Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 27 Jan 1981

Vol. 326 No. 1

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals: Motion.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals adopted in Bonn on the 23rd June, 1979, and signed, subject to ratification, on behalf of Ireland on 20th June, 1980.

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, known as the Bonn Convention, is an international convention designed to protect endangered species of wild animals, including birds, which migrate between States or cross national jurisdictional boundaries on the seas. It was promoted by the Federal Republic of Germany in response to a resolution of the Action Plan adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972. The final text of the convention was prepared in June 1979 at a two-week diplomatic conference in Bonn, attended by 77 States, including Ireland. It was signed by the Irish Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany on 20 June 1980. It will enter into force three months after it has been ratified by 15 States. So far no State has ratified the convention. The approval of the Dáil of the convention is necessary before Ireland can ratify it because it may eventually involve a charge on public funds.

The secretariat for the convention and its funding are to be provided for the first four years by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). If after that time UNEP is not prepared to continue the service, alternative arrangements will have to be made by the conference of the parties, that is those states which have ratified or acceded to the convention. It seems that the scale of funding likely to find acceptance by them would be on the basis of United Nations contributions, which are based on GNP and population figures. Any decision on funding would, however, require a unanimous vote at the conference of the parties. It is not possible at this stage to estimate what the Irish contribution might be.

The aim of the convention is to protect endangered or threatened species of animals which migrate between different States or cross national jurisdiction boundaries on the seas. It provides for measures to control the taking of these species, for protection and management plans, the maintenance of networks of suitable habitats and the prevention, reduction or control of discharges of substances harmful to migratory species.

The migratory species with which Ireland is concerned are wild birds and whale species, including dolphins and porpoises. Existing legislation embodied in the Wildlife Act, 1976 and the Whale Fisheries Act, 1937 is adequate to enable Ireland to implement the convention. The Wildlife Act protects all wild birds and whales within a three-mile limit. The Whale Fisheries Act effectively bans whaling within our 200-mile exclusive fishery limit, and whaling outside those limits is prohibited for Irish registered ships except under licence. No licences have been issued since 1940.

Close international co-operation in the field of wildlife conservation is vital to the protection of our wildlife — particularly migratory species. Ireland has always participated to the fullest extent possible in international conservation activities and agreements and the present convention represents a major initiative in this increasingly important area for the protection of our natural heritage.

I now move that the terms of this convention be approved.

Mr. O'Keeffe

In supporting this motion I must confess to being a little intrigued as to why this country should be the first State to put before Parliament a motion to ratify this convention. It appears odd that a Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals should be considered so important that we are the leaders in the field, rushing to ratify this convention. In examining the appendix to the convention and looking at the type of animals to be protected — gorillas, reptiles, albatross and crocodiles — I wonder why the Minister thought it necessary to rush into the Dáil and have this convention ratified, and to be the first country in the world to ratify such a convention. There must be some lesson in this somewhere but I have not put my finger on it yet, although I have my suspicions.

Looking at the international scene, the convention is obviously a good one and is of considerable importance to many nations, particularly those in the southern hemisphere where it is clear that because of hunting, killing and so on certain species of wild animals are endangered. It is in everyone's interests that this common heritage, which has been bequeathed to the citizens of the world by our ancestors, should be protected. I want to pay a strong compliment to the Minister for his particular interest in this area.

So far as Ireland is concerned the only endangered species, apart from certain types of birds, are whales——

Mr. Quinn

What about Government Ministers?

Mr. O'Keeffe

There must be a tie-in somewhere.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not come under this Bill.

Mr. O'Keeffe

As I develop this I might find the key to unlock it. As I said the only endangered mammals are whales. I was unaware of the whale population around our coast, but we live and learn. I was intrigued by the Minister's reference to the Whale Fisheries Act 1937. He said this Act effectively bans whaling "within our 200-mile exclusive fishery limit". The Minister is excelling himself in this situation because having criticised him so often for throwing overboard our 50-mile limit immediately after he assumed office as Minister for Fisheries, and hearing the latest dispatches from Brussels that the 12-mile limit is being thrown aside, I think it is great to hear him talking about our 200-mile exclusive fishery limit.

Mr. Deasy

Does Deputy Power, Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, know this?

Mr. Quinn

The migratory limit.

