Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

recognises the innate value of Ireland's unique natural habitat and the necessity to protect it from harm;

understands the need for a balance to be struck between habitat conservation and the freedom of the people of Ireland to benefit from their local natural resources;

acknowledges the proposals from the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association (TCCA) entitled The TCCA Proposal's on 57 Raised Bog Complexes to EU Commission and Irish Government, dealing with the various issues surrounding Special Areas of Conservation and Natural Habitats Areas, and which, inter alia, propose that:

— in a small minority of bogs, domestic turf cutting and conservation should co-exist with the consolidation of turf cutting into smaller areas, in conjunction with all possible mitigation measures;

— in the vast majority of bogs, turbary rights should be relocated to a nearby bog of similar quality and infrastructural access;

— Compensatory Habitat Exchange should be completed in one instance; and

— additional raised bogs should be designated areas of high conservation value by way of 'Compensatory Habitat' to compensate for areas of co-existence and habitat exchange;

recognises the potential of the proposals, particularly in light of the fact of this being the first ever consultation process to engage with affected communities and land owners in line with the approach set out in the European Commission document LIFE-NATURE: Communicating with Stakeholders and the General Public, in relation to Natura 2000 sites, which states:

— "The principle of collaboration is enshrined in the Habitats Directive, requiring that conservation measures take account of the economic, social and cultural requirements as well as the regional and local characteristics of the area. The manner in which Natura 2000 will be implemented is very important - the involvement of the owner of private land is crucial. LIFE shows that contracts are preferable to constraints"; and

calls on the Government to:

— acknowledge:

— the full impact of the Habitats Directive, not just on the holders of turbary rights, but also on the communities which surround the areas designated;

— in particular, small farms which could be threatened by bogland overgrowth and resultant flooding if unplanned drainage restrictions are placed upon them by the National Parks and Wildlife Service without full consultation with local communities; and

— that those persons directly impacted by the legislation were not consulted and that the State has failed over the years to communicate adequately with ordinary land owners and turf cutters to gain their trust and goodwill;

— treat fairly the citizens of Ireland who have been affected by the Habitats Directive by recognising that without proper planning and consultation the legislation will impact their incomes, the value of their properties, the security of their fuel supply and their cultural heritage;

— make resources available for the further development and implementation of these proposals;

— engage actively with the European Commission to seek a resolution within the terms of the Habitats Directive, and to prepare and submit a National Raised Bog Restoration Plan to the Commission as a matter of urgency; and

— recognise the significant concerns among the turf cutting community and those living adjacent to bogs of the risk of flooding.

I wish to share time with Deputies Thomas Pringle and Clare Daly.

I would like to dedicate this speech to the late Paddy Concannon. He was our president until he, sadly, passed away in the past week in his 94th year. He fought this battle with us the whole way along the line and I hope he is looking down on us and supporting us. He was the last living former elected member of Clann na Talún and our thoughts are with him and his family. He would have been here this evening if he had lasted long enough.

I thank Bord na Móna, especially Mr. Gerry McNally, who helped us with the information we needed along the way. I cannot say we have been happy with everyone we have dealt with but he has been a gem.

For the first time in 20 years, there has been a thorough canvassing of the views of domestic turf cutters on solutions to the difficulties they face due to the designation of their bogs as special areas of conservation, SACs.

Based on the results of an extensive consultation process, the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association, TCCA, has prepared proposals with the potential to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all reasonable people. The TCCA is ready and willing to progress these proposals in a spirit of co-operation and partnership towards a successful conclusion. Over an 18 month period, our representatives have visited every one of the 53 SAC bog complexes or the 57 bogs affected. In a series of 25 meetings, we met local turf cutters and distributed 17,000 questionnaires. The results show that people are deeply committed to both their traditional turf cutting practices and to bog conservation. It is important to point out that our consultation process is in line with the approach set out in the European Commission document entitled, LIFE-NATURE: Communicating with Stakeholders and the General Public, regarding Natura 2000 sites, which states:

The principle of collaboration is enshrined in the Habitats Directive, requiring that conservation measures take account of the economic, social and cultural requirements as well as the regional and local characteristics of the area. The manner in which Natura 2000 will be implemented is very important - the involvement of the owner of private land is crucial. LIFE shows that contracts are preferable to constraints.

