 I'm delighted to welcome you to this event entitled the nature restoration regulation implications for Ireland and Europe, and we're very pleased to be joined today by Minister of State for land use and biodiversity center Pippa Hackett, and who will address us. Shortly, that legislative proposal that I mentioned the nature restoration regulation is, as you're aware, part of the EU biodiversity strategy, aiming to restore ecosystems across the European continent for people, climate and the planet. The ambitious proposal aims to cover at least 20% of the EU's land and sea areas by 2030 and ultimately all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. It can be fairly said that it is far reaching legislation, it has generated much political debate, both here in Ireland and across Europe, and we're delighted to be able to hear the minister's insights on the proposal ahead of a critical vote tomorrow. Senator Pippa Hackett has served as Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine since June 2020. She's responsible there for the land use and biodiversity portfolio. Ms Hackett is herself an organic farmer and holds an undergraduate degree in agricultural science and a PhD in equine science. Pippa Hackett was first elected as a senator for the agriculture panel in a by-election in 2019 and was re-elected to Shanadair in 2020. Upon the formation of the current coalition government she was appointed Minister of State with, as they say, responsibility for land use and biodiversity. She holds a singular honour, if I may say so and remind you, as the first senator to have been appointed as Minister of State. Under the constitution, as we know, it is possible for there to be a maximum of two members of Shanadair in cabinet and that has happened on very, very few occasions in the history of states as far as I know, I think twice in the past, twice previously. But this is the first occasion on which a member of Shanadair was appointed as a Minister of State, which is I'm sure a great honour for Minister Hackett and we're delighted to have her here this afternoon. So the Minister will speak for about 20 minutes or so, either way, 15 doesn't matter in around, no, not maybe much more than 20 minutes. And then we go into a Q&A session with the audience, both those of you who are here who'd like to ask a question, you'll just have to put up your hand, that's easy because I can see you. And if you're watching and joining us remotely, there's a Q&A function that you know all about at this stage, which you'll see there on your screen. So here's your question, if one occurs to you, when it occurs to you, rather than waiting for later when we might tend to get a bunch of them in. So do it when it occurs to you, and we get to that question once Minister Hackett has finished her presentation. I'd also participate in the discussion on Twitter, if you're minded to do that, using the handle at IEA, both the presentation and the Q&A are on the record in case there's any doubt about that. And without any further ado from me, I'm delighted to hand you over now to Minister of State for Land Use and Biodiversity, Senator Pipa Hackett. Thank you, thank you. Well, my mic is on, is it? I think so, good. Listen, don't worry, the font is quite big on this, so hopefully if we won't overrun into the 20 minutes. But listen, thank you very much, Alex, it's a pleasure to be here and I want to thank Barry, Hannah and Nisha as well for their work on this event. I think it is timely, the events in the Parliament tomorrow. And I want to set out why I think nature restoration law is positive for Ireland and for Europe. It's no doubt nobody can deny that biodiversity and our precious natural ecosystems are under massive threat from our very existence and the way we live our lives and the way we consume and the way we do absolutely everything. So I suppose I'll start by saying that restoring nature should not be controversial. The process of rejuvenating and preserving our natural ecosystems from forests to wetlands, as well as improving and greening our urban environment for the benefit of present and future generations is a good and noble cause. It is a path towards a sustainable and resilient future, where we recognize the integral role that nature plays in our lives, our communities and our economy. While the nature restoration law has been a topic of robust debate in recent weeks, it is vital to understand the potential benefits it can bring, rather than focus solely on the unfounded concerns on its effects on agriculture, which I will speak about more a little later on. The roles, jobs and land management practices of the future will be very different from today. And with that in mind, the nature restoration law in my view has the capacity and the potential to revitalize and invigorate rural Ireland, breathing new life into our agricultural communities, transforming our towns and cityscapes and making this country a better place to live. But to get to that destination, we must move beyond the perception that the concept of nature restoration is a threat to farming or rural life. It is our duty to explain this and talk about it at any opportunity we can, which is part of why I am here today. In fact, as politicians, we must commit to engage not only in the debate, but in the forming of this law in Europe, and in working proactively to provide the policy solutions needed. We need our politicians from all parties to engage on this law to sit around the table, make their views known, and bring in their influence to bear on helping to shape a law that works for us all. Now is the time to embrace the incredible opportunities it presents. What no politician should do now is vote this law down and walk away from the debate. As many of you will be aware, the Council last week reached an agreement on its general approach. I was in Luxembourg last week with ministers Ryan and Noonan when this was agreed. And there was a genuine sense of optimism and positivity when agreement was reached. So much so the room actually broke into applause. It was very heartening to see. The council agreed to keep ambitious goals for nature restoration, but has provided flexibility for member states in the implementation of the regulation. While for some this does not go far enough. For others it is too far. Some such as the pressure precarious nature of politics and reaching agreement, but agreement we must reach. And it must be put put us on the right road to restoring our damaged nature. As many of you will be aware, there are three aspects to law creation at a new level. Typically, the European Commission writes the law and the member states through the relevant councils and the MEPs through the parliament come to their own agreements before the final discussions take place in trilog negotiations. The commission continues to defend as expected the original drafting of this law. However, recently, especially in response to the issues within the parliament, they are showing more flexibility. For example, they have said they are willing to engage with the parliament and council on the issue of financing. The rapporteur in the envy committee in parliament proposed more ambitious restoration and rewetting targets for drained agricultural peatlands, which combined with other elements led to the EPP, the European People's Party issuing