Dáil debates

Wednesday, 10 July 2024

Post-European Council Meeting: Statements

 

3:20 pm

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Food security has become a dirty word. One of the cornerstones on which the EU was founded was food security. We have become too comfortable in our existence within the EU. Our ability to produce sustainable food is being sidelined. Migration is a hugely important subject. Many issues are being raised by migration to this country and into the EU. One of the principal reasons people are leaving countries is starvation. We have an ability to help to solve that for Africa and other poor countries in the world. However, it seems we are putting obstacles in the way of the production of food. I am not a climate change denier but sustainable food production has to be promoted and as it stands, that is not happening. We need to go back to basics, make food security one of our cornerstones and produce food, as we can, for many of the poorer parts of the world.

The EU passed restoration laws a couple of weeks ago. A significant amount of this country will be designated for restoration. It is said that up to 20% of our lands will be restored. We are told it will be a voluntary scheme. If it is voluntary, it has to be voluntary in all aspects of it. Principally, the owners of that land must have access to any scheme relating to that land. I would be afraid that designated land will be exempted from the single farm payment if people do not comply with restoration in that area. While the scheme would be voluntary in name, the owners of that land would be forced to go into restoration from a financial point of view whether they want to or not. That applies to upland areas as well as peatland areas. For restoration to work, the owners of that land and land owners in its vicinity have to be happy with the scheme.

There are many bogs in this country, the rewetting of which would have great benefits for battling climate change. However, adjacent land owners are not getting a guarantee that their land will not be affected. That guarantee has to be there. If you change the water table and rewet a large bog, it will be very hard to ensure that neighbouring land is not affected.

The value of land that is designated for restoration or is already designated for various schemes has to be restored. The value of land that has been designated has been decimated by 75% to 80%. In my county we have a significant amount of hen harrier land. If that land was sold today, it might get €1,500 per acre. If it was not designated, it would make between €7,000 and €8,000 an acre. I find it hard to understand why someone has not taken a legal case on this. In an urban setting, if a person's house was devalued by 75% to 80%, would it be allowed to happen? However, these are people with the poorest land in the country. The capital value of that land has been completely eroded. We have to restore that. The way to restore the capital value of that land is to put a scheme in place that will allow that land to make income.

When the hen harrier land was designated in Tipperary, for three to four years there was a very good scheme where landowners got compensation for being designated. However, after three or four years, that scheme lost its value, and so did the land.

We had good news this week on emissions, with the reduction in emissions in virtually all sectors. If we are going to continue that upward curve on emissions, property owners have to be properly compensated for actions that are forced on them. There is a lot of environmental and scientific evidence out there that these blanket bans on designated areas are not the best way to achieve the targets you want to achieve. In designated land, we have stopped renewable energy being produced. Wind energy generation is outlawed, and so are solar farms. These are the best areas in the country for doing this but we are not using the balance sheet and showing the benefits from producing more renewable energy.

We also have a blanket ban on forestry in that area. So far this year, we have planted approximately 600 or 700 ha for forestry in this country. Our target under the programme of Government is 8,000 ha per year. In the lifetime of this Government, we will not plant that much. Whoever is standing here in 25 or 30 years' time will ask what the hell we were at and why we did not plant any timber. We cannot plant on designated land, peatland or unenclosed land. Some of the powers that be think that productive land will be put into forestry. That is not going to happen. In my view, the complete balance sheet is not being looked at. The fact that in 30 or 35 years' time this forestry will replace concrete and steel products in construction is never being put into the calculations when we are talking about the benefits of a blanket ban.

I was listening to "Morning Ireland" while driving up to Dublin this morning. We have a new five-year programme in place for the hen harrier. They were hoping there would be buy-in from everyone for it, and it would have great benefits for society. If the landowner feels, and rightly feels, he is being prosecuted by designation, you are never going to have the goodwill of the landowner. Without the goodwill of the landowner, you will not get the benefits that you can acquire.

I appeal to the Minister of State - I have appealed for this on numerous occasions - that we listen to the environmental advice that is there, which states that these blanket bans are not achieving what some said they would. Numbers of hen harriers have dropped with the blanket ban. In the view of a significant number of environmental experts, different stages of afforestation would actually promote hen harrier and hen harrier habitats. As well as promoting hen harrier habitats, it will restore the value of the land and help us by reducing our emissions and producing timber that can be used to offset other industrial products like cement and steel.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.