It is important to remember that.

I refer to the main pillars of our proposal, the first of which is, in the vast majority of the bogs, relocation to a nearby bog of similar quality and infrastructure. I am one of those who is prepared to move to another bog. There is one within a reasonable distance of my plot, which has good quality turf. I am willing to move and compromise. I do not know what my grand-uncle, Harry Fleming, would think of me moving from the plot his family had for more than 100 years but I hope he would be happy enough. We are not moving for the craic; we are moving to show that we are prepared, if needs be, to compromise but that will require compromise on the other side as well. If there is compromise on that side, we will compromise.

The second element of our proposal calls for co-existence of domestic turf cutting and conservation in a small minority of bogs with the consolidation of turf cutting into smaller areas in conjunction with all possible mitigation measures. This refers to people who do not have a bog to move to within a reasonable distance or who are within a reasonable distance of a bog but it does not have good quality turf with a high calorific value. I propose in this instance, on behalf of the TCCA, that we will ask people who cut on various parts of the bog to consolidate into one area to minimise the impact on the hydrology of the bog. There is no necessity to put down a liner or a dam between the area of co-existence where they cut turf and the area that is conserved. Based on what we know from our management of these areas, that is not required. However, if that is what the State bodies need to be done, it will be done. We have been told by environmental groups that the liners or dams will not work but, last week, we were given clear examples of where the National Parks and Wildlife Service have made this work at the peatlands forum. It can, therefore, make it work in our case.

Third, we will require total compensatory habitat exchange on one bog. In this instance, there is nowhere for any turf cutter to move. There is no bog close enough with good quality turf and given the number of people cutting on the bog, consolidation would be a farce because even if they moved around into different areas, the entire bog would still be cut. In that case, we require complete compensatory habitat exchange.

The fourth pillar of our proposals is the designation of additional raised bogs of high conservation value by way of compensatory habitat to compensate for areas of co-existence and habitat exchange. If the three previous pillars are implemented, only 2% of the land area of the 53 SACs will need to have turf cut on it but it is not right to leave it at that. The TCCA has scoured the country and looked for alternative sites of equal quality and we have put them forward as an alternative to compensate for the habitat that is lost.

The 2% of the SAC land we need will last 250 to 300 years. Who knows what is around the corner? Who knows whether we will still cut turf in 50 or 70 years? However, one thing for sure is that, at most, all we need will be 2% of the land and we can compensate with 2.5 times that acreage.

Domestic turf cutting has been in decline for years for a variety of reasons. The decline in the numbers of people depending on turf for their domestic fuel is documented in the Fernandez report of 2005. With regard to the notion that people will cut an entire bog away, if one has planted an acre of spuds and one's neighbour has acres of land beside it, one does not plant spuds on his land because that is not what people do down the country. The same applies to turf cutting. The average plot size for turbary rights is 1 acre while some are 0.5 acre or 0.25 acre. Once that is cut away, that is the end of it. The notion that someone could cut away the entire bog is ridiculous given the State owns 95% of bogs.

This has never been a monetary issue. Even in today's economic climate, only a small minority of the 20,000 turbary owners on the 139 raised bog SACs and NHAs have accepted the compensation package on offer. More than 95% of the people who have contacted our organisation were not entitled to it. We can only conclude that the package is in essence only attractive to people who do not cut turf.

