that they are not going there.

We discussed CPOs last week. It is the very same thing. What person can afford to take on An Coimisiún Pleanála and bodies like that? They cannot do it. They do not have the money to do it. Who can go to the European Court or the High Court? Nobody, unless they have deep pockets. I understand where the witnesses are coming from.

How many businesses could be affected by the new aggregation provisions? What changes would the witnesses like to see?

We do not know. That is a question they need to be asked. If they are going to implement this new legislation, then it means everybody. They have tried to implement this legislation, and they were found to be incorrect, or it was found to be wrong. If they look for the legislation to be amended, it is likely that they are going to try to implement it.

If it comes to that, but it might never come to that.

The Deputy mentioned the case in Longford. It cost the defendant over €80,000, and he won the case.

Nobody has that money. He is still not extracting out of it. He is not up and working, is he?

He was, but his area is less than it was.

With regard to the environmental impact, what evidence shows that a limited supply of Irish horticultural peat is environmentally preferable to increased reliance on imports?

As a contrast, if we go back to the peat strategy paper of 2015 that was issued at the time of the consultation on the use of peat in horticulture, it broke down the figures for how much of the peatland was in different categories. For example, there were 612,000 ha of cutaway peatlands that were affected by domestic turf cutting. This is historic because we have been cutting turf for over 1,000 years. There were 300,000 ha of afforested peatland, 295,000 ha of farmed peatland and 70,000 ha of industrial cutaway peatland. We are contrasting that-----

I have one last question. What would be the impact on jobs, growers and domestic food production if the current uncertainty continues? What is going to happen to the Irish economy?

It would make a lot of the food producers who rely on peat uncompetitive, and they are in great danger of going out of business. It is a risk. We do not know what the future holds, but it is a risk.

We see that the same has happened with the vegetable growers, who are nearly down to a handful. The witnesses are saying that we are going to lose this market as well. That is the answer.

Before I call Deputy Fitzmaurice, there is a vote in the Seanad, so the Senators may have to leave for that.

I will wait. It is okay. The Seanad will survive.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I want to clarify something. Mr. Neenan stated that the Bill brought to the Dáil by the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and supported by the Government, now includes the whole complex. That makes it more complicated compared with the High Court ruling, where there was a section stating that people could hydrologically and ecologically show that this had no other effect. It has been done already with the science, and we did it for the turf cutting side of it. Mr. Neenan said that the Bill that has been brought in is using the whole complex, which is going to make the producers’ case harder to win. Is that correct?

Yes.

Let us be clear on that. That is the Bill that came in a few months ago. Second, Mr. Neenan has looked at Westmeath, and I did a bit of research on Longford. What Mr. Neenan is saying is that from 50 ha to 30 ha, producers are required to get planning, but under 30 ha, they may or may not need it. Is that correct?

Yes.

That is although the EPA is like the Bible, and I read in its information that everything over 10 ha needs it. They screen it out, is that it?

Yes.

If it is screened out, the producers look for consent.

Yes.

Consent has been put in by how many?

We have had only one recently because the rest are waiting to see how that works out.

For the one that has gone in, how long has it been in?

It has been in for two years.

Have those involved got a result?

No.

They are left in limbo, even though that is the process they are supposed to go through once it is screened out. Is that fair to say?

It is.

Therefore, it would be disingenuous for the EU to say that someone is illegal. They have gone through the process because they are screened out, which is the environmental side of it done, but these others and the EU have made a decision that they are already working illegally, even though they are screened out.

There are five other producers that have screenings. As Mr. Mahon said, if the first one is not granted, no one will ever be granted. That is why the other people are afraid.

Am I right that the reason the producers are being pushed for planning - let no one cod themselves - is that they went over 50 ha? Are many over 50 ha operating now?

None. There may be one over-----

The EPA should not be looking into this because it is all under 50 ha.

Of course. If we look at the last EPA appearance at the committee, it is now effectively saying there should be nothing over 50 ha. Its new approach is to go after the county councils to force them to implement this.

