JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY debate -
Tuesday, 1 Jul 2008

Designation of Bogs: Discussion.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh, Dr. Ciarán O'Keeffe, Mr. James O'Connell, Mr. Peter Carville and Mr. Jim Kelly from the national parks and wildlife service, NPWS. They are here to discuss the designation of bogs as special areas of conservation under the EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992. I welcome you on behalf of members of the committee.

I draw your attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh to make his presentation.

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the EU habitats directive, particularly the designation of bogs and the bog compensation scheme.

I am accompanied by Dr. Ciarán Ó Keeffe, who is a fellow director of the NPWS and is responsible for research and bio-diversity matters. We are accompanied by other colleagues, Mr. Peter Carville, Mr. Jim Kelly and Mr. James O'Connell.

Ireland is required to protect habitats of European importance under the 1992 habitats directive, which was transposed into Irish law by the EU Natural Habitats Regulations of 1997 and the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. The directive sets out criteria for the selection of sites for designation as special areas of conservation and for their protection. It also sets out a framework for the monitoring and protection of a range of species of flora and fauna.

The provisions of the directive establish priority species and habitats that require strict protection over and above the general level of protection that the directive provides. In accordance with the directive, Ireland has nominated certain raised and blanket bogs which are priority natural habitats under the directive as candidate special areas of conservation, SACs. In addition, it has designated other raised and blanket bogs as natural heritage areas, NHAs, under the Wildlife Act 2000. Of the 1,500 to 1,600 raised bogs in Ireland, only 139 are designated and, of these, only 32 are subject to the derogation which lapses this year. There are 53 SACs which afford protection to raised bog habitat and 51 which afford protection to blanket bog habitat. These sites were designated between 1997 and 2003. All raised and blanket bog candidate SACs and NHAs are listed in a table which I have provided for members of the committee. Proposals to designate each of these 104 SACs were publicly advertised in local print media and on local radio stations. Further to these notices, landowners and others with a legal interest in the areas proposed for designation were issued with a formal notification pack which included a map of the proposed SAC, an explanation of the scientific rationale for designating the site, a list of notifiable actions and arrangements for compensating landowners and for those wishing to object to the designation.

Ireland has 60% of western Europe's remaining active raised bogs, but less than 1% of our original stock remains. If we are to preserve what remains, co-ordinated actions above and beyond current efforts will be required in the near future. Under the 1997 habitats regulations, peat extraction was proposed to be ended on all designated bogs. However, in 1999, a derogation period of up to ten years was allowed by the then Minister in respect of domestic turf-cutting from 32 raised bogs designated before 1999. This derogation expires at the end of 2008. A similar ten-year derogation period currently applies to any bog candidate SACs or NHAs designated after 1999. Some designations occurred in 2002. Designation of NHAs was undertaken in 2004.

Turf-cutting for domestic use is not prohibited in any blanket bog candidate SACs or NHAs, although the use of "sausage-cutting" machines is not allowed. Large-scale peat extraction works may, under the planning code, require planning permission with an associated environmental impact assessment.

The 2004 agreement between the Government and the farming representative organisations provided that, after the ten-year derogation period, the Department would review whether there were particular circumstances in which domestic turf-cutting could continue without damaging the bogs. Recent scientific reports on bog monitoring and turf-cutting assessment found that continuing damage was occurring because of domestic turf-cutting, with losses of the tiny proportion of remaining raised bog at a rate of 2% to 4% per annum. In the light of this scientific evidence, it would not be appropriate to extend the ten-year derogation for bogs designated prior to 2002. My colleague, Dr. Ciarán O'Keeffe, will expand on the scientific assessment of the current state of Ireland's bogs.

The Minister is considering proposals on the extent to which turf-cutting on designated sites must be ended. In the meantime, the Department operates a compensation scheme for persons who agree to stop turf-cutting in designated raised bogs. This covers both candidate SACs and NHAs. It provides for payments of €3,500 for the first acre and €3,000 for each subsequent acre of freehold, as well as an incentive bonus of up to €6,000. This has enabled us to acquire either the freehold or the turf-cutting rights on some 6,500 acres of designated peat land, at a cost of some €30 million to date.

I ask my colleague, Dr. O'Keeffe, to provide background information on the scientific assessment of Ireland's bogs.

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

As my colleague Dr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh stated, we undertook in 2004 to consider the situation regarding the continuation of turf-cutting. Since then, we have had an obligation to report to the European Union on the status of all the habitats and species listed in the habitats directive for protection. I have circulated a summary report on that entitled The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland, which contains a summary of the significant scientific data on our national parks and wildlife service website.

This report was sent to the Commission as part of the second report on the implementation of the habitats directive in Ireland for the period 2000-06. For the first time, Ireland was asked to provide a national assessment of the conservation status of all habitats and species listed on the directive. These assessments were carried out according to strict guidelines issued by the Commission.