If previously agreed compensation deals are honoured by the Government, we believe a further minority may be willing to give up their turbary rights or to sell their bogland entirely or in part. This is not necessarily in our interest but people have free will to do what they wish. A flexible approach should be taken on individual preferences for annual or lump sum payments, and the different ownership arrangements, formal and informal, for example, acquired rights, must be recognised and dealt with in a flexible and creative manner by the Government. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.

The strange thing about the compensation package is that people were told they were not entitled to it if they had not cut turf in the last five years. The irony is phenomenal if we listen to some people who talk about the fact that there was no derogation. In essence, the compensation package rewards only the people who ignored the fact that turf cutting was supposedly against the law. It is interesting that is how it went.

It is vital to note that our people have taken the responsibility of guardianship of Ireland's natural heritage seriously, but there can be no effective guardianship where those who have traditionally shouldered that responsibility are ignored, as has been the case. It is not to the credit of previous Governments and the national agencies that we are no further advanced today than in 1998, and it has not done a lot for conservation.

The TCCA represents some of the poorest people in Ireland, many of whom live in areas that are already recognised as disadvantaged, with objective one status. Our people's grievances are too numerous to detail here. They are best summarised by saying that over the six years of the negotiation of the habitats directive from 1986 to 1992 and the 14 year botched implementation attempt since its transposition into Irish law in 1997, the population indigenous to the designated areas has been excluded from all decision making, denied consultation, denied access to information both general and scientific, denied representation, denied legal assistance and denied reasonable compensation or alternatives. They have had agreements dishonoured, been treated unfairly and been subjected to a State-backed campaign of intimidation, victimisation and threats. That is, at the moment, in the past. We should leave things in the past, but if we leave them in the past without learning from them, it is, to say the least, a wasted opportunity.

The conduct of the relevant Government agencies, unfortunately, has brought both the law and the EU into disrepute in the eyes of the people. I suggest the Minister read appendix A of the report entitled TCCA Proposals on 57 Raised Bog Complexes to EU Commission and Irish Government. We will not have time to go through it today, but I hope the Government Members will before tomorrow. Appendix A documents the process, begun in 2004, between the turbary rights holders and landowners of All Saints Bog, County Offaly, and Dúchas, the predecessor to the NPWS, and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. As will be seen, it is a story of incompetence at best and, at worst, of neglect and disregard for citizens. To date the Departments have failed to complete a contract they initiated. Of 1,200 such agreements entered into by Departments, 540 have still not been honoured. This is not something we came up with off the top of our heads; this information came on 11 July last from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

The TCCA's submission to the working group on the cessation of turf cutting on certain raised bog special areas of conservation and natural heritage areas is provided in appendix F of the aforementioned report. I suggest the Minister read it, as there is a lot to learn. This detailed submission, along with the work documented in the report, are testament to the determination of the TCCA to work with the authorities in resolving this issue. It is also testament to the numerous failed initiatives to date. Appendix B contains extracts from the Official Report of meetings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs dated 17 November 2009 and 8 July 2010. It can be seen that all members of the committee supported our case and argued that the settlement agreed in May 2007 should be honoured and completed.

Our members seek neither conflict nor confrontation. Instead, we seek to rely upon adherence to the stated EU principles of democracy, transparency, due process and subsidiarity. We bring an unrivalled and in-depth practical knowledge of our bogs and people to the table, combined with the know-how and equipment to deliver practical conservation solutions on the ground. Under our proposals, as I said earlier, approximately 98% of SAC raised bog area can be conserved. The addition of raised bog compensatory habitats will easily offset or perhaps completely negate any shortfall. In many instances, the farmland surrounding a raised bog would be vulnerable to flooding if the drainage were allowed to close over. Thus, many farmers would suffer if drainage was not maintained or compensatory drainage was not put in place to keep their lands flood-free. It is not clear from what the NPWS has stated whether any such works will be done. This is an issue that must be addressed and applies to nearly all bogs reviewed in our report.

