Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food debate

An Cathaoirleach

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.

Mr. John Neenan

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-----

An Cathaoirleach

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.

Senator Victor Boyhan

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.

Mr. John Neenan

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-----

An Cathaoirleach

I need to move on to Senator Paul Daly.

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.

Mr. John Neenan

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.

Senator Paul Daly

It is classified as a tonne of Irish peat.

Mr. John Neenan

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.

Mr. Kevin Mahon

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.

Senator Paul Daly

Is that native peat or imported peat?

Mr. Kevin Mahon

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

Senator Paraic Brady

Deputy Martin Kenny

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?

Mr. John Neenan

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.

Deputy Martin Kenny

Only the areas harvested can be assessed.

Mr. John Neenan

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.

Deputy Martin Kenny

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?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

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

Mr. Kevin Mahon

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-----

Deputy Martin Kenny

Mr. Mahon wants a decision.

Mr. Kevin Mahon

-----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.

Deputy Joe Cooney

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?

Mr. John Neenan

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.

Deputy Joe Cooney

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?

Mr. Val Farrell

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.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

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

Deputy Natasha 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.

Mr. John Neenan

Irish peatlands, I suppose.

Deputy Natasha Newsome Drennan

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?

Mr. John Neenan

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

Mr. Frank Corbally

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.

Deputy William Aird

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?

Mr. Frank Corbally

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

Mr. Kevin Mahon

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.

Deputy William Aird

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

Mr. Kevin Mahon

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.

Deputy William Aird

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?

An Cathaoirleach

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

Senator Joe Flaherty

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

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.

That is great.

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.

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.

Senator Paul Daly

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Boyhan has the floor.

Senator Victor Boyhan

That is fine, but I would appreciate it if Dr. Ryan could furnish the names of the NGOs with which the EPA has voluntary involvement.

The report mentions 370,000 tonnes of peat valued at €40 million being extracted in Ireland and exported. The previous group we had in outlined that this is actually not the case. It was stated that between 40% to 60% of that was peat and that, as a result, the valuation is totally incorrect. What have the witnesses got to say about that?

Dr. Tom Ryan

We rely for our information from the Central Statistics Office, which is an accredited and internationally recognised organisation and State agency-----

Deputy Paul Lawless

Yes, but with regard to CSO data and the labelling of product that is exported, the EPA would be aware that the product is labelled as one item. It would be well aware that peat would not make up 100% of the 370,000 tonnes.

Dr. Tom Ryan

We have not looked behind that. People have made that argument but a percentage has not been substantiated.

Deputy Paul Lawless

Yes, but the frustration is that the EPA has quoted this figure as fact when it is not fact; it is actually fiction. It is incorrect. It is a headline figure, but the data behind that is not reflected in what the EPA has indicated. This is what I am getting in the context of the involvement of NGOs. That is a major oversight on the EPA's part. The EPA is a regulator and an impartial body. It is meant to regulate but it is coming down on one side in this debate. That is clearly evident in relation to that statement.

Prior to the legislation being introduced, the EPA lost a case in Longford. The Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was then introduced and passed. What involvement had the EPA in relation to that legislation?

Dr. Tom Ryan

This was the amendment to section 99H, which sets out our injunctive powers under the Act. Those powers were amended in that miscellaneous provisions legislation. The need for that amendment arose as a direct result of the Court of Appeal judgment in the Harte Peat case. It was designed to give us stronger powers in relation to activities that clearly involved in splitting projects in order to try to get below the 50 ha threshold and take them out of our jurisdiction.

Deputy Paul Lawless

My question was not answered. What involvement had the EPA in respect of the legislation?

Dr. Tom Ryan

I was all over it, definitely. I was very much involved in promoting it to the Department.

Deputy Martin Kenny

Mr. Ray Cullinane

The 38 sites have been discussed. Most of those are of interest in terms of enforcement, as we mentioned. We have written to the local authorities to ask them to provide detailed information on those sites. That is an ongoing process, as we said.

There are reasons, as Dr. Ryan outlined, for the establishment of a body as a regional authority. That is being proposed by the Department. Issues have been articulated back through the local authorities in terms of resourcing, as the Deputy mentioned. Financial constraints and technical abilities are some of the reasons given by the local authorities in terms of their inability to carry out some of their current enforcement functions.

Deputy Joe Cooney

In fairness to the local authorities, and I was involved in one in County Clare for 20 years, they have an awful lot on their plates. As was said, there are issues with staff and resources. Is this putting extra pressure down on top of the local authorities? Is it extra pressure that needs to be put on the local authorities?