There are 60 such habitats in Ireland, ranging from large sea bays to tiny pockets of alpine heath on mountains. There are approximately 100 species, but I will not go into detail on these now. We have made our assessments based on hard data and best expert judgment where data was limited. We had extremely good data in the case of bogs.

Each assessment included an evaluation of the range of the species or habitat across the country, the condition and the future prospects of the habitat or species in question. We had to conclude with an overall verdict of "good", "inadequate" or "bad". Our assessment also required a target called a "favourable reference value" to be set, as the necessary area of habitat, or population of species, for the future. We concluded that only 7% of the habitats are in good status, with 46% inadequate or poor and 47% bad. For species, we concluded that roughly 50% are in good status, 20% inadequate, 10% bad and 20% unknown.

In most cases, the bad rating for habitats is not surprising. The report covers the status of the habitats across the country, in both protected areas and outside of them, after 35 years of agricultural intensification and 15 years of an economic boom. The habitats and species we report on were listed in the directive due to their perceived threatened status in the European Union. Therefore, at this early stage of the implementation of the directive it is not surprising unfavourable ratings were widespread.

The European Union set out the framework for the report. The framework set high thresholds making it difficult to get a good rating and even minor disimprovements could lead to an inadequate or poor rating. The Commission stated that it is not the intention to punish member states that have a high number of habitats or species in unfavourable status. It wants, instead, to gain an overview on how they are faring across the Union. However, we are certain the Commission will follow up over the coming years to ascertain what Ireland is doing about habitats and species found to be in bad status. The critical issue for the longer term is the work we undertake in the next six years and beyond to maintain and restore habitats, particularly in SACs, and monitor and report on changes achieved.

I have mentioned several pressing problems in my submission, but I propose to move directly to the issue of bogs. Raised bogs are covered on pages 47 and 48 of the report. There are a couple of categories of habitat within the average bog. We have active raised bogs, namely, growing bogs, and degraded raised bogs, where damage has been done and the bog no longer forms peat.

Raised bogs are found mainly in the midlands, from Kildare to east Galway and from south Leitrim to Tipperary. The map in the report shows their range, with additional small areas in the south west. Most bogs are heavily harvested. Healthy bogs grow and the peat grows year by year. The lifeblood of a bog is water. Drainage is carried out for agricultural purposes on the edge or in order to cut turf, but if we drain them, plant trees on them or burn them, the growth ceases. When travelling across the country, we may see many bogs, but many of these are no longer growing, although there may still be turf left to cut. In this situation the most sensitive plant species begin to disappear.

We know that less than 1% of the original area of actively growing raised bog is left and we are losing the remainder at a rate of between 2% and 5% a year. The rather bleak chart in our submission shows the tiny fraction of intact raised bog that is left. The legal requirement under EU law is to restore bog habitats in designated areas. The only way we can do this is to stop draining water off the bog and draining, as I have said, is necessary for turf-cutting. Draining and restoration of a bog are not compatible. At this stage most of our bogs are beyond protecting. There are 1,500 to 1,600 raised bogs in the midlands, most of them heavily harvested. As my colleague, Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh, mentioned we have 55 bogs with SAC or candidate SAC designation. If one adds the natural heritage areas designated under the Wildlife Act that brings it to a total of 139, which is less than 10% of the total.

Chairman

I thank the members of the delegation for their detailed submission which certainly addresses the lack of information on this issue. The national parks and wildlife service does outstanding work right around the country. However, the greatest difficulty is the very significant information deficit. People may believe there are restrictions in areas where there are no restrictions. There is a democratic deficit. Many people have become cynical about directives and diktats from Europe and are totally unaware of how serious the situation is.

We need to get this information into the public domain. Even staunch farmers would be totally unaware of the impact and the likely consequences of the SAC areas and the minimal number of bogs that are affected by this measure. Have we failed to get this information out to the relevant people? We saw the results of the vote in the past number of weeks. It showed what can emanate from that type of opinion among country people who feel all these laws are coming from Europe and have no relevance for them. What can we do to address this concern?

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

The Chairman has made a good point. There is a certain amount of confusion in terms of what is in store for turf-cutters over the coming years. I know from speaking to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, that he is determined to come to a conclusion on the way forward at an early stage.

Chairman

We have an abundance of fantastic reports from every State body but unfortunately they do not reach those to whom they are most critical. Apart from the Minister coming to a conclusion, as an interim measure could the national parks and wildlife service produce a simple, easily read synopsis of this submission which could be made available to farmers with their payments?

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

There is obviously more that we could do and we can look at that suggestion. We are in discussions with farmers' organisations about this and it has been a subject of discussion between the NPWS and bodies such as the IFA and the ICMSA.

