The purpose of this meeting is to consider the Dáil motion concerning the terms of the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds 1996. On behalf of the select committee, I extend a warm welcome to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Gallagher, and his officials. I propose that we first hear the Minister's contribution and then take contributions from members.
Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds: Motion
I am seeking Dáil approval of the terms of the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 10 December last year. This agreement is one of the most significant developed to date under the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals - the Bonn Convention - ratified by Ireland in 1983. It provides measures to conserve migratory waterbirds which are ecologically dependent on wetlands in Europe, Africa, Greenland and parts of Canada.
The agreement gives special attention to endangered species, as well as those with an unfavourable conservation status. A total of 37 countries, including seven European Union states, have ratified it to date. The agreement was signed by Ireland, subject to ratification, in 1996 and it is now an appropriate time to formally ratify it with the enactment of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000, which contains enhanced provisions for the protection of migratory waterbirds and their habitats.
The agreement came into force on 1 November 1999 and covers some 170 species of birds. It provides for an action plan which specifies the actions which parties shall take in the following areas: species and habitat conservation; management of human activities; research and monitoring; education and information; and implementation. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, contracting parties are obliged to take co-ordinated measures to restore migratory waterbird species to a favourable conservation status or to maintain them in such a status. Contracting parties are obliged to afford strict protection to migratory waterbirds by, inter alia, protecting species and their habitats, prohibiting deliberate introduction of non-native species, supporting research and managing wetlands.
The agreement is of special significance for Ireland as a major location for many groups of wintering waterbirds, as well as for the breeding populations of some species. Ireland supports a very large proportion of the world's populations of a number of species covered by the agreement, particularly during wintering and passage periods. We host about half of Iceland's population of Whooper swans and virtually the entire population of the Canadian-Greenland Brent geese, which winter in Europe. A large number of sites here are of international significance for waterfowl. Ratification is, therefore, particularly important for this country.
The Department of the Environment and Local Government will be designated as the authority to implement the agreement here and the national parks and wildlife services of the Department will be responsible for monitoring all activities that may impact on the conservation status of migratory waterbird species. The agreement will be implemented under the Wildlife Acts 1976 and 2000 and other regulations giving effect to the European Union's habitats and birds directives.
The motion has been brought before the committee because Article 29.5.2. of the Constitution requires that the terms of any international agreement involving a charge on public funds has to be approved by Dáil Éireann. The charge on public funds will not be significant and will consist only of Ireland's annual contribution to the United Nations associated with the agreement, which will amount to approximately €10,000.
The Department is already actively engaged in the activities necessary to implement the agreement. I ask the committee to approve its terms and allow ratification to proceed.
I had assumed the Chairman may have wished to offer the committee some guidance on this issue. In the absence of such guidance, I will proceed to make a contribution on the agreement. I welcome the fact that the agreement is before the committee and I am agreeable to the committee approving it. However, the provisions of an agreement such as this and its implementation in practice are often two different things. For this reason, I wish to pursue the practical implications of what the committee is being asked to do.
There is a problem with regard to the management of some of our wetlands and habitats. Areas such as the Shannon Callows used to have significant birdlife. This is very much at risk largely because of the intensification of agricultural activity. The same problem exists in respect of some of the estuarial areas where birds wintered. One must consider the development of ports, marinas and aquacultural projects, particularly in regard to shellfish, which are often developed in the shallower estuarial areas suitable for birds.
Will the Minister of State clarify what the agreement means in practice? What agricultural activity will be affected and what rows will develop in respect of such activity being prohibited under the agreement? We have seen rows over the years regarding SACs. What problems will arise regarding applications for physical or marine development that may be prohibited?
The Department of the Environment and Local Government has been given responsibility to implement and monitor this agreement. Are there sufficient resources? I am told, for example, that only two ornithologists are employed by Dúchas. Is that the case? Do we have the professional and other resources with which to implement the agreement? It is all very well signing up to an international agreement and saying we are in favour of it, but unless there is an understanding of what it means in practice, in terms of having the resources to ensure its implementation, it is nothing more than a paper exercise.
The cost, as I pointed out, is €10,000, which is the contribution to the UN associated with the agreement. I am told that is the only additional cost and that all the resources are in place. We are not starting from scratch. We already have in place an extensive network of protected areas, particularly special protection areas, SPAs, for birds. One hundred and ten of those have been designated and 50 more are in the pipeline. A very high proportion of these SPAs is for water birds and wetland birds. Under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 49 internationally important sites are designated, most of which are important for water birds. There are 19 more in the pipeline.