Mr. Ray Cullinane

As we mentioned earlier, these are issues in relation to planning, and planning is a very strong discipline within local authorities. As we mentioned earlier as well, it is about ensuring that the regulations and the proper planning process are adhered to in terms of this operation. That is our primary goal in relation to it. We hope that the local authorities will prioritise the resources in this respect.

Deputy Joe Cooney

I can tell Mr. Cullinane that they have enough on their plates to be doing now without looking into issues like this. Again, that is up to the local authorities themselves, but I know the pressure that local authorities are under in respect of resources and whatever the case may be. In fairness, it is not easy for them.

Mr. Ray Cullinane

We appreciate that.

Deputy William Aird

My questions will need just "Yes" or "No" answers. In the EPA’s view, where specifically are the enforcement gaps preventing this framework from operating effectively? I am referring to the planning aspects concerning sites being under 30 ha and over 50 ha.

Dr. Tom Ryan

Does the EPA accept that uncertainty around regulation may be contributing to non-compliance?

Senator Joe Flaherty

What is the difference between taking information from the environmental group that the EPA actively engages with and from Growing Media Ireland, which the EPA will not take information from? What validates that group such that the EPA can accept what the group tells the EPA? Dr. Henry will say that the EPA investigates it, but there is nothing to differentiate that group from Growing Media Ireland, which was here and gave a passionate defence of the industry. What elevates Friends of the Irish Environment above Growing Media Ireland?

Dr. Tom Ryan

Nothing.

Senator Joe Flaherty

Nothing, except that the EPA is absolutely committed to closing down this industry.

Dr. Tom Ryan

I have to refute that. That is not what we are about.

Senator Joe Flaherty

It is not easy to frighten me but with what has happened here today with this group and the last group, I am frightened alive. The EPA has lost a lot of credibility. I never thought it would accept informers' evidence or people who have a gripe against people working and who would go to these depths to ensure the horticulture industry will be totally wiped out. I have nothing against the three men here. I do not know any of them but if this is the way the EPA is operating, God help anyone who is trying to do anything or to employ people.

The figure of 350 tonnes was given by the CSO. Who weighed that? How much of it is water? These are allegations and stories like you would hear in - I do not know where you would hear them.

As to the independent nature of the EPA, it is employed by the State to protect our environment but it is depending on NGOs - or informers, as I call them. I said it before the witnesses came in. Some of these informers call themselves the people of the earth or whatever. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are getting paid out of taxpayers' money to object and do this work.

I do not know who said this "intelligence" operated 100 years ago when we were trying to gain our freedom. It is sorrowful to think this is going on now in order to put people out of work - individuals and companies.

An Cathaoirleach

Dr. Ryan has been clear that they are not being paid for information.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

The NGOs are being paid by the State. I did not say it was by the EPA. We got a list of them and of the amount each of them got. I railed against it and we will have to rail further against it. It is not fair. The people who are trying to survive and to create jobs do not get funding for anything. They are paying taxes and those taxes are funding these NGOs and environmental people. It is very wrong.

I do not know. This is terrible what we have heard this evening, including from the horticulturists. They are expecting to get clarity, are waiting two years for an answer and it has not come yet. That is most unfortunate. They will close down along with the rest of them.

I am after hearing that the Environmental Protection Agency we prided ourselves on is accepting intelligence and information from informers. It is terrible. I am only elected here to represent people and to do no harm to anyone. What is going on is totally wrong. Those environmentalists are getting funding to keep them going and to close other people down.

An Cathaoirleach

Thank you, Deputy. We have covered a lot. Clearly, peat and horticulture inspire strong views from the environmental, gardening and regulatory sides and from every side. A number of questions remain unanswered for which the witnesses have agreed details will be sent on to the committee so we can take a further look at it. Once the transcript is available, we can send it on and the witnesses will be able to have a look at it. I thank them for their input. If there are one or two quick points they want to make, the opportunity is there. If not, they will be writing to us anyway. I thank them on behalf of the committee for answering and for participating in today's meeting.

Tá an coiste an-bhuíoch as an gcomhoibriú agus as an eolas ar fad. Nuair atá breis eolais ar fáil, iarraim ar na finnéithe é a sheoladh ar aghaidh chuig an gcoiste.

Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food debate - Wednesday, 24 Jun 2026

Horticultural Peat: Discussion

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. Val Farrell

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. Frank Corbally

Mr. Frank Corbally

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Mr. Frank Corbally

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Mr. Val Farrell

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. Kevin Mahon

Mr. John Neenan

Mr. John Neenan

Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jun 2026