Is that its job?

I think it is. I am not sure.

To get all of these reports that the producers have to get, my understanding is that it would cost a minimum of €100,000. Is that fair? That is where they have to do an EIA and an appropriate assessment, and know the permeability, the upwelling and all of that.

If they are doing that, it would certainly be €50,000-plus.

My understanding is that before the Government brought in this Bill, the case in Longford was won. The EPA brought a person to court and lost that case. The EPA must coincide with the Government, so it has brought in the new legislation to say that the whole complex will have to be included. That is to go by what I am reading.

Definitely. That was the Harte Peat case. It went to the Court of Appeal, which ruled that the interpretation of the EPA was wrong. That is the reason, combined with the Longford case, that they-----

In the Longford case that the EPA brought, was it 27 ha or 14 ha?

It said it was over 50 ha, but it is now down to 27.4 ha. It applied to include other areas.

The witnesses said that there is regulation and so on in other countries. What do other countries do?

First of all, every other country has only one licensing system. We have two. We seem to be the only country that has two systems, which are licences and planning if you have over 50 ha. Every other country in Europe has either licences or planning. In Estonia you get planning and the harvest every year is equal to less than the amount of sphagnum that is growing on the bogs there. If we look at Ireland, it is forgotten about but we grow almost 3 million cu. m of sphagnum on our existing bogs every year. It is a massive amount.

My assessment of it is wherever is being milled at the moment for milled peat, whatever is done now is done and should be exempted. In my opinion - and I am calling it straight here - the game that is going on with the EPA, councils and this new Government regulation is that you apply for the consent or you go for planning and someone will object because they are trying to block it, as was already said. Then you will be brought to An Bord Pleanála and to a review or judicial review and it will be loaded against the person who owns the bit of ground. That is why there is only one of those in at the moment. They are watching what is going to happen that person. The funding you will need and what is going on in this country is scandalous. It is no way to treat people who are out working and the 7,000 jobs.

I thank the witnesses very much for coming in. How many tonnes of peat are being imported every year?

I would say this year there was no peat imported to the South of Ireland from the Baltic states.

How many tonnes?

Zero tonnes this year, imported.

Are any tonnes coming from the North?

Yes, I think from the period from the end of October to the end of March there were probably three shiploads every month into Belfast Port.

How many tonnes is that?

Maybe 10,000 tonnes per vessel.

About 30,000 tonnes a month then. I assume some of that tonnage is coming down into the South as well.

Some would be processed down here as well, yes.

That is a lot of tonnes with a huge environmental impact, carbon impact, etc. It is massive. What about the biosecurity aspect? What is the impact of about 30,000 tonnes a month coming into the island of Ireland? Ash dieback, for example, was imported to Ireland, as was Japanese knotweed. What is the risk we are importing some invasive species?

It is low enough because peat is a very sterile product. Things like coir are a higher risk than peat. I perceive peat from the Baltic as being fairly low-risk because the vegetation has already been removed. We use it for growing food crops so we have to do phytosanitary checks on it for human pathogens and we tend not to find any. There is a theoretical risk of bringing in beetles. It is not impossible but generally speaking peat is quite a clean product.

In the opening statement there is reference to illegal peat extractions, injunctions, the courts, etc. How many injunctions have the witnesses served over the last year?

They do not do that. That is the EPA.

The witnesses have no involvement at all in relation to that.

The EPA has written to a number of peat producers stating various facts. My peat supplier got a letter saying he was in excess of 50 ha in production and he was to cease production immediately. The facts were incorrect because he has fewer than 30 ha. He replied to the EPA with this and it never responded. He replied through his solicitor and the EPA never answered.

Maybe not injunctions, but the agency has come to agreements or forced a lot of companies including Klasmann, Westland, Bulrush, Erin and Harte Peat to stop production. Those areas are no longer in production. At its very peak the non-Bord na Móna horticultural peat industry was at 3,500 to 4,000 ha. The likes of Klasmann, Erin, Bulrush and Westland have closed. That is how we are getting back down to the 600 ha. It is all small areas. I think there is one area is over 30 ha. They did not get injunctions as such. Mr. Mahon did not get an injunction but agreed something with them, is that right?

