Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will address Amendments Nos. 401 to 403, inclusive, 407 and 414 together.

Amendment No. 401, jointly tabled by Deputies Ó Broin, Gould, Ó Snodaigh, Boyd Barrett, Smith, Kenny and O’Callaghan, seeks to include a new objective in such strategies for the conservation, protection, management and improvement of native species subject to the strict protection of species under the second pillar of the habitats directive.

Amendment No. 402, tabled by the same Deputies, seeks to amend the objective concerning biodiversity as being in accordance with the EU biodiversity strategy and the national biodiversity plan, including in particular the protection of trees, groups of trees or other features of ecological significance, and to include a reference to hedgerows.

Amendment No. 403, tabled by the same Deputies, seeks to amend the existing requirement for the inclusion of objectives for the conservation, protection, management and improvement of an area designated as a natural heritage area under section 18 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 to require this provision to apply also to proposed natural heritage areas.

Significant environmental designations are already available and are widely used. The expansion of the objective could add further complexity to the planning system. In particular, there may be a requirement to remove existing hedgerows to allow for appropriate development that may meet wider polices relating to sustainable development and the need to adapt to the consequences of climate change and to reduce our carbon emissions. As I have mentioned, we believe there is sufficient provision within the planning system to suitably protect the environment while balancing this against the need to promote sustainable and appropriate development.

On this basis, I cannot accept the amendments. However, this is very much the area of the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, who has previously appeared before this committee and committed to looking at the reference to biodiversity and the biodiversity action plan within the Bill. His observations may supersede much of what I have just read out from my note.

Amendment No. 407, tabled by the same Deputies, seeks to include a new objective in such strategies for the conservation, protection, management and improvement historical sites. I am of the view historical sites are adequately provided for under section 48 (2) (i), referring to “places, caves, sites, features and other objects of archaeological, geological, historical, scientific or other ecological interest”. On this basis, I cannot accept that amendment.

Amendment No. 414, tabled by Deputy Duffy, concerns the definitions that will apply to section 48 in respect of strategies for the conservation, etc., of natural and built heritage and seeks to amend the definition of EU biodiversity strategy to mean not just the strategy for 2030, as worded, but to also include related directives and regulations. I consider that the reference to unspecified EU directives and regulations is too vague to allow for the appropriate consideration of the implications of this amendment and, therefore, I cannot accept it. As I indicated, the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, has dealt with this. We are reviewing the references to biodiversity and the biodiversity action plan in the Bill and, if appropriate, may bring forward amendments on Report Stage. On that basis, I cannot accept the amendment.