Chairman

The ICMSA and the Irish Farmers Association took a position on the Lisbon treaty. I was appalled by the position they took. For months they brought up a series of other issues and then, in the final week, undertook a massive retrenchment. There may be talks but they do not do the associations any justice in regard to the difficulties which were clearly evident. One of the concerns brought to my attention was the fact that the truth was not getting out in respect of this issue.

Deputy Joe Costello

I apologise but I will have to leave shortly for another meeting. I thank the delegates for attending and for waiting so long until we finished our meeting with the previous delegates.

The presentations detailing the threat to our natural habitats were certainly an eye-opener. In 1999 there was a ban on the commercial and industrial cutting of peat in special areas of conservation, SACs. Have the delegates carried out any assessment of how effective that was in protecting habitats? To the layperson, domestic turf-cutting is an age-old tradition which has been carried out since the beginning of time. I am sure all our forefathers worked on the bog to provide an easy form of fuel, and domestic cutting of turf would appear to have a fairly limited impact in comparison with commercial and industrial cutting.

The compensation scheme cost €30 million but to what extent has it been taken up? How much of the endangered section of the bog has been affected? Could the incentive scheme, using the carrot rather than the stick, be expanded? It emerged from the discussions on the Lisbon treaty that people saw this as a blunt instrument from Europe to protect natural habitats. It seemed to interfere with the traditional lifestyle in certain parts of the country, generally the more disadvantaged parts in the west and midlands.

Raised bogs are, by their nature, raised and contain less moisture than blanket bogs. Is drainage much of a feature of raised bogs? I have some acquaintance with raised bogs where, by and large, domestic turf-cutting takes place without drainage to any great extent. I wonder whether that would interfere, to any great extent, with the aim of protecting the habitats of wildlife. All of the topsoil and the top cut of the bog is put back again and goes back into the natural production of peat.

My concern is that we are, to a great degree, interfering with the traditional lifestyle of people who cut turf for household use. The delegates say our actively growing raised bog is disappearing at a rate of between 2% and 5% a year. It is impossible to imagine there could be so much interference from domestic turf-cutting considering that, with the change in lifestyle in this country, far fewer people must be involved than in the past. Perhaps other conditions could be imposed in addition to offering incentives. One could curtail the area of bog taken each year or require that drains be opened or that drainage systems would not interfere with the natural habitat. It seems a crude measure. It is seen as a crude measure which has been forced upon us by the European Union. It was introduced for very good reasons but one wonders if it is effective and whether the problem is actually coming from domestic turf-cutting.

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

I will ask Dr. O'Keeffe to deal with the mechanics of the bogs and the impact of drainage. Our observation of the designated bogs, particularly the raised bogs, over the last ten years has shown that the measures in place have not been effective. We are losing between 2% and 5% each year. The measures are not working to protect habitats.

Deputy Joe Costello

Has the domestic turf-cutter been identified as the problem?

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

Only domestic turf-cutting is allowed. No commercial cutting is allowed on designated bogs.

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

We are talking about the active raised bog, which is the growing part of the bog. That absolutely depends on water. Although an individual cutter may not open a drain, the bogs themselves are often cross-cut. They will have drains around the edge and many cross-cutting deep drains, which are draining the whole bog. For restoration purposes, we need to block those drains in order to re-wet the highest part of the high bog so that the whole bog is wet. That is directly competing with the interests of the individual turf-cutter, who wants to have bogs dry enough to work on. Raised bogs are very soft in the middle.

Chairman

Is a raised bog a greenland area?

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

The raised bogs are the midlands bogs. The raised shape can be seen from a distance.

Chairman

Would the adjoining ground be clay?

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

The whole thing is the raised bog. We use the term to distinguish it from the blanket bogs typical of Galway, Mayo and Donegal.

Deputy Damien English

One can see the cliff and where the turf has been sliced.

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

One often sees turf to a depth of 15 ft. or 20 ft. Midland bog is probably an equally easy term.

Chairman

That is where peat briquettes would be harvested.

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

Yes.

Chairman

This is Deputy English's area.

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

People working on a bog need it to be dry. To protect the raised bogs we must block drainage to keep water in and re-wet the bog. That goes against cutting. We have looked very carefully at dozens of bogs. We have mapped the wet area where the bog is continuing to grow and have found it is shrinking by between 2% and 5% per year. Only a few thousand hectares remain.

