Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
SEPARATED FROM THE R394 near Derrycrave in Co Westmeath by a thin band of peat and the remnants of an old hedgerow, sits a large body of water.
The size of five Gaelic pitches combined, passers-by could be easily fooled into thinking that they were looking at one of the many small lakes that have dotted this part of the country for decades.
The inky waters are, however, relatively new. They formed a few years ago after the unlicensed extraction of peat by one of Ireland’s most prominent horticultural peat companies, Harte Peat Ltd.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Monaghan-based company dug five metres down to the marl, leaving little to no vegetation, and scooping up over 561,000 square metres of peat.
The plot is one of four areas of operation near Finnea and Coole totalling 200 hectares on which the High Court recently found the company was engaging in large-scale extraction without authorisation in breach of strict EU law to protect the environment.
Harte Peat told the High Court that the mushroom industry requires the extraction of black peat from a deeper level for use as “mushroom casing” as opposed to milled brown peat from the surface for other horticultural uses.
The sites were subject to a recent failed licence application from Harte Peat as it engaged with the EPA in a bid to regularise its position. While the High Court acknowledged that the EPA licence refusal was defective for want of adequate reasoning, the court nevertheless banned further peat extraction as being in contravention of EU law.
The Court is set to hear arguments this Friday about a stay on works for the purpose of permitting an appeal to be taken against the court’s decision. The recent ruling came after a long-running legal battle with the environmental watchdog that largely went on under the radar since 2013.
As early as 2009, conservation groups also raised concerns about the company’s activities – as well as several other large-scale peat extractors – to little success. Today, there is still no large-scale peat company in the country with the legally required planning permission and licences.
How did we get here?
A big part of the problem has been the state of flux in the laws on peat regulation, with the High Court finding that, while Harte Peat was in breach of EU law, its level of engagement with that regulatory process should not be characterised as “mala fides” [bad faith] and that responsibility for the State’s failure of effective regulation “lies elsewhere”.
Our PEAT SAKE investigation into the regulation of the peat industry reveals a system of largely unregulated activity that continues to this day, including that:
The EPA and local authorities do not maintain any form of register of peat companies or the amount of peat extracted for commercial purposes
Despite various inspections, enforcement action and legal challenges by either the EPA, NPWS, or Westmeath County Council over the potential impacts of its operations, Harte Peat continued to extract peat until late 2021
12 other peat extractors operating without a licence are now also subject to ongoing enforcement action by the EPA
Noteworthy sent detailed questions to Harte Peat in early February, and provided several extensions to reply to the series of questions posed. The company did not answer any of our questions.
As part of the PEAT SAKE series, we have also examined the peat export trade and illegal cutting on protected bogs. You can read these articles here. This article was developed with the support of Journalismfund.eu.
***
An artificial lake formed at a site at Derrycrave where the EPA estimates Harte Peat cut peat to a depth of up to five meters Niall Sargent / Noteworthy
Niall Sargent / Noteworthy / Noteworthy
Together with fragments of ancient woodlands scattered across the island, our peatlands – built up over thousands of years – are Ireland’s oldest surviving ecosystem and continue to punch above their weight in protecting the natural world and humans with it.
“They pack a big punch,” according to Dr David Wilson, a research scientist specialising in peat, as the amount of carbon they store “equates to the amount of carbon that’s in the atmosphere”. Yet, despite their vital role in tackling the dual biodiversity and climate crises, our peatlands are in bad and deteriorating condition and are now a net source of emissions.
This is almost exclusively due to human exploitation of this vital natural resource as our bogs have long been seen for their economic value, drained and dug up as a fuel source, as growing material for horticulture or home gardening and reclaimed for agriculture and forestry.
Artificial lake formed where peat was cut at Derrycrave Niall Sargent / Noteworthy
Niall Sargent / Noteworthy / Noteworthy
Our storied history with peat
While the idyllic image of families cutting turf by hand is still sharp in the collective Irish memory, by the early 20th century mechanised, large-scale peat extraction had reached the island, first with the Turf Development Board in 1934. The Board was succeeded by Bord na Móna a decade later and today it owns nearly 80,000 hectares of peatlands.
Over the decades, the semi-state was joined by a host of other commercial players, mainly extracting peat used in professional horticultural industries and the hobby gardening sector. According to Dr Wilson, this commercial extraction is the “grade one defiler or degrader” of peatlands in Ireland.
“Extraction by its very nature removes the substrate so it can never be replaced in any meaningful period of time that humans would associate,” he told Noteworthy. “Commercial extraction hits all the environmental qualities that we value in our peatlands and removes some of them forever”.
