I move: That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Report of Our Natural Heritage — A Policy for Nature Conservation in Ireland.
Report of our Natural Heritage — A Policy for Nature Conservation in Ireland: Motion.
This is a very important report on our national heritage.
I am sorry to interrupt. There are speakers coming after you.
The Minister was not aware that he would be coming in first on this. I told him yesterday that he could come in at any stage.
Is Senator Doyle or Senator De Búitléir ready to come in?
Thug an tréimhse 17 bliana ó bhí an Bhliain Eorpach um Chaomhnú againn athraithe i gcrích ar baol iad don dúlra. Chiallaigh ár mballraíocht sa Chomhphobal Eorpach gur mhéadaigh go tapaidh ar fhorbairt na talmhaíochta de thoradh dheontais an Chomhphobail i leith draenála i leith úsáid bhreise a bhaint as leasú tacair agus le haghaidh talamh a thabhairt chun míntíreachais, rud nár chuaigh ár dtalamh riascach, ár dtalamh féaraigh ná ár móintigh saor uaidh. Dúshaothrú ár bportach an toradh a bhí ar an dá ghéirchéim i gcúrsaí fuinnimh. An méadú mór a tháinig ar an daonra sna seachtóidí chuir sé brú orainn na reigiúin fhiáine — na háiteanna úd a shíleamar nárbh fhéidir a athrú — a fhorbairt chun go dtiocfaimís ar réiteach na bhfadhbanna tionscail, tithíochta agus easpa láithreacha dramhaíle. Polasaí náisiúnta i leith chaomhnú an dúlra agus sin amháin a réiteoidh na fadhbanna sin.
Go nuige seo is beag má tá forbairt tagaithe ó aird ar bith ar pholasaí dá leithéid. Cé gur deineadh staidéar tuairisciúil agus an corrthurgnamh caomhnai-the anseo is ansiúd bhíothas go hiomlán nach mór in easnamh polasaí comhtháite. Is é is cuspóir don cháipéis seo go mbeadh sé ina chéad chéim i dtreo athrú a thabhairt i gcrích. Táthar ag tnú go spreagfaidh sé polasaí oifigiúil náisiúnta i leith chaomhnú ár n-oidhreachta dúlra agus go mbrostóidh sé chugainn údarás Stáit a bheidh láninniúil ar pholasaí caomhnaithe dá leithéidh a chur i bhfeidhm.
I welcome the Minister here today and I would like to thank the Leader of the House, Senator Michael Lanigan, and the Fianna Fáil Whip, Senator Willie Ryan, for treating the discussion on this policy document as a matter of urgency. I would also like to thank Senator Maurice Manning and all the other Senators who have taken an interest in this document "A Policy for Nature Conservation in Ireland". It is a very recent publication. The Taoiseach felt it was sufficiently important to launch it himself at the National Concert Hall.
As one who has been filming the Irish landscape for quite a number of years — some would say since the end of the last Ice Age but 20 years or so might be a more accurate figure — I can see the changes in the countryside, step by step, and the gradual destruction of so many beautiful places on this island of ours. Much of what has happened is, undoubtedly, through lack of awareness of nature and of the environment and a single-minded approach towards the treatment of our natural resources. The most obvious examples of the destruction of the countryside in recent months are those of our polluted rivers and lakes, but there are other less obvious examples. Take agriculture, which maximises its use of the land for the production of a number of crops, frequently to the detriment of nature including that of the soil upon which agriculture itself depends. Likewise, forestry maximises timber productivity to the detriment of whatever other uses that land can have. These single land use activities have in recent times acquired the potential for even greater impact through the use of chemicals and more sophisticated machinery. If we had had a national policy for nature conservation, much of the destruction we now see would not have taken place. Politically, the environment has always been on the bottom rung of the ladder, the reasons being that the benefits have not always been tangible, the lack of awareness and the single-minded approach to making profit regardless of the consequences.
Ireland's countryside is very much a man-modified environment. We should incorporate a policy for nature conservation into all aspects of our activities. If somebody were to ask me to define conservation, my answer would be that it is the wise management of our environment and its natural resources. Some people might be of the opinion that conservation means feeding peanuts to greenfinches. Conservation also implies that future generations should not have to pay for our mismanagement. This is a wide-ranging document. It is hopefully the beginning of what will be for all the political parties and organisations, a reasonable approach towards incorporating a national conservation strategy into their policies. The Government must form a single Department, without conflicting interests, to be responsible for all aspects of nature conservation.
