Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 18 September 2013
3. Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht if he will provide the detailed scientific reasons for designating each of the 53 raised bog complexes under the birds and habitats directive; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38688/13]
View answerUnder the EU habitats directive, each member state is required to designate special areas of conservation, SACs, for the protection of specified endangered habitats and species. Between 1997 and 2002 Ireland nominated 53 sites for designation as SACs for the protection of active raised bog, degraded raised bog still capable of natural regeneration and bog woodland. Each of these habitats is listed in Annex I of the directive.
The choice of sites for selection as SACs arose from an extensive survey of these habitats and the application of the scientific criteria specified in Annex III of the directive. The criteria used included the degree of representativeness of the natural habitat type on the site; the area of the site covered by the natural habitat type compared to the total area covered by that natural habitat type within the national territory; the degree of conservation of the structure and function of the natural habitat type concerned and the restoration possibilities; and the global assessment of the value of the site for conservation of the natural habitat type concerned.
The scientific rationale behind the nomination for designation of each site is contained in the Natura 2000 standard data form, which can be viewed on the Department’s website at www.npws.ie. These forms also list the scientific assessments and reports that informed the selection of each site.
Considerable efforts were made by the Department, as it was configured at that time, to inform those who might be affected by the designation of Ireland’s network of SACs, including our raised bog sites. The process was the subject of an information campaign which involved the issuing of letters to approximately 230,000 rural households, advising people in general terms of the forthcoming designation programme and where they could obtain further information about the proposed designations. Subsequently, the Department issued approximately 4,900 letters and site-specific information packs to individuals identified as being potentially affected by the proposed designation of the raised bog SACs. The proposed designations were widely advertised in local media at the time. Approximately 610 individuals from within these sites availed of their right to object to the inclusion of their land within these SACs and these appeals were dealt with through the mechanisms established for that purpose, including recourse to the independent designated areas appeals advisory board.
I thank the Minister. Some people say it is hard to get an answer to questions in here, but I just received answers to a load of questions I did not even ask so we cannot accuse the Minister of this. With regard to the science, which is what I asked about, it now appears the National Parks and Wildlife Service is trying to establish more scientific facts, or perhaps establish them for the first time, on five particular bogs, one of which happens to be the bog on which I cut turf. I cut it this year and have it at home in the shed. We in the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association understand that people who cut turf on these five bogs have been written to with regard to examining the possibility of flooding the bogs, which is ever so slightly putting the cart before the horse. It is like a man who decides to put on potatoes for his dinner before going out but forgets to put on the gas, and an hour later when he discovers the potatoes are still raw he decides to put on the gravy anyway and eat them.
That would not be very smart, and the reason it would not be very smart is it is done in the wrong order. The Minister has not got agreement from people on these bogs and he is now talking about going in and flooding them. It is the equivalent of what the Chinese Government did when it did not get people out of a certain valley and did not get agreement - it subsequently flooded them out of it. Is that the sort of Government we have now?
I have been asked a lot of supplementary questions here in the Dáil but this is certainly the most complicated type of question I have been asked. To reply to the Deputy, what is happening at this time is exactly what he sought here in his Private Members' motion way back in March of last year.
Was that the criminalisation of turf cutters?
We appointed the consultants, RPS, who are now going out consulting with people. Nothing will happen on any of these bogs without full consultation with the local population. All we are asking here is that, when RPS go out to talk to the bog owners and, obviously, to the contractors also, there would be full engagement with them.
Flooding may not be the appropriate term. It is, I suppose, regeneration and renewal of these bogs, or another word that has been used is the "wetting" of the bogs. Basically, it is just closing down drains. However, no work will be carried out without full consultation and full contact being made with the local people. I have given that commitment in the past and I appeal to Deputy Flanagan, as PRO for the TCCA, to engage with these consultants as they go out there.
The problem is that once we engage with such consultants, they say "We have consulted with you", regardless of what we say to them. To go back, the Minister has not solved the initial problem and to be moving on to a later stage does not make any sense. The Minister may tell the European Commission that a certain number of the bogs are solved but we know that is factually incorrect.
I do not know who is misleading who here, but Clara bog is held high as some sort of example of how we can find a solution. The reality is that everyone in Clara bog was not satisfied, and the fact the Minister is now talking about flooding or re-wetting - call it what he wants - of Clara bog means even more people are now up in arms about it. It is obvious that the situation in bogs like Clara is not resolved or is the Minister suggesting the situation in bogs such as Clara is resolved? If that is the case, someone is not telling us the truth. The people on the ground are telling us the situation is not resolved. If it is not resolved, the Minister certainly cannot move on to the next stage of flooding people's lands and potentially causing very dangerous consequences down the line, with no indemnity for the bog owners who signed up to this.
There is no question of flooding people's land. People should not be scared about this. I do not want anyone going out and scaremongering that there is going to be flooding of lands. The commitment we have given is that there will be regeneration and restoration of bogs and this will be done in full consultation with the local community - the people who own plots on the bogs or have turbary rights on the bogs, and also the contractors, who obviously have a special interest in this whole area. There will be full consultation. That is the commitment I gave in the House last year on the Deputy's motion and I am honouring every part of that commitment. We appointed the consultants, we are carrying out the national plan, we are seeking ways to ensure bog restoration-----
We are bringing people to court.
Because they broke the law. I would like to acknowledge the large number of people - the vast majority of turf cutters - who have taken the compensation and who have complied with the law. I point out that the number of infringements this year is about half what it was last year. People are co-operating and they are complying with the law. I thank them on behalf of the people of Ireland because, otherwise, we would definitely have been hit with a fine of about €9 million plus €25,000 a day, with the accompanying reputational damage for this country.