Speaking to the investigative team, UCD scientist Dr Florence Renou-Wilson emphasised the impact of the scale of removal on commercial bogs where virtually all plant life is taken away, leaving the peat underneath to dry and enter a state of constant carbon loss.
“Those commercial cutaways are stuck in perpetual autumn, constantly just decomposing, decomposing, decomposing.”
UCD's Dr Flo-Renou WIlson on field research
The regulatory rules for large-scale peat extraction have been clear since 1994, with commercial producers operating on over 50 hectares subject to a dual consent process and need both planning permission from a local authority and a licence from the EPA.
Bord na Móna obtained nine licences and is the only operator to have active licences to date. Several other big players have made failed applications for EPA licensing, including Harte Peat for its Shrubbywood and Derrycrave sites, as they did not have planning permission at the time. Harte Peat had argued that planning permission was unnecessary because peat extraction had existed at the site from before modern planning laws were introduced.
According to the recent High Court ruling, Harte Peat applied for an EPA licence in “good faith” under the law as it was at the time, when the need for planning permission was quashed, before the regulations under which it applied were struck down and planning was again required. The court also held the EPA decision was defective in not addressing Harte Peat’s case that planning permission was unnecessary in law.
The overall lack of regulation of the industry is a problem, according to George Smith, the principal ecologist at Blackthorn Ecology, as this means that there are no regular inspections of bogs to ensure that there are no significant impacts from the likes of water contamination.
George Smith on field research on a bog in Co Donegal George Smith
George Smith
Smith, who worked on Ireland’s largest raised bog restoration project, said a more significant issue is the “lack of any requirements to restore a site to put it back into some sort of ecological condition after you are done with your peat extraction”. Licensed companies must carry out rehabilitation work monitored by the EPA and post-extraction conditions can be applied through the planning process.
“Ireland has some of the best raised bogs left in Europe and we have an international obligation to look after these fantastic habitats,” Smith said. “Allowing an unlicensed regime of peat extraction is moving in the opposite direction.”
Despite the clear downsides of an unregulated system, there has been difficulty bringing companies in line. Philip Nugent, Assistant Secretary in the Department of Climate, told the Joint Committee on Agriculture last July that there is “a history of widespread non-compliance” with the consent process.
“With regard to sites greater than 50 hectares that are operating at the moment, none are operating lawfully,” he said. This includes Harte Peat, with the High Court ruling in March that it was operating outside of the regulatory system and in breach of EU environmental law at four sites at Shrubbywood near Coole and Derrycrave, totalling just over 200 hectares.
As discussed above, Harte Peat had recently sought to regularise part of its operations at Shrubbywood and Derrycrave through its failed application for an EPA licence.
By early 2020, the company was, in its own words, “one of the market leaders” in supplying peat to the international mushroom industry, exporting to 18 countries on five continents. It made a post-tax profit of €905,000 that year.
The company prides itself on its eco-credentials, stating that its “peat extraction process is in line with strict environmental and industry best practice directives” and says that it only harvests from its own private bogs “of no scientific or natural heritage interest”.
Yet, these bogs in question are close to the River Inny that is hydrologically connected to the EU-protected Lough Derravaragh of major ornithological importance for several species, including the Greenland white-fronted goose and whooper swan.
Concerns over the impact of the company’s activities on the protected area, as well as the extraction techniques used and the scale of operations laid the foundations of the EPA’s recent legal challenge.
Photo of peat extraction at Derryvcrave during an EPA site inspection in June 2021 EPA
EPA
In September 2018, for example, the EPA documented the “large scale excavation of peat” to a depth of five metres on the area at Derrycrave where the large body of water now sits. Further excavation was documented at another plot just across the R394 road during inspections in January and February 2019, with “significant peat extraction” during various inspections in 2020 and early 2021.
In May 2021, the EPA noted “extensive excavation to the base of the bog” here with the marl underlying the peatland left “exposed”. The inspection report noted that, at this stage, only an area of peatland of 120 metres in length remained in place between the excavated area and the R394 roadway separating the two core blocks where Harte Peat operates at Derrycrave.
Further extraction was noted in September and October 2021 and, using a specialist drone to calculate the depth of the peat layer, the Agency estimated that 235,000m3 of peat was extracted from this area of the Derrycrave site between December 2018 and August 2021.
Between the two Derrycrave sites, the EPA estimated that 796,000m3 of peat was removed by the end of 2021. The Department of Agriculture (DAFM) recently estimated that the domestic mushroom industry – a key client for Harte Peat - needs around 112,000m3 of peat annually.