Yes.

Okay. Does the EPA have any concerns about peat extraction for wind turbines? There is a huge amount of planning applications in for wind farms, especially in the west in Mayo and Galway. Much of this is on marginal land but planning applications have gone in and I have looked at applications where it looks like there will be thousands of lorries and massive amounts of peat extracted. What are the EPA's thoughts and concerns on that?

I do not know that.

They are in next.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

The time is elapsed and we have two Members who are still to speak. It will be five minutes each.

That is great.

Beggars cannot be choosers.

I thank the witnesses for being back again. I have met Mr. Mahon and Mr. Neenan regularly and I commend them on the work they have done in this area. It is unfortunate we do not have the EPA because it has done the witnesses' sector a huge disservice. It has a big media arm and it has used it at every opportunity to berate the sector and give no credence at all to the work that is being done. Deputy Fitzmaurice referenced the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2026. Obviously it was a Government Bill but it was not challenged by anybody either and unfortunately it passed through the Houses-----

We were told it was perfect-----

There is one speaker.

I know there is one speaker but the-----

There is one speaker.

I am the one speaker.

Yes. Go on.

The record says it was not challenged. We had no vote on it. Besides, the problem we have now is we have gifted the EPA legislation that will allow it to consider past and future peat extraction when it is assessing licence areas. This is going to cause many of the small producers the witnesses have mentioned to exceed the 30 ha. The EPA now has what it wanted the whole time, which is legislation to go after those small producers. As legislators we need to do something to address that because the EPA has always done the witnesses a huge disservice. I appreciate a certain amount of stuff has to be imported - and you will see it in Klasmann - because the market has changed. The consumer in the UK is not looking for a peat-based product any more but a much more environmentally-friendly product and that is why the witnesses are having to import a lot of what they produce. The EPA claimed during the summer there was 370,000 of peat extracted in Ireland. That was simply untrue. Mr. Neenan is on record as saying that was not peat and was made up of various components, but the EPA still flagged that and got away with it. The EPA put inordinate pressure on local authorities to do something at the very highest level. It was incessant.

Local authorities acted in the only way they could. They referred it on to An Bord Pleanála. An Bord Pleanála is probably dragging its heels because it knows the answer is not going to be the answer that the EPA wanted last year but now, with new legislation, that is where the big concern is.

For people who are listening in, to put it into context, what was the figure for the CO2 emissions from horticulture and peat harvesting in 2025 vis-à-vis airlines? Would Mr. Neenan have that figure?

It was less than one day's flights from Dublin to London.

They are the emissions we are talking about. Mr. Neenan's operation has been scaled back to a point now that we are talking about one day's flights from Dublin to London, yet the EPA is going to inordinate expense to close down a market that has already indicated that it is in transition and realises that it needs to move, particularly in regard to changing consumers to a product that the consumer wants. Is the biggest issue for the witnesses the new Bill and, specifically, the components of it and the amendment that will allow the EPA to make a case that people are now over 30 ha?

No, our biggest issue is to get regulated and to have a system in place. In regard to what Mr. Corbally and Mr. Farrell said we all want, the Senator knows some of the operators. They want to be seen to be operating legally. They are trying to do everything correctly. Five other people have screening ready to go and all the other people will do it. If they do not screen out, as Deputy Fitzmaurice said, well than that is tough luck.

If the local authorities are given the guidelines, they can do that screening but is it a still a problem if that new legislation remains there? You are not going to get regulation. The witnesses are going to have to get rid of it. It got through and people did not realise what it contained but while it is still on the Statute Book it is still a problem for Mr. Neenan's sites.

It is a big problem, yes.

Mr. Neenan basically needs two things. He needs that amended and a mechanism that will allow local authorities to assess operations under 30 ha, is that right?

Yes. We have said many times before that if the sub-30 ha operations are screened out and are hydrologically not linked to other areas, they should be treated as a separate area and that will sort out the issue.