The danger for any conservation body, including a Government agency, is the conflict that may arise when there is a commercial aspect to any of its operations. For example, in the past areas which were listed by the Wildlife Service as habitats of national importance were just taken over by the Forestry Department, and drained. Indeed, at one stage, listing an area was equal to sounding its death knell, because Forestry seemed to take those areas first as soon as they were listed and then drain them in case they might be taken over by the Wildlife Service. Areas of blanket bog listed as being of national importance and of great scientific value were given over for private turf development, and funded with both Government and EC money.
If anybody wants to see an example of that on our doorstep, one has only to go up to the area around the Sally Gap where that is happening at the moment. This is a most important area not alone for its value to those people who might like to just go and look at it, but every college in the county of Dublin uses it as a study area. The most important priority must be the protection of these habitats which are of special scientific national and European importance. These areas are not protected under the Wildlife Act. An amendment to the Act is necessary to protect these habitats.
Conflicts between land use agencies should be resolved and where possible attempts should be made for an integrated approach, for example, forestry, tourism, agriculture and wildlife should work together. If I mention the scenic areas which are being ruined by afforestation Minister, you will understand what I mean. Conservation, of course, is not the sole prerogative of Government or of any of its agencies. It belongs to society as a whole. It is most important that conservation activities should be engaged in by as many in society as possible, including both private and public sectors. Where European Community grants and funding are available, every effort should be made to utilise them. Voluntary bodies should be given every encouragement, as they increase public support. We have a good example in Holland, where Government funding for conservation projects received wide public support. I feel that this is most important because unless we have the support of the public, we are on to a loser.
The relevance of conservation needs to be demonstrated. For example, much of the conservation work being carried out by Government Departments goes largely unnoticed. Greater public awareness of the valuable activities of members of the Minister's own Department would be helpful in generating public awareness of the Government's work in relation to the countryside and its wildlife. There are numerous worthwhile projects emanating from the Minister's Department, which deserve more publicity. I have given the Department quite a lot of publicity down through the years but I feel that they could generate a lot more publicity for themselves if they were to let the public know what these projects are. Many of them are well worth seeing. Most of the people of Ireland do not really know that these projects are being carried out by the Department.
This document "A Policy for Nature Conservation in Ireland" provides valuable guidelines. It also makes us aware of the urgent need to conserve what is so valuable in this beautiful country of ours. Putting a policy document together is no big deal. Third World countries have policy documents. If they can have policy documents, surely we can have them. This one here "Protecting the Environment — The Conservation Strategy for Victoria" has Government support. It is a simple document. It is not complicated. The population of Victoria could be compared to the population of Ireland. I suppose there could be one million or so people in the difference. This, of course, has Government support.
The kind of policy document we do not want is this kind of policy document which is "The Conservation and Development Programme for the UK", which was a response to the world's conservation strategy publication and was prepared with the advice, co-operation and financial assistance of the World Wildlife Fund, UK Countryside Commission, The Royal Society of Arts, Nature Conservation Council, Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Council for Environment Conservation. It is too unwieldy. It is a complete turnoff. It does not have Government support. A publication on policy for the environment which was published here in 1980 has never been heard of since. It was published and that was the end of it. I think that it did not set any firm targets. It just discussed various issues, but we never heard any more about it. I do hope the Minister will see his way to putting together a policy based on what we have here, "A Policy for Nature Conservation in Ireland."
I would like to congratulate the Union of Professional and Technical Civil Servants for the hours of work and dedication spent in putting this worthwhile document together.
Ba mhaith liom freisin arís failte a chur roimh an Aire agus mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis as ucht teacht anseo, agus mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leatsa freisin, a Chathaoirligh as ucht éisteacht leis an chaint ar fad.
I would like to join with Senator de Buitléar in congratulating the Union of Professional and Technical Civil Servants on the production of this document "Our National Heritage", which is a policy for major conservation in Ireland. For 17 years, since the European Conservation Year, there have been many changes which posed threats to nature and they are outlined in this document. Accession to the EC has brought about the diversification of agriculture, EC funding for drainage, increased use of fertiliser on land, and land reclamation have all affected our wetlands, our grasslands, our moorlands and other habitats.