Noteworthy asked Harte Peat for any comments on the EPA’s findings during its inspections. The company did not answer any of our questions.
Photo from EPA site inspection at Derrycrave in May 2021 EPA
EPA
Action ‘long overdue’
The 2022 EPA injunction case is not the first time that the EPA has tried to shut down Harte Peat’s operations at Derrycrave, taking similar proceedings in 2013 in a bid to halt activity on one side of the R394 roadway that rumbled on until 2018.
Advertisement
The court agreed with the EPA in a 2014 ruling that peat extraction at a number of different sites must be aggregated together to calculate the 50 hectare threshold – making it clear that Harte Peat’s total operations would match the threshold and come under EPA licensing requirements. Yet, Harte Peat won an appeal on a procedural point and the Agency agreed to set aside the 2014 order.
The case remained dormant until the EPA brought interim injunction proceedings heard over three days in November 2018. The EPA told the court that it had been made aware of recent intensification of works at Derrycrave and needed to act immediately to halt works.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan refused to grant the injunction and in May 2019, the EPA settled the case. It was agreed that Harte Peat would apply for a licence for its Shrubbywood and Derrycrave sites and not extract on any other areas pending the determination of the licence application that was then refused by the EPA.
Harte Peat challenged the EPA’s decision to refuse its licence application. While the High Court found that the EPA had failed to “properly explain” how it reached its conclusion and proposed to grant Harte Peat declaratory relief on this point, it found that the EPA’s decision was the correct one.
Despite the Court’s ruling, Tony Lowes of Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) said that there was a wasted opportunity to act over a number of years that could have seen peat stay in the ground. FIE has monitored large-scale peat extraction for several decades, and has made various submissions and complaints to State and EU agencies over the years.
Lowes said the ruling came years after it first provided the EPA and other State bodies with details of the “industry’s widespread unauthorised activities”, including what he described as intensification of works at Harte Peat’s bogs as early as 2009.
Although the EPA claimed this intensification of works in the injunction case, Harte Peat vigorously denied any intensification of peat extraction during the hearing, and said that it “has been extracting peat over a lesser area and at a lesser rate than prior to [the May 2019 compromise agreement with the EPA]”.
Tony Lowes (c) outside of the High Court during FIE's challenge of State climate plans
‘Deep excavation of peat’
Records released through AIE requests show letters from both FIE and An Taisce in February 2009 outlining concerns about works on Harte Peat’s bogs at Shrubbywood and the potential impact on raised bog habitats and Lough Derravaragh.
Harte Peat recently told the High Court that the mushroom industry requires the extraction of black peat from a deeper level for use as mushroom casing as opposed to milled brown peat from the surface for other horticultural uses.
The EPA told us that it “does not agree that there was a lack of action on its part” as argued by FIE, and said that it carried out its own investigations and brought legal proceedings “as expeditiously as possible”.
Records released show that the EPA did contact Harte Peat by letter on 3 March 2009 stating it was the Agency’s view that “your company’s operations may fall within the scope” of the licensing regime and requested details on the areas being harvested, drained and under restoration.
In a reply on 12 March 2009, the company said it was active on five distinct sites “not contiguous to any other site”, with each below the 50 hectares threshold for an EPA licence. The five sites included three at Derrycrave, combined totalling around 53 hectares, 40 hectares at Shrubbywood and a further 23 hectares in Coole. It did not provide details of any areas under restoration.
“We have obtained specific legal and planning advice in respect of each of these sites and are not subject to obtaining an integrated pollution licence,” the letter stated.
On 16 June 2009, the EPA confirmed to FIE that the matter was with the enforcement team for investigation and led to evidence gathering for the EPA’s 2013 High Court challenge. The Agency said that the litigation process “requires due process and is often subject to significant delays” that are “outside the control of the Agency”.
FIE, other NGOs and peatland experts who spoke to Noteworthy also outlined concern that local authorities – responsible for the planning permission element of the dual regulatory system – have largely failed to play their role in tackling large-scale extraction.
Satellite imagery of extraction at Derrycrave over time
Local authorities ‘not pulling weight’
The need for planning permission largely hinges on rules from Brussels contained in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive, transposed into Irish law in the 1980s. The assessment must be carried out through a development consent process, and, in Ireland, this is the local authority planning system.
Since December 2001, the mandatory threshold for EIA for peat extraction has been set at 30 hectares, meaning that any extraction above this level must automatically go through the planning process. Below this level, the need for EIA is assessed on a case-by-case basis.