I thank Mr. Neenan.

I welcome the witnesses here. It is a very interesting debate. It is very sad, in a way, to think that this is one of the ways this country is finishing up. We seem to be tied up in knots. If anyone wants to do anything, there is someone objecting to them or taking them to court. In this case, it is the Government giving the EPA the legs and the autonomy to rail against the witnesses in the way 30 ha may or may not have to go for planning and they may have to wait two years for An Bord Pleanála's permission. This is ridiculous.

To outline where I come from, I am from a place called the Bog Road. We have cut turf in our place for the past 200 years. On Monday night, I was turning turf with my grandson until the midges put us out of it. I make no apologies to anybody anywhere for cutting our own turf to keep ourselves warm. We are not asking for anything from anybody. We are not asking for money or anything from anyone, only to be let do what we were doing. We see that this could jeopardise our food security.

Plants will always sequester carbon. The point was made very clearly to me in recent times that when farmers grow grass, they are sequestering carbon. Those in the Green Party knew it all and like Deputy Aird said, they would not accept half-measures. At least when we closed down Bord na Móna, or when the intention was there, it should have been done gradually until we had electricity coming from safe sources or from sources that made financial sense. Now we are importing gas from abroad at the highest price to keep the lights going. We should, at least, have let Bord na Móna operate and then gradually decrease. It is the same with the witnesses' ventures. They should have been let use Irish peat moss until there was some other sustainable method. Now the witnesses are waiting for two years for someone to tell them something.

The lunatics are running the madhouse, and that is the gospel truth. This story should be highlighted properly. It is a complete joke. What did the Government tell us when it was looking for us to support it? It said it would be a common-sense Government and there was no sign of the Green Party. Nothing has changed. If the Government is allowing this to go on, I do not blame the EPA. It is the Government, which is in charge of the country, that should rectify this sooner rather than later. We have gone far enough.

Regarding the carbon footprint of bringing it in from Latvia, even at that, our moss peat was superior. Somebody mentioned some environmental charity that reported this or objected to it. I have a different understanding of a charity. I know who this crowd are. They are being funded by the Government to object to Irish people doing something. The organisation was not named and I will not name it now but I know who it is. This crowd are getting Irish taxpayers' money to object to people like the witnesses who want to put people working and generate plants and vegetables. They are being stopped by Irish taxpayers' money. This is the set-up we are in. What is going on is so unreal and so wrong, and as well as the EPA coming in here after, it is Ministers who should come in and give us an explanation on how this is allowed to carry on.

I thank the Deputy. That has concluded the business of this first session. I thank the witnesses for their contributions, for answering the questions and for their insights on it. We are going to suspend the meeting to allow the witnesses to leave before the second session starts here shortly.

We are continuing on the subject of horticultural peat, and the committee will now hear from officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, namely, Dr. Tom Ryan, deputy general director of the office of environmental enforcement; Mr. Ray Cullinane, programme manager; and Dr. Mick Henry, senior inspector. Tá fáilte rompu.

As the witnesses' opening statement has been circulated to members, who have had a chance to read over it, if there is a condensed version I will give the witnesses five minutes to go through it before we move on to questions and answers with members. The floor is theirs.

I will give an abridged version and, I hope, stick to the five minutes.

Bear with me for one second, as I need to read a note on privilege. Before we begin, I draw to the witnesses' attention that witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means a witness has full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on the issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard, and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses giving evidence from a location outside of the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

The floor is now open for the witnesses.

I thank the committee for the invitation here today. As the Chair said, I am joined by programme manager, Ray Cullinane, and senior inspector,Mick Henry, who lead out on the enforcement of the relevant environmental law in this area. We have provided the committee with four documents, including a copy of the extended opening statement which I will abridge in the interest of time, the EPA peat enforcement report, which came out in July 2005, a document of EPA maps of peatland sites of enforcement interest and a document of EPA photographs of peatland sites of enforcement interest. These are for the committee's consideration as we go through this session.