Ireland has a high proportion of the remaining bog in Europe. The EU affords a high priority to what we have in Ireland and we are losing it at a high rate. We will still have big areas of uncut bog. Bord na Móna estimates it has 25 years cutting left on the midland bogs. Most of that bog is dead or dying, as far as its wildlife habitat value is concerned.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Having cut, footed and turned turf, I never had any great liking for the bog. However, there are many for whom turf-cutting is a part of their culture. Therefore, we must be careful in dealing with the issue. Recent suggestions that peat offers a solution to the current oil crisis are unrealistic because the reserves are insufficient. However, there is a cultural issue. People have continued to cut turf, as they have done for generations, and will do so for another generation or half a generation. Mr. Ó Raghallaigh has pointed out that remaining raised bogs are being lost at a rate of 2% to 5% per annum as a result of domestic turf-cutting. However, is it not the case that this is a declining curve? The movement away from the land and rural agricultural practice will inevitably lead to a decline in that activity. Coming from a rural constituency and as someone who worked on the bog, I can see that the numbers working on it have decreased rapidly.

Will the delegates define commercial as opposed to domestic turf-cutting? In the case of individuals with access to bogs who cut turf for others, is such activity viewed as domestic or commercial? Does the national parks and wildlife service consider Bord na Móna to be the sole commercial operator?

Mr. Ó Raghallaigh has observed that the European Union recognises the significance of Ireland having 60% of western Europe's remaining active raised bogs. However, the public does not seem to have a positive understanding of their value. This applies even to those of us who have worked on bogs, with many of us seeming to have a complex about them. Has the national parks and wildlife service looked at the possibility of exploiting their potential from a tourism perspective? When we designate or protect areas, we do so for good reasons, namely, to protect habitat and wildlife. This has the added benefit of helping to maintain Ireland's image from a tourism perspective. If the national parks and wildlife service were to take a proactive approach in this regard, it might be assured of greater co-operation. There might be a better appreciation of the benefit of preserving and regenerating bogs if they were seen as assets rather than waste lands. The latter is a commonly held view.

I ask the delegates to give serious consideration to the continuance of domestic turf-cutting, even if some level of restriction is required. It would be a negative step to bring down the curtain in this regard, as is being suggested. Mr. Ó Raghallaigh identified the annual rate of loss at 2% to 5%. In stating this, there seems to be an implicit recommendation to the Minister that he should not extend the derogation. I ask the delegates to reconsider this in the light of the ongoing changes in rural life and the rural demographic. As people continue to move away from the land, that level of destruction is likely to decline. Is there not sufficient scope within the 6,500 hectares designated by the national parks and wildlife service to retain the structure of the bog as it considers necessary?

Deputy Damien English

Like Deputy Dooley, I have mixed memories of working on the bog. I bear some scars from my experience. However, I understand the views of the generation who grew up working on it. For them, it is a way of life rather than simply a fuel source. I have read in some newspapers that it is merely a question of the cost of fuel. Although there is the fuel aspect, it is wrong to portray it merely as such. For a particular generation, what is important is the way of life and the social aspect of it.

I regularly attend meetings throughout the State on this issue. What is clear is that there is a lack of information and a total lack of engagement on it, although I accept efforts were made by the national parks and wildlife service to facilitate such engagement. However, the efforts made were inadequate. Many owners hid and did not come forward to negotiate or discuss the issues. Their attitude was that if they hid from the authorities, they would not be found. Therefore, we have missed out on the opportunity for communities to work together with organisations such as the national parks and wildlife service, which has preservation at heart. The report shows us how significant the bogs are and that it is right to have concerns. However, the people were not brought along with the wildlife service and involved in the work of preservation.

I blame much of this on politicians and people who buried reports or kept them on desks without discussing them openly. They tried to give the impression the issue would go away. There is still an opportunity to discuss the issues, but we must engage with the people with genuine concerns about bogs and those for whom the bogs were part of their lives.

What criteria were used to select the bogs designated and why were some chosen rather than others? What is to happen with regard to the others? I supposed there would be a general notification for all the bogs, but that has not happened. Would it be possible to designate some bogs that are not being used? I am aware of bogs that have been left idle. Would it not be better to designate them first and try to protect them? It is less likely people would be upset about what happens to those bogs rather than bogs that are still in use.

When a bog is designated, a plan is supposed to be put in place for its protection and for the moneys to be spent on it, but that has not happened in many cases. The plan is missing. If a plan is to be drawn up for a bog, that should be done with the co-operation of the people. The bog should not be allowed become a dumping ground or a location for people who want to park there at weekends.

The drawing up of a protection plan provides an opportunity to provide employment for local people who have always worked on the bog. If bogs are to be restored or used for walking or tourism, the people who used to work them could be compensated by employing them and keeping them involved. However, this does not appear to be the practice here.

What percentage of those people with turbary rights have been identified and how many have been paid compensation. The total amount paid was provided, but how many people were involved? Many of those who were paid do not feel the payment reflected the value of their bog to them. Are there any plans to increase the amount available or is it a set amount? I feel the compensation was good value, but others feel differently and consider it was not attractive enough for most bog owners.

