Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 4, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:"(b) assessing of the role and potential role of selected bog habitats in carbon sequestration, biodiversity and pollination;".

This amendment addresses the issue which the Minister of State acknowledged somewhat in his accepting of amendment No. 4 and partly addresses in the first lines of his amendment No. 11. My amendment provides that in assessing environmental factors in regard to our boglands and selected bog habitats, account be taken of carbon sequestration, biodiversity and the role of our bogs in pollination and in adhering to the all-island pollinator plan. I am proposing that these are issues into which a Minister may wish to conduct a review. As I said, some of this is incorporated into amendment No. 11 and I would like to be in a position to withdraw my amendment and support the Minister of State's proposal. However, the problem is that as well as incorporating my amendment in respect of carbon, pollination and biodiversity, he has also inserted a concerning new proposal that recreational and sporting needs may be a factor for consideration in designating or, more relevantly, de-designating an area of natural heritage. It is a real concern that a natural heritage area might be de-designated for the provision of, for example, a golf course. While amendment No. 11 refers to greenways, the provision does not relate exclusively to greenways but leaves open the possibility of any type of recreational or sporting use being applied. We will deal later with the fact that there is no definition in the Bill of which recreational and sporting needs might constitute a factor in making decisions as to the designation or de-designation of a natural heritage area.

To reiterate, I recognise that the Minister of State has come a little distance in amendment No. 11 in meeting the concerns addressed in amendment No. 10. Unfortunately, I cannot support his amendment because, as well as introducing the provision regarding sporting or recreational use, it retains the two fundamental flaws in the relevant section of the Bill. They are the same core flaws addressed in my amendments Nos. 13 and 14. First is the matter of the overreach in the Bill whereby it incorporates blanket bogs as well as raised bogs, which I addressed at length in reference to amendment No. 9. The second issue relates to the grounds on which a protected area may be de-designated. In order to designate a natural heritage area, there must be regard to section 16(6) of the Wildlife Act, which contains a comprehensive list of evidence-based considerations relating to the scientific environment, habitat, species and geology. However, the same bar does not apply when it comes to a decision to de-designate, with no reference to the range of scientific considerations and criteria set out in section 16(6). Instead, there is a new reference to "environmental criteria", which are problematically defined later in the Bill and effectively amount simply to a comparison of whether one bog is better or worse than another bog. That is more or less what is proposed as the key environmental criterion.

The Minister of State referred to environmental considerations, EU directives and so on, but they are not part of the de-designation review. Rather, they are issues the Minister may choose to consider after a review has taken place. Under section 3 of the Bill, the Minister conducts a review, after which, under section 4, he or she considers various issues and holds public consultations on the proposals arising out of the review. I am seeking in my amendments to improve the review process and ensure there is consistency. Amendment No. 14 simply provides that any de-designation of a protected area should be decided in accordance with the same standard as applies in respect of a designation. Amendment No. 13 addresses the issue of overreach in respect of raised bogs. We have a last chance to fix this issue. Accepting amendment No. 13 would remove blanket bogs from the Bill and ensure that the de-designation process applies only to raised bogs.

Amendment No. 12 is consequential on amendment No. 10. One of the reasons that I cannot support amendment No. 11 is that amendments Nos. 13 and 14 will fall if the Minister of State's amendment is passed. He and I are overlapping a little in what we are seeking to do here but, more broadly, we are contrary in our intent. I appeal to the Minister of State to accept amendment No. 10 and address either or both of the core issues of overreach and inconsistency by accepting either or both amendments Nos. 13 and 14.