I ask the committee to note the EPA holds no statutory or policy role regarding the supply of peat to the horticultural, mushroom and export sectors or any other sector, other than to ensure that such supply of peat from indigenous sources happens in accordance with environmental law. One of the EPA's regulatory functions under section 52(1) of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992, as amended, is the licensing, regulation and control of activities for the purposes of environmental protection. An activity is defined in the Act as any process, development or operation specified in the first Schedule. Paragraph 1.4 in the first Schedule provides one such activity as the extraction of peat in the course of business which involves an area exceeding 50 ha, and section 82(2) of the Act provides that a person shall not carry out an activity unless a licence from the EPA is enforced in that activity. Contravention of provision of the Act is an offence, as is set out in section 8 of the Act.

In summary, the regulatory framework for peat extraction in this country provides that planning permission is required for peat extraction, including related drainage of peatland on a new or extended area of greater than 10 ha. An EPA licence is required for peat extraction on an area greater than 50 ha, and an environmental impact assessment is required for peat extraction on a new or extended area of greater than 30 ha. However, it may also be required for sub-30 ha areas if there are likely significant effects on the environment. In Irish law, there is no area threshold for appropriate assessment, AA, and the need for AA is on a case-by-case basis and depends on likely significant effects on EU sites.

The EPA has deployed significant resources to carry out 226 enforcement inspections of peat activities between 2021 and 2026. Based on the evidence gathered, the EPA can take prosecutions summarily in the District Court or indictment in the Circuit Court with the DPP, and section 99H of the Act provides the EPA with the power to apply for injunctive remedies to the Circuit or High Courts. We have used all these tools in our enforcement strategies.

In the past few years, the EPA has gathered intelligence on as many as 38 peatlands of interest across seven local authorities. The local authorities concerned are in counties Offaly, Kildare, Tipperary, Westmeath, Roscommon, Longford and Sligo. Recent intelligence and evidence gathered by the EPA confirm an additional six peatlands of interest where peat extraction is occurring. The EPA has shared all this intelligence, including specific location co-ordinates and aerial photography, with the local authorities for their consideration in their enforcement activities.

Moving to the bottom of page 7, local authorities need to step up to meet their legal obligations as regulatory authorities, prioritise their resources and use the ample enforcement powers at their disposal to investigate all of the sites of interest that are within their jurisdiction, to bring those illegal activities to an end and to protect the environment.

There have been some developments since our annual report last year. The Office of the Planning Regulator, OPR, has commenced an investigation to explore the possibility of a systemic failure by local authorities to enforce measures against illegal peat extraction. The EPA is supporting this investigation. In addition, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage has partially commenced section 356 of the Planning and Development Act 2024, which falls under Part 11 of the Act. This concerns the designation of a regional enforcement authority with a view to dealing inter alia with these peat enforcement activities on a regional or shared service basis in the future. This is also a welcome development.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I have some quick-fire questions. I just want them answered because we only have five minutes. Dr. Ryan said the Office of the Planning Regulator is looking into this. Did the EPA ask it to do so? Be quick because I only have five minutes.

The Office of the Planning Regulator----

Was it the EPA that asked it to look into the local authorities, yes or no?

It did that of its own volition but we do talk to the office and we did share all of our-----

Did the EPA ask it to?

We shared all of our information with-----

Okay, lovely. Europe is taking a case. Did the EPA ask it to? Did it give information to Europe about it?

About which-----

About the case being taken in the ECJ?

The European Commission deals with the Department. The Department provides the Commission with information. We have supported the Department, providing it with the regulatory information we have in our possession.

I have a question for Dr. Ryan. The last group that were in here said that there was supposed to be consent for areas between 10 ha and 30 ha and that there must be screening. One such application has been in for two years. Is that correct? Dr. Ryan said that planning permission was needed for areas between 10 ha and 30 ha. If it is screened out, is planning permission needed? Are there any sites over 50 ha at the moment, other than Bord na Móna's?

There are five or possibly six sites of enforcement interest at the moment.