Some years ago a report recommended to the Minister that all turf-cutting be ceased with immediate effect. I know of the report but have never seen it or heard it discussed. Was that report ever made public or is it still sitting on a Minister's desk? It appears to have been pushed to one side, but the current Minister might be more interested in dealing with it. I agree with Deputy Dooley that we need to explain to people why this directive is being applied because many owners do not buy into it and just feel it is another case of Europe sticking its nose into their affairs, which is not the case.

Coillte has responsibility for the planting of trees on bogs, while others have responsibility for the bog and the turf. This can be a cause of conflict because some Coillte companies produce and sell timber products. The conflict arises because while Coillte has responsibility to protect and maintain the bogs and trees, it also makes a profit from selling its timber products. This seems wrong to me and gives rise to conflict. People are not happy with that type of image and are not happy to pass a bog where thousands of trees have been cut down overnight. I have doubts about the logic of Coillte's involvement and am concerned about the situation.

What is the current situation with regard to people cutting turf? Must a person get permission from the Minister to cut turf, notwithstanding the ten-year derogation. I understand people must get permission and if the Minister does not reply, they have permission by default. That has not been mentioned, but is it or is it not the case? Some people are genuinely afraid of the law. There is a lack of clarity and people are not sure if they are doing the wrong thing. This is a good place to clear up the issue.

We are down to 1% of our bogs. Is it the intention to keep the remaining bog or do we want to retain a certain proportion of it? That is a matter that must be clarified.

Rural people telephone their Deputies in a panic when they see water in their bogs. This has happened in a few places. Water is essential for the restoration of a growing bog, but people do not necessarily know that. There is a need to get the information out to the public and educate people about bogs.

We need to take an imaginative approach as it is not as simple as enforcing EU law. We must make people aware of how they can benefit from the preservation and protection of bogs, which are a valuable resource. It is a question of engaging with people.

Chairman

Will the delegation address the issues raised by Deputies Dooley and English. Deputy English knows the issues very well.

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

I will address some of the issues myself and I will ask my colleagues to come back on one or two of the other ones.

I take the point raised by Deputies on the lack of information and engagement. That is a valid point and for our part we will take that on board and think of how, even at this late stage, we can try to redress it.

We would like to make clear that most people who cut turf will not be affected by these measures because most turf is cut on bogs that are not designated. Only a tiny proportion of bogs that are being used for cutting turf are designated as SACs. We are under no illusions about the societal and cultural aspects of cutting turf, but again only a very small proportion of turf-cutters will be affected by this.

Deputy Damien English

It is important to remember that in certain counties there is only a small percentage of bog left. In such areas, the measure has an impact on the culture of those people. The fact that turf-cutting continues in other parts of the country does not make it acceptable. We need to treat the issue more sensitively.

Chairman

The 80:20 principle applies. The difficulty is that 20% is giving 80% of the grief. How does one deal with that 20%? Although certain bogs are not affected, people have the idea that they cannot cut turf.

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

I take that point, Chairman.

Chairman

The farming organisations are not doing their job of disseminating the information. In spite of all the consultations with them, and I have attended such meetings, a great many of their activists will express concerns, even though the designation does not affect their areas.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

This is an issue for the small farmer and I am not so sure that the organisations always represent the small farmer.

Chairman

They certainly do not.

Deputy Damien English

They are not all farmers.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I accept that too.

Chairman

I do not wish to over emphasise this point, and I havetremendous respect for the work of the national parks and wildlife service, but the 80:20 principle is causing many difficulties. Before this briefing I would have assumed that the measure was affecting 500% more bogs than the minimal figure indicated by the national parks and wildlife service.

Regardless of what the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is doing, the message is being perceived adversely by people, even though it is in the long-term interests of the country. As Deputy English suggested, people should be made aware of the fact that the measure only affects a small percentage of bogs. As Deputy Dooley said, fewer and fewer people cut turf anyway so it is a dying activity. A few diehards continue to do so but their number is continually decreasing.

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

Deputy Dooley raised the issue of the differentiation between commercial and domestic cutters. We consider that anybody who cuts for monetary gain is engaged in a commercial enterprise. That is not currently allowed on designated raised bogs. Dr. O'Keeffe will answer some of members' questions and Mr. O'Connell will answer questions about the compensation scheme.

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

One of the questions related to tourism. At Clara bog we are at an advanced stage of developing a centre which we hope will attract a lot of visitors. Bord na Móna is carrying out work in the peatlands park so a substantial amount is happening in that area. There can only be a few bogs for that purpose as there would not be a market for any more and tourism activity at every bog would not be sustainable. The Clara bog project, however, is advancing well after many years of hiccups.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

If the NPWS is identifying certain bogs to be protected for the purposes of showcasing them, is it necessary to retain all the other designated areas?

