Forestry Network Newsletter

// FNN 174: Clearfelling in Ireland

FOREST NETWORK NEWSLETTER

 ISSUE NUMBER 174

MARCH 29 2007

FREE BY EMAIL

FNN is pleased to return after a long absence. The editors intend to produce monthly issues during the remainder of 2007. Both the website and the mailer are about to be redesigned; until then this PDF is the only format available. Readers who wish to reproduce individual articles and have difficulty with this format may be able to extract them more easily from the website version at http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/fnn/

1. INTRODUCTION Clearfell and the environment

 2. LETTERS Woodlands of Ireland: cypermethrin derogation Forestry as carbon 'offsets' [Irish Times, unpublished]

3 PARLIAMENTARY REPLIES Planting rates and plans Fresh water Pearl mussel Waiving Felling License obligations for environmental reasons Implications of the Habitats Regulations for forestry No requirements for native trees? Brash removal

4. NEWS New protocol to protect hen harrier Killarney fencing in breach of Habitats Directive? Coillte denies pesticides threat to Sneem water

5. ARTICLE OF THE WEEK: Clearfell and the environment. Clearfelling and restoration near Castletownbere, County Cork Clearfell at Rossnacroo, Nr Kilgarvan , Co Kerry Clearfell Near Sneem, Co Kerry Clearfell and restoration at the Ballyhoura Mountains County Cork

6. ABOUT US

1. INTRODUCTION

Clearfell and the environment

There is no disputing the negative environmental impact of large clearfells. As far back as 1999 - eight years ago - a report commissioned by the Forest Service to inform the biodiversity guidelines stated 'Forest plantations, even those of mixed species, remain incomplete ecosystems if felled at the commercial optimum.

The relatively rich pre-thicket stage will be well represented, but the habitats associated with old growth, such as large trees, snags, large fallen logs and a spacious well lit structure will be missing. It is a high priority, therefore, to create mature forest structures.

For this reason, and in terms of sustainable management, the current trends are away from large scale clearfelling. Clearfelling, although the simplest for the managers from the point of view of getting the timber out of the stand, has been shown to cause soil degradation and has been found to be deleterious to landscape and biodiversity, and generally is destructive to the continuity of the ecosystem processes'.(Iremonger .S. Guidelines for Forestry and Biodiversity Draft of September 17th 1999)

However the recommendations in the draft relating to clearfell were watered down in the final report (November 1999) and eliminated altogether by the relevant Forest Service Guidelines (2000).

It is widely known in Ireland that to identify key issues of scientific concern, one should compare the version submitted to the Government Department by the scientists with the published version. What's missing is what matters most.

Ireland has rejected the 'current trends away from large scale clearfelling'. It continues to allow large clearfells which degrade the environment followed by reforestation destined for future clearfell.

In this issue we print extracts from a Report that Friends of the Irish Environment are preparing on Clearfelling in Ireland that demonstrate just this. Other European countries are serious about their commitments to meet sustainable forest management objectives. They listen to the advice of qualified scientists and accept it. Their foresters are not solely trained in industrial plantation management. And they are willing to learn form their mistakes.

Back to Index

2. LETTERS

 Woodlands of Ireland: cypermethrin derogation

 Dear Editor,

Firstly, I would like to thank you for the €50 euro book token regarding the cypermethrin derogation submissions to the Soil Association. I thought perhaps a book on 'Understanding Environmental fundamentalists' might be appropriate but it could be so large a volume that its price would almost certainly exceed €50 in price!

At any rate - when I eventually receive the book voucher - I have decided to go for much lighter reading and thus enjoy the experience. I say this for a number of reasons, not least because Woodlands of Ireland (WoI) undertakes a programme of work that addresses sustainable forest management in the context of native woodland management. We have been either directly or indirectly involved in most major initiatives concerning native woodlands in recent years, including the People's Millennium Project and the Native Woodland Scheme (NWS). Certainly criticism is welcome and only helps to improve the rolling out and fine-tuning of such initiatives.

Remember, before 1999 there was little or no focus on native woodlands, yet today over 6,000 hectares of Native Woodland Scheme applications have been received by the Forest Service, approximately half of which are/have been approved and implemented.

Along with annual Woodlands of Ireland/Forest Service NWS 3-day Training courses - at which over 600 participants have attended, 1-day training courses held regularly aimed at specific groups involved with the NWS, the development of technical information notes on native woodland management and an array of other activities, Woodlands of Ireland address many issues that most environmentalists must surely welcome.

However, FNN chooses only to see the dark side and though this is not surprising in itself, it is nonetheless unjustified and in some cases, inaccurate.

Firstly, you question the impartiality of WoI. Considering there are representatives from not only Forest Service and NPWS but also VOICE and An Taisce (amongst others) there is always likely to be considerable divergence of opinion.

Regarding the cypermethrin issue it is fair to say that Forest Service and An Taisce would submit very different submissions to the Soil Association than WoI. Hence we endeavour to get consensus on issues and insist that SC members represent themselves rather than the organisations they belong to. Secondly, just because WoI is not a Registered or Limited Company does not mean it is not accountable.