Mr. O'Keeffe

Perhaps the explanation is that this is a special limit for whales, which are so important to us. If the Minister is standing over this statement — but in the light of earlier experience I would not expect him to stand over anything he says — it is joyous news for the country. He has announced and established in connection with the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals a 200-mile exclusive fisheries limit.

I note that in Ireland birds are considered to be threatened and endangered.

Mr. Quinn

Does anybody intend coming up with an Irish solution to an Irish problem?

Mr. O'Keeffe

In his reply the Minister might indicate to what extent he considers they are endangered, the steps he proposes to take and the measures he proposes to introduce to ensure that this danger is removed. The Minister referred to the Wildlife Act, 1976, but he did not outline how he will protect these endangered species under the said Act.

I did not observe in the current Book of Estimates any provision of finance for the funding of this convention. While the United Nations are providing certain funds towards establishing the secretariat over a four year period, in the convention there is provision, for instance, for the provision of assistance to developing nations in connection with research and conservation in management of migratory species and their habitats and, also, in the establishment of appropriate scientific and administrative institutions. There are certain countries where wild animals being protected are more abundant than here but who may not have the resources to implement the convention fully. Now that we are rushing into ratifying the convention some thought should have been given to this aspect and some idea given by the Minister of the cost involved in making our contribution, in particular under the heading of aid to the developing countries, to enable them to put the convention into effect.

We support the motion that the convention should be ratified. I await, with some interest, the Minister's reply as to why it is so important to be the first nation to ratify the convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals. Maybe the wild animals in this country are thinking of emigrating. Perhaps the Minister has an explanation?

Mr. Quinn

I share with Deputy O'Keeffe, in a rather light mood, the possible reasons or suspicions as to why this is being introduced, but the House should deal with this matter seriously. We are not ratifying anything, we are simply being asked to approve a convention. If the track record of the domestic Government Departments in ratifying conventions, approved by the Department of Foreign Affairs, is anything to go by, it will be many years before we formally ratify the convention. The Department in question will be the Department of the Environment. It will have to demonstrate it has the capability to monitor legislation of this sort.

The House should be aware of the very real human interest in what appears to be an esoteric subject far removed from the day-to-day concerns of ordinary people. The migratory movement of wild animals in different parts of the world is the first early warning system we have of major changes in our environment, particularly in the climate and habitat of the environment. Anything that interferes with or distorts that will prevent us from getting a clear picture in sufficient time of what is happening to the habitats of our environment, with a consequent impact on agricultural production and the health of individuals. We share the global space with wild animals, including birds, which is rather curious phraseology in the Minister's speech, and we have a vested mutual interest in preserving their lives and their way of life so that we may protect ourselves.

I strongly support and congratulate the Minister and his Department for bringing this convention to the House for its approval. Would the Minister, now that he has disposed of the 200-mile exclusive fishery limit, give some indication as to whether the convention follows the same routine as other UN conventions and, therefore, must be approved by a minimum number of States before it can be ratified and what impact on domestic legislation its ratification will have? Will it require us to amend in any way the Wildlife Act, 1976? These are technical questions which the Minister may or may not be able to answer. It is sufficient at this stage to approve the measure in principle. As the Minister said, we do not know what the cost may be. The Department and the Minister should be congratulated for responding within the time-scale of June 1979 to now, which is quite short for this type of thing.

Mr. Deasy

I welcome the motion and I sincerely hope the spirit of the Bonn Convention will be implemented. However, as usual, I am suspicious of the agencies available to the Government to implement such measures because, on seeing the item on the Order Paper, I went to the Oireachtas Library and got a copy of the convention in question. It refers repeatedly to the appendix giving the list of animals and birds involved. I doubt if anyone in the House, with the possible exception of the Minister for Education, could tell me the name of one of the animals specified. If the Minister is serious about the matter he should have given us a translation of the animals and birds involved. The zoological phraseology as to which animals or birds are being protected is above the head of any Member of the House. Would the Minister translate the names for the benefit and information of the Members so that we may know what we are protecting?

Deputy O'Keeffe referred to crocodiles and gorillas. They are the only words which make sense to the layman. I have come across an albatross also. Apart from those, I fail to recognise any of the common animals and birds which migrate to and from this country.

Mr. Lenihan

There is a warbler bird, which warbles.