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

It is necessary under the habitats directive. I will give the committee more information about how the bogs were chosen. We looked for the best remaining bogs, namely, those with least cutting, those which were the least drained and had the least forestry. In fact, we looked for bogs with no forestry whatsoever. Using those criteria, we designated a certain number in 1999 but the habitats directive contains an in-built assessment of how countries are getting on in that regard, particularly in the case of raised bogs. All countries had to submit a record of their progress to a large committee in 1999, following which we were told to designate more bogs as we had not designated enough.

We chose the best we could get but we were also required to include examples from around the country, because there are subtle differences in vegetation between a bog in Kildare and one in Galway. The eastern bogs are not in as good condition, owing to the pressure of the population in their vicinity, so fewer from the east are designated. The best were chosen as the first batch and inferior ones were chosen as the second batch. However, we now have an obligation under law to protect them all, or to come up with a compensatory system. While we will do our best by using some bogs for tourism, we must try to protect them. We do not suggest those who cut turf take away between 2% and 5% each year, but draining is causing bogs to dry off, meaning that, bit by bit, it all disappears.

Deputy English asked questions about forestry and the presence of trees on bogs. Generally, we try to stay away from bogs which have a significant amount of trees. Even if a small area of a bog is planted we may still consider that the whole bog should be part of the SAC, leaving the trees to be dealt with in time.

The Deputy also asked about preparing plans. There was a derogation in that regard and it was not absolutely clear what would happen at the end of the derogation. Once we know the answer to that we will be in a position to consult with people on how we will manage the issues in the long term.

We were asked if we would try to keep all the bogs and the answer is that we will not. We are trying to designate well under 10% of them for protection. In the 1990s the NPWS bought areas of bogland which were well cut over, with the intention of offering people a swap instead of outright purchase but we also offered to buy some bogs. I was involved in that in County Sligo, for example, where we bought bogland. We had hundreds of acres of good bog. People, generally, did not want to travel several miles to their bog and the scheme had a poor uptake.

Deputy Damien English

Is that offer still available?

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

If bog is available the amount is limited. The scheme was not a success and we did not actively follow it up after trying it for a couple of years.

Deputy Damien English

Where trees are adjacent to bogs, does the NPWS encourage that they be felled? Is the NPWS concerned that trees seem to be disappearing very quickly in some places? I am concerned at this development and I find it difficult to get answers to my questions.

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

There are very few cases where trees are on a pure bog. Where trees are on a bog we prefer to see them removed. They also drain the bog.

Chairman

We constantly hear advertisements encouraging us to plant trees. I heard an advertisement encouraging people to buy bogland for tree plantation. How does that square with what you are telling us today?

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

The rules of grant aid for afforestation preclude planting on designated areas.

Chairman

Is tree planting permitted where there is a likelihood of designation in the future?

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

This designation process is complete. It is very unlikely that anyone would get State assistance for planting. In that case, it would not be worth their while.

Chairman

Mr. O'Connell, what is your opinion of the €30 million? Has it been well spent?

Mr. James O’Connell

There are an estimated 20,000 owners of turbary rights, fewer than 10% of whom we have managed to reach. The €30 million has been spent on buying up bogs on which turbary is owned by fewer than 10% of the available people. By that standard, the existing arrangements have not succeeded in their objective of preserving the bogs. We must consider what else needs to be done to achieve that objective.

Chairman

Are you saying only 10% has been acquired?

Mr. James O’Connell

Fewer than 10% of owners have come forward under the existing voluntary scheme.

Chairman

Can a compulsory scheme be introduced?

Mr. James O’Connell

We do not have compulsory purchase powers.

Deputy Damien English

Does the figure of fewer than 10% refer to owners who have been identified or those who have sold back their rights?

Mr. James O’Connell

Fewer than 10% have come forward to sell the bogs to us.

Deputy Damien English

What percentage of turbary rights owners have not applied for compensation?

Mr. James O’Connell

The 20,000 owners have not all been identified. That is an estimate of turbary rights holders.

Deputy Damien English

Is there a higher percentage who have not been identified?

Mr. James O’Connell

I think there is a higher percentage.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Is the purchase scheme still available?

Mr. James O’Connell

It is still available and until now the rates being offered have been considered generous. People can earn up to €9,000 for a fraction of an acre. We pay €3,500 for the first acre or part thereof plus an incentive bonus of up to €6,000 for people who applied early enough. They are very high rates for land that is poor, by agricultural standards.

Chairman

Mr. O'Connell, could you send the committee a briefing note on that scheme?

Deputy Damien English

It is wrong to say people can earn €9,000 for a fraction of an acre. The incentive bonus scheme is, more or less, finished. The ten-year period is almost at an end. It is now much less than €9,000.

Mr. James O’Connell

That is correct.

A member asked if people need permission to cut turf. Permission is required to cut turf in a designated area. However, in practice, where turf is being cut from existing banks, people are allowed to do that without going through too many formalities. The difficulty is where people wish to start cutting turf in designated areas or from new banks. In such cases, permission must be sought and an assessment undertaken.

