Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I commend this motion from the Green Party. Many here have said that we know that climate change means flooding will be an increasingly frequent issue. This summer alone we bore witness to the extreme flash flood events not only close to home in western Europe but also across the world, in China and Turkey. They are a devastating embodiment of the extreme climate events that will become more and more common.

I welcome in particular the inclusion of natural flood management in the motion. I agree with the Green Party Senators that we need a mix of hard and soft engineering solutions. Studies have shown that when carried out appropriately, natural water retention can slow down the flow and hold the water in the landscape for between 12 and 24 hours. Natural water retention also has knock-on benefits for climate regulation and preventing soil erosion, and it enhances biodiversity. In 2019, I brought over an expert from the Slow the Flow programme in Britain to outline exactly how it was working really effectively over there and was also creating jobs for people and providing incomes to farming communities. The expert spoke in the Leinster House audiovisual room. We know that nature-based solutions, as he outlined on that occasion, are effective in reducing flooding, particularly in small catchment areas. The cost savings are immense when one takes account of the role played by nature-based solutions in reducing the occurrence of smaller, frequent floods or what are called "nuisance floods" in the United States. The role of nature-based solutions in addressing the larger catchments or the once-in-100 -year floods is still unknown because we do not have the data on it, but such solutions are showing promising signs. We have to listen to and work with the science and always evolve the way in which we approach flood management. In addition, it is vital that nature-based catchment management projects are community-led and that communities are included in the process. This also holds true for hard landscaping measures. Nature-based solutions are not about flooding farmland but about working with farmers to install these soft engineering measures.

It would be remiss of me in a debate on flooding not to mention the Arterial Drainage Act, and I completely agree with Senator Garvey's comments on it. Many of the issues surrounding flooding and how it is managed stem from that Act. Under the Act, the OPW carries out an annual programme of statutory arterial drainage maintenance to a total of 11,500 km of river channel and approximately 730 km of embankments. The Irish Wildlife Trust describes the OPW's works as a "programme of river destruction". Its petition calls for a new law that is fit to address the biodiversity and climate crisis and that works with - and for - people and nature.The last time we had a debate on flooding in the Seanad, it was unfortunate that the Minister of State tried to twist the words of what those of us who were talking about nature-based solutions were trying to say. We do not want to abolish flood management; we want a review of an Act that is decades old and to ensure that it is working on the best information available.

That said, there are solutions that the OPW could implement without any change to the legislation if the Minister for State was minded to do so. First is the lack of transparency around the programme of works under the arterial drainage scheme maintenance programme. I ask the Minister of State why a fully transparent portal cannot be put up on the OPW website outlining the programmes of works and detailing what works are to be carried out, when they will be carried out, what environmental assessments have been done for those works and the findings of those environmental assessments. In response to a parliamentary question, the Minister of State said that the annual programme can be viewed in hard copy in three offices around the country, on appointment. That is not the hallmark of a body that is open to scrutiny by the public. I believe it falls well short of the body's obligations under the Aarhus Convention to actively disseminate information about the environment.

The public and environmental NGOs are forced to go through the FOI process to get appropriate assessment reports. Why is there no accountability when appropriate assessment screening is substandard? Why is there no accountability when the OPW does not even do what it said it would do in an assessment? It appears that the OPW is of the view that it is above reproach when it comes to carrying out works. I believe this is not just regarding flood works, as I have heard allegations that the OPW has destroyed a bat roost at one of its monuments and is now actively trying to avoid prosecution. The OPW cannot be above the law; it must act within the law.

The motion notes that international best practice in flood risk management recommends, among other things, "not passing flood risk management problems in one region on to another region". I could not agree more. I think flood risk management is a good example of the folly of partition on this island. Ireland is a single unit and weather knows no borders. Rivers and river basins span the two jurisdictions. It is clear divergent policies across Ireland would have a damaging impact on the other jurisdiction.

There is a need for a joined-up approach, which was brought into stark relief when we saw the footage from Meenbog near Ballybofey in County Donegal. After Amazon started construction on a windfarm, there was a major bog slide that saw a slurry of peat flowing into rivers north and south of the Border. In light of the cross-Border nature and the river basin management programme, perhaps the Senators proposing the motion would consider submitting a copy of it to the North-South Ministerial Council so that we have a proper joined-up and coherent approach to flood management.