The view of the authors of this document is that responses to these threats have been inadequate at a time when there is a public awareness of conservation. There has been a rapidly growing economic crisis which has led to public sector spending cutbacks across the board. As a result, programmes that might have helped to protect and conserve have been curtailed severely. The authors in their document suggest that the only way to overcome these problems is by a national policy for national conservation. The document sets out the first steps towards change. It is hoped that it may encourage the formation of an official national policy on conservation of our national heritage. The policy document draws on a wide range of expertise and makes 31 recommendations. As Senator de Buitléar has said, it is a wide-ranging document.
I would like to say a few words about two of the recommendations. One deals with pollution. Ireland is still widely regarded as being unpolluted. This perception is under challenge. The document gives examples of the fish kills in lakes which we experienced last year. It points out the death of Lough Sheelin. We must be thankful to RTE and the "Today Tonight" programme some weeks ago when they did an excellent programme on the death of Lough Sheelin. At this time of the year Lough Sheelin was a haven for fishermen with the Mayfly, but that is passed. The document points out that damage to the environment can be minimised or prevented by good planning, combined with strict enforcement of pollution controls. Unfortunately, pollution in Ireland is haphazard and reflects the lack of public interest in it. Local authorities are mainly responsible for implementing controls. Now they lack the resources. Their authority is further compromised by the fact that sometimes they are major polluters themselves.
The document recommends that the only long-term remedy is to separate enforcement and educational functions from local authorities and to transfer them to an organisation whose major concern is environmental protection. The document recommends that a single Government Department should be responsible for all aspects of major conservation and environmental protection. This should include pollution control, use of the countryside for recreation and leisure and for two important economic sectors, namely, tourism and fisheries.
Another recommendation in the document relates to State forests. The document pays a glowing tribute to the Office of Public Works for the work they have done, from a modest beginning in 1932, in the establishment of a network of national parks. We all enjoy these as we pass through the countryside. It is the opinion of the authors of the document that there is urgent need for national parks' legislation. The establishment of new parks rests mainly on enabling legislation. New legislation should be framed in such a way as to provide effective protection for nature within national parks. The authors would like to see the establishment of national parks in Irish law as a distinct category or protected area complementing nature reserves.
Over the next few years recovery of both tourism and agricultural renewal will depend on conservation. We must conserve now to underpin our economy in the longer term and to hand on our heritage intact to future generations. The 31 recommendations in this report are a first step towards that goal. For that reason I welcome the report.
I, too, am very glad to have the opportunity of making a contribution to this very important aspect of our life in general — our natural heritage and the conservation problems associated with it. By and large there is a somewhat ambiguous, even contradictory, attitude towards conservation, whether it deals with the natural or other aspects of our heritage. On the one hand there is goodwill but, on the other, conservationists are often portrayed as cranks, people with a negative outlook whose main role seems to be hindering or preventing normal development. Such interpretation is largely due to the fact that people may not be fully acquainted with what conservation is all about. In short, it is a caring approach to a resource or resources so that it or they can be maintained for utilisation by the community as a whole. The destruction of a particular glacial feature, for instance, the moraine at Galtrim, County Meath, may provide short term gains and infuse finance into an area, but the same gains could most likely be achieved by exploiting a gravel pit virtually in the next field. Destruction does not provide long term gains, but a comprehensive approach where all aspects of our natural resources are looked at without discrimination would be an enriching factor in our society.
I hope I have an open-minded approach to conservation. The natural heritage has many merits. There is no need for any individual or group to approach any issue or problem associated with it in a confrontational spirit. Of course, there are problems. I am sure the Minister is better aware of these than most of us. In this connection I would — and it would be very unfair not to — pay tribute to the Government and to the Minister's Department for what is being achieved and what has been achieved in conservation. We must try to create a greater awareness for our natural heritage, encompassing as it does botany, geology and zoology. It stands at the core of the discipline of natural science and provides the primary material for academic study. It is much wider as it can provide interest and pleasure for everyone and also contribute to our economic wellbeing.
