Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1, 1c and 2 are being taken together as they relate to one another. I will speak to these amendments together, if that is okay.

Amendment No. 1, as proposed by the Seanad, amends section 16 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. Section 16 sets out the statutory process for when a Minister intends to designate a natural heritage area.

Amendment No. 1 was a Government amendment in the Seanad. It was drafted in response to issues raised by the Opposition in the Seanad. The amendment simply sought to facilitate wider dissemination of a notice of the Minister's intention to make an order designating natural heritage areas. I am proposing to reject amendment No. 1 and replace it with amendment No. 1c to simply deal with referencing changes as a result of changes elsewhere in the Bill and to incorporate changes to Seanad amendment No. 2, which I will move on to discuss now.

Seanad amendment No. 2 also amends section 16 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 and was proposed in the Seanad on Report Stage and accepted by the Minister in the Seanad, subject to further checking. The effect of the amendment as proposed was that in deciding that a site is worthy of conservation, the Minister could propose a site for designation by virtue of its role in carbon sequestration or in respect of pollination. Section 16(6) of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 already provides that the Minister may propose a site for designation as a natural heritage area, NHA, by virtue of its special scientific interest for one or more species, communities, habitats, landforms or geological or geomorphological features, or for its diversity of natural attributes. The proposed amendment would provide the Minister with additional criteria relating to carbon sequestration and pollination, in proposing to designate a site as an NHA in the future, in accordance with section 16 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. The amendment as proposed by the Seanad could be interpreted as meaning that these criteria could be considered in their own right, that is, as sole criteria. This could lead to sites being designated which may have very limited nature conservation value and this could divert the resources we have in this area away from core work on nature conservation and restoration.

It is considered that this would be better achieved by ensuring carbon sequestration and pollination are factors that must be considered when drawing together the scientific advice the Minister must have regard to when deciding whether to propose a site for designation as a natural heritage area. In this way, carbon sequestration and pollination would be considered as factors to be taken into account within the scientific advice available to the Minister alongside the birds directive and the habitats directive, as well as the size, location and features of the site and other factors. This is the thrust of the alternative amendment now proposed.

The relevant part of the subsection within section 16 of the Act would now read:

(b) The scientific advice referred to in paragraph (a) shall take account of, as appropriate, the size of the site, its location, the type of natural feature or features contained in it, its role in carbon sequestration or pollination, its importance for the purposes of the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive and the degree of negative, or potentially negative, human impact.

The proposed amendment achieves the thrust of the intention of the Seanad amendment but in a more appropriate manner.

Members should please note that the Government counter-amendment, amendment No. 1c, incorporates the response to Seanad amendment No. 2. It is, therefore, proposed to also reject Seanad amendment No. 2.

See this speech in context