Chairman

I understand that farmers participating in REPS who agree not to cut turf on their land will receive an increased payment. By the same token, such persons must pay a penalty if there is a breach of that undertaking. Is that correct?

Mr. James O’Connell

We cannot speak for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but the Chairman is correct. The arrangements under REPS and under our farm plan schemes are based on compliance with the habitats directive.

Chairman

What involvement has the national parks and wildlife service in devising area plans under REPS?

Mr. Jim Kelly

We have an input into the training of REPS planners.

Chairman

The difficulty is that people may agree, under REPS, to curtail their turbary rights, which mostly relate to raised bogs, in return for an increased payment. If they subsequently change their mind, however, they are faced with a large penalty. Are there any mitigating circumstances under which such persons might receive a derogation?

Mr. Jim Kelly

It is my understanding that no derogation is possible. One of the conditions of participation in REPS is the necessity of complying with management requirements.

Chairman

In the overall assessment of fauna and wildlife areas, is it part of the national parks and wildlife service's vision to encourage that type of REPS planning and development?

Mr. Jim Kelly

Yes, protecting bogs is part of our remit.

Chairman

Yes, but are raised bogs not a completely separate issue?

Mr. Jim Kelly

They are relevant in so far as they are part of a REPS plan.

Chairman

Many bogs would not be incorporated in the 139 bogs to which the delegates referred. Which areas of bogland would be incorporated in REPS plans but not included in the national parks and wildlife service's report?

Mr. Jim Kelly

I do not have that figure. It is a matter for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Chairman

There is a significant level of concern in this regard. While this report deals extensively with raised bogs, which is a critical area, there is a need to deal with turbary rights in general. That may not be entirely within the remit of the national parks and wildlife service, but it is hard to separate the issues.

Mr. Jim Kelly

I recognise there is a crossover.

Chairman

Yes. Is there any way that could be incorporated into the remit of the national parks and wildlife service?

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

The REPS plan provides additional moneys for farmers who are farming on designated areas.

Chairman

That is correct.

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

They receive an additional payment in respect of Natura 2000 sites. Any of the designated sites to which we have referred would be classified as such.

Chairman

The difficulty arises when people, whether unknowingly or otherwise, sign up for this and then find they cannot cut turf. Notwithstanding the cheque they receive in return for not exercising that right, they find a difficulty. This requirement is perceived as a diktat from the EU.

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

Agreement in this regard is made with the REPS farm planners and payment is made according to the undertakings given by the farmer in respect of the Natura 2000 site.

Chairman

It must be made clear to farm REPS planners that participants must be fully informed of what they are signing up to, because often that is not made clear until a penalty is applied.

Senator Terry Leyden

Turbary rights are important in light of the cost of a barrel of oil, at $140, and the fuel scarcity. I live close to a bog and we have cut our supply of turf for this year. Turf is a valuable commodity. Would one tell the Arabs not to drill for oil? I urge the delegation to bear in mind what happened during the Lisbon treaty referendum. The issue of turf-cutting arose quite frequently during the debate because we are coming to the end of the derogation period and this is the last year turf-cutting is allowed. Many people voted against the Lisbon reform treaty because of the issue of the preservation of bogs.

Many of our European colleagues have cut away their bogs and have disregarded their preservation. However, now they have decided that Ireland should be the country to preserve bogs and their habitats. This is what happens. Europe gets us to do the preservation that it should do rather than allow us use our bogs for domestic purposes. It is evident that Bord na Móna seems to have been allowed a special derogation as it does not appear affected by the directive, even with regard to the bogs it has not yet cut. None of its bogs appear to have been designated. Was there a policy decision made that all Bord na Móna bogs would be excluded from the directive?

Let us be clear and call a spade a spade. What is the position and is there any hope we can return to Europe and renegotiate the arrangement to bring about a settlement or a further derogation? What is the bottom line and where do we stand? Have we signed in blood in this regard or have we any hope of a change? Are we raising the expectations of the public by discussing these issues?

Chairman

To clarify, the point of today's meeting is not about raising expectations. We are only raising concerns with regard to the democratic deficit clearly expressed on this and many other issues.

Senator Terry Leyden

People want to know if we can return to negotiations.

Chairman

I hope this meeting will encourage the national parks and wildlife service to take on board the concerns of the many people who do not know the facts.

Senator Terry Leyden

Can there be any renegotiation of the areas of conservation?

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

We need to make clear, perhaps because we have not done so previously, that the designated bog areas are only a tiny proportion of bogs that are being cut every day. Therefore, these measures only apply to fewer than 10% of bogs here. With regard to whether we can return and seek a further derogation or a redesignation of some of the bogs, we should remind ourselves that these bogs are important habitats in an international rather than just a national context. While the raised bogs are important for Ireland, they are very important in the European context because they have been destroyed throughout the rest of Europe. We have just a short window of opportunity to protect what we have left and have signed up to do this under the habitats directive.

