Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

“(2) Section 16(6) of the Act of 2000 is amended by the insertion of “for its role in carbon sequestration, or in respect of pollination” after “features” where it first occurs.”.

Amendments Nos.1, 5 and 7 relate to the amendment of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act of 2000. In section 2 of the Bill before us, the Government is amending section 16 of the 2000 Act and my amendment No. 1 is a further amendment to that section. It relates specifically to an amendment of subsection (6) of section 16 which sets out the various scientific factors that may be considered in the context of the designation of particular places as natural heritage areas worthy of conservation. There is a wide list of scientific factors that are included in the 2000 Act but that Act, by virtue of the time of its introduction, predates some of the key and most pressing scientific and environmental concerns that we have today. Most notably the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 in section 6 (6) does not include the key issue of carbon sequestration.I may table amendments on Report Stage on the wider set of climate change impacts, but I have tried to be specific by focusing on carbon sequestration. In the past 90 years a considerable body of relevant scientific information that looks to the role of our forests, bogs and other spaces in sequestering carbon and helping to reduce carbon emissions has been built up. That is a fundamental matter. This is about ensuring that the section dealing with scientific factors in the 2000 Act is up to date. I do not believe it can be up to date if it does not include a consideration of the environmental impact of having carbon sequestered in our bogs and the role they play. I could cite at length the various statistics, and there may be a chance at a later stage to look to those, in terms of the role carbon sequestration plays, but I wanted to highlight that factor in the first instance.

I have mentioned on previous occasions, and I know that the Minister of State understands my point, that we face twin crises at the moment. There is a crisis in terms of climate change and in respect of biodiversity and the collapse of ecosystems. An abundance of scientific information has come to light on these topics. We are told that 40% or more of our pollinators may be under threat and may die. The University of Stanford in particular has produced large-scale research on this area. Bees have become so scarce that they are transferred from one side of a country to another to help with harvests. When we spoke about these issues during the debate on the Heritage Bill recently, I emphasised that it takes multiple visits, sometimes up to 20, from a pollinator for horticultural produce such as apples to develop fully. Pollinators have a key role, which has been recognised by the Government in the national pollinator plan. That plan, however, must be given recognition and substance. We have to be consistent. If we have a national pollinator plan and are looking at scientific issues in respect of special areas of natural heritage or environmental considerations, we must give effect to it.

Amendment No. 1 seeks to ensure that the environmental factors that are taken into account in the consideration of bogland when it comes to its designation or its environmental benefits include its role in carbon sequestration or in respect of pollination. Amendment No. 5 follows through on the same theme. While I recognise that there are positive aspects to the Bill, one of my primary concerns is that there are entirely different criteria set out concerning the designation and de-designation of a bogland as an area of national heritage. I will return to that in subsequent amendments, but it seems extraordinary that we would have entirely different criteria being applied to designating and de-designating areas of national heritage. To designate an area, section 16(6), which is the part of the Bill dealing with scientific environmental impacts, is referred to.

I am trying to double down on this. If my first amendment is not successful in including the role of carbon sequestration and pollination directly into section 16(6), I have taken those two factors and included them using the next amendment so that the Bill would include at that point consideration of "contribution towards the achievement of climate change targets or goals within the National Pollinator Plan" and "national, regional and local economic, social and cultural needs" in the designation of a national heritage area. I think it is clear in the drafting, but I want to emphasise that the provision does not state that all of these factors are required.It simply means that these are all factors that might contribute to the Minister of State's decision to designate a natural heritage area. Again I commend him and I recognise that he proposes to designate some 25 areas of public land in respect of national heritage areas but this would effectively future-proof the legislation and ensure it is truly responsive to the wide range of considerations that should be brought onboard.

I refer to amendment No. 7 on page 4, line 11. This is about bog habitats ceasing to be designated. My concern is that while section 16(6) may be incomplete, it includes key scientific measures in respect of environment. That is referenced in relation to designating a natural heritage area. However, in the decision to de-designate natural heritage areas, which I spoke about on Second Stage, that is the headline issue and that is what we are seeing in the papers. Section 16(6) is ostentatiously missing. It is a real concern if those scientific factors, evidences, concerns and environmental considerations that are looked at when deciding to create an area of natural heritage are not also considered when de-designation is being considered. If it is being considered to take something out of natural heritage protection, surely the same factors and criteria need to be addressed. Instead, environmental criteria are referred to and a definition of environmental criteria is produced later in the Bill, which is quite different to those factors outlined in section 16(6) of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. There is a concern here as it is an inconsistency. In legislation, an inconsistency is a concern, as well as those areas of omission such as climate change and pollinators that I mentioned. I hope the Minister of State can address that point somewhat. We will come back to it in some subsequent amendments but amendment No. 7 is just another quite blunt proposal to do that. I reserve the right to bring section 16(6) directly into the proposed section 18A(3)(b)(ii) and I may do that on Report Stage. In the meantime, I have put in the phrase, “and contribution towards achievement of climate change targets or goals within the National Pollinator Plan”. I have held back on bringing section 16(6) directly into the de-designation because I wanted to hear the Minister of State's rationale for that decision.