Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will first outline a little of the background to the Bill as it has had an extended journey to get to this point. I am sure Senator Kyne is familiar with it. I thank him for his work when he was the Minister of State responsible for this.

The purpose of the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2016 is to give legal effect to the proposed reconfiguration of the raised bog natural heritage area network. This reconfiguration arises from a national study of our raised bog resource in 2014, called the Review of Raised Bog Natural Heritage Area Network. The Bill also allows for a review of blanket bog natural heritage areas, puts the national biodiversity action plan on a statutory footing, and places a biodiversity duty on public bodies.

The Bill had completed all Stages in the Dáil and Seanad and had been returned to the Dáil for consideration of the various amendments made by the Seanad, when it lapsed with the dissolution of the Thirty-second Dáil on 14 January 2020. My Department has been working to refine some of the amendments passed by the Seanad. The Bill was restored to the Houses of the Oireachtas on 28 June.

The main objective of the 2014 raised bog natural heritage area network review was to look at how the network could contribute to our national conservation objectives for raised bog habitats, while minimising the impacts on the traditional rights of landowners and turf cutters, and minimising costs for the State. The reconfiguration of the network, which this Bill will facilitate, is based on sound scientific evidence and will have a positive impact on the network. The Bill allows for the completion of the review.

Decisions on designation or de-designation of natural heritage areas will not be made without careful consideration of all the factors involved. There are principles and criteria in this Bill to guide the Minister in this process. The focus is on nature conservation and having a positive impact on the relevant network.

Sixteen amendments to the Bill were passed in the Seanad. These consisted of 11 Government amendments and five non-Government amendments. In the Dáil session last week, these 16 amendments were considered along with the Government's counter-amendments. Eight of the Seanad amendments were accepted by the Dáil and eight were rejected, with replacement amendments being proposed in most cases, which were in turn adopted by the Dáil. Our main focus today is on these eight amendments and the counter-amendments now proposed by Senators. As Senators will be aware, under Standing Orders there is limited scope to make changes to the Bill because of the advanced Stage it has reached in the legislative process. Therefore a minimal approach to any changes has been adopted. In redrafting non-Government Seanad amendments, I have sought to reflect the general intention of the amendments insofar as possible. Overall, the Government's intention is to respect the views and additions proposed by the Seanad when the Bill was last in this House.

I will now move to amendment Nos. 1 and 1c. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 from the Twenty-fifth Seanad were rejected in the Dáil last week. Amendment No. 1c replaces them. Amendment No. 1 was proposed by the Seanad to amend section 16 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000, which sets out the statutory process for when a Minister intends to designate a natural heritage area. Amendment No. 1 was a Government amendment in the Seanad. It was drafted in response to issues raised by the then Opposition in the Seanad. The amendment simply sought to facilitate wider dissemination of notice of the Minister's intention to make an order to designate a natural heritage area. Amendment No. 1 was rejected in the Dáil and replaced by amendment No. 1c, simply to deal with referencing changes as a result of changes elsewhere in the Bill and to incorporate changes to Seanad amendment No. 2, which I will now discuss.

Seanad amendment No. 2 also amended section 16 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000. It was proposed in the Seanad on Report Stage and accepted by the Minister in the Seanad, subject to further checking. The effect of the amendment as proposed was that, in deciding a site is worthy of conservation, the Minister could propose a site for designation by virtue of its role in carbon sequestration or in respect of pollination. Section 16(6) of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 already provides that the Minister may propose a site for designation as a natural heritage area by virtue of its "special scientific interest for one or more species, communities, habitats, landforms or geological or geomorphological features, or for its diversity of natural attributes".The proposed amendment would provide the Minister with additional criteria, namely, carbon sequestration and pollination, in proposing to designate a site as an NHA in the future, in accordance with section 16 of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000.

The amendment proposed by the Seanad could be interpreted as meaning these criteria may be considered in their own right, for example, as sole criteria. This could lead to sites being designated that may have very limited nature conservation value, which could divert the resources we have in this area away from the core work on nature restoration and conservation. It is considered that this objective would be better achieved by ensuring carbon sequestration and pollination are factors that must be considered when drawing together the scientific advice the Minister must have regard to when deciding whether to propose a site for designation as an NHA. In this way, carbon sequestration and pollination would be considered as factors to be taken into account within the scientific advice available to the Minister, alongside the birds directive and the habitats directive, as well as the size, location and features of the site and other factors.

This is the thrust of the alternative amendment the Government proposed in the Dáil. The relevant part of the subsection within section 16 of the Act would now read:

(b) The scientific advice referred to in paragraph (a) shall take account of, as appropriate, the size of the site, its location, the type of natural feature or features contained in it, its role in carbon sequestration or pollination, its importance for the purposes of the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive and the degree of negative, or potentially negative, human impact.

The alternative amendment proposed by the Government and accepted by the Dáil achieves the thrust of the intention of the Seanad amendment but in a more appropriate manner. As a result of the changes made in the Dáil, Seanad amendments Nos. 1 and 2 were deleted and Government amendment No. 1c was inserted in their place. I recommend the acceptance of amendment No. 1c to the Seanad.