I asked a question. Other than Bord na Móna's, are there sites over 50 ha working at the moment, yes or no?

The Deputy is very familiar with this whole area. One of-----

I am only asking a straight question.

The answer to the question is quite complicated.

No, it is not.

The Deputy will have read the Court of Appeal judgment in the Harte Peat case.

Are there sites over 50 ha, yes or no?

There are sites over 50 ha that we suspect are operating.

The EPA suspects but does not know.

We are a regulatory authority. We carry out investigations. There are five----

We know that. Why was there----

There are five-----

I have a question about the EPA's investigation. I looked into Longford and four of the sites were closed long before the EPA did its investigation. Four of the sites were not producing any peat, but the EPA told George Lee that they were. Why is that?

There are now five sites of interest in Longford.

I asked about four sites that were closed before the EPA ever came near an investigation. Two of them are actually Bord na Móna sites. I know the sites. The EPA lost a case on one of them. It was 27.6 ha. That was stated here today. Why is that? I got a person to do it and the guys over there got a person to do it as well. Why is that? Why did the EPA give out information that was not accurate in an RTÉ report?

There are still five sites of enforcement interest in the Longford area.

I asked a question about the sites.

They are of enforcement interest.

Why were there inaccurate reports about another six in Westmeath?

Where a site is mentioned in one of our reports, that is based on our investigations and the intelligence we have received. It is up to the local authorities in those areas to investigate them and decide whether they are currently active and whether there are any issues arising out of past activities.

Dr. Ryan might answer this one for me. What can a local authority do if someone has put in for a Part 5 assessment and the site has been screened out? Dr. Ryan can tell me if I am wrong about Part 5 but that is what the earlier witnesses stated. What can the local authority do in such a case when the site is up to 30 ha and the case has gone to An Bord Pleanála?

It would have to look at its powers but it-----

No, no, no. What can it do if it has gone to An Bord Pleanála and it has said that it does not have the wherewithal to look after it? I am talking about the Part 5 process.

I cannot answer for the local authorities.

Who is over it all? Is the EPA over the local authorities? How does it work?

We have a supervisory role in terms of their environmental enforcement. For all of the local authorities, we have identified-----

Just to be clear-----

-----sites of interest.

-----in its report, the EPA stated that people were acting illegally outside of the law and causing environmental damage. Bord na Móna had 80,000 ha. We know what it has done and we know where its sites are around the country. The EPA has made these statements. How can it say that people are acting this way if they have made a Part 5 application to the local authority? In fairness to the local authorities, they can do nothing about it. They send applications on to experts in An Bord Pleanála. One person has been waiting for two years and the EPA says they are acting illegally and outside of the law and there is a European court case coming. Is that in the interests of people working in this country?

Extracting peat without authorisation is illegal.

If they have put in a Part 5 application and the site has been screened out but they have not received an answer for two years, is that the right way to do things?

That is not for me to comment on.

It is all right to say the EPA will bring everyone to court, however. I read the EPA's document. It is the most biased document ever brought in here. It is a shame that we are blocking people.

I will seek clarification on that same line. I will continue Deputy Fitzmaurice's line of questioning. I am confused by the document. I am confused. I thought I know what the EPA's role was. I had an opinion on it. However, after reading the EPA's submission today and listening to the witnesses from the earlier session, I am totally confused. The EPA is the whip to beat the council into carrying out enforcement. It brought out a report regarding sites in Longford. There are men here from Longford. I am from Westmeath. The people who sat here earlier made freedom of information requests to the council. The sites included in the EPA's 2025 report were out of production in 2019, 2021 and 2022. That is the council's line. The council was right not to take enforcement procedures or to sue those people when they were not producing. Why was the EPA trying to get the council to do the dirty work against people who were not breaking the law? In response to a freedom of information request, the council gave that information. It does not need the EPA to tell it to be the bad cop, to shut down the site, to sue these people or whatever. The EPA is trying to come out of this smelling of roses but we are here asking questions. The environment is being ruined in the Baltics because they are bringing the peat out of the ground to bring it over here. The EPA still wants to smell of roses and to say that it was Longford County Council or Westmeath County Council. At least those county councils had the liathróidí to stand up to the EPA and say that those people did not break the law and that those sites were not in production in 2025. Will Dr. Ryan answer that for me?

