Donal Carey
Question:6 Mr. D. Carey asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands the areas in respect of the Habitats Directive of which Ireland is currently in breach; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [11067/99]
Other Questions. - Habitats Directive.
EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, the Habitats Directive, requires member states to propose, on the basis of specified scientific criteria, relevant natural areas containing specified wildlife habitats and species for designation as special areas of conservation, SACs, and to protect their favourable conservation status.
The directive also required member states to transmit to the EU Commission a list of the proposed areas, together with full information on each site, within three years of the date of the notification of the directive.
The directive was transposed into Irish law in February 1997 by means of the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 (S.I. No. 94/97). Some 207 areas proposed for inclusion in Ireland's SAC network have, since March 1997, been publicly advertised for SAC designation and receive legal protection in Ireland from that date.
Ireland is currently in breach of the directive in respect of the requirement to transmit the list to Brussels, within the timeframe set out in the directive. However, my Department is ensuring effective conservation of more than 500,000 hectares of land included in the 207 publicly advertised sites and the non-transmission of the list has no damaging conservation impact on these sites.
In August 1998, I transmitted to the EU Commission an initial list of 39 sites where no objections to their designation were received by my Department. In January last, I met officials of DG XI of the EU Commission and outlined a programme for formally transmitting notice of additional sites to them. My Department to date listed a total of 103 sites to the Commission and it is anticipated that notice of 95 per cent of the sites published will be transmitted by the end of July next. The Deputy will appreciate that there must be adequate public consultation before a list of sites are formally transmitted to the EU Commission.
Does that mean 104 sites have not yet been transmitted to Brussels as part of the Minister's list? Are there any proposals to increase the 207 SACs originally advertised? What is the status in terms of having those sites approved locally and notice of them transmitted to Brussels? Is 207 the final figure in respect of SACs receiving legal protection here?
I am sure the Deputy is well aware that there was some concern, particularly among local communities, where SACs were designated. Many local people felt they did not have an opportunity to have an input into their designation. The Minister of State and I were particularly concerned that there should be a local input and we ensured that under the appeals system, there would be liaison committees to allow people the opportunity to raise issues of scientific interest and concern in the designation of the SACs.
It is as a result of this consultation process – one which was very much needed – that there may seem to be delays. I underline that 207 sites have been publicly advertised. People are aware of those sites and they are protected in law from the first day of their designation. There is no question of damage to conservation on those sites. They have legal protection.
The Minister of State and I went to Brussels to talk to people in DG XI and to explain the difficulties. We have, at all times, said it is important to get co-operation among local communities if we are to have sustained conservation. In rural areas and areas involved in farming, in particular, people have always been to the fore in conservation. We want to ensure a consultation process so that everyone may have a part in the final decisions.
The Deputy asked whether there will be further sites. We plan on 207 sites at the moment. As I said to DG XI, we have a plan of action to ensure any site about which there has not been controversy or about which people do not wish to appeal a decision have been immediately listed with Brussels. As these sites are cleared through the appeals board, Brussels will be notified of the decision.
I love the utopian assertion by the Minister that every protection is in place and there is no problem. I am sure many NGOs would disagree, as I would. Is the Minister aware that the Irish Peatland Conservation Council specified the need for 113 additional raised bogs to be included in the SAC designation list and 19 additional blanket bogs? Is the Minister aware Scotland has a much higher percentage of its original peat land listed as SACs than Ireland?
Will the Minister comment on the assertion by the IPCC that ten mountain ranges were not surveyed for SAC designation? It has given me a list which I will give to the Minister if she would like it. Will she say whether the review of the SACs and the additional list will be submitted and if Ireland will be compliant by September of this year when the Atlantic biogeographical seminar is held in this country? That seminar will focus on progress to date as regards countries' compliance with the habitat directive.
Will the Minister include Rogerstown Estuary in her review? It is divided by a railway line that is not relevant to wildlife which, by all accounts, regard it as a single estuary? Will she look at that again to ensure it is considered as a single habitat rather than one divided by a railway line?
I have been in consultation with the IPCC and both I and the Minister of State have had the opportunity to meet the IPCC and discuss issues pertaining to it. I found it extremely co-operative in that it has always been very forthcoming in what it wishes us to achieve in Government. We also realise the importance of raised and blanket bogs.
It is recognised that Ireland has perhaps some of the best examples of such bogs, some of which are still, thankfully, in pristine condition. We are and wish to be compliant with the relevant directive to ensure these examples are preserved for future generations. We feel we have achieved a fair balance between preservation of bogs and the rights of local people.
I will certainly take on board the suggestion of the Deputy regarding the ten mountain ranges which he feels are not on a list or should be reviewed and his suggestion concerning the estuary. I will examine these issues if the Deputy furnishes me with further information.
In her reply the Minister stated every protection is in place, something with which I agree, particularly in relation to bogs. Given this and the Department's monitoring and protecting the sites, why will the Minister not allow the continuation of turf cutting in the west Roscommon area? What percentage of the proposed sites are owned either by the State or Bord na Móna? Are there other bogs which could be designated which are in the ownership of the State or Bord na Móna? Of the 95 per cent of sites to be transmitted to Brussels in July, how many are bogs? How many of these bogs are controversial? Have all the esker sites been submitted to Brussels? When will the Minister deal with compensation for farmers where eskers have been zoned for designation?
I note the Deputy has tabled a specific question concerning bogs in the west and the traditional rights associated with them. This question concerns SACs in general. Very many habitats are involved in the overall definition of SAC, and not just raised bogs, although I agree with the Deputy that raised bogs are a very important component. I do not have information concerning percentages, but if the Deputy wishes I will send that information to him.
I asked the Minister specific questions—
We must proceed. We have covered six questions in one hour.