a statement that they were withdrawing from the process. Within the parliament, both the fisheries committee and the Agri committee have rejected the parliament's proposals. However, recently there has been a softening of the proposals in an effort to win sufficient support. The envy committee started to vote on the proposals last June the 16th. However, due to times constraints this process continues tomorrow the 27th of June. This will be a very important vote. And I hope that the EPP make the correct decision on what can be a very positive development for everyone. So after the vote tomorrow we will know a little bit more. But the text agreed to last week is now the council's mandate for negotiations with the European Parliament on the final shape of the legislation in the coming weeks and months. And sadly, the concept of restoring nature, specifically through this nature restoration law, has divided political parties both out here in Ireland and in the European political sphere. Perhaps it is the word law that has frightened the horses here. But the law will only be one aspect. It is the implementation of its requirements that will require those with solutions to come to the fore. And those who are kindly opposed to this law are not interested in the solutions. They are the ones who see nothing wrong with our current way of life, our current consumption model. If we chain ourselves to preserving our current way of life all of the time, we limit progress and stifle any sense that there is a better way. There are many politicians railing against the idea in very strident terms, which in turn makes the public feel uneasy and turns the concept into a partisan and highly charged debate. From my own engagement on the issue, I think the public is far more in tune with the potential good in this law, rather than the perceived threats. There is a lot of conjecture and indeed legitimate questioning focusing on farmland and the potential impact this law may have on the viability and livelihoods of farmers across this country. Let me say clearly, the texts the council has agreed would provide flexibility for member states in the implementation of the regulation. What that means is that we as a government will have flexibility on how we implement measures to restore nature. We have worked with farmers over the past three years on a range of environmental schemes, many of which are already helping to restore nature, and we will continue to work with farmers into the future. That will not change. Since I have taken up my role in the Department of Agriculture, I have seen firsthand how Irish farmers demonstrate their commitment, not only to sustainable agricultural practices, but to nature. We have faced the environmental schemes with enthusiasm. Farmers, as we know, are the custodians of the vast majority of the land in this country. I'm a farmer myself and I know the deep rooted connection we have to our rural heritage and the innate understanding of the relationship between farming and nature. In recent years, Irish farmers have recently taken up the challenge to implement eco-friendly practices. They have been born out more recently to the huge numbers who have subscribed the acres scheme and the thousands who have moved to organic farming practices over the past couple of years. They are engaged across the country as they strive to reduce their carbon emissions, enhance biodiversity and adopt innovative techniques that promote soil health and water quality. I know that many of them feel a great sense of responsibility towards future generations, their children and their children's children. They are conscious that they must pass on a farm that can remain profitable for those coming next, but also a farm that is sustainable in a world where the consumer of the goods they produce is becoming ever more conscious of the origin and footprint. Farmers in Ireland are already paving the way for a greener, more sustainable Ireland, where agricultural practices harmonize with nature. What we cannot allow is that sense of ownership and enthusiasm be damaged by conjecture and what aboutery around the nature restoration law, which is the biggest threat to its progression that I have seen at the moment. So I want to tell you what the nature restoration law is and what it is not specifically in relation to agriculture. I want to explain why it is something we should embrace, not fear. At its very core, this is an EU-wide move to reverse decades of decline in biodiversity by encouraging member states to bring ecosystems back into good condition. Within that piece of work, there will be ambitious goals to restore habitats for flora and fauna, to restore woodlands, rivers and oceans, with valuable benefits for climate, water quality, agriculture and the wider economy. A huge amount of the debate is centered on the rewetting of agricultural land. Rewetting is only one aspect of the nature restoration law. And this, the definition, means to raise the level of the water table on those peaty soils that were previously drained. In the medium term, we in Ireland have the capacity to meet these rewetting targets within state-owned lands. These are lands of Bordelemona and Cwilce and other parcels in the ownership of the state. That is where the focus will be and that is where the targets will be met. But for those farmers who wish to play their role in restoring wetland nature, and believe me, they are out there. We want to support them. These lands can be difficult to manage at the best of times, and the farmers are the real experts here. Their knowledge and skills will be needed to manage these lands into the future. If anyone has seen the movie The Field, I'm sure most of you have, I hope. I don't know for sure, but that image of the Bull McCabe looking over that green field in a bright green and the rough land around it shows how entrenched we are and farmers are with their land. Having to drain that and manage it was a sense of massive achievement for families and for generations. So there's that deep connection, very deep-rooted connection to the land. And certainly, as I said, as a farmer myself and being married to a farmer, I'm very well aware that the best way to sink this proposal would to be go after that farmer's land. Tell them what they must do and accept that Europe and the government knows best. That is not what will happen, and that is not what we will do. But that doesn't stop the hysterical debate. Some of you may have seen a debate on this issue in The Doll a number of weeks ago, when I referred to a deputy who was formerly an organic farmer as an organic farmer. It drew such an outlandish and hysterical response that it made me reflect on the wider context on which this law is being fought against. In some cases not on fact, but on conjecture and pure politics of fear. My colleague, Minister Charlie McConnelogue, has also stated clearly that we have the capacity to meet rewetting targets within state-owned lands, not on private farms. Yet some choose not to listen and continue with the fear mongering. But we cannot rule out farmers also benefiting from the nature restoration law on a voluntary basis if they feel their land is suited and if they want to. And any scheme for farmers to engage in nature restoration such as rewetting will be entirely voluntary. We respect the autonomy