I thank the Senator. We are not asking anyone to shut anybody down.

You did. You said it here. In answering Deputy Fitzmaurice for the last five minutes, you said that the EPA is the body that had to enforce enforcement on the county councils.

We want to enforce the law and make sure that the regulations are abided by. That is not asking anyone to shut anybody down.

We are probably going down a rabbit hole here.

That is asking somebody to----

Can you just give me one straight answer?

-----abide by the legislation.

Why were there sites in the EPA's 2025 report that Longford County Council said, in response to a freedom of information request, were not in production? How did that discrepancy arise?

There are five sites of interest in Longford. They will remain of interest until Longford County Council-----

Longford County Council is saying these sites are not in production and that no peat is being produced but the EPA is still saying they are of interest.

That all has to be closed out with us, if that is the case.

The Irish horticulture industry, the Irish peat industry and Irish food security are suffering while the EPA and different local authorities are having a difference of opinion as to whether peat that is needed here for food production is being produced. The EPA is happy to let that happen, to risk our food security and to talk to the media and be the good guy in this. This over and back with the local authority is affecting the whole horticulture sector and the EPA is happy with that.

The Senator is conflating a lot of things there. We are trying to make sure that the environmental law enacted by these Houses is being enforced by the local authorities.

I am trying to get to the bottom of how there can be such a discrepancy between what the EPA says was being produced in Longford and what Longford County Council says was being produced. This is the kernel of the problem as to why there is no peat being produced in Ireland at the moment even though we can legally produce peat in an area under 10 ha without planning permission, in an area under 30 ha without a licence and in an area over 50 ha with a licence. There is nothing happening and it is because of this skulduggery that is going on. The EPA blames Longford County Council. The council says that it is not happening, and it is the horticultural producers and producers of the peat who are losing out.

The EPA is an environmental protection agency. The environment is global. The environment is being ruined out in the Baltics. It is the same environment and world that we all live in. The expense is on people who are bringing the peat in. We would be able to legally produce enough peat here if the EPA just got its act together, sat down and properly enforced the laws that we have.

The only answer I have is that we are doing our best to enforce the laws and to get the local authorities to step up-----

It is not going well for the EPA.

-----to step up to their role-----

Maybe we need to look at who is enforcing the laws, because it is not going well at to the moment.

Does the Senator not think that we are being tough enough on the local authorities?

No, the EPA knows what it is enforcing. It is trying to enforce laws on people who are not breaking them. That is the problem. The problem is that the EPA is trying to go after people who are not actually breaking the law because it has an agenda.

We are going to the local authorities with information that they should investigate and rule the sites in or out. That is what we are doing. We are asking them under section 63 of the Act-----

They are saying that there is nothing to see. Will Dr. Ryan explain why the councils are saying there is nothing to see?

We are not satisfied that all of the local authorities have investigated these sites yet. It is an ongoing process but the responses that we are getting from the local authorities leave a lot to be desired.

All this time, we are importing peat from the Baltics that we could be producing here because of this. There is a stand-off between the EPA and the local authorities. The irony is that we are importing peat from the Baltics that we could be legally producing here.

The total amount of peat being imported into this country-----

Senator Boyhan has the floor.

I welcome Dr. Henry, Dr. Ryan and Mr. Cullinane. There are clearly many issues here and many assertions were made in Dr. Ryan's opening statements. I am seeking clarity on some of Dr. Ryan's words in his written statement. I am also seeking to challenge one or two assertions in his statement. Dr. Ryan is highly critical of the local authorities. He stated: "Local authorities need to step up to meet their legal obligations as regulatory authorities, prioritise their resources and use the ample enforcement powers at their disposal." He is clearly highly critical of them, but I do not have the details in terms of the EPA's interaction and engagement with them. However, I want to park that for a second.