Mr. Deasy

The Minister should know about that, he tends to hover over subjects without actually ever landing. I have never seen an albatross — even on a golf course. I am suspicious as to the agencies which are available for the implementation of the measures which are to be taken. We fully support the convention. We are glad to see there are 77 countries involved in the conference which the Minister referred to. Who are those 77 countries? We are dealing with a motion about which we know little or nothing. We have only the bare bones, we have not got any of the real meat of the convention concerned. We do not know which 77 countries are involved; we do not even know which animals are involved. Would the Minister, elaborate on those aspects? We have a limited number of birds and animals migrating to and from this country. Would the Minister tell us the names of the animals and birds about which we are specifically concerned?

For instance, is there an annual census taken of the number of species, whether it be wild geese, cuckoos, corncrakes, swallows, pine martins, sand martins or whatever, to establish which are endangered, diminishing or have disappeared completely? I am thinking here of the golden eagle which I believe was in this country up to 40 or 50 years ago. Has the Minister some knowledge of what species have been wiped out, what species are in danger and can he inform us of what measures are being taken to protect those in danger? I know that in Britain the relevant Government Department go to great lengths to protect endangered species, actually guarding the nests of birds in danger. There is no comparable agency here for the protection of endangered species. Therefore they could be wiped out quite easily without the public being aware or the relevant Department doing anything to prevent it.

It is vitally important that we know what we are talking about. This motion does not tell us that. If the Minister knows perhaps he would inform us and, if not, would he undertake to introduce a measure at some future date which will inform us of what is involved? Otherwise we are talking through our hats.

I might mention the Wildlife Act of 1976, mentioned in the Minister's remarks, the objective of which was to protect our wildlife. It has been a failure because the necessary money has not been injected into the appropriate Department to provide personnel to protect the species involved. Indeed, in this country at present what was once a very common species of animal is now on the verge of extinction because of its being exploited for the value of its pelt. I refer to the ordinary, common fox. What concrete measures are being taken to protect such animals? Due to the use of pesticides or other uses for monetary gain certain species could be wiped out and I include in those——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair feels that the fox is not relevant to this convention.

Mr. O'Keeffe

Is the Chair sure?

Mr. Lenihan

Mongrel foxes only are migratory.

Mr. Deasy

I make the point solely to show how a very common species of animal is in danger of being exterminated here. Therefore the less common animals and birds such as those I have mentioned already — for instance, the corncrake, which is on the point of extinction in large parts of this country — must be in great danger. I should like the Minister to tell us how many of each of those species we have in this country and what efforts are made to carry out a census of them annually so that we can monitor their extinction or expansion. Unless we do so we are not doing the country a service and are not making a decent effort to protect our endangered species, especially those that are rare and migratory. Perhaps the Minister could furnish some replies to the questions I have posed.

Mr. Tully

I wonder whether this is simply a question of signing a convention because everybody else is doing so, or are we really interested in doing anything about preventing the extermination in this country of certain species, particularly migratory birds. As Deputy Deasy said the corncrake is now a thing of the past; one does not hear the corncrake any longer. Perhaps there are some in very remote parts of the country but in most areas it is simply not heard any longer. The cuckoo seems to be surviving. Some people do not seem to appreciate the fact that we have a far larger migration of birds in winter than in summer and that these are being wiped out. I am sure that many people using the land if made aware would not continue to use pesticides which are wiping out the bird population. Those of us living in the country are aware of this fact. The same applies to water animals — there are no crocodiles or the like in this country — the smaller water animals which are being wiped out in the same way.

This is not simply a question of a political issue. It is a question of our people being interested in the protection of wildlife. Simply to sign a convention, put it to one side and say: "Are we not great, we have done that now, we are now in line with everybody else", is, I honestly believe, the wrong approach to such matters. Because I know of so many animals, birds in particular, being wiped out I believe it is entirely wrong that we should allow this measure go through without establishing whether or not any effort is being made to prevent the destruction, not of one or two but sometimes hundreds and thousands of birds.

We all know the disastrous consequences of oil slicks. That is an eventuality for which nobody can provide. We are aware also that when certain local authorities attempt to eradicate oil slicks from beaches within their jurisdiction the cure has been found to be worse than the disease. It is not unusual to find an enormous stretch of beach rendered sterile because some of remedial action wipes out every living object on these beaches. While the Minister will be the person to sign this convention because it refers to migratory species of wild animals, I would ask that he and his colleagues, in the short time remaining to them, would get together and at least leave on record the fact that if they were not interested in anything else they were interested in the preservation of the wildlife of this country.