of our farmers and acknowledge that they are best positioned to make decisions that suit their individual circumstances. The Irish government will support, will encourage and provide necessary resources to those who choose to participate in such initiatives, but we will never impose or force anyone into actions they deem unsuitable. However, based on the enthusiasm for and the uptake of current agri-environmental schemes, we expect that demand for such schemes to be much greater than the requirement when state lands are factored in. There have also been concerns raised about the compulsory purchase orders on farmland and the nature restoration law. Minister Raymond Ryan has unequivocally stated that compulsory purchase orders will not be used in the context of nature restoration. Again, this would be an approach that would not engender any enthusiasm from the general public or indeed the government. We are well capable as a country to reap the benefits of this regulation without even considering compulsory purchase orders. We are committed to open dialogue, transparency and the respectful exchange of ideas. We value the contributions of our farming communities and acknowledge their indispensable role in shaping the restoration of nature. And we will remain open to their ideas and concerns and suggestions as this moves forward. But this is not just about farming and rural Ireland. It is so much more. It's also about urban settings, cities, towns and villages across Ireland and across Europe. We promote the establishment of green infrastructure in urban areas. Green spaces such as parks, gardens and urban forests can be integrated into cities to enhance biodiversity and improve air quality. In fact, as Europe's climate is changing, we're seeing hotter summers. These trees and these green areas are going to provide support for vulnerable people who live in cities in the years ahead. Many cities without enough trees and I think, you know, we shouldn't think that we will escape this in years to come. These also in urban areas will allow us to create habitats and corridors for wildlife in these environments. It will help improve air quality by increasing the number of trees and plants that absorb pollutants and release oxygen. And additionally, restoring and preserving natural wetlands in green areas can contribute to a better water quality by filtering and purifying runoff before it reaches urban waste systems. It will also have the positive effect for our health and well being. Access to nature in urban areas has been linked to numerous health benefits. Restored urban green spaces can provide opportunities for physical activity, stress reduction and mental relaxation. It can help build communities through nature restoration projects in urban areas as well as rural areas where communities and groups can engage and raise awareness about the importance of preserving and enhancing what they have. I've seen this firsthand across the country throughout the many life and EIP projects my department supports in conjunction with the NPWS. And these projects coincidentally are also funded by the European Union. Many of these projects bring communities together to preserve and protect, and it's a model that works. Projects like the Byrne Project in Clare or the Mackair Project along the West Coast and Donegal to Kerry. So we are already restoring nature in many areas, and now the same can be true for our cities too. By involving local residents in the planning, the implementation and the maintenance of green spaces, the law can foster a sense of ownership and community cohesion. In summary, this law has the potential to enhance all of our lives. Restoring nature can enhance the visual appeal of every environment in which Europeans live, cities, towns, villages and isolated rural settings. It can make each of the more attractive places to live, work and visit, and overall improve the quality of life in these areas. This is about place and the connection people living there have with that. So what are the next steps and how do we make sure we get this over the line? The key issue now will be how the European Parliament's proposed text develops, and in particular how closely it lines with the Council's general approach. Within the Parliament, the End of the Committee is due to resume voting on the proposed amendments tomorrow, and a full plenary vote is scheduled for the 10th of July. Assuming the Parliament establishes its general approach, the trilogue process can commence, and I really hope that it can. Nature simply can't afford for politicians to walk away from the table on this. However, if there are significant differences between the Council and the Parliament's respective positions, the trilogue process will be more difficult. European Parliament elections are due to take place next June, and that is something we cannot shy away from. We need this process completed before this parliamentary term ends. For a more local point of view, this is certainly not just a Green Party issue. At home, Finifol support this at European level, as do Sinn Fein. Big businesses like Nestle, Coca-Cola, Danone and Salesforce all support this. Thousands of scientists have backed it. And from my travels as a minister to farm yards and other events across the country, once explained, people can see the benefit this brings to all walks of life. This is a rural and an urban issue. Restoring nature can happen everywhere. This isn't rural versus urban, and anyone who fuels that narrative is playing politics with nature, playing politics with biodiversity and playing politics with the future of our planet. Together we can make this country a better place to live. And I hope that this talk has given you a sense of where we are right now. And I also hope it gives you some hope for how positive this can be for everyone. Thank you. Thank you very much, Minister, and you've set out your soul or you have been setting out your stall on this issue with some considerable force and thank you for the clarity of what you've had to say. Where I was wondering just listening to the trajectory or what's going to happen next and so on, those are part of the trilogues and all of that. And assuming just for a moment that as you hope that the regulation ends up being enacted comes through. As I understand it then the next step then is Member States have to develop their own restoration plan. So that would so a period would then and so where each Member State would be required by the regulation to develop a plan obviously the plan would have to be in compliance with what's in the regulation. So I'm just wondering, I think there might be a two year process for that or something. I'm just wondering, when you bearing in mind the, you know, the various, I mean, there's been an opposition expressed to it. In some cases perhaps as you've suggested that maybe there may be an element of you use the word hysteria, but I'm sure you'll acknowledge in other areas will be genuine worries and concerns about what it might mean for them and so on. So what what what opportunity is there during that period, the preparation of the plan period for, you know, obviously it's a regulation has direct effect but what kind of opportunities are there to will say negotiate or look at the application of the plan in the Irish context and take on board maybe