It is in this wider context that I welcome this policy document on our natural heritage by the Union of Professional and Technical Civil Servants. The union are deserving of our compliments and thanks for their initiative. We owe them a debt of gratitude for producing this thought-provoking report, but also something that is aurhoritative, as the personnel involved have first hand information and appreciation of the problems and, as it is clear from the report, a concern for the state and well-being of our natural heritage. To have this collective opinion on prospects for nature conservation in the Twenty-six Counties is most valuable. What we have before us is a carefully thought-out document that provides us with sensible and balanced conclusions. We are fortunate in having, within the various Departments of State, persons of such calibre, concern and commitment. In discussing our natural heritage I would also like to pay tribute to various voluntary bodies such as An Taisce and the Irish Wildbird Conservancy who have been doing trojan work in this field. They, too, deserve our thanks and gratitude.
As Ireland in its present form is the product of many millions of years of evolution and alteration involving natural but, within comparatively recent times, human agencies, today's landscape is to a large extent an artefact as it has been modified and changed by man over thousands of years. As Professor Robin Butlin in his book on Ireland has recently put it: "The Irish landscape has all the fascination of a well-cut diamond and, like such a diamond, owes much of its interest and individuality to the work of man." From their arrival man and woman manipulated and exploited the natural environment. At the outset, this consisted of hunting animals and gathering plants for food supply, and soon to follow was forest clearance to facilitate farming practices. Since then farming, industry and other developments have been constantly trying to maximise the return for investment in every piece of land.
What is happening today is a continuation of what started as simple beginnings back 10,000 years ago during the mesolithic age but within this century the speed and intensity of change in the countryside in terms of development of the landscape has been greater than at any previous time. New farming methods, often involving large machinery, bring into use land previously considered as unproductive. Fertilisers harm wildlife, bogs are being exploited and large scale gravel extraction is taking place but, of course, these works have to continue. The countryside cannot be sterilised and in comparison with some other European countries the area of our country is fairly large — 32,000 square miles — so there should be plenty of space. Despite this, we should not allow a free-for-all attitude to dominate as this leads to development that brings about unnecessary disfigurement to and the destruction of the natural heritage sites. In my opinion most people consider as desirable a landscape that retains its natural beauty. As a result there appears to be a growing support for nature conservation. I would like to think that a tide of change seems to be taking place.
People are also realising that the natural and, in addition to that, the man-made heritage is a resource in its own right and that we should have a positive approach to it. It has benefits. What is required from the point of view of conservation is a balanced approach and not conflicting demands. I should think that interested parties will discover a lot of common ground. It is often forgotten that nature is one of the factors that underpin our economy. It is the beauty stemming from nature that is so attractive to visitors. It is a key factor in the promotion of the tourist industry and in providing interest and variety for the visitors when they arrive.
As I have mentioned already, all conservationists experience negative responses. Too often, no matter how good or rational their case, they are considered as cranks, people living in an unreal world who are not tuned in to the practical needs of the community. Their work is often considered as something irrational and irrelevant. In this context, the UPTCS report is very timely. It is not a document that is simply reacting to events. On the contrary, it is the product of care in preparation and in publication. From the splendid colour photographs alone one cannot fail to be impressed by the nature and range of the material, its diversification and variety, but at the same time we must not be complacent. We must remember that the native Irish population of plants, animals, birds and amphibians is poorer than in many other European countries and, furthermore, out of that relatively small number some, like the giant Irish elk and more recently the wolf, became extinct while at this very moment others are endangered. This small number of native species, coupled with destruction, shows how essential conservation is. It is, therefore, sad to learn from the report that there is a lower level of environmental awareness in Ireland than in other west European countries.
The broad theme of the document is positive. It makes a plea for a better overall appreciation of our natural heritage. This involves the creation of a consciousness among the public and politicians. In fact, it is an attempt to bring about an attitude leading to creative conservation, thereby reconciling conservation and development. It is my opinion that this report is very well structured. Under various headings the document breaks down and reviews the components and, at the end, produces, as Senator Doyle has pointed out already, 31 main recommendations. Taking the overall picture, it seems rational and sensible to say that a balance between development and conservation must be attained. To do so it is first necessary to isolate the problems. If we take one item dealt with in the report, it is clear that there is mismatching in land use and I would agree that the policies should be evalued in order to ensure land suitability.