In 2020, An Taisce outlined its concern to the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) that companies are operating “outside any regulatory control to the extent that there is not even a register of the extent and annual tonnage of extraction from the different sites involved”.
Noteworthy asked all local authorities with large areas of peatlands if they kept any form of register to track the number of commercial operations and the amount of peat extracted on an annual basis.
None of the local authorities have any form of registry or accounting system, with many pointing us towards their planning portals even though it has been well established that no large-scale operator in Ireland has planning permission for peat extraction.
However, we have discovered that all local authorities were contacted by the Department of the Environment in June 2013 seeking information on the planning status of 126 extraction locations above 30 hectares.
The Department carried out the survey based on satellite data to try and identify peatlands under industrial extraction as part of its response to an infringement case brought by the European Commission for failure to ensure large-scale extraction was subject to EIA.
The satellite imagery was largely collated by Friends of the Irish Environment as part of a complaint to the Commission that influenced the infringement case.
The local authority replies were collated in a spreadsheet that was released to FIE and shared with Noteworthy. While no harvesting was noted in some locations, over 100 large sites were identified in four counties alone – Kildare (40), Offaly (31), Westmeath (18) and Tipperary (16).
While some sites had permission for roadways, loading areas, or peat processing facilities, none had permission for peat extraction. In almost 50 cases, Councils directly said that planning permission was required or that environmental impact assessment – and therefore planning – was required.
“So the information is there, in other words, held by central government, as part of a large exercise that they went through,” UCD’s Dr Andrew Jackson, an Assistant Professor at the UCD Sutherland School of Law, told us.
Dr Jackson, who recently published a book on EU environmental law, said it is “notable that enforcement action really does not appear to have followed from the local authorities”.
“So, whilst there is a welcome and positive apparent sort of ramping up of enforcement activity from the EPA, I don’t think that is matched on the local authority side. And the local authority side, of course, captures all peat extraction that needs EIA.”
In 17 of the 18 sites identified in Co Westmeath, the Council found that planning permission was required for the extraction of peat, with sites either over the 30 hectare threshold or very close to protected nature areas.
While the names of companies on the list are redacted, the investigative team identified a case related to one of Harte Peat’s sites in the spreadsheet. We did this by cross-referencing planning reference numbers, addresses and enforcement file numbers, with publicly available planning files and enforcement records released to Noteworthy by the Council.
In the case concerning Harte Peat, Westmeath County Council stated that the “extraction area is above threshold and therefore requires planning permission” and that there was also “extensive enforcement history on site”.
Analysis of records released to the investigative team show that there were extensive measures taken to examine Harte Peat’s planning status since the early 2010s but that much of this enforcement action went only as far as the issuing of warning letters to the company.
The records show that the NPWS was also hot on the heels of the company with persistent warnings sent to the Council over the past decade about both the Shrubbywood and Derrycrave sites.
Photo of peat extraction at Derrycrave site in June 2018 contained in NPWS inspection report released to our team NPWS
NPWS
NPWS concerns raised
The NPWS has had its concerns about Harte Peat for multiple years, highlighted publicly in a submission from its parent Department on Harte Peat’s failed 2019 application for an EPA licence.
Records released to Noteworthy show the local ranger Tríona Finnen tried to garner the local authority’s support as far back as April 2013 when she submitted a planning enforcement complaint to “investigate the planning status of peat extraction activities at Derrycrave”.
According to records released by the Council, a warning letter was subsequently issued to Harte Peat in June 2013 indicating that the company’s extraction activities may be unauthorised development.
In July, the company’s legal team, Wilkie and Flanagan Solicitors, replied to the Council, arguing that Harte Peat was exempt from the need for planning permission as peat extraction commenced on the site prior to the introduction of modern planning laws in 1964.
This argument was repeated by counsel for Harte Peat in the 2022 legal case, submitting first, that planning permission was unnecessary because peat extraction had existed at the site from time immemorial, and long before the modern planning regime; and second that it had applied for an EPA licence in “good faith” under the regulations in place at the time under which the need for planning permission was removed.
Although no further enforcement action was taken by the local authority in this instance, NPWS concerns remained in preceding years as claims surfaced that Harte Peat intensified works at its Derrycrave site – claims that Harte Peat denied in the High Court.
‘Down to the marl’
In notes from an inspection on 13 September 2016, Finnen wrote that peat excavation was already taking place vertically “down to marl”. Finnen elaborated on her findings in an email to Westmeath County Council, stating that, instead of harvesting the peat by ridge rows as they have done in the past, Harte Peat was now “excavating downwards creating a substantial hole covering about one-quarter of the site”.