some of the concerns. I think the opportunity should be to be vast in that stage and we can get over the line in terms of the figures and the facts and at the end of the day the law will be, you know, it's guiding or you know it's it's obligatory but it's it's it's figures and it's hard to you know make that tangible to people on the ground what does that mean and that is probably where a lot of the fear lies. It's a little bit like the climate targets from last year around this time last year remember the debates and was I going to go to 28 or 26 or 25 and there was, you know, this tension that was there and again we settled on the figure, but we still have to implement what that means and in this is really exciting that this is where you need the people with the solutions were genuinely interested to come together and and to to propose the solutions. And I think that's that's where it becomes more tangible for farmers and people across on the ground, when we see, ah, oh I can do that, you know, that's what that means or, oh yeah I'm willing to do that element of it. I mean, and I think we, it's, there's always a sense like we're just, we're just waiting for the law and we're waiting for the climate targets to be set and we're not doing anything until that happens. I mean certainly since this government was formed, we've acted on those from this from the get go. In my own area, like I'm responsible for organic farming, we seem like it nearly a trebling of the numbers of organic farmers in three years to coming up on three years. Every one of those farmers who's moved from a, you know, a system maybe based on on chemical inputs to ones that don't. They're helping to restore nature, they're, you know, making improvements for their water quality, they're improving their soil health. A lot of things that have happened, certainly any of those project I alluded to as well in the speech, there's life projects, there's, there's a lot of engagement already and it might just mean more of that type of thing. And then that's a little bit more tangible. We talk about, I mean there's examples of even rewetting projects on farmlands and in the midlands, which are quite a big area, you know, in terms of those drained areas. And there's there's small scale okay at the moment projects but there are examples of how it can work. And somebody said I think last week and in some one of the debates like we need, we need to have pilot farms, you know, we're not doing anything until we see how it can be done. There are examples already there so I think it's maybe about building that up, building up the trust. And I think the best way to do that is not from top down. It's very much from grassroots and from a peer to peer from farmer to farmer and I think that's where we need to be aiming for. So as you say, in relation to the time the climate targets it's sort of, how would you describe it kind of like the end of the beginning, so to speak so the numbers go down on the page but it then becomes a process of negotiation perhaps or at least an opportunity for the thing then to take on it's to take on a life where it really happens rather than simply just be something that's prescribed. It's not we're not in the dark either we roughly know what we need to do. Just on the public private because you said Minister McConaughey had said that in his view and you you endorse that that perhaps the great majority of the heavy lifting, if I can use that term would could be done or on public lands. Yeah, the medium term over the next two decades anyway. Yeah, and if not more that the figures show for themselves certainly in terms of border Mona land we know they've a very extensive rewetting program that they're embarking on currently and have been doing so. There's quite a lot of wheelchair and which people might be surprised to know that are on on PT soils, and a lot of areas that should never be planted, you know, snakes have been made the past I think we've been open in acknowledging that. And those areas will either never, you know won't be replanted or just be drains maybe blocked, and just let nature take its course. I mean, is that do you mean you can't speak for the opponents, but they have to speak for themselves for of the regular but is that accepted I mean if that's being said by government that most of this can be done on public land. Is that, is that not, is that accepted or is that acknowledged. It seems it's not when from some of the narrative and some of the dialogue it does seem that that isn't being accepted comes out to trust that you know are we just fooling you here but you know that the acreage and the Hectorage is there and the details are there for everyone to see it's not a secret how much land is in state ownership and how much of that is Pete based. I think that's that's there to be seen. You know, with that in mind that gives us a quite a long run in to engage with farmers and work out what works. What does work and build on some of those pilot projects that are in existence at the moment. There is one of the things that I suppose I remember from my own time like dealing with the wind energy issue like there is actually an extraordinary amount of land in public ownership and directly owned by the state or by by state institutions or like Bordemone you mentioned Quilture. And this is just the question that occurred to me just you were speaking and it may it may not make any sense at all what I'm about to ask you but I remember being briefed and often arguing that, you know, when there was a controversy about the wind energy guidelines you know the setback this for for wind turbines that we could do an awful lot of that work on state land and on Bordemone land for example, and indeed Quilture. Could the two things coexist. They could I mean I live quite close to my Lucas wind farm. When you think of like the extent of particularly Bordemone land across the midlands I mean there aren't houses on the land you know so it is, we have a very diverse diverse you know dispersed. Unfortunately for nature restoration and unfortunately for a whole host of things that dispersed rural and settlement pattern and that is a challenge. But a lot of the Bordemone land isn't really because it was all Bordemone land building houses on those areas so they have become the natural host site for a lot of wind farms and certainly Mount Lucas was one of the biggest ones at one stage. It, you know, there aren't there are houses right at the periphery and, but in terms of the area size it's not an issue. Now they have some of those drains on that land as well are blocked you know because at the end of the day the turbines are on raised mounds and there's, you know, raised roads to access them but the rest is all is all peak lands. And we'll be suitable for. Yeah, and you can see it now you can see it how it's returned a bit I was there on Saturday and you know there's a variety of you know by diversity and plants and species returning it has done for the past couple of years. I don't want, I don't want to get into I'm the one who brought up when wind energy sorry about that we don't want to go into that area necessarily today but it's just an interesting thing I was wondering, could the two. What you're saying. Of course, absolutely. Yeah, I suppose on the fear factor with with farmers in particular. It's the