Vol. 523 No. 2
91 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands the EU directives for which her Department has responsibility which have yet to be implemented; the directives in respect of which the EU Commission has taken legal action or opened infringement proceedings against Ireland for non-implementation; the current position in regard to each of the directives; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20218/00]
114 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands if she has implemented the EU habitats directive; and, if not, the reasons therefor. [20730/00]
127 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands the number of special areas of conservation sites registered with the EU Commission as required under the EU directive; if the details of all sites will be transmitted by the November 2000 deadline; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20219/00]
183 Mr. O'Shea asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands the EU directives for which her Department has responsibility which have yet to be implemented; the directives in respect of which the EU Commission has taken legal action or opened infringement proceedings against Ireland for non-implementation; the current position in regard to each of the directives; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [20302/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 91, 114, 127 and 183 together.
The EU directives for which my Department has responsibility have been implemented but the EU Commission has initiated legal action in relation to two directives, the habitats directive and the birds directive. Proceedings in regard to the habitats directive are based on the requirement to transmit a list of candidate special areas of conservation, SACs, in accordance with article 4(1) of the directive.
The directive had been transposed into Irish law in March 1997 under the previous Administration. However, given that the viability of the Natura 2000 network to be set up under the directive is dependent on the co-operation and goodwill of landowners and users whose land is to be designated, I introduced a number of measures to ensure appropriate consultation with interested parties. These measures included the putting in place of local liaison committees, the introduction of informal channels for objections to designations and the establishment of an appeals advisory board under the chairmanship of former Ombudsman, Mr. Michael Mills.
Prior to my appointment as Minister, no candidate SAC had been transmitted to the Commission under the terms of the directive. Since then, however, 315 sites have been transmitted while 48 additional candidate SACs have yet to be transmitted because the landowners or users involved are engaged in the objection processes. The Commission is fully aware that while Ireland is technically not in full compliance with the directive, proposed SACs receive full protection under our national legislation. In the context of approval of EU funding for the national development plan I have accepted an overriding requirement to complete the formal transmission of sites by the end of November 2000. The Irish defence to the Commission's case has been submitted to the European Court of Justice and an oral hearing has been requested.
The Commission has also initiated proceedings against Ireland in connection with over-grazing and the decline of the red grouse population in the Owenduff/Nephin Beg Complex, a special protection area for birds under the EU birds directive. The rural environment protection scheme operated by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, together with farm plans implementing commonage framework plans, will alleviate and recover the situation. I am awaiting approval from the Commission for my Department's scheme before implementing these plans.
I am confident that all these measures will, when fully implemented, redress the over-grazing problem. The commonage plan for the Owenduff/Nephin Beg Complex is ready for implementation and will be initiated as soon as my Department's scheme receives approval from the Commission. In the meantime my Department, in conjunction with the Chief State Solicitor's office, has prepared a defence of the case.
The Minister's reference to the Owenduff/Nephin Beg Complex indicates that the EU is still pursuing legal action. What is the position in regard to Directive No. 79/409/EEC? The Commission initiated proceedings against Ireland for non-implementation and the Minister said that she was mounting a vigorous defence in this regard. What is the up to date position? What is the nature of her defence?
Both the Minister of State and myself took the opportunity to go to Brussels to discuss the issues with the EU Commissioner with responsibility for this area, with particular reference to the habitats directives. We outlined that while we supported the directive we wanted to ensure that people were given an opportunity to adhere to these proposals because a change in practice was involved.
I reiterate that to bring about such co-operation, the Minister of State and I went to great lengths to ensure that there would be a structure into which people would have a direct input and under which they would be given an opportunity to appeal. That is provided for through the appeals advisory board under the chairmanship of Michael Mills and the liaison committees. I emphasise for those who say the Government or myself has been tardy with regard to submission of sites that no site had been transmitted before I took up office. There has been a substantial improvement in that position and we hope to comply with the directive by the end of next month.
We have outlined our defence regarding the EU birds directive. The question of the Owenduff/Nephin Beg Complex has been examined because that involves a commonage plan. Commonages are not completely understood in terms of trying to implement directives in this regard. They are particular to Ireland in a legal sense. There has been a delay because of these domestic issues. It has not been due to disinterest, tardiness or laziness. We want to ensure that when these directives are implemented they have the utmost effect.
The Minister stated that 315 sites plus another 48 have been submitted. There is concern among NGOs in particular that approximately 600 more sites should be included. Is the Minister aware of their comments?