It would be very difficult, if not impossible, for the Government to return and try to renegotiate the habitats directive and this is not something that is being contemplated by the Minister. I accept the point made that we have, perhaps, been remiss in not explaining the situation clearly. Perhaps people think it affects far more turf-cutters than it does.

Chairman

With regard to the REPS area plans, it is important that there is consultation with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in this regard. There should be no ambiguity with regard to who is in the scheme. People who sign up to REPS do so voluntarily, therefore they offer their bog voluntarily. The impression being given is that it is compulsory. There is a need for consultation with farming bodies, any other body dealing on their behalf and with REPS planners, because there are often anomalies as a result of the REPS plans and people think they cannot cut turf. The national parks and wildlife service is doing fantastic work. However, it is important that people understand what is involved in regard to REPS.

Deputy Damien English

This has been a useful meeting. I thought I was up to speed on this issue but I have discovered much useful information. The delegates mentioned that the management aspect might not be possible to do in some cases. However, it would be useful at least to make a start and put something on paper in order that people would understand this was a genuine effort to get the issue right.

I still have concerns in regard to Coillte. What is the relationship between the national parks and wildlife service and Coillte? I had assumed all issues of conservation in regard to forestry would come within the delegates' remit. What then is the purpose of Coillte? I am concerned that it is operating profit-making timber operations, as well as having an environmental remit. That does not make sense.

Chairman

That is a good point.

Deputy Damien English

Is there any possibility that jobs can be created which allow people who have worked on bogs and are accustomed to the social aspects of turf-cutting to continue doing so? Is any consideration being given to this or is it something the delegates might take from today's meeting for future examination?

Chairman

The Deputy has made an excellent point. As well as offering a wonderful resource for future generations, there is considerable scope to explore the tourism potential of bogs. For example, could they be included, with the imposition of strict controls, in the Irish Heart Foundation's walking routes? Have the delegates examined the possibility of introducing an interpretative service at the various sites, with an audiovisual presentation of the history of the bog in question? Does the national parks and wildlife service have access to archival information which could be presented to colleges and schools? Have any such educational initiatives been undertaken? There is a danger that its work in preserving bogs may be the best kept secret in terms of our efforts to protect our natural habitats.

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

There are many such school programmes run by several organisations, including ourselves. There is a good deal of educational material available. We participate in that type of educational work in conjunction with our centres.

Chairman

Is there an audiovisual presentation of the history and so forth?

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

We can look into providing such a resource.

Chairman

I greatly appreciate the work done by the national parks and wildlife service in Sligo. The Ballinafad education centre which I visited recently is particularly impressive. We must address the information and education deficit. As a businessman, I understand it is difficult to address these problems on a limited budget. We must ensure people can avail of user-friendly and accessible information, perhaps through the medium of a farming seminar. Many of those who may be adversely affected by this regulation may not have access to the relevant information. People are generally passionate about the countryside and wish to do what is best. However, if they perceive directions in this regard as coming from the wrong source and for the wrong reason, they may be averse to them.

Will Mr. Ó Raghallaigh offer a synopsis of today's discussion? What role does he envisage for the committee in disseminating information? How can we make his job easier?

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

We appreciate the committee's engagement on this issue. We expect a greater degree of public discussion as the policy position becomes clearer. With the committee, we have an opportunity to get the message across in terms of what the directive does and does not involve. That will have to happen quickly because the derogation for the 32 bogs comes to an end this year. This is likely to be the last year in which turf-cutting will take place on those sites. We have a duty to the people who are active to get the information to them as soon as possible.

Chairman

Perhaps the delegates will keep the committee briefed on developments in this area.

Mr. Conor Ó Raghallaigh

We will do so.

Chairman

We support the work it is doing. It is important that we have a clear synopsis of its intentions, objectives and what it has achieved to date. It is particularly important that there be a clear distinction between raised bogs and bogs which are incorporated under REPS. People may be under the false impression that the regulation relates to bogs to which it is not applicable. There is widespread confusion to the effect that certain bogs which are not included in REPS plans cannot be cut. In some cases, REPS planners include a bog area in the plan without even telling the farmer.

I thank Mr. Ó Raghallaigh, Dr. O'Keeffe, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Carvill and Mr. Kelly and apologise for the delay in starting the meeting. It has been an important engagement and I have learned much. I ask that the delegates send a brief synopsis to every Oireachtas Member in the form of a user-friendly document setting out the distinction between raised bogs and REPS bogs, the impact of the derogation and the likely consequences. That would be of great benefit to Members and could be forwarded to constituents who have concerns. We appreciate the work being done by the national parks and wildlife service.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.40 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Thursday, 3 July 2008.