financing of this and what you lose out on. I mean, and that that's going to have to be multi annual it's not about me while we have pilot schemes, you know their five year programs what happens after that. You know what happens when I've done my five years and my field is fabulous for nature and, you know, carbon storage. What happens then that's that's what we need to sort out and that's what the European Commission needs sort out. And that will be crucial to this being a success that the financing of it will be a farmer could see that a sustainable into the future long term. I mean, and, you know, we do. We support farmers, you know, through the common agricultural policy budget and that's, you know, we've been trying to I suppose green that up over the each reform of that it's getting a bit greener in terms of and I don't mean with small g. You know, if you listen to some of the concerns it's it's nowhere near good enough and it's, you know, tinkering around the edges so we do need to really get hold of this and we're serious about nature restoration you do have to you have to put the funds behind. Gentleman here and sorry I should have said, if you're going to ask a question that we love you did either here or online, please give your name and if you have a designation or you're representing an organization you might tell us that as well, especially your name. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. And my name is John Connor I'm a simple member of the Institute. I might as well I must declare an interest. I'm a farmer. And I had a political existence in the past with an EPP party. I do live in an area where the soils are very pity, but I live in the area where the Office of Public Works drained the main water system, you know, by arterial drainage, which had a huge difference on the landscape. And I myself and how hundreds of other farmers engaged in a scheme called the Western drainage scheme you wouldn't know about it. It was there in the 1970s, and thousands of acres hectares, thousands of hectares, where we claim to be set at the time. But what just worries me now incidentally I support fully the trust of what you're trying to do, Mr. We need to do this I accept that, but I can see because I live among farmers, and I'm one of them when you know part of that culture, their fears, and they needed to be they need to be handled, sensitively, you know. The state in my part of the world maintains a drainage maintenance program of ensuring that the channels of the streams and the drains and the main channel itself say of the Boyle River system are maintained. Still just taken out every four years, keep the water flowing. That's very important. What will it continue under this new scheme of things I wonder. I don't know, to be honest, I mean there are challenges with with, you know, continually going into rivers and removing silt and I suppose you have to walk back up a step and what what, how is the silt getting into the river. So in my area and the river Shannon like a lot of the silt is is Pete from the bogs and you know and there's a lot of calls for for for. Sorry, what's the term for not dredging sorry dredging thank you dredging the Shannon, but, and the issue actually with the Shannon as an example is for two reasons I mean the, they keep the level of the Shannon artificially high to allow all the navigation on the Shannon. So I think, you know, if we could get on if some of this helped deal with how the silt's getting into rivers in the first place then that would be helping nature in those rivers because scooping out the bed every couple of years or however often it's done isn't really good for nature and that's another, that's another argument and another discussion I think. Just somewhat an unorthodox way, ask you john what do you think are the kinds of things that government should be doing and saying that might reassure people who have concerns. If you don't mind my asking that question. I'm very eloquent today in in in setting it out and in fact I will I watch these I'm a former public representative myself, and I watch and listen to these things but you know somehow I heard better clarity today what it's all about and the assurances that there won't nobody will do it by compulsion. But remember, it will never be fully successful unless it applies to these areas that engage in a massive way in reclamation. So the one the greatest political issues percentage of our generations in my part of what was the drainage of the river Shannon, and that not just the Shannon mains river with all of the tributaries that serve it. And one of the tributaries that I will ever alluded to the boiler one which is one of the biggest tributaries of the upper Shannon, you know, and farmers, I honestly think minister. It's, you can never be solved. And I think pressure will come on to ensure that much of the farm, like myself who de wetted hectares of land, which was very with so much systems that had hardly cost anything. You know, and people are very fearful of that and that issue of the, of the border works as we call it coming back every four years and cleaning up the channels and making sure where the weed growth is and further sits. You will always get silk banks moving in any river is the river in the world I'm sure it doesn't have you know something like silk or gravel or moving you know and building up in in banks in which of course restricts the flow. Yeah, some of the broads are probably called them in England a few years ago, and it costs huge damage after a blood, and it will all put down to poor maintenance at the end of the day as mentioned as the stock. I think you raise an important point about when we were subsidizing farmers decades ago to reclaim land and it was perceived as a very positive thing because it's going to enable production and all of these positive terms and this is being perceived as the almost the opposite. We have to, in one sense in the years and decades ahead is redefine what production is you know what what is productive farming, and okay it's very much at the moment focus on food and that's it. It's far bigger than that. It's going to be a far bigger delivery of those services to the state and services to community and society. And that's a bit of a mind set change and while food production is absolutely, you know, it's essential, you know to what we do. There are other essential things to and we will be relying on farmers to maybe change how they managed to serve society. What does society want from our land and that you know that's what partially what we're trying to bounce in our land use review and again that's probably a debate for another time as well but it's intrinsically linked to this you know this is what what do we want from our land to deliver for us as an Irish society because we only have a finite amount of it and you already see challenges there in terms of well where we're going to get all this land for for all of these things we want to do and we have to work that out. It's like detour away from farmers and rural Ireland, and just ask you because it occurs to me that there will be some implications at least, and some opportunities, and in the urban situation where urban ecosystems might come in, you know, become under certain attention as well by this, this new measure do you want to say something about that and