To continue with what Deputy Fitzmaurice said about the questioning of the Office of the Planning Regulator, we did not quite get clarity on the relationship between the EPA and the planning regulator. There is a protocol around the OPR that Dr. Ryan should be more than familiar with. Did the EPA initiate an investigation, or did it request that the OPR to do so? What was the EPA's relationship with the regulator on that? Did the Office of the Planning Regulator contact the EPA, or did the EPA contact it? Can Dr. Ryan give us some specific details? If he cannot, I will suggest to our committee that at some point we write to the EPA and seek the correspondence between it and the OPR? Will Dr. Ryan be precise and concise in his response?

We did not ask for an investigation by the Office of the Planning Regulator. I cannot be any clearer than that.

Did the Office of the Planning Regulator contact the EPA?

We have an ongoing dialogue, so-----

No, let us be specific, let us-----

We would have to look back at the correspondence over seven years.

Will the EPA look back over the correspondence?

Absolutely.

Will the EPA send a memo to the committee? We need to be clear about that relationship and who initiated it.

We are happy to do that.

What did the Minister do? Did he give a direction to the OPR? I want clarity on this. Dr. Ryan has committed to furnishing the committee with that detail. Is that correct?

Yes.

That is great. Dr. Ryan is aware of the section 63 declarations. What are the EPA's intentions? Is it to move on? It has identified the concerns. It is highly critical of the local authorities. It has powers under this section 63 declaration. Is it going to exercise those powers? If so, when? Will Dr. Ryan outline a timeline? Will he also explain the import and significance of the section 63 declarations?

It is quite an involved section in terms of how we exercise our section 63 powers. What we have done to date is that we have provided the local authorities with all the intelligence that we have, and we have looked for their reaction to it. We were not particular happy with that so we issued a draft direction. That direction was for their comment, and it included-----

I am sorry; I want to stop Dr. Ryan there. Did the EPA get a response from the local authorities it contacted on that?

Yes, we did.

We can move on. We do not want a history lesson. We read too, and we read the report. Going back to section 63, when is the EPA going to proceed with those section 63 declarations?

I am not going to confirm when-----

Why not?

Because it is an enforcement issue and I need some regulatory discretion around that.

Hang on. Dr. Ryan is painting a dreadful picture. The EPA has powers. Let us not go back to the local authority. He is telling us that the local authorities are not stepping up to the plate.

Yes.

The EPA has been empowered with these declarations. It can exercise them. Is the EPA going to exercise them? Do not tell us that the agency is going to think more into it. Dr. Ryan has suggested that there are serious shortcomings with everybody bar the EPA. When will the agency proceed with the section 63 declarations, which are in its power?

I am not going to tell the committee specific details. We need to retain that regulatory discretion as an independent enforcement authority but we are assessing all of the responses. We expected that the local authorities would step up and take the responsibilities without us issuing a formal declaration. That is the next step. It is a legally binding declaration, and we will use it, if we need to.

I will finish on this point because time has run out. This is the important issue. The EPA has come here and made serious claims in relation to local authorities and other enforcement agencies. The EPA has the power under this section 63 declaration but it has not used it. It is also not exercising all the powers that it has within its own gift. This is the Oireachtas committee. We are not someone sitting at the side of a bar. This is the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food, therefore I thought the witnesses would have been more equipped to tell us about the section 63 declarations. Will the EPA furnish the committee with details about the process around the declarations and when it intends to do something? Dr. Ryan cannot be critical of everybody else on one hand, when he has not exercised the suite of powers and functions he has within his office. I will leave it at that. I do not want a response.

Before I go to Deputy Lawless, I have one brief point that I want to clarify with Dr. Ryan. He said that EPA will use them when it sees the need.

They are the enforcement tools provided by the Oireachtas to allow us to escalate-----

I have not asked the question. Dr. Ryan says that the EPA will use them when it feels they are needed. What threshold or trigger would prod the agency to use them?