I am aware of the debate in that regard and the views that have been put forward by some NGOs. The position is outlined in a reply to a later question. It is most important, however, to highlight that Ireland has taken this responsibility seriously. A high percentage of land is covered by such conservation and protection initiatives. In the context of a European league, Ireland would be in the middle in terms of the designation of sites. We have done well proportionately. Views have been put forward and I am willing to listen to views which are forthcoming from other groups.
The Minister has been working in this area but the progress is slow given the level of protection needed for these sites. She stated that Ireland was technically in non-compliance. Does she agree that a number of sites are technically being destroyed? Will that inspire her to give more urgency to protection? She mentioned that sites are fully protected under national legislation. Does she accept this is far from adequate in regard to a number of sites where the protection is little other than in name only?
She stated that appropriate consultations have taken place. Does she agree that given the level of objections from certain landowners who feel they were not adequately consulted prior to designation of their land that consultation was not appropriate? I know a further question has been tabled but in case it is not reached, I would like to tease out whether there has been any revision in the methodology of consultation so that the habitats and birds directives will be implemented and fully complied with.
Deputy Sargent has jumped to Question No. 94.
One must do so when in Opposition.
The Deputy is preaching to the converted when he speaks to the Minister of State and myself about consultation. The one sure way for any of these directives to be effective is to have co-operation and there will not be co-operation if people do not have an opportunity to take part in the decision making process. Obviously, one is not going to have co-operation if people do not have an opportunity to take part in the decision-making process. I am sure the Deputy will be interested to learn that having had a number of discussions with the NGOs, particularly with regard to the Wildlife Bill that will be coming before the committee soon, a number of the NGOs that have been part of the appeals advisory system have said they found it very useful. They have been struck by the fact that it is clear that farming and conservation interests can work together successfully. The fact that we have had these processes has bridged a perception gap, if nothing else, and that in itself is important. The consultation is important and that is why we set up the structures. The Deputy will recall that no such structures existed before I took office.
With regard to future consultations, the land owners and land users may request my officials to attend liaison committees and to discuss any problems that might arise. In addition, my Department is preparing management conservation plans for each site. Land owners and land users will be fully consulted on these plans before they are finalised.
The Minister has not mentioned that they are being destroyed.
That is an important issue and with your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I would like to deal with it. I can understand why the Deputy is concerned about this. I am sure, however, that he is equally well aware that once these sites are designated they are legally protected. If he has any knowledge of any specific sites that are being destroyed he should let me and the Minister of State know.
I certainly will.
When will the habitats directive be implemented and what additional staff does the Minister have to see that it will be properly implemented? Every day of the week, any student of nature can see developers, land owners and even local authorities destroying habitats. The Minister mentioned a figure of 90 additional wildlife rangers, but that is only a drop in the ocean. We need at least a dozen people in each average sized county. What does the Minister realistically intend to do? There is no point in talking about implementing the habitats directive unless she has staff to oversee its implementation.
The Deputy will be well aware that we are implementing the directive. That is what this discussion is all about. It is the method of implementation that concerns us. We will be in a position to comply with the directive by the end of November this year. With regard to the wider issue to which the Deputy has referred, the directive takes special areas of conservation under its ambit. It does not concern every single case, only specific, sensitive areas. I will be interested to hear the Deputy's contribution on the Wildlife Bill when he can raise issues that are perhaps outside the area of SACs, not least the debate on hedgerows about which I very much agree with him.
What about staff? The Minister has not answered the question about staff.
In view of the Minister's expressed concern about the implementation of EU directives – she has made various statements both recently and in the past – can she explain whether it was ever intended that an EU directive would actually impinge on the ability of a farmer to make a living from his holding? In the west, a farmer's lands have been designated and consequently the lands he can work to make a living have been reduced from 70 to 20 acres. As a result he has lost his livelihood as a farmer. I know that the Minister is concerned about such cases, and so am I.
A question please, Deputy.
Will the Minister indicate clearly and unequivocally what the situation is with regard to that particular farmer? There is obvious confusion about the initial way in which the advertisement of those designations took place. There was no tangible way in which those people could discover what was going on. They found out inadvertently when it was too late. What recourse do they have at this stage? The way in which it was advertised did not make it open and available for everyone to see the designations that were publicly displayed.
The Department has never refused an appeal. As regards the question of compensation, there is a compensation structure for actual loss of income. I take the Deputy's point that this matter has caused anxiety for a number of people. Perhaps that is one of the reasons I referred, as I did, to the question of directives. In my view, the implementation of those directives should be left to those who understand the sensitivities within individual member states. The Minister of State and I have worked hard to deal with the situation which was already a fait accompli when we took office. We have, however, certainly dealt with it in the fairest possible manner. We are looking to the EU to give the go ahead for the compensation package to which I referred earlier.