what are the, what's the potential or what is the possible application of this new law to the urban context. I think when you look at where our people live as well in Ireland, you know, vast majority do live in towns and cities, and they all I think treasure their their spaces you see the, the, the protests that come about a few treat as I'm being flippant now but few trees have moved in a, in a, some streets, nice suburban streets somewhere. And, you know, in one sense rightly so but I suppose it's been done for a reason or whatever the reason might be is that the necessary trade off. That's, that's, that's a different matter. But certainly I think in terms of all of those things that that green environments and urban areas besides the sort of maybe the health benefits and the psychological well being of individuals. The actual services it provides people living in cities so whether it is air quality or noise pollution, I mean, I think anyone who has a hedge or anything outside their urban home and if they're sitting at the back, they'll know that makes a difference. And then the social regulation as well is going to be a big issue I mean even last was it last week with the big downpour. And, you know, you know that county councils and city council I think and God's right, I hope everything works and hope everything can can can hold this. And last year for St Patrick's Day I visited Greece, and in Athens like it's a, you know, it's a fairly significant city but when you look up down over it from some wonderful cathedrals and wherever I had got the pleasure to visit. It's, it's wall to wall there's very little green spaces. And they were one of the first European cities to put in place a heat officer. I think they're the first one I don't know if others have done it since because the heat has increased so much over the last number of decades and the, the deaths due to that which they don't actually identify as related to heat but the numbers of unexpected deaths go up quite dramatically during a, you know, a heat wave there. Like their people in their cities are literally dying from heat, because they don't they're especially the vulnerable who can't afford air conditioning. And it sounds, you know, like a few trees going to make a difference actually yes, if you have those cooler areas and that shaded areas and space for people to go because inside their homes, it's, it's like an often outside their homes is like an often so they need somewhere else where the heat is regulated and I think that's going to be a big important element of this certainly in, you know, southern European countries but as I say, get pretty warm here as well you know and people do seek shade. Any interest in asking questions yes or at the back. There's a microphone there so people online can hear you as well. My name is Patrick, I'm a member of the Institute come from farming background in County Carlo. I would, you know, your presentation is very good very interesting and I suppose I have just a question in relation to as I understand it. The carbon targets for agriculture are separate from those that will be set for land use land use change forestry and the same people are largely involved in the two these two categories. And my question really is, if to the extent that there is rewetting done on their land use land use change programs, will the carbon reduction in carbon emissions arising from rewetting be credited to the targets in the agriculture sector, who are obliged as we all know to reduce carbon emissions by dumping up the order 25% by 2030. Well, if the actions on the land use element result in a, let's say a movement of livestock or change in practices on the land, for example less fertilizer application or less livestock then the credits will will go to the agriculture sector but also will won't be double accounting as such but the agriculture model counts them in a way that it looks at the, the, the activity on the farm if you like, where's the land use looks at whether the land is will be looking at whether the land is drained or not does it have forestry on it. What type of crops maybe are on it for different measures so in one sense you're right that the same landowners are going to be responsible for all of that and you know there's some argument why not just throw it all into the same pot but I think you know the way it's been worked out at a European level they do want us to keep them separate. It is the same people, ultimately, and while we're looking at my suppose, maybe never technologies to reduce reduce the emissions, ultimately the land use sector is about sort of increasing the sequestration rather than well also reducing the emissions certainly from PT type soils. But you know the data isn't quite there yet you know doesn't mean we wait for the data to be absolutely perfect before we do anything we do roughly know the direction of travel here but I mean even data last week. The data has indicated now it's not on all of the p plants but on a fairly sizable proportion of that maybe we've overestimated, but we don't know what's happening on mineral soils for example as opposed to PT soil so there's a lot of information still to be got, but we have a rough idea what we should be doing and we can we can be starting that now I think that's what's important. Thank you minister and fair really strong words and message to me piece tomorrow it's really welcome. Always, and I would also suggest if anyone in the room is interested bird with Ireland held a webinar last Monday on hosted by Dr flow renew Wilson a people and expert on the science of raising the water table. I think that's been one of the issues in our YouTube channel the bird with Ireland YouTube channel and it's highly, highly relevant to this discussion and really worth looking at and there was a few farmers also run on that webinar who were very interested and I think that's been one of the issues is not enough information out there on the science of it, and to a lay concerns. One, one help along this journey, but really welcome words minister. Can I just ask you though in relation to restoring nature. We have concerns minister as you know a bird with Ireland in relation to the draft of forestation program. And it's the draft that went out to public consultation is utterly failing to protect the biodiversity that we have on high nature value farmland. And so we're very concerned that we will lose several bird species for example the curlew and a range of other species, as well as more pollinators including bees and semi natural grasslands that some of these suckler farmers are restoring right now and working hard for, but there's no safeguards in the forestation program and we have solutions. But if we don't have those safeguards in the draft of forestation program our restoration target is going to be much harder to achieve down the road and that's a big concern is that what we're doing now is so potentially damaging, it will make our restoration targets seem further and further away in fact in between, we could lose several species to extinction. And that is a doomsday scenario. So minister just want you to see if, how can we reconcile that how can you reconcile that would you include those safeguards in your draft of forestation program, so that we don't have a bigger problem down the road. Thank you. You didn't