We all realise how vital agriculture is to the well-being of the country but some associated developments, such as the building of roads or trackways stretching up the side of mountains seem, to say the least, bizarre. But in agriculture, as in other matters, changes are inevitable. At least part of a solution may be found in the designation of environmentally sensitive areas under the EC auspices.
I understand that already there are plans to designate such areas in parts of the Mourne Mountains in County Down. If that proves successful let us hope that the scheme can be extended to other parts of the country. What may be more effective is a greater diversification of farming practices. In some areas it is impossible for straightforward agriculture to provide an adequate return for both the human and financial investment vested in it. We do tend to classify our lands by using an agricultural criterion or categorisation. What are often described as poor lands may only be poor for agriculture as they have other potential such as for tree planting and for scenery. Forestry itself presents problems both with harvesting and renewal.
This brings me to a very important aspect of the report, the role that education can play in the creation not only of an awareness among the public but also an official awareness. Indeed a great deal of harm has been done by State agencies and local authorities and there is no excuse for that. Therefore, as the report advocates, the greatest co-ordination possible of the activities of diverse bodies and the development of that co-ordination between them is a matter of importance.
Among other issues raised in the document two are of considerable importance, at least from my point of view. One of these is the question of organisation, the other the man-made heritage and that is the point that is taken up on page 26 of the report. From the natural science point of view Ireland, like every other country, is not static but in the process of continuous evolution and, in this, climatic change played a major role. In this connection it is important to remember that it was just after the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age, about 10,000 years ago, that Ireland witnessed a biological change of considerable magnitude which led to, and continues to lead to, profound demands on the natural heritage and consequently alters it.
I, of course, refer to the introduction of a new species and that species is none other than man. No more was the natural heritage to be autonomous after this event. Nature now had a competitor and alongside it was developing a man-made heritage. Human aims and aspirations were providing a challenge and continue to do so for the very good reason that man differs from all the other species in that he has emancipated himself from a pattern imposed by nature. But every advancement and every requirement endangers nature while, in addition, man's exertions over the centuries have even destroyed many of those features that were the product of his own creation. Nevertheless, there is continuing interplay between the aspirations of man and environing nature. The man-made heritage is thus an integral part of the valued whole but it is a finite resource that cannot be renewed.
I am, therefore, very pleased to note that the report correctly recognises that there are strong links between both, and cogent arguments can be put forward for maintaining them. For instance, both the natural heritage and the man-made heritage constitute an important aspect of our national identity. Educationally, the heritage is most valuable and what is also of great importance is that it can stimulate local interest and awareness throughout the country as it virtually penetrates into every parish, even into every townland. The heritage provides for leisure and recreational activities and, especially from the point of view of tourism, our heritage offers something special, even unique.
In our heritage we have something of major commercial and economic value. It may not be possible straightaway to reduce this to a figure on a balance sheet but that does not mean that there are no direct economic advantages as the spinoff from tourism is extensive and not only from the point of view of, say, hotel accommodation. What is very important from the regional point of view is the fact that heritage can minimise the leakage of income from tourists and maintain spending within local economics. If we consider heritage as having a commercial component, there is no need for conflict between heritage conservation and utilisation and other developments. Both are part of a wider development process and, as such, can easily be reconciled. Should we consider, as the document suggests we might, the possibility of looking at the national and man-made heritage together, then we can return to the problem of organisation.
The document rightly aims high. Heritage matters should be the concern of a single Government Department with a Minister. As the report rightly points out, natural heritage matters are currently the concern and responsibility of about five different Ministers, and if you add archaeology, the number increases further. In short, this is anarchy, something that hinders development and it is probably also — and this is quite important — wasteful financially. I support the view that Government responsibilities need to be reorganised if dynamic programmes for the care and study of the natural and, indeed, the wider man-made heritage are to be implemented. To overcome these problems, the view is put forward in the report that there should be a national policy but to do that a new organisation and structure is a prerequisite necessity.
I hope it is relevant for me to recall that a National Heritage Bill was introduced and debated in this House in 1982. The aim of that Bill was to bring together closely related functions that were being carried out within different Departments and in so doing to produce a much needed separate identity for our heritage, but also to provide room for greater freedom of action as the governing structure envisaged in that Bill consisted of a council that would have both executive and advisory roles. At least from my point of view, this Bill was a breath of fresh air. It occasioned hope and expectation.
