Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 relate to what happens after an area ceases to be designated as a natural heritage area under subsection 3(b), basically after the de-designation process. I want to mark down that since we last debated this issue a climate emergency and biodiversity crisis have been declared. We have acknowledged the urgency of the issues we face with respect to the climate and the interlinked crisis in biodiversity. We discussed previously the way sections of this Bill do something to address biodiversity but perhaps not the key issue of pollination and pollinator plants. The Bill falls short of recognising the issues of climate, carbon sink and the implications in terms of emissions of changes to our current peatland protections and designation.

We have all been of the view that the Government should consider withdrawing the Bill as a whole and reconsidering it over the summer. The areas of bogland were added at a late stage and the Minister should go back to the drawing board with the Bill. The Taoiseach said in the Dáil today that we have declared a climate emergency but we do not necessarily have all the resources yet in place to take action. One resource we have which we underuse is that of political will and courage. It is open to us to decide to be politically courageous in not taking a step in the wrong direction and literally to stop digging in terms of the commercial exploitation of our peatlands because we need those peatlands to deliver in terms of biodiversity. We need what they can do for us in acting as carbon sinks.

I ask the Minister of State to consider taking a politically courageous act of moving backwards on this Bill and putting it aside. Failing that I urge him and other Members of the House to support me on amendments Nos. 17 and 18. They do not seek to affect turbary rights, namely, rights of access to bogs that have been passed down through families for generations. Rather they address the exploitation of commercial turf cutting, which is quite different. We need to start making that distinction.

As I have said in the House previously, there is an intergenerational justice issue not only for the next generation in terms of climate change who will suffer consequences if we continue to dig ourselves deeper into an unsustainable route of emissions production, but for those families who have turbary rights because one generation effectively has used up the equivalent of four or five previous generations’ use of turf and they will potentially use up the opportunity to exercise turbary rights for the next generation.

I had a very interesting morning at the Young Philosopher Awards talking to children about their perspective on what is valuable, what matters and what is important to them. Climate and their environment are extremely important to them and they take it very seriously.If they inherit turbary rights, they may choose to cut less and, perhaps, appreciate their access to the bog in different ways, such as in terms of the wildlife it supports or the fact that peatlands, though they cover only 17% of the land, are estimated to store over 53% of the carbon. The key point is that it should be their decision to make. If we allow commercial cutting and the use of sausage machines and other commercial cutting machines on de-designated bogs, we will damage not only Ireland and the planet, but also the next generation and its freedom to have a choice and relationship with those boglands.

That is why I have tabled two amendments, one of which proposes that after a bog is de-designated, there will be turbary rights. Indeed, de-designation may open up other matters discussed in this House such as cycleways, pathways and other recreational activities. One thing it should not open up is commercial cutting. We should not add new areas for commercial cutting while going into a period when we are facing massive fines and, even more importantly, irreversible climate change and carbon production consequences. I ask the Minister of State to ensure that no bog designated under the Bill is used for commercial cutting.

Amendment No. 18, which is a far more conservative amendment, seeks to bring the situation in line with the statement by Bord na Móna that it will not cut turf after 2030. Similarly, there should be no commercial harvesting on these bogs after 2030. The amendment simply aims to bring the bogs de-designated under the Bill in line with stated general policy. Bord na Móna’s target of 2030 is too far away - we cannot afford that and need to bring it back to 2025 or sooner. I reserve the right to bring amendments in that regard on Report Stage. It is almost impossible, nevertheless, to argue against amendment No. 18 as it simply brings the situation for these bogs into line with stated public policy, inadequate though it may be as a response to a climate emergency. I ask the Minister of State to consider accepting amendment No. 18. I hope the House will find the political courage to support amendment No. 17.