In addition to the 110 SPAs and 49 areas designated under the Ramsar convention, many other designated sites benefit water birds. These include nature reserves, the NHAs and the SACs. We also have species protection in terms of hunting. Comprehensive legislation has been in place since 1976 to protect all birds, particularly by regulating shooting. This is mainly achieved by having a limited number of quarry spaces and a limited open season.
A lot of work has been done and there is a little more to do in terms of costs. I am told there will be no additional costs whatsoever. All the rangers are in place and they have been doing what is necessary under the agreement as part of their work to date. There will be no additional demand on the Exchequer.
Sitting suspended at 10.45 a.m. and resumed at 10.55 a.m.
I call the meeting to order and welcome members back.
Deputy Gilmore asked about the number of ornithologists. There are two in the Department so they are obviously not in the field. They are in headquarters and it is their responsibility to give advice. Over the years they have been involved in assessing data in relation to sites and species. There are 90 conservation rangers and they work to protect birds and habitats. In addition, there are 30 district wildlife officers who are employed by the Department through the services. I acknowledge the considerable contribution by the NGOs, particularly Birdwatch Ireland, to the conservation of wild birds. To reiterate, there is no additional cost and additional work is carried out by the rangers and district wildlife officers.
Did the Minister say in his initial address that the importation of non-native wild birds would be banned by this directive?
There is a provision that non-native species should be restricted, otherwise there would be adverse effects.
Deputy Gilmore referred to possible conflict between this directive and agricultural practices. Will there be a conflict between this directive and Bord na Móna development? When I was growing up in the midlands, thousands of Brent and Canadian geese spent the day in the heather before flying back to the banks of the Shannon at night. They are now gone because of Bord na Móna's development of bogs. What effect will this directive have on activities such as peat milling? This directive will be effective only from now on; it cannot be retrospective because we cannot restore the bogs to what they were. Many of those bogs are now reaching the cut-out stage, in which the top 15 or 20 feet of peat has been taken away and there is some peat left. Can these areas be restored to something like their former glory?
I welcome the Minister of State to the committee. I have particular concerns about the erosion of our callows, wetlands and estuaries and the threat posed by development, both exempted development and planning applications. A particular species that I believe is under threat in my own constituency of Dún Laoghaire and in Dublin city is the Canadian Brent goose, which over-winters on and near Sandymount strand. We need to ensure there is adequate protection for them, and I am not convinced that this exists. For example, at the moment there are several live planning applications directly adjacent to the Booterstown bird marsh, one with Dublin City Council and one with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. I would be interested in knowing whether Dúchas, which I presume is the lead agency in this instance, has made any representation to the planning authority, given that one proposal is for an apartment block five storeys high next to the bird marsh and the lands in which the geese spend the winter.
I am also concerned about exempted development. The planning regulations SI 600/2001 make provision for the reclamation of callows and wetlands to be exempted development. In other words, a farmer or somebody who wishes to plant a forest can simply go in and reclaim any amount of callows or wetlands if he or she wishes to engage in farming or forestry activities. I am very concerned that this is allowing for the destruction of our wetlands in several areas, including the Shannon basin and other river basins. I hope the Minister will consider closing this loophole in the planning regulations as it poses a significant threat to our wild bird populations.
Can the Minister convince me that there is sufficient consultation taking place with regard to current planning applications? Take these two applications beside the Booterstown bird marsh - is Dúchas making observations to the two planning authorities handling these applications? Are they ensuring the protection of the Brent geese and other species? Could the Minister give a global figure for observations being made by Dúchas in regard to planning applications that might threaten the breeding grounds of such species? To sum up, my concerns are that there is a significant loophole regarding the reclamation of wetlands and callows under the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 and that insufficient observations are being made to planning authorities about applications that may threaten the species we are discussing.
In relation to the issues raised by Deputy McCormack, all the wetlands that are important for these species were handed over to Bord na Móna years ago, and the remaining Bord na Móna sites are of no interest. There will be no further designation of any of the sites owned by the organisation.
Does that mean there will be no further designation of those sites?
No, sorry. There will be no further requests for designation of sites owned by Bord na Móna.
Does that mean Bord na Móna will have a free hand in the sites they have?
In sites that are not designated. They are of no interest to Dúchas because the sites that have not been designated are not suitable wetland sites.