give your name at the start. I know your name. Donna Duggan, Head of Advocacy at Birdwatch Ireland. Yeah, thank you. Thanks, and I haven't seen the webinar yet but I will I've heard a few positive comments about it so I look forward to looking at that. I know forestry is an incredibly contentious issue in Ireland. Across the board to be honest, and it's, we've really strived to try and write a program that is different from previous programs that is trying to make that shift towards more nature friendly forestry trying to almost at the same time address some of those legacy issues and nobody wants we don't want to lose the curly we don't lose any waders or any farmland birds through our actions we have to really absolutely not do that. I mean, we know we've done that already we have to improve on that we have to not not do that in the future. We've been engaging extensively with the commission since the draft program went to public consultation so there has been an over and back process we're still not completed that. That is to the frustration of many but still we need to get this right you know we have to spend the time to make sure this is right and that this this program is different from previous programs. It's going to be an evolution it's going to be a five year forestry program in five years time probably four and a half years at this rate. There'll be another program that'll be a mid term review so I think it's important now we keep this under review under tight watch as to what impact it's having. We also need to try and rectify some of those legacy issues some of the fault problems, you know the issues we've we've now facing because of bad decisions in the past and maybe some fair to say bad decisions just. The stuff we know now we didn't know a lot of the maybe things 3040 years ago that we now know, and we do have to rectify those and that is part of nature restoration to but certainly. We don't want to lose any more, you know, lower any numbers and they already are we already know the curly was, you know, most threatened really but across the board there are other birds under significant threat. Will you include those safeguards minister. Because you haven't answered the question. With the commission on this. Yeah, thank you very much. Yeah, gentlemen here. Thank you. Good afternoon minister James Stain solicitor I specialize in agree on all my clients in that sector. A couple of observations and maybe one point. Again, the Darge farming community, as you said, are engaging in the environment in the climate change action and I do think of all the sectors they're probably the most likely to hit and possibly even succeed or exceed our targets, particularly I think the correct science is applied in terms of measurement and you raised their chakras have reviewed some of the figures. And you raised a point there which is which is interesting we said the farmers that always farmers haven't effectively taken to account to social cost, indeed environmental cost of farming over the years because the system drove from that way. The policy is the concern of many pharmacists that the social cost is now going to be there. They're the ones going to have to carry it and will not be society will not be the consumers are going to have to pay more to get the food off the land because it's producing less. You raised a point there, and I think we're probably all in agreement in this cap. It has been poor communication, I think, by the government. One hand, there's been statements made that would be additional cap funding. The next day, the Commission, I think the boss said it won't be any. And the question is, is how is this going to be funded. I have a lot of clients who were had their lands put into SECs. They got paid grants for a number of years to start in 2011. There's been some additional funding, but I have a number of clients who have no value in their land because it's in an SEC. And in others because the phenomenal level of restrictions and the process is required to do the simplest thing and simply don't bother. They have quite a serious loss of production. And these are people who do accept the need for, you know, for, for minding the environment and they're very good at that. And I do think that is a serious challenge that the government is going to face is how is this funded, because at the moment I don't see anything there that would encourage my clients to look at that positively, but this will be funded going forward. No, it's a valid point. I think across the board, you know, from, from NGOs to farmers, everyone is sort of pretty much calling for like, what's the story here? I mean, this is, we as a society, whether European or domestic, either value this enough to support it, or we don't. You know, we value education, we value health, we value all these other sectors. We either are serious about valuing nature restoration or carbon sequestration, whatever you want from in an actual basis or we're not. And at the moment, you know, you're right, we don't really value it. You know, we do like to value it. But, you know, when it comes down to sort of hard cash to put a value on it, that's what we need to do. I mean, there are groups working on the sort of natural capital value of ecosystem services and, you know, at least then you might be able to put a figure on it and say to governments or to private entities or whatever, you know, if you want to do business in Ireland and avail of our lovely, you know, temperate climate and our educated system, you know, maybe we need to take some of your money and invest it in, I was saying that's what we're doing, but you know, that's one idea, but certainly the state needs to consider how it values this. Incidentally though, but your average sort of beef farm or sheep farmer in the country is losing money from their production model, you'll know yourself their direct payment makes up like 150% of their income, like their actual owning and managing their production model in sheep loses the money so I mean there's a little bit of a balance there that they go a little bit of the way and they retain, they retained 100% of their direct payments and broke even on the production they'd still be quits in but that's separate in one sense but certainly there are divides in in agriculture, and you know it's quite a broad range of incomes from top to bottom I mean I don't think any other sector would have such a diverse. Is it isn't it the case or is it the case that as speaking as a pure or urbanized but you know that the rewetting process doesn't necessarily I thought I think I read somewhere doesn't necessarily mean that the land is thereby completely removed from the potential to be farmed I mean it's not. It's not all or nothing is it. It isn't all or nothing and at the moment anyone even with drained peaty soil has no animals out on that in the winter they're all in the shed for a start I mean with most animals in Ireland are indoors for four to six months of the year. You know maybe sheep obviously out winter sheep most of the time but cattle heavier animals are in. So it might well mean that though that land might be less available, potentially in the summer months but it might well mean there's some grazing that can be done and maybe should be done because in certain areas you need that balance of farming and grazing at the right