Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I should not have agreed to the amendments being grouped. Amendment No. 36 is a straightforward proposal to delete the inclusion of blanket bog. This is possibly the last place in the Bill where we can constructively remove blanket bogs. The Bill was originally designed to deal with raised bogs, as we have discussed previously. I am seeking to ensure that with the small number of natural heritage areas we have, the small number of areas that have been designated as protected compared with most peatland in this country, we are dealing with what the 12-year process was designed to do. Raised bogs are where the consultations have taken place and the scientific research already exists. I may not like it but I respect the process. It is clear that it has been rigorous to some extent and involved public consultation. I emphasise that it was public consultation prior to proposals to de-designate. There has been a series of conversations on raised bogs and how they are managed in this country. Including blanket bogs at the last minute is a step backwards.

We must seize this last opportunity to ensure that the Bill only does what it was originally designed to do, which is address the designation, de-designation, protection and other issues in respect of raised bogs, and does not inappropriately drag in another environment with its own ecosystem, species, habitats, plant life - I have spoken previously about the levels of endangerment - and its natural wildlife corridors. It plays a role and has particular vulnerabilities due to soakage and because it is low lying. The question of wetting is more important and the draining is both more onerous and more dangerous in those areas. The specific issues with blanket bogs that have not been properly considered and reviewed are reasons that blanket bogs should be removed from the Bill. This is the last section where they could be removed from the Bill and the process of de-designation. That is why I am pressing amendment No. 36.

Amendment No. 37 refers to carbon sequestration, biodiversity and pollination. I have addressed those issues.

Amendment No. 36a deals with comparison and consideration. With the previous amendments, Nos. 33a, which referred to comparison and consideration, and 34, I acknowledge that Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, Independent Senators, my colleagues in the Civil Engagement group and others voted for those improvements in the process and to ensure that the process would be one of appropriate consideration rather than the clumsy mechanism of comparison. When I raised this previously the Minister of State did not answer. How does he see comparison working? When he talks about one bog being compared with one or other bogs, can he tell us unequivocally he will not be comparing a natural heritage area bog that is due for potential de-designation and the loss of its status with a special area of conservation bog? Will the same single comparator, the gold standard as it were, be used in respect of multiple bogs? Where there is a proposal that five bogs be de-designated, for example, is there the potential that each of those five will be compared with the same single bog? What is the mechanism? I am not asking for a list of other things that go into the review in other parts or the things the Minister must do because Europe requires it.

How does the mechanism in the comparison work? Is it the case that if one bog is compared with another bog and the other bog has a better habitat and perhaps a better environmental component in the criteria, the bog that loses out in the comparison will automatically be open to de-designation? Will it be regarded as having failed the environmental criteria test because it did not win in a one-on-one comparison? The approach being proposed is unusual. Yes, we did a comparison at the original point when we were looking at which areas needed to be protected, but that was a national review and comparison. However, this is one-on-one. It is a type of a grand slam league between bogs. In a comparison mechanism one loses. I have not heard one word on it. There are other areas in the Bill where the Minister of State has made progress, added issues and addressed matters, but I have not heard a single word from him that the scenarios I have described are not how it will work. We have not heard how comparison works. That is why I propose that it be consideration rather than comparison. Each bog should be considered on its merits. If it is decided then to de-designate it, so be it. At least the bogs will have been considered in terms of what they do, the value they have and the wildlife and habitat there. Each bog will have been given proper consideration on its own merits.