Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 10 Feb 1998

Vol. 486 No. 6

Adjournment Debate. - Special Areas of Conservation.

Mr. Connaughton

This is an important issue not alone in my constituency but throughout the country. As the Minister is aware, the turf cutting season is about to start. Farmers and bog owners whose bogs have been included in special areas of conservation under the EU habitats directive are confused, angry and frustrated. They are angry because they have been offered £1,000 per acre in compensation. While this may be adequate where turf is of poor quality, the turf is inaccessible and there are drainage problems, it is unrealistic where the turf is of good quality, there is good drainage and there are good access roads constructed at great cost to their owners. This amount is an insult. The asset value, based on the annual cost of heating a house by gas, electricity or oil, is high. Most house owners will have to switch to an alternative fuel. There should be a separate and much more realistic compensation package for farmers and bog owners who consistently avail of their turbary rights.

Farmers and bog owners are also confused. They are to be offered alternative sites but in many cases these will be up to ten miles from their existing plot and of inferior quality. In the first year they will be paid relocation expenses. Farmers and bog owners are frustrated because the new season is about to start and they have been unable to get their message across, even though the many groups who have met the Minister have found her to be accessible.

I ask the Minister to consider providing for a one year moratorium, particularly for those who cut turf in raised bogs in the west. It is not reasonable to expect them to accept what is on the table.

The granting of SAC status interferes with the legitimate property rights of farmers and bog owners. This has not been grasped by the Department. I would like to know what the response of property owners in the centre of Dublin would be if somebody said that half of their nice garden would have to remain untouched. It amounts to draconian intrusion.

I have nothing but the height of praise for the officials in the Department but they do not understand the significance of this matter. Farmers and bog owners should be allowed to cut turf in the coming season in the hope that negotiations will have been brought to a realistic conclusion by this time next year.

Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (Miss de Valera)

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter which is causing concern. I am well aware that it is sensitive and emotive. I remind the Deputy that the directive in question was signed by my predecessor in February 1997. I took the view that more time should have been allowed for consultation.

Mr. Connaughton

The process had been ongoing for seven years.

Miss de Valera

When I took office it was a fait accompli. I am trying to deal with it in the fairest way possible.

The EU habitats directive requires member states to designate their most important natural areas as special areas of conservation and protect them from anything that would damage their ecology. It identifies all active bogs as priorities. This means they must be afforded the highest level of protection.

Raised bogs are particularly important in this context. We have proposed about 8,000 hectares of the original figure of over 300,000 hectares for SAC status. Blanket or mountain bogs are also identified as priorities but, given that about 200,000 hectares have been proposed for SAC status, this kind of bog is less rare.

While it is possible to phase out the cutting of peat in blanket bogs over a period of years, the position on raised bogs is much more critical. While it is difficult to be precise, it is estimated that 40 acres of intact raised bog are lost, effectively forever, each year cutting continues. To meet our obligations under the directive to conserve this habitat, cutting has to stop now.

My Department has had a number of meetings with those involved in turf cutting at which it was indicated that the compensation package for those who have been actively cutting in recent times and are required to stop will include the following elements: my Department will offer to buy the land from those affected and we envisage a price of around £1,000 per acre but this has been rejected by the farming organisations and others as being inadequate. The price offered is based on my Department's long experience of buying similar land at anything from £450 to £800 per acre. In that context the price offered is generous and relates to prevailing market prices. For those who are not prepared to sell, we hope that in many areas we will be able to offer relocation to another bog. Those who have to move some distance to the new alternative site will be offered a once off payment of £100 per mile up to a maximum of £500. Where agreement is not reached, the matter can be referred to independent arbitration.

While I am in favour of achieving the maximum degree of consensus, deferring the cessation of cutting for another year would not solve the problem, even if this was possible. Many of those affected have repeatedly said that the issue is not about money but relates to a perceived infringement of traditional rights, particularly the right to use land to which they are deeply attached. I have great sympathy for this argument but the issue must be faced now.

The directive leaves me little discretion in this area but I will do everything possible to address the concerns that have been expressed. First, my Department is prepared to purchase the turbary rights to a bog plot while leaving ownership of the fee simple with the existing owner. This may mean a great deal to those who want to retain a tangible link with the land.

Many people see the saving of turf as a family activity, and everything possible will be done to provide alternative sites where cutting can continue for those who want to avail of the relocation option.

My Department has based its offer on the evidence of the marketplace over many years and believes that the offer is fair. However, independent arbitration is available and if my Department's assumptions are proved wrong, this should quickly emerge as the first cases go through the arbitration process.

I know it is difficult for people to accept the kind of changes that are necessary to protect disappearing habitats, but the sad truth is that without change we will not be able to pass on the natural environment to our successors in anything like the state in which we received it.

Neither I nor my Department want to be seen as imposing something that people do not want, but I hope when people get used to the idea they will realise that what is being done is for everyone's benefit, and that the concerns of people who are affected will be taken seriously and addressed to the maximum extent possible.