Mr. Briscoe

I welcome this motion. I note that while 77 countries are required to sign this convention, it will come into force three months after its ratification by 15 states.

I would not take what I interpret to be the very narrow view of some speakers as to why we should be interested only in that form of wildlife, birds or animals affecting this country. I think that our people, young and old alike, are very concerned about wildlife worldwide. I believe our people will welcome whatever steps are taken to protect or conserve species in danger, whether they be in Africa, Asia, Australasia or wherever. It is important that we, as the country with perhaps the least vested interest, should be seen to be among the first to sign this convention. I often wish that countries were quicker in signing some important conventions coming before them but which they fail to do for some reason or another. Certainly, I welcome this one coming before us for ratification. My interest, like that of many other people, is to ensure that bird and animal wildlife in whatever part of the world, is conserved. I should be interested to know what action, if any, will be taken when the necessary 15 states have ratified this convention.

What kind of action will they have in mind? I would like if there was some kind of follow through by way of information forwarded to those of us who have spoken in this debate. Names might be notified by the relevant Department dealing with this. That Department might let us have some information on this matter at some future date as soon as something is to hand. I would simply like to know more. I understand the broad outline and what we are trying to achieve. It is laudable and I hope that other countries will not take too long to do what we are doing. I hope that our members in the European Parliament will exert pressure over there to get other members of the European Community to ratify this convention as soon as possible because of the urgency in many cases of protecting such species.

Mr. Keating

I would briefly like to add to the comments of my colleagues and support the principle of any measure which will consolidate legal supports for the protection and indeed enhancement and improvement of our environment and ecology.

However I feel that we probably should be a little sceptical about matters such as this because, quite candidly, although we tend to get into the area of signing such documents and uttering supportive after-dinner speeches, when the crunch comes and when it comes to the choice between economic options I have yet to see the environment or the ecology getting the nod, as it were, in any debate in this country thus far. Frankly, I believe that, unless a massive public education exercise supported by consequent legislative protection is initiated, the quality of our environment will be eroded further. The measure before us will have no legal effect unless it is ratified. I do not know whether the Government propose to do that or when. I hope it will be soon. I would like to think that the measure itself, which is one that we all welcome in principle, will soon become law and will be enforced not only in the spirit but in the letter. I hope that it will not just be circulated in this House but that the Minister will ask his colleague, the Minister for Education, to circulate it to the schools to involve young people. After all the young people are the ones who will benefit or otherwise from whatever environment this generation leaves to them, and if present indications are anything to go by I prefer to have been young some time ago rather than at the moment. If we are to genuinely mobilise public support and public opinion to accept a much more guarded and protected approach to our environment we are going to have to involve young people, and the schools could respond helpfully in that respect. Therefore I would like to see this measure being circulated to them along with the appropriate covering documentation explaining the purpose of it and inviting their co-operation and participation.

I would also like to see whatever law exists in relation to the often mindless morons who go around shooting rare animals or birds being enforced and being made more strict. Only last week we saw an incident where such species was, in this country at least, endangered by somebody firing a gun carelessly. I have my own views about the pleasure that people would derive from shooting any living thing but in a democracy there are those who believe that it is a reasonable form of sport and in that circumstance we should regulate for it. But there is a wantonness about the efforts of some people in this regard. Not enough is being done to protect particularly the migratory species which come to this country and which are of benefit to our ecology and our environment. It is sad to see regular instances of such animals and such species being shot or hacked to death and that has occurred on too many occasions.

I would like also to see the Department of Agriculture taking a new and much greater interest in the effects of agrarian reform at many levels and its impact. Deputy Tully has referred very rightly to the gradual pervading of the agricultural landscape by unquantified and unchecked volumes of chemical ingredients of various kinds. I asked a question in this House about two and a half years ago in an effort to ascertain whether anybody even bothered to count how much chemical is injected into the land and stock and no one seems to be bothering. There are now more advertisements for these products on television than there are for any other product with the exception of alcoholic drink. It is about time someone asked what effect this is having.