“The underlying marl/gravel substrate is obvious in places,” she said, asking the Council to examine the issue due to planning and water quality concerns. Further inspections were carried out by Finnen over the coming months, sometimes accompanied by Council staff.
Harte Peat explained the necessity for excavating black peat by telling the High Court that the mushroom industry requires the extraction of black peat for ‘mushroom casing’ as opposed to milled brown peat.
In February 2017 Finnen told the Council she was concerned that, once extraction ceased, “the lands will flood leaving behind a significant hazard in the form of a deep lake adjacent to the undermined road”. The NPWS continued to inspect at Derrycrave until at least December 2019 where it found there was “no treatment” of “silt laden runoff” going into the drain to the weir which leads to the river Inny.
Noteworthy asked Harte Peat for any comments on the NPWS’s findings during its inspections. The company did not answer any of our questions. When asked what further action, if any, the Council took, it stated that due to the legal actions taken by the EPA over the course of several years, it was not in a position to take further enforcement proceedings.
The river Inny that flows into the protected Lough Derravaragh Niall Sargent / Noteworthy
Niall Sargent / Noteworthy / Noteworthy
Companies argue exemptions
Harte Peat and other large-scale peat extractors have long argued that they are exempt from the need for planning permission, irrespective of the EIA Directive, as peat was first cut on the bogs where they operate prior to 1964 when modern planning laws came into effect.
Related Reads
High Court orders peat company to halt unauthorised extraction in Midlands
Horticultural peat unlawfully removed ‘much like rock from a quarry’, High Court hears
Unlicensed peat extraction causing ‘irreversible’ environmental damage, High Court told
Certain exemptions are in place for some types of peat extraction where traditional hand-cutting occurred prior to 1964, with various legislation and regulatory changes over the years altering requirements to fall under the regulatory system.
In the alternative or in addition to these pre-1964 arguments, peat extractors would often try to rely on the complex ‘exempted development’ rules in the planning code to argue that their activities were exempt from the need for planning permission.
In her recent judgement, Ms Justice Siobhan Phelan did find that, while Harte Peat was in breach of EU law, its attitude to planning control and its level of engagement with that process, “while clearly not what it might have been, should not even now be characterised as mala fides”.
“In my view it is not HP’s [Harte Peat’s] fault that the law in relation to peat regulation in the State has been in a state of flux,” she said. “The responsibility for the State’s failure of effective regulation lies elsewhere.”
Various State bodies may have also given the company the impression that there were no concerns with its operations. For example, throughout the EPA’s investigative processes, the Department of Agriculture continued to carry out inspections of Harte Peat’s processing facilities and issue phytosanitary certificates to declare if peat is free from pests or disease prior to export.
In a statement, the Department said that phytosanitary requirements “do not include a requirement to certify whether the peat was harvested legally”. It continued: “If peat is being extracted illegally it is a matter for the Local Authority and/or the EPA to investigate and deal with accordingly.”
The company has also been backed by Enterprise Ireland and brought on a 2008 trade mission to South Africa that resulted in the signing of a distribution deal to supply 35% of South Africa’s mushroom industry with peat casing.
Enterprise Ireland has also paid Harte Peat a little over €50,000 in grants and other material support since October 2012. It said that it undertakes a range of checks and verifications of companies when providing support, including, for example, commercial, market, financial and technical assessments.
Legal complexity of system
According to UCD’s Dr Andrew Jackson, however, the industry has used the complexity of the law to their advantage as a means to argue against the need for development consent. “You had an entire industry arguing ‘none of us need planning permission to do what we’re doing’,” he said.
Yet, at the same time, Dr Jackson said that planning requirements were clarified in 2011 with updated planning laws to the effect that any peat extraction operations could no longer be exempted development – exempt from the need for planning permission – if it was deemed that the peat extraction was likely to have significant effects on the environment.
This was tested by Friends of the Irish Environment through a little-used planning rule called a Section 5 determination that asks the relevant planning authority to make a formal determination as to whether a specific development is or is not exempt from the need to obtain planning permission.
FIE submitted Section 5s for Harte Peat, Bulrush Horticulture and Westland Horticulture in early 2012. In all An Bord Pleanála’s inspector reports, it is stated that peat extraction that requires environmental assessment does not amount to ‘exempted development’ from 21 September 2012 “even if they are being carried out on the same land and in the same manner as peat extraction works that were exempted development before that date”.
“From September 2012, I think it’s been pretty clear that large-scale industrial peat extraction is not exempted development because it’s hard to see how you could argue that it doesn’t need an environmental impact assessment,” Dr Jackson told us.