Bog owners, domestic turf cutters and farmers have a great responsibility in the guardianship of Ireland's natural heritage. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. A review of the site synopsis reports of some of the designated areas raises questions about why certain areas were included while other areas were not. The synopsis of Derrynabrock bog and a map of same have been included in appendix C of the report. The Minister should definitely look at that. No reason was given in the synopsis for the fact that the SAC designation included a very large part of the bog but left out a considerable area that is contiguous to the entire bog and appears to have all the same characteristics of the area enclosed by the SAC. The same designated area includes fields that were reclaimed in the 1970s. These fields, which now produce silage, are part of the SAC, while part of the raised bog is not. That is not good. An examination of the sequence of maps issued by the NPWS for Derrynabrock bog is worth considering. The boundary shown in a 1993 map moved eastward on a map issued in 1996. People are confused enough already about this. The boundary then moved east by one turf bank in a map issued in 2010 and then east by a further three banks in a 2012 map. That is causing a problem for people.

Similarly, there are many instances of bogs with SAC designations that finish abruptly at the boundary of a State or semi-State property. In one instance, at Barroughter bog, the designation excludes a piece of property that is owned by the ESB, even though the bog and the land surrounding it on all sides are designated. That is also shown in our report.

The TCCA feels that any reasonable examination of bogs and any efforts to conserve bogland must include the activities of the large-scale commercial operators. In appendix D, if the Minister has time to consider the report, there are two aerial photographs of bogs in the Clara-Ferbane area and the Longford-Lanesborough area. The photographs show clearly what has happened in these areas, yet there is no plan to deal with this industrial-scale destruction. It is no accident that the best preserved bogs in Ireland are those that have traditionally been used by small-scale domestic turf-cutters. In many instances, the presence of small-scale domestic turf-cutters has inhibited wholesale industrialisation and afforestation of the bogs in which we have traditionally operated. Yet now that conservation efforts are a necessity, the small-scale domestic cutter is the first to be asked to make sacrifices.

I might need another two minutes, if that is all right.

It is important to tackle the issue of the supposedly evil turf machine in comparison to the sleán. Maybe the turf machine does not look quite as dreamy on the bog as the man with the peaked cap, the pipe in his mouth and the sleán in his hand, but that does not necessarily mean it is worse to use the machine. In fact, it is less harmful. When a turf-cutter uses the hopper machine, he uses less turf. Why? If he is using the sleán, he needs to go down further into the bog to find good turf. With the machine, he can mix the bad turf and the good turf and he uses less of the turf bank overall. It mixes the whole thing up. On top of that, when one reaches the waterline, where the best turf is - my father calls it black stone turf - it cannot be cut with the sleán. This means that using the machine gives better quality turf while using less bog. In addition, there is no need to drain the high bog for a tractor and transport box, as the machine is on tracks, which means it does not sink as readily. The machine exerts two pounds per square inch on a bog while the average human exerts four pounds per square inch. It does not look as nice as the man with the sleán but it does not cause a problem in terms of putting pressure on the bog.

The final argument that must be tackled is that someone with a machine will cut more turf. About 20 years ago, my mother bought an electric mixer. Until then she had used a wooden spoon. After she bought it she did not make 100 times more cakes and we did not eat any more cakes. The reality is the turf cutter does not want to burn any more turf. He probably has a stove now and burns even less turf. Even if he wanted to cut every last bit of turf, he can only cut what is on his patch, no more than a farmer cannot plant spuds in the neighbour's field.

Research carried out for the Environmental Protection Agency's bogland report in 2011 found that Irish people have positive attitudes towards the domestic cutting of turf and also value bogs as heritage, regarding both as compatible, as does the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association. We are especially aware of how turf is deeply symbolic to Irish people wherever they are in the world. It represents our history, economic self-sufficiency and identity. We hope that the proposals of the Turf Cutters and Contractors Association will be developed by those who watch over and work the land and will ensure the living and working landscapes we see today are safeguarded into the future.

See this speech in context