Over the past few days I took the opportunity of reading all the Seanad debates from both sides of the House. Each and every contribution was based on a careful analysis of the issues. Constructive views were put forward and Senators expressed their happiness and delight with the Bill and extended a welcome to it. For the first time our heritage was elevated to a high plane in Government thinking. Furthermore, the whole concept was innovative. It was the product of a new pattern of thinking. If I may again mention one aspect which is touched on in the report, at least from the archaeological point of view that Heritage Bill of 1982 would have removed the inhibiting attitudes which have their origins in the Ancient Monuments Bill of 1882 and which, believe it or not, still form the basis for all archaeological legislation.
We must, therefore, consider that it is necessary to have new organisational structures, as the report mentioned, but these structures must emanate from fresh thinking and new ideas. The Heritage Bill to which I have referred brought us to the threshold of a brave new heritage world, but the moment of fulfilment has not yet arrived. However, hope lives on and expectations are still nursed.
To achieve this overall national plan we need a further instalment of new ideas as well as the will and in this connection the UPTCS report is most relevant. Slow and piecemeal approaches that have hitherto been the practice are unacceptable. The doing of little is worse than the doing of nothing because it may appear that something worthwhile is taking place. Neither is it adequate to transfer heritage functions from one Minister to another. Such chess games or minor reorganisations will do little to improve the situation. It should be supplanted by a more dynamic approach, an approach that would lead to the establishment of an effective state service which would allow the full potential of our natural and archaeological resources to be exploited. This should not be inhibited on the grounds of bureaucratic or financial expediency. An integrated structure should emerge which should provide a better working environment in which the talents and commitments of the staff, many with international reputations, could be more fully utilised and realised.
On the other hand, better value could be provided for the money allocated. It is hardly necessary to say that funding is and always has been inadequate. The UPTCS report calls for a minimum investment of £9 million per year on the natural heritage. I am not in possession of precise figures but, for this current financial year, close to £4 million has been allocated to parks. If we add to that the funding of the Wildlife Service, the natural history division of the National Museum and inland waterways, we arrive at a figure fairly close to that £9 million. One may ask are we getting full value for this expenditure. Can we ever get full value for it or, indeed, for any other expenditure until we bring about a rational working structure? Despite the fact that the natural and man-made heritage of Ireland is not something that one can quantify in monetary terms it is, nevertheless, one of the most valuable resources we possess. Elements of it are unique and much of it, once damaged or destroyed, can never be replaced. We may, therefore, ask why should we unnecessarily render ourselves poorer.
To call for a better overall appreciation of our heritage seems to be saying the obvious. I believe that there is a political commitment to do something worthwhile. The Irish Times of 22 February reported the Taoiseach as saying during the course of his Ard Fheis address that new approaches are needed for Irish culture. He then went on to say, and I quote:
Until now our effort to guard our national heritage from destruction and to increase public consciousness of it have been unco-ordinated and intermittent. To bring a new coherence to our efforts the Government has decided to set up a National Heritage body which will have responsibility for archaeology, heritage architecture, parks, monuments and other national amenities.
In this light the Heritage Bill of 1982 must not be allowed to become a historical curiosity, a might have been, something that might be used in the future by a historian of our heritage. It must, on the other hand, be made a living and working reality so as to provide our natural and archaeological heritages with a secure future and with their well-being guaranteed. If this was brought about, it would be the best tribute that could be paid to this important report. Beir bua agus beannacht leis an obair.
It is with pleasure that, on behalf of the Labour Party, I support the motion. Although our names are missing from the list of Senators who wish to have the House note this report, A Policy for Nature Conservation in Ireland, our concern and commitment to this area should not be doubted. We were not, unfortunately, afforded an opportunity to append our signature to lend our support to the motion, possibly because we were not available at the time it was lodged. I do not want any ambiguity to arise about our total commitment in this area.