While the inspector’s report in the Harte Peat case stated that the activities required environmental assessment and planning permission, the Board found that, in the absence of certainty about ownership of the lands at the time, it could not make a conclusive decision and dismissed the case.
It did find that environmental assessment and planning permission were required in the cases of Bulrush and Westland who both challenged these decisions through the courts with the cases lingering on for several years.
Both companies argued that the Board had erred in law by finding that the EIA Directive applied to peat extraction whereas both companies claimed operations commenced prior to domestic legislation giving effect to the EIA Directive coming into force.
According to records released to Noteworthy, the potential for a ruling upholding the Board’s decisions was deemed a serious threat to the industry by the companies – and by the State.
The concerns expressed by the main industry players were summed up in a submission by Westland. It said that there was “a very real risk that the [High Court case] outcome would result in all major commercial peat extraction being adjudged to require planning permission”.
This, it feared, would lead to enforcement proceedings “against the entire industry” by planning authorities or “interested anti peat-extraction parties”. It added: “The knock-on effect of such a judgement, if it were to issue, would create an immediate mischief for the entire peat extraction sector.”
In February 2018, the court ruled against the companies, upholding An Bord Pleanála’s decisions. The companies also failed in an appeal bid in December 2018 and new regulations were swiftly brought in just one month later exempting all extraction from planning permission. It was under this system that Harte Peat has applied for its EPA licence in 2019.
Anything above 30 hectares would fall solely under a new EPA licensing regime and a grace period was put in place for companies to continue to operate without planning permission or EPA licences for up to 18 months.
This system did not last long, however, following a legal challenge in April 2019 from Friends of the Irish Environment, arguing that the new system was not in line with EU environmental law and would have essentially provided peat companies with an “enforcement holiday”.
In July 2019, the European Commission also expressed concern that the new regulations “gives operators more time for extraction activities that are in breach of EU law” and in September 2019 the High Court quashed the regulations, deemed incompatible with EU environmental law.
The judgement reaffirmed that commercial peat extraction absent planning permission constitutes unauthorised development, following which several large players ceased operations. The ruling also played a major role in Bord na Móna’s decision to shut up shop on its bogs last year.
Despite the clear decisions from An Bord Pleanála and the High Court reaffirming the regulatory requirements since at least September 2012, there is still strong support for the industry based on concerns raised by peat companies and its clients in the horticultural sector that supports 17,000 jobs.
This concern culminated in widespread political and media attention last September when almost four tonnes of peat imported from the Baltic region arrived at Drogheda Port destined for the horticultural sector. Reporting of the shipment led to a wave of calls from politicians for emergency legislation to allow the industry to recommence harvesting in 2022.
With the State now baulking following the 2019 High Court ruling, a group of Fine Gael and Fianna Fail Senators launched a Bill last November that proposed a planning derogation for extraction for horticultural purposes potentially as far out as 2030. It also proposed to pause any pending enforcement action while the derogation was in place.
While the State did not support the Bill, it did start a working group in 2021 on the future of horticultural peat. The group included big industry players such as Bord na Móna and Growing Media Ireland, as well as farming bodies, trade unions, the mushroom sector and environmental groups.
It recommended that peat be allowed to be extracted “from existing ‘ecologically destroyed’ bogs” already prepared for harvesting. This would require legislative amendments to allow for large-scale extraction that it said is “absolutely critical for the 2022 season”.
Conservation groups in the working group have distanced themselves from its findings, with FIE and the Irish Peatland Conservation Council stating that they do not support the report.
It is also set to commission an independent expert to ascertain the level of horticultural peat stocks available to growers. Bord na Mona recently said that it has up to 2,000 tonnes of high grade horticultural peat available in stockpiles that will be made available.
Looking to the future
In the case of Harte Peat, the High Court is set to hear arguments this Friday about any potential delay on the stay on works at Derrycrave and Shrubbywood to allow for an appeal from the company.
The State is facing its own potential legal challenge, with fresh infringement proceedings brought by the European Commission last year. The Commission told Noteworthy that its main concern remains “the lack of any environmental impact assessments for peat extraction activities in Ireland”.
One thing is clear with the recent High Court rulings – the regulatory system for large-scale extraction is robust, on paper at least. Now, if any companies wish to operate within legal parameters, they must go through a multi-stage process to gain retrospective planning permission from An Bord Pleanála, followed by fresh planning permission for any further activities, and then EPA licensing.
The industry has criticised this process as it can take several years to complete, but UCD’s Dr Andrew Jackson finds little sympathy for companies, most of whom have extracted peat for decades without any form of permission or environmental impact assessment, and who he doubts would secure permission now due to the statutory tests they would need to pass.