What are the plans of Bord na Móna for acquiring more virgin bog, where there is heather now growing in ten or 15 feet of bog? Is that to continue, or are they now protected areas? What will happen the sites they have already developed?
On some sites that are already developed there is some scope for restoration, and Dúchas will have a special interest in further areas of land that Bord na Móna is anxious to acquire for development purposes. Bord na Móna will not have carte blanche to buy additional land and develop it. If Dúchas has no interest in a site because it is not suitable, there should be no difficulty, but if these sites in which Bord na Móna may show an interest in the future are suitable wetlands that would come under the remit of this legislation, Dúchas will enter into consultations with it. Most of the important sites are already designated as SACs, so I do not see any difficulty in the future.
As a result of the most recent legislation, all planning applications must be forwarded to Dúchas for its observations, although not everyone would agree with this. Deputy Cuffe referred to two applications in particular, one with Dublin City Council and the other with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. Without even checking those applications I can assure the Deputy that they will have gone to Dúchas. He can take comfort in the knowledge that if they will affect the area in any way, Dúchas will enter into consultation with the council, making its views very clearly known. The Deputy also made reference to Brent geese. The population has increased to some 24,000 from 7,000 - an increase of more than 300% - over the past 30 years. All important sites have been designated as SPAs. The Deputy rightly made reference to exempted development. If an area is already designated, no matter what type, it is subject to control. Some might say that Dúchas takes too much of an interest, but its job is to ensure that these sites are protected. All types of development in all parts of the country, particularly areas of interest, are subject to control.
My concern is that the exempted development refers to any reclamation of callows or wetlands unless it is designated as a SPA.
Over time we will be looking at additional sites. While 111 SPAs are already designated, 50 more are in the pipeline. If any others are of interest we will be most anxious to have those included as well. A total of 49 sites are designated under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance as being important to water birds and there are 19 more in the pipeline, but there is no suggestion that will be the end of the matter. We will let the committee know about those proposed for designation and if there are any more we will be pleased to examine them.
What is the significance of Ireland for this species of waterbird?
What impact will this have on tourism? Can it be used to our advantage?
I welcome the ratification of the agreement. Brent geese are very common around Dublin. There is a petrol station in Portmarnock and one often sees hundreds of Brent geese walking around it. The customers have to walk through them to pay for their petrol. Does that raise the scenario of Dúchas putting up a sign at the petrol station warning people to beware of Brent geese? Those geese are in danger in such a situation. How can we protect them?
Ireland is of special importance at European and international level for a variety of species because of the large numbers of waterbirds it supports. Half of the entire population of Greenland white-fronted geese winter in Ireland. Two thirds of the Icelandic population of Whooper swans winter here, as do almost all Brent geese. It is not surprising there are so many around the filling station in Portmarnock.
Of Europe's population of roseate terns, 85% of the breeding population take place at two sites in Ireland, Rockabill and Lady's Island Lake. There are a number of examples of important sites throughout the State, in Dundalk, Dublin Bay, Wexford, Cork Harbour, the Shannon Estuary, Galway Bay, Sligo Bay and Lough Swilly. Inland there is the Shannon, Lough Corrib, Lough Mask and Lough Ennell. Ireland is important to waterbirds because of its moderate climate and the geographic location, sitting on two flyways between Europe and America.
In terms of tourism, there is sustainable shooting of ducks and geese and certain wading birds. That is a traditional sport in Ireland, enjoyed both by Irish residents and visitors from abroad. The open season for wild fowling is from 1 September to 31 January. That is a valuable period for tourism. In the areas where people undertake the sport, hotels, guest houses, car hire companies, guides and travel agents benefit from low season tourism based on wildlife shooting. There is great interest now in the environment and wildlife and eco-tourism is a growth sector in the tourism industry. Weather is not a factor for those who are interested. Increasing numbers of tourists are coming to Ireland to visit our unspoilt landscape and to enjoy our abundant wildlife and the importance of Ireland's wetlands is a major attraction. The Wexford wildfowl reserve attracts 25,000 visitors per year during the shoulder period. The new tourism Bill presents an opportunity to attract even more people during the off-season.
The number of Brent geese to be seen at the filling station in Portmarnock does not surprise me because the population of these geese increased three and a half fold over 30 years from 7,000 to 24,000. Individual Brent geese may be in danger, but there is no danger to the population as a whole. This is a matter for the garage in question. I think the Deputy was being facetious when he asked the question. I can assure him that Dúchas will not be putting up a sign.