It has given us great pleasure here this morning to hear two Senators, Senator Eogan and Senator de Buitléar, contributing to this debate and to this whole area in which they are privileged to be involved directly, one as a lecturer and the other as a communicator. Jointly and separately they have raised the awareness of the people in Ireland of the tremendous heritage we have here but which is in danger of being ruined or spoilt by some people who do not have the common interest as we, as legislators, have in presenting the case which has been documented adequately and expertly by the Union of Professional and Technical Civil Servants. Both my colleagues have done major work in this area and I want to congratulate them on their interest and on the expertise they have brought to this subject. It would be remiss of me if I did not congratulate the Minister and his Department who, in their own way, have made a major contribution to the preservation of some of our archaeological gems. Over the years, and at considerable expense, they have painstakingly renovated and preserved some of the best monuments not alone in this country but in Europe and that has been recognised internationally. It is appropriate that the Minister and his Department should be commended for that.
I was a member of this House when the legislation Senator Eogan referred to was presented. The Wildlife Act, 1976, was major legislation which was discussed in both Houses of the Oireachtas over a long period. For the first time an effort was made to bring all the species of fauna and flora into the legislative process to make us aware of their importance and to give legislative effect to their preservation. The Water Pollution Bill of 1982, the Litter Bill and other such Bills, which gave legislative responsibility to the local authorities to take action against some of the vested interests who continued to damage our environment, were all very important and assisted us as legislators in making the public aware of what can happen to our beautiful environment.
This documentation presented by the Union of Professional and Technical Civil Servants is magnificent. I congratulate them and their financial supporters who helped to sponsor the production of this policy document which is magnificently illustrated. It brings vividly to our minds some of the beauties which are in danger. It points out in various sections what pollution can do and what it looks like to the naked eye. It makes us keenly aware that, if something is not done, as outlined by the Union of Professional and Technical Civil Servants, we could be in serious difficulty.
I mentioned the visual impact of these photographs which is tremendous. It is appropriate that I mention a particular programme shown by RTE 2 on the same night the Eurovision Song Contest was shown on Channel 1. The latter programme showed interesting parts of Ireland to 600 million viewers throughout the world, but on Channel 2 there was a magnificent projection of Ireland as a whole. The programme dealt with our authors, poets and the parts of the country they came from. It was one of the most magnificent presentations I have ever seen on Telefís Éireann and it made me very proud to be Irish and to know we have such beauty surrounding us.
That, in itself, must make us aware, of the risks to our national environment which industrial and agricultural pollutants are creating. As we advanced in technology and in intensive farming procedures, there are risks to the environment unless precautions are taken and there is no excuse whatsoever, financial or otherwise, for not taking these precautions. If the farming organisations need assistance to take some of the required preventive measures, the Department of Agriculture and Food should assist them.
There is no excuse for the damage that has been caused by silage effluent and other pollutants which kill fish life in what were some of the most prolific fishing rivers in Europe — the Suir, the Aherlow, the Blackwater and many other magnificent rivers. With underground seepage from rain and drains, these additives and pollutants eventually seep into river beds and create tremendous problems. Silage effluent is foremost in everybody's mind because it is considered to be toxic. Of course, it is not toxic. Only when it gets into fresh water where it destroys the oxygen is it toxic.
Farmers are becoming aware of the feed value of silage effluent which, if it is contained and gathered, can be refed and reprocessed with nutritional benefits to milch cows. This has been done by research institutes in Ireland, and at ACOT's regional service in Piltown. There is no reason why a nutrient like silage effluent should be allowed to pollute water when it can be reprocessed into the feed chain. We can make people aware of these benefits, and the Department of Agriculture and Food have a major role to play in this area. Highlighting particular sections and reminding them of their responsibilities can often result in the section of the industry concerned with these matters over-reacting.
Industry is also a major pollutant. I have seen in my own constituency evidence of widespread pollution of the air and the rivers by effluent from industry. The fines imposed for polluting our rivers are very low. It has taken our county council, who have an administrative role in the protection of the environment, the best part of a year and a half to convince one of the largest and best finance companies of their responsibilities in this area. Admittedly corrective measures are expensive, but it is technically possible to do something about pollution. In my view, industry, agriculture and all of us, have a responsibility not to disregard what is recognised internationally as a great asset.
Experts from other countries come to look at our boglands and speak about them in euphoric terms but most of the Irish just walk by without realising their importance. Areas like the Burren have species of flowers that are not normally found to this country. Except perhaps for parts of Wales, the pleasure of walking through an area like that cannot be experienced in any other part of Europe. We do have something to be proud of, but there are areas we have to be concerned about.