“While the legislature and regulators are clearly not blame free, in my view, the situation the peat companies find themselves in now is objectively of their own making. They fought regulation for years rather than engaging with it. And once they were forced to engage with it, they found themselves in a fix because they’d operated without permission for years.”
The EPA is currently weighing up taking action against other companies operating on areas above 50 hectares, with 12 operators inspected in 2021. The Agency said it “will be considering enforcement action against such operators where they continue to extract peat in the absence of an EPA licence”.
***
As part of its PEAT SAKE series, Noteworthy has already examined extraction of peat for horticultural use and illegal peat cutting on protected bogs without State permission. You can read these articles here.
***
This article was written by Niall Sargent of Noteworthy. It was proposed and funded by you, our readers. This article was developed with the support of Journalismfund.eu.
Noteworthy is the investigative journalism platform from The Journal. You can support our work by helping to fund one of our other investigation proposals or submitting an idea for a story. Click here to find out more >>
We also have a number of climate and biodiversity-themed investigation proposals which you can view here.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Close
7 Comments
This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic.
Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy
here
before taking part.
@Matt Connolly: well if that’s the case the law needs to be changed to allow for bigger sentences, it don’t matter what decade it was or is it still has the same impact on its victims and society as a whole.
@Casper: agreed. It must be possible to classify violent rapists (those proven to ever have offended) as on-going dangers to society and jail them at the discretion of the minister for justice.
Could even apply to people who committed such acts abroad. Not a bad way to keep out people who have done so in other countries too.
@Casper: it is my understanding that the judge made this 7 year sentence run consecutively to the 7 year and 10 months sentence he is already serving which is right and proper
@Dean Moriarity: don’t be silly you can’t paint every one with the one brush, lots of good people give of their time to these clubs day in and day out and well done to their commitment, but clubs do have a duty of care to make sure that volunteers are vetted and provided training in child protection
@Casper: That’s what they used to say about the Catholic Church until the full extent of the paedophilia and cover up was revealed. The GAA is run along the same lines, unquestioning loyalty to the parish coach who has access to children via a position of trust. This is only the tip of the iceberg in the GAA.
@Cultural Marxist: well if that’s true I would assume its historical, I don’t believe that would be the case in this day and age, and I hope that people keep coming forward and put their perpetrators behind bars where they belong
@Thomas Blackcat: sounds like you have some information or evidence of serious crimes if you do you better take it to the Garda, and if you don’t stop blowing smoke out of your arse
@Cultural Marxist:
Perverts will infiltrate any organisation that will provide cover for their despicable criminal acts. Being a cultural Marxist perhaps you are aware of Bella Dodd?
“In the late 1920′s and 1930′s, directives were sent from Moscow to all Communist Party organizations. In order to destroy the Catholic Church from within, party members were to be planted in seminaries and within diocesan organizations,” Dodd stated according to the affidavit.She also stated in her book “school of darkness” that “The homosexual and heretical pollution of the priesthood was deliberate and long in the making” and that she herself under orders placed over 1100 deviants into the church to destroy it from within?
@Ray Muller: Calling gay people perverts and deviant, you must be a Catholic yourself. When you graduate from primary school you may also learn that there is no link between sexual orientation and paedophilia, that is why your priests molested young girls as well as boys.
@Cultural Marxist:
Of course there isn’t, but there is a historically connection with pederastry, or man and boy, which is what apparently occurred in this case. Its also a tag peculiar that the world leading “gay” rights group, ILGA, reportedly harboured no less that 3 of these dangerous sicko groups in their ranks for years. They even had UN funding removed because of it!
Just saying it as it is.
@Cultural Marxist: Of course there isn’t, but there is a historical connection, Romans and Greeks with pederastry, or man and boy depravity, which is what apparently what transpired in this case.
Its also a tag peculiar that the world’s leading “gay” rights group, ILGA, reportedly harboured no less that 3 of these dangerous sicko groups in their ranks for years. They even had UN funding removed because of it!
Just saying it as it is. The truth shouldn’t offend anyone?
@Casper: My young fella plays hurling and as far as i am aware, there is no garda vetting (at our local club anyway). I often help out at things and no one has ever asked me to get garda vetted. The local parish council asked me to do some readings at the church regularly. And i had to be garda vetted. Its extremely strict at the church and so it should be with their disastrous record. So i do feel there is a risk at my GAA club that i didnt consider. Though i do accompany my son to ALL matches/training.