time to support species of animals and certain bird species and you know without that take the animals away you lose that special habitat as well but these are some of the balances that need to be struck. And this is where we do need the knowledge is not. You know, abandon the land and let it flood and off you go. Any further questions or john you like to come back briefly. Generation Minister because I'm. I'm personally but I like many farmers have a lot of forestry. But we get no credit for the carbon we sequester in our forests, we get. The government. I think there's a point about fairness here and we you know and many farmers see it that they're getting blame for the carbon that's released from their grazing or whatever, but no credit for the for the forestry lands that are sequestered and quite a few farmers in the part of the world that I live in including myself went for a scheme that Minister Cochlan introduced some years ago which was with you. If you put half your farm into forestry, there was a very good incentive under reps at that time, etc. And I participated in it and you know, used trees, deciduous trees, the ash. Now the damn things dying. And we have no policy as to how to deal with that. So I repeat you minister. Um, look, I think you look ash die back is a massive challenge not only to those who have planted ash but also in a wider diverse biodiversity sense that I think a quarter of trees across Ireland are either in hedges or in trees are ash and they're pretty much all going to die, which is horrific. And so, and so, as an initial stage we have had a number of ash die back schemes they've been, you know, some have availed them some haven't. I'm currently reviewing that again, but I do think we do need to keep an eye on the on the bigger wide country wide scale of where ash is going and what what we're going to do because that's a lot of a lot of trees. A lot of hedgerows that are going to be decimated because of it. Hold on hold on that point because I for some reason wasn't looking at what wasn't paying attention to a sufficiently that the questions that were coming in online. And but that's that's my fault. So I'm going to run through two or three of them really fast because I do did want I did promise we finished 630 so I'm not going to let it go much beyond that. I just want to give a flavor what's come in and perhaps if I read two or three of them out, you might just pick one that you like. It was also nice position to be a, you have a choice, but Mabel Keith environmental sustainability sustainability analyst at Accenture asks, could you run a similar scheme to the woodland environmental for farmers and landowners nice interesting suggestion, Ruth McGrath from Ed's public expenditure and reform asks, is there a challenge to rewetting peatlands. If wind farms are located on them I raised that question earlier so whether the two could coexist. I think you did address that that's an interesting, an interesting insight from from Ruth. And Brian daily of KPMG is now a board member, when the minister refers to a future when farmers are expected to more for society with their land and produce food. Does she have specific proposals and how they get paid for these other activities, how much and by whom. So, again, that's I suppose is putting that out there Brian is for you to think about and you have touched on some of that already. Hugo mani senior scientific officer from the EPA asks, what emphasis is there in the regulation on potential restoration activities in coastal and marine areas to deliver an overall on to deliver on overall restoration targets so the two or three things there. I think the middle two we sort of dealt. Yes, exactly. Exactly. So maybe the last one the first one. It's key like yes, but I think it ultimately comes down to society and governments and states valuing what we get from it you know and there are figures like you know for every, you know, I don't know for your one euro invested you get a massive return potential return in terms of savings and other aspects you know we spend billion euros, you know, billions on water quality and keeping water healthy for us to drink I mean, you know if there could be co benefits there. The nature the woodland environment fund is an interesting model it's where we were farmers can plant a native woodland and we encourage corporations and businesses to support that so they top up the farmers in the first year. Every for every hectare they are he or she plants they get an extra 1000 euros for that year so it's a little it's an incentive to be honest I think it's. It's too small a figure because these these companies get years and years and years and years and decades of advertising it from it saying look at the woodland we helped grow so I think there's there is something there and whether it's certainly something like that for nature restoration. I don't think it's beyond the realms of a fight of fantasy at all, you know, maybe that's the sort of route we need to take and to try and draw down. I mean there's plenty of money in the world just trying to get it into the right place. balance that out again the challenge for the political system. Yes, yeah, attention restoration activities coastal marine areas. That is another key area in it I haven't gone into the detail off it here and I don't have the specifics off it but yeah marine areas and coastal areas are vital and even in terms of. I'm sure it would allude to in terms of bird habitats and keeping those for you know birds to live or breed and common, if they're my group birds I'm not detailed enough on it but yeah absolutely in there. Minister, thank you very much. You've been terrific. And there's a huge amount of interest as often happens, it gets bunched towards the end so there are people putting in questions online here. That's what tends to happen. We just want to thank you for being here we and the Institute here are very, very keen to be involved in this, all of this public debate and public discussion, and particularly Mr. I know that was saying about you know, there may be people who wouldn't necessarily have been used to contributing to debates of the IAA, we want them to be contribute we want you know we want all interest. And we want to ensure that we're you know we can be a to you to coin that phrase safe space and an opportunity for people to discuss things that they might themselves feel that on one view they're victims of but we want people to see the IAA is an opportunity for us to have a really good debate and discussion, and sometimes even robust discussion as between government and others because everybody says or at least people claim that there's universal wish to make progress but not necessarily in the same way as government might like or as quickly as government might like or parties and government might like to see but we think that we could have a role in that so we're really delighted that you were here with us this afternoon. I was going to just, could I say could you save those questions. By all means we send them on to you. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, for sure. For sure. I did promise to finish at 6 30. I have a kind of a rule that I impose on myself you say you finished you should finish people both things to do. Thank you very much for your attendance. Thank you. Thank you.