Professionals in the Department and in the trade union movement, who are involved in this area in their everyday work are setting down recommendations to amend existing legislation and to consolidate Departments. This would give legislative effect to their recommendations. Rather than just taking note of this excellent report there is a responsibility on the Minister on behalf of the Government to respond positively to the list of recommendations — reconciling conservation and development, the protection of important areas, species-based conservation, scientific research and information, the Government have set a Department of Science and Technology which could lend themselves to deal with the questions of education and public awareness — to which my two colleagues make a major contribution daily. We have international responsibilities in the Council of Europe and the European Communities, who have designated this the year of the Environment. There is also the question of the human and financial resources which the Government need to make available.
Senator Eogan has compiled from the accounts, an abridged version showing the various allocations of moneys to different Departments. If one Department were responsible for these matters there would not be conflicting interests in the Department and possibly the amount that is now allocated would be sufficient to do what the Professional and Technical Civil Servants Union feel should be done in this area. They are asking us as legislators for amending legislation to cover the gaps they have identified in section 10 (1) of their report.
When we were debating the legislation they referred to, we hoped it covered everything, because it was major and fairly lengthy legislation, but it is obvious from experience that there are gaps which they have identified. There is no point putting them on record because they are in this report.
That is what this report is about and we have a responsibility to respond positively. I call on the Government to respond positively by introducing new legislation that will get full support from all sides of this House. I cannot see it costing the Exchequer anything extra. The Government should ensure that the gaps in existing legislation are filled and together we can play a role to ensure that our heritage, which we cherish, will be there for our children, our grandchildren and for future generations who have placed on us the responsibility of caring for it. Because of technological progress we have probably done more damage to our environment in the past 50 years than our predecessors did in many centuries. We have a major responsibility in this area and I hope the Government will respond positively to this report.
I agree with Senator Ferris. It was a great pleasure to be here this morning to listen to the contributions by Senator Éamon de Buitléar and Senator George Eogan, both conservation experts of international repute. I also welcome the Minister and congratulate him and his Department on the great work that is being done with regard to this problem. My contribution will consist of a few random remarks with regard to this document and to areas covered by it. It is difficult to make a contribution having first listened to the experts. Senator Ferris always makes a noteworthy contribution in this House.
When I deal with this subject I think in terms of poets and poetry because the poets have frozen their perception of the situation for all time. I am reminded in particular of Patrick Kavanagh, one of our great poets, who wrote about the unchanging corner of a field. One would have had to be brought up in a rural area to understand the nuances and the importance of that statement. What Senator Ferris said is perfectly true, there have been more changes made in the last 50 years than in many centuries before that. Patrick Kavanagh wrote his immortal lines before the full impact of the machine age came upon us, before we were aware of the destruction by the bulldozer, the JCB and the other big machines. In past ages, little damage could be done in a short space of time with the spade, shovel and by manual work. I am not sure what Patrick Kavanagh would have written about the destruction caused by the machine, the bulldozer, or even if he could write a poem about it, but I am sure he would have written about the destruction caused by the machine.
One area that concerns me is identified very well in the report and that is bogland. It is always important to relate what may be in a document to an actual case — and I am thinking in terms of bogs around my own area, in particular a bog about six miles from Kells where I worked as a young boy and as a young man. It was a beautiful scenic area at that time. It was clean, almost to the point of being sanitised. In those days if at night someone hid a piece of bread or a sandwich under a footing or a clamp of turf, it would be safely there in the morning, once it was out of the view of the carrion crows. The area is completely different today. It is overrun with rats because people in the surrounding areas used it as a dump. Car wrecks and rubbish were taken there and thrown not into the holes dug for the turf, but along the side of the road and in the drains. Unfortunately, the county council decided in their wisdom to use part of that area as an official dump and officials of the county council are proud that they made that decision. I think it was an unfortunate and improper one and bordered on being criminal. Now the dump has been covered with soil and I suppose the wound is not as ugly as it was. Nevertheless, I think, it has defaced that area.
I recall that the bog was considered — and rightly so — an environment where people became healthy. People who worked there were healthy, and even before the pioneering days of Doctor Noel Browne this was so. People went there for their health.
Debate adjourned.