@Sinead Hanley: Garda vetting is a requirement for all coaches and others involved with underage GAA teams, and has been for years. I don’t know to what extent you help out yourself, but maybe not to that degree? Would find it unlikely that your club doesn’t comply at all. Either way, it would probably be better for you to ask a club official than to throw such probably unfounded accusations around online.
@Jumperoo: The fact is that even though my club are probably complying (as you say) with garda vetting etc, i as a parent have not been made aware of it. My son is with his club for 3 years since he was 4 and i have never heard a word about child “safety” except for the cul camps. I am not suggesting any problems with child safety but i think its important that the GAA highlight their stance from now on. I was taken aback when i read this article cos i hasnt considered it. Though i always accompany my child. There is a framed poster in our church for safety officers/people for children if u are concerned. Its not in our gaa club.
@Sinead Hanley: Sinead, there is a legal requirement on every GAA club to have every coach, trainer or manager Garda Vetted. They are also obliged to undertake a Child a Protection course of which this subject matter is the primary focus. They must also undertake various coaching courses, but the first, the Garda Vetting is essential. It would not be possible to have every single person who turns up at a pitch checked, many are parents like yourself etc. Think about it. If your child is at a game and you’ve arranged another parent to take them home, and something sinister were to occur, there is nothing the GAA club could do to prevent that, if you follow. But a good club will take all and any precautions to ensure those with the closet contact yo kids, are safe. That said, these predators will always find a way. Can’t keep kids locked away, just in case.
More silence from Croke Park. They need to come out and reassure people things are done properly these days…. they had more to say about a certain testimonial dinner last week!
@MacEochagain: this is happening everywhere. The aggressive atheists will tell you that the abusers all have white collars. Anywhere where adults are exposed to kids this can happen. All coaches are Garda vetted but this means little unless you have a record. I’m not sure what any organisation can say unless it’s a token apology. This is a societal issue.
The Journal, I often wonder why you even bother with images. Why not show a photo of this s*umbag – we already have his name – so we know what he looks like when he gets parole in a few years.
Ireland needs 23 beds for eating disorders - but seven years on, there's still no sign of them
Paul O'Donoghue
10 hrs ago
10.0k
37
Catholic Church
Vatican says Pope Francis 'rested well all night' in hospital, after 'slight improvement' in condition
Updated
1 hr ago
4.5k
8
Murder Investigation
American mother drops newborn to death from Paris hotel window
19 hrs ago
51.1k
Your Cookies. Your Choice.
Cookies help provide our news service while also enabling the advertising needed to fund this work.
We categorise cookies as Necessary, Performance (used to analyse the site performance) and Targeting (used to target advertising which helps us keep this service free).
We and our 152 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device. Selecting Accept All enables tracking technologies to support the purposes shown under we and our partners process data to provide. If trackers are disabled, some content and ads you see may not be as relevant to you. You can resurface this menu to change your choices or withdraw consent at any time by clicking the Cookie Preferences link on the bottom of the webpage .Your choices will have effect within our Website. For more details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
We and our vendors process data for the following purposes:
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
Cookies Preference Centre
We process your data to deliver content or advertisements and measure the delivery of such content or advertisements to extract insights about our website. We share this information with our partners on the basis of consent. You may exercise your right to consent, based on a specific purpose below or at a partner level in the link under each purpose. Some vendors may process your data based on their legitimate interests, which does not require your consent. You cannot object to tracking technologies placed to ensure security, prevent fraud, fix errors, or deliver and present advertising and content, and precise geolocation data and active scanning of device characteristics for identification may be used to support this purpose. This exception does not apply to targeted advertising. These choices will be signaled to our vendors participating in the Transparency and Consent Framework.
Manage Consent Preferences
Necessary Cookies
Always Active
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
Targeting Cookies
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
Functional Cookies
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
Performance Cookies
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Store and/or access information on a device 104 partners can use this purpose
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development 136 partners can use this purpose
Use limited data to select advertising 106 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Create profiles for personalised advertising 78 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Use profiles to select personalised advertising 77 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Create profiles to personalise content 37 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Use profiles to select personalised content 33 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Measure advertising performance 127 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Measure content performance 60 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources 75 partners can use this purpose
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Develop and improve services 82 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Use limited data to select content 38 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
Use precise geolocation data 43 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Actively scan device characteristics for identification 25 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Ensure security, prevent and detect fraud, and fix errors 86 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Deliver and present advertising and content 96 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Match and combine data from other data sources 68 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Link different devices 50 partners can use this feature
Always Active
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Identify devices based on information transmitted automatically 84 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
Save and communicate privacy choices 64 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say