Vol. 528 No. 3
7 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands the implications of the judgment of the European Court on 8 November 2000 that member states must submit an exhaustive list of sites for protection to the European Commission; if she will review the list of SACs submitted to the Commission; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29991/00]
The judgment to which the Deputy refers was made on the 7 November 2000. The judgment does not state that an exhaustive list of sites is to be submitted to the EU Commission. It states:
On a proper construction of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, a Member State may not take account of economic, social and cultural requirements or regional and local characteristics, as mentioned in Article 2(3) of that directive, when selecting and defining the boundaries of the sites to be proposed to the Commission as eligible for identification as sites of Community importance.
The judgment has no new implications for Ireland. Dúchas, the heritage service of my Department, already interpreted the directive in this way. Economic, social and cultural requirements or regional or local characteristics were not taken into account by Dúchas when selecting and defining sites or their boundaries. Accordingly the Irish selection procedures comply with this judgment.
I thank the Minister for that clarification because reports did not indicate it in that fashion. Is the list of SACs closed? Will the Minister add to that list at this juncture? What is the time limit here? At what date will the Commission say the list must be submitted and that we cannot add to it? The Minister said the judgment has no implications for Ireland. For all that, what is the exact position in regard to deadlines and the comprehensive and full list of SACs?
The Irish list of sites was found to be insufficient at the Atlantic regional bio-geographical seminar held in September 1999. This insufficiency was based on the fact that the published sites had not yet been transmitted to the EU Commission. We have had numerous discussions in the House on why it was important to go through the procedures the Minister of State and I set up in the Department to ensure people had an opportunity to put their point of view on the site proposed. I expect the Irish list will be found sufficient at the next seminar in September 2001 because all the sites have been transmitted since the end of November.
The conservation organisations have produced proposals for additional SACs and, as I have said on numerous occasions, we, in the Department, look at these proposals very seriously. Some of their proposals have already been included in the Department's list. The Department is examining the different proposals that have been put to us in regard to the possibility of additional sites. Obviously, if it finds that additional sites are required in order to comply with the directive, that will be done in accordance with the procedures we have set down.
On the number of sites that have been submitted by the Government, the Minister mentioned that the conservation groups, the NGOs, have their own list which I gather comprises a greater number of sites than originally submitted. Will the Minister indicate the number of sites the Government has submitted, the number submitted by the NGOs and the difference between those two groups?
The Deputy is correct in saying the NGOs have put forward certain proposals in regard to additional sites. Many of the proposals the NGOs put forward are already incorporated into the Department's list. All of the sites were submitted to Europe by the end of November. I do not have the exact number here but it is well in excess of 300 sites.
Deputy Clune asked a strange question when she asked about the difference in terms of numbers between the sites proposed by the NGOs and the number of sites we put to Europe. It is not a question of numbers – it is a question of the quality of the sites, the scientific value of the sites and the need to conserve the different habitats and ecologies of those sites. We have complied with the EU in regard to putting forward the number of sites. We have done so in the fairest way possible given the habitats directive. Obviously, this situation is ongoing and will continue to be considered by the Department.
The question specifically asked if the list would be reviewed. Given what the Minister said about the economic and socio-economic situation, will she confirm that Greece and Italy got a derogation in regard to those sites on economic grounds? They said the designation proposals were encroaching on the production of tobacco? It is a bit contradictory that they got a derogation for this economic activity but that we cannot get one for our people. There is a concentration of SACs in the west. There should be a list of priority sites and, if the list was exhaustive, those sites could be spread nationally rather than what has happened. It is clear there is an over abundance of these sites in the west. There is not an equal spread throughout the country.
I said in reply to the last speaker, Deputy Clune, that this matter is ongoing because we know of the interest among NGOs and others who would put forward different suggestions to the Department. Those proposals will be considered very carefully. I expect the Irish list will be found sufficient when the next biogeographical seminar takes place in September 2001.
