Michael Viney is correct; nature conservationists are seeing "red on green issues" (Irish Times, January 27th, 2001). Mind you, my mood passed through a kaleidoscope of colours when I read the comments by Dr Alan Craig, from Duchas, in the same article referring to "the widespread breakdown of trust" between conservation groups and the Government because of the simplistic reasons given for this breakdown. No response from conservation groups was included.
Conservation organisations, objecting to developments that will affect a habitat or species, are often wrongly accused of trying to hold up development. Increasingly, the action of trying to conserve something of what we have left (and this applies to Duchas, as well as NGOs) is becoming associated with a de Valera(Eamon not Sile)-type preservation, most undesirable in a time when we have left our poor, embarrassing past behind us. Perhaps this is the reason the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Sile de Valera, is cautious about objecting to developments that will damage important wildlife sites or why she does not encourage a more transparent method of sorting out landowner objections to Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) boundaries.
The NGOs are unhappy and do lack confidence with informal appeals, not because of the informality involved but because of the lack of information available on how the decision was made and because more often than not, a reduction in site size and long-term viability is the result.
The 20 per cent budget increase for the Department of the Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands is not reflected in the increase given to nature conservation, which is 4 per cent (not even in line with inflation). How will Duchas carry out its new responsibilities or increased workload without a considerable increase in funding?
The Government has the money to spend, but nature conservation is not seen as a spending priority, probably because it involves that eternally contentious issue - restricting landowners' rights - and does not fit easily with the prevailing economic agenda.
No concerted effort has been made by the Government to reassure landowners or to help them access grants or funding for positive conservation management. Instead, the Government has approached the whole issue half-heartedly, misleading farmers and letting down conservation with inadequate monitoring and enforcement of legislation.
As long as politicians can conveniently argue against conservation measures by relying on past rhetoric about the Land League and Michael Davitt as justification, it is unlikely improved funding will be provided. It is assumed that economic progress always means sacrifice, including the loss of frogs and hedgehogs from gardens and the loss of songbirds from farms. Irish mammals, unfortunately for them, generally are shy, night-loving creatures. Will we notice their demise? Or will we need a silent spring to arrive before uproar and action begins? Conservation organisations, hearing about site destruction every day and unable to engage with the overworked national authority, often turn to the European Commission for support. The State may feel the Commission is encouraging NGOs to exercise a policing role over its activities instead of co-operation, but this is simply not the case. It is true environmental NGOs have taken up the gauntlet in the public interest and if this involves highlighting issues to the Commission, so be it. The Commission has made it clear it wishes to see a more positive response from the Government to concerns or requests for co-operation made by NGOs.
The Republic would have no real conservation policy were it not for the European Union. Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) for habitats and species and Special Protection Areas for birds only exist because of European directives. Likewise Environmental Impact Statements, which are now compulsory for many development proposals. There are water-quality regulations, nitrate regulations, waste regulations - the list goes on.
The address by the Minister at Boston College last September, however, gave a worrying insight into her attitude to these important environmental protection mechanisms.
The Minister said she had no problem with the EU when it concentrated solely on economic progress and development. It was only when it began to make other decisions that seemed "secondary at the time" that she "found that directives and regulations agreed in Brussels can often seriously impinge on our identity, culture and traditions".
It is hoped this is not her whole understanding of the relationship between unprecedented economic growth and our identity, culture, nature and traditions.
Nature conservation directives impinge on our right to destroy important natural habitats.
Surely, this is a right that should be completely abolished?
The publication of a National Biodiversity Plan - in accordance with the Rio Convention on Biological Diversity - has long been the great white horse for conservation groups. This plan, which should be formulated in collaboration with all relevant organisations, should aim through recommendations, strategies and action plans to integrate the conservation and sustainable use of resources into all sectoral and cross-sectoral plans, policies and programmes. It is especially disappointing not to see round-table discussions involving all interested groups, including landowners, fishermen, industry, planners and conservationists. Such discussions are vital to the long-term viability of the plan.
The Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 was published in December. Government accepted submissions on the Bill from NGOs, but would not include provisions allowing third parties to be involved in suggesting sites for designation as Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs). Again, the fetish for control is obvious. The new Act sits in the Government Publications Office, cheekily brandishing "Act" on its cover. A closer look will reveal, however, there has been no commencement orders issued under the Act, so, in fact, it may as well not be there at all.
This Act, amending the 1976 Act, provides the procedure and mechanisms for protecting NHAs (which, contrary to popular belief, have no legal status whatsoever), extended period for restrictions on cutting hedgerows (supposed to begin on March 1st) and many other important legal mechanisms for nature conservation.
SECTION nine of the Act gives explicit responsibility for biodiversity to the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. Responsibility without resources can only compound the frustration of Irish NGOs and lead again to another round of international complaints.
The SAC shadow-list drawn up by the NGOs, proposing extra sites for consideration as SACs, demonstrates that natural habitat information of quality and quantity is not exclusive to Government agencies. NGOs came together, supported by the Heritage Council, to formulate an extensive list of sites for protection because many groups and other experts were excluded from involvement. The Government held and is still holding a tight grip on the process, despite the wide range of information and expertise that is available.
The NGOs know Duchas has already included some of these sites within its original proposals, but it appears to have been unaware of all of the habitats and species for which these sites should be protected. To leave these out now could result in bad decisions being taken at a later stage regarding their management, particularly if they are to be actively managed to conserve biodiveristy.
It is important to note that the NGO shadowlist included 143 sites never surveyed by Duchas, demonstrating the importance of the consultation process that was undertaken for the shadow-list.
It was with regret, therefore, that I read Dr Craig's comments. Duchas officials would be better served pressurising the Government for increased funding rather than sniping at environmental NGOs, who are so clearly nature's allies.
The Government has a choice at this juncture. It can choose to forge alliances with environmental NGOs or continue to pay lip-service to this important section of community. Either way, the Government can be assured nature conservation issues are here to stay. And so are environmental NGOs.
