Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, what is the position on the fines ordered against Ireland by the European Court of Justice in November 2008 and what are the legal costs associated with the case and the subsequent proceedings by the European Commission?

I have sought clarification on the definition of "wetlands" pursuant to the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Agriculture) Regulations. The constituency I am from is the largest, geographically, in the country, with large areas of waterways, lakes, rivers and designated land. The definition of "wetlands" has a significant impact on counties such as Mayo. I acknowledge the great work of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coveney, and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, in negotiating with the Commission to allow ordinary reclamation and drainage work on non-designated wetland areas to go ahead, despite the restrictions applied it.

I am asking that the definition of "wetlands" be kept as restricted as possible because farmers on marginal lands will be affected by this. We should bear in mind that we are trying to achieve targets under Food Harvest 2020 which would see primary food production increase by over one third, and farmers must be allowed to farm. It is difficult for anybody not involved in farming or, to qualify it even further, anybody who does not know about marginal land to understand the restrictions on farmers living in designated areas such as SACs, NHAs, Natura 2000 scheme lands and now wetlands. They cannot build homes or wind farms on their holdings, among other things. Now, the only thing they were allowed to do - farming - has also been restricted.

In recent years the National Parks and Wildlife Service has placed restrictions on hill farmers on designated lands to avoid overgrazing by sheep. Now we find that this was totally the wrong tack, as evidenced by the fires that occurred in counties Donegal and Mayo throughout the summer. The grasslands in question had grown so thickly that they burned easily, and this did more damage than any sheep would ever do on highlands and hills. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has suggested more sheep be put on the hills that they were taken off before, but this is not an easy thing to do, as they have never been so expensive.

I suggest the Minister, Deputy Coveney, talk to farmers rather than the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Farmers and their families before them have farmed hills and mountains for centuries. They know how to farm them and the appropriate numbers of sheep to graze on them, while those from the National Parks and Wildlife Service have spent their lives in carpet up to their noses. Farmers know how to get the best from the land in terms of productivity and are not out to do damage to the landscape. In addition, now that the grass has grown so tough, the sheep cannot even eat it; therefore, we could have starving sheep on the sides of mountains.

The situation at which we have arrived is ridiculous and shows the disconnect between practical farmers and those who sit in offices. Farmers are not being listened to and are highly frustrated as a result. It is appropriate that those who are carrying the burden of making sure our environment, ecology and natural heritage remain intact be compensated. Where they are being restricted in their farming while trying to eke out a living, they should also be appropriately compensated. This may be a joint effort between the Department of Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but there must be recognition of what farmers are doing. It is said bureaucracy is ridiculous; this is a case in point. As politicians, we must listen to those with practical experience and proceed from there.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, is on official business and not in the Dáil today, I have been asked to take this important matter on his behalf. I thank the Deputy for raising it.

In its judgment in case C-66/06, delivered in November 2010, the European Court of Justice found that Ireland's system of environmental impact assessment screening for certain categories of agriculture related projects was over-reliant on size thresholds and did not take into account other relevant criteria such as cumulative impacts of development and location relative to sensitive sites. The case has now been referred back to the court to seek fines for continued non-compliance.

The provisions of the EIA directive were transposed into Irish legislation by the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. Schedule 5 of the 2001 regulations specifies relevant development for the purposes of Part X of the Act which deals with EIAs. The activities affected by the judgment are the restructuring of rural land holdings, the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agriculture, and water management projects for agriculture, including irrigation and land drainage.

The European Court of Justice decision necessitated a major reduction in the thresholds for mandatory EIAs and for EIA screening for projects under the mandatory thresholds. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have worked together, in consultation with the European Commission, to fully address the court's findings and ensure Ireland's legislative system and procedures are fully compliant with the directive. It was agreed that it was more efficient and appropriate to transfer responsibility for most of the activities covered by the judgment such as the restructuring of fields and removal of hedgerows and boundaries, the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agriculture and normal field drainage works to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as part of its wider management responsibilities for overseeing agricultural activities and integrating environmental considerations into relevant schemes. It was agreed that it is more efficient and appropriate to transfer responsibility for most of the activities covered by the judgment, such as the re-structuring of fields and removal of hedgerows and boundaries, the use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agriculture and normal field drainage works to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as part of its wider management responsibilities for overseeing agricultural activities and integrating environmental considerations into relevant schemes. The only element of the judgment retained within the planning system is on-farm development activity that impacts on the drainage or reclamation of wetlands, which are regarded as highly environmentally sensitive areas.

Following approval by the Oireachtas of the draft regulations, on 8 September 2011 the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government signed the Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2011, which introduce a number of amendments to address the ECJ findings in this case.

The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also signed, on 8 September, new European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Agriculture) Regulations 2011 which provide for a new system of screening for environmental impact above certain thresholds for different types of agricultural activity, and the requirement for the Minister's consent to be sought and mandatory environmental impact assessment, EIA, to be carried out on such projects at a higher threshold level.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I see a supplementary statement. Does the Minister of State have it?

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The answer appears to be that the definition of wetlands is being considered. I shall await that, therefore, and hope it will be restrictive. I made some other points, too, about fines that the Minister of State might relay to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I will look forward to his response.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assure the Deputy I will bring her comments to the attention of both Ministers and will obtain an answer to her questions on fines and costs.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sheep, too.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, sheep, too.