The whole question of the protection of these species is one facet of the need for us to protect our environment and our ecology. It is going to get more difficult for people to do that in future because the pressures will be greater from commercial and vested interests who have little time or responsibility for such areas. Therefore I commend the Minister for his initiative today and hope that in the future we can involve those sections of the population like young people, interest groups or interested parliamentarians and get them to form a united front to confront those who would simply cast aside the real and genuine concern for the quality of our environment and our ecology.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Lenihan)

I would like to thank the House for a very constructive reception of this measure which is simply seeking the approval of the House which is necessary in this circumstance in regard to the ratification by the Government at the earliest possible date. I can assure the House that once this amendment is ratified by 15 states it will automatically come into force which means that there will be a fairly rapid implementation. Seventy-seven states showed their interest by attending at the Bonn Convention in June 1979 when the final text was prepared, briefed and agreed. So this is reasonably quick action by the countries concerned.

I want to emphasise that we are not the first country. A number of other states are at the moment taking the same procedures we are in seeking the required approval from their various houses of parliament and indeed at present the matter is being discussed in Brussels with a view to a co-ordinated stance by the ten EEC states who hope to ratify the convention together as a group. The initiative for the ratification of the convention came from one of our EEC partners, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. So there is an earnestness on the part of the EEC countries in particular some of whom represent parts of the world most seriously threatened, particularly the heavily populated areas of Western Europe. These countries are seriously anxious to ensure the passage of approval for the convention through their parliaments and then I can assure the House of immediate ratification and all the countries are moving at present in their respective parliaments. That is why we have brought the matter forward here. Sometimes we are moving in concert with our EEC partners who are not alone because every country in the world is involved in one way or another.

One might ask why the Minister for Foreign Affairs is involved in the matter at all. The reason is that this is an international convention concerned with migratory species. Therefore it has to be done in an international way and the Minister for Foreign Affairs acts as the agent for the Government in all international matters and in the signing of and the ratification of international conventions. There is already in this country a highly skilled group of dedicated people who have made their contribution towards the development and protection of our rural environment. As a result of the passage of the Wildlife Act in this House I had the pleasure, as Minister for Fisheries and Forestry, of establishing the Wildlife Council which is now in existence and on which various voluntary bodies are represented; these are voluntary bodies with a particular interest and motivation in ensuring that indigenous wildlife in this country, both animals and birds, is fully protected.

Mr. Deasy

What about foxes?

Mr. Lenihan

The fox is indigenous and that is part of the responsibility of the council to which I referred. I understand certain regulations are being prepared in that Department with the advice of the Wildlife Council with a view to the protection of the fox.

Mr. O'Keeffe

Why did the Minister not restrict exports? 38,000 foxes were exported last year.

Mr. Lenihan

We are not concerned with our own indigenous species here. We are concerned with migratory species. I will read out what is involved in regard to migratory species that affect us: no animals as far as Ireland is concerned; "yes" in regard to mammals. There are three species of whale which come to our waters, blue whale, hump-backed whale and a light whale. In regard to birds we have geese, swans, ducks, hawks, buzzards, the osprey eagle, peregrine falcon, harriers, sandpipers, curlews, snipe, thrush, plover and the warbler that is always indigenous to the Irish scene.

Mr. Kelly

The sandpiper who serves both the tides.

Mr. Lenihan

That is the picture as far as we are concerned. The main thrust is the separate wildlife legislation and the wildlife council set up under it concerning itself with the problems referred to by Deputy Tully and others. We must make sure that we do not drag our feet or lag behind other countries who are seeking to bring in an international convention to protect these species throughout the world. Most civilised countries have legislation analogous to our wildlife Act. There is provision under our Act to enable us to write in the necessary regulations to implement this convention so there would be no problem about implementing it.

It is important that we show our interest in the environment by proceeding to ratification with our other EEC partners as soon as possible. We can entrust the subsequent administration of whatever regulation is required to be brought in under our Act to implement the convention to the wildlife service of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and to the voluntary bodies represented on the wildlife council.

Mr. Deasy

Is there an annual census of wildlife population carried out here?

Mr. Lenihan

It is only since we set up the wildlife council and started to implement the Act which took place in the past few years. There are now 70 or 80 wildlife rangers located throughout the country. It is part of their duty to ensure, in conjunction with various voluntary game and sporting organisations, that there is a better assessment made of what precise game and wildlife species and numbers we have in our community.

Mr. Deasy

Has the Minister any figures?

Mr. Lenihan

It is a separate matter. This convention only deals with migratory species and not with the other types the Deputy referred to. The administration of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry can combine the two and administer for the home species under the wildlife Act and can bring in a regulation under that Act to administer on an international basis in relation to the migratory species.

Question put and agreed to.