WoI funding comes from the FS, NPWS and the Heritage Council. We have detailed operating procedures and our accounts - prepared by a chartered accounted - are presented annually at our AGM. What really matters is that we address the programme of work that is laid out each year. W

e are not part of EENGO as we are State-stakeholder partnership and not a de facto ENGO.

The fact that our office is at the Tree Council Offices is incidental; we operate independently of the Tree Council of Ireland, who incidentally, also carry out very important functions with respect to trees and their promotion.

We cannot be a member of FSC because they require that members are registered companies.

Finally, your rather patronising comments on our cypermethrin submission are inaccurate. A number of alternatives were presented to the WoI Steering Committee all of which were thoroughly researched. Our submission specifically infers that cypermethrin should not be sprayed yet you state; '....

This is because it obvious from their submission they need to do a little more reading before supporting - with no conditions as to testing or regulation and without any scientific justification - the continued use of dipping and spraying synthetic pyrethroids on the more than 10,000 hectares of Irish land reforested every year.'

Perhaps it is you that needs to read a little more carefully before criticising others. Our submission states '1) Cypermethrin may be used but only prior to planting, in dipping facilities that comply with Health and Safety regulations. It should not be used broadcast pre- or post planting on site.'

Broadcast use in this context means spraying and as it is very toxic to aquatic organisms yet relatively immobile in soils, it is our view that if used in dipping facilities only, damage to non-target (aquatic) organisms/the environment is minimised. This is reinforced by a proviso that the situation 'is reviewed in two years time primarily to assess what progress has been made regarding the provision of alternatives' as well as advocating the use of continuous cover silvicultural systems.

At the very least you should acknowledge the error on the submission so that readers are not misinformed. A correction in your next issue would be appropriate.

Sincerely,

Declan Little

Project Manager,

Woodlands of Ireland

FNN Comments:

We of course applaud your work on the Native Woodland scheme.

It is a shame that there are not enough native trees to plant as this is causing huge problems for participants but hopefully the nurseries will catch up with the demand.

It shows how important it is to have a comprehensive strategy when undertaking such admirable ventures.

However in relation to your comments in relation to spraying. In your derogation you state that 'Cypermethrin may be used but only prior to planting, in dipping facilities that comply with Health and Safety regulations.

It should not be used broadcast pre- or post planting on site.' And this is the second sentence in this phrase that gives concern.

FNN believe that the use of the word broadcast in this context leads to misinterpretation. The word broadcast means 'widely scatter' and is normally used in relation to seed sowing. It implies a broad or overall use.

To make sure we were familiar with the correct spraying terminology used in forestry we referred to the Code of Best Practice Section 7.

Six spraying methods are listed Band, Spot or patch, Stem of cut stump, Overall, Directed, and Cowled, not a mention of 'broadcast'.

A categorical 'it may not be used in any other way' might have avoided these confusions.

We are sending on the book token for WoI and hope that the WoI Steering Committee enjoy choosing an appropriate publication.

We would recommend the Oxford English dictionary.

Forestry as carbon 'offsets'

[Irish Times, unpublished]

Madam; The Government's announcement that they intend to 'offset' future air travel by Government ministers and officials though the planting of 'urban forests' in towns and cities portrays carbon offsets as a simple, quick fix. In fact, it poses serious questions of ecological legitimacy.

Once carbon is released from its geological store in the ground, as fossil fuels like coal and gas, it will cycle through our atmosphere for many years. Holding it in trees doesn't undo this damage. Carbon offsets do not negate emissions so much as time-shift them. Rather than hanging round in the atmosphere through this century, that tonne of offset CO2 will instead inhabit the next.

It is likely that the Government's offset CO2 will be released back into an atmosphere already choked with the gas, giving an extra push to global warming. Future generations may not thank us for our forestry offsets. Climate chaos is an issue of justice as it is hurting the world's poorest (and least-polluting) people first and hardest.

The danger is that offsetting allows some of us in the richer, developed world to carry on with our polluting lifestyles, instead of lowering our own emissions. Yours, etc., Tony Lowes

Friends of the Irish Environment

FNN comments:

This issue is key in Ireland now as the 'Total Benefit of Woodland Relief' calculated by the Department of Finance to justify forestry subsidies gives the average annual value 2000 - 2004 of timber as €89.54m while the value of carbon sequestration is given €115.21m. [Source: Budget 2006: Review of Tax Schemes, Vol. 3, Internal Relief of Certain Tax Schemes, Page A21. Department of Finance, 2006.]

See the New Scientist article: 'Look, no carbon footprint!' http://friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/papers/article.php?sid=9740 and a UK environmental lobby group's work at http://www.londonrisingtide.org.uk/.

Back to Index

 3..PARLIAMENTARY REPLIES Planting rates and plans

112. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the forestry planting rates for the past 15 years; if these are meeting existing targets; the reason for the fall-off in planting in recent years; her plans to ensure that the Government's existing target is met and exceeded; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

[33298/06] Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Ms M. Wallace):

Since 1991 some 228,159 hectares of new forestry have been planted, representing an average planting rate of 15,000 hectares a year. The current planting target of 20,000 hectares per annum, including public planting of 5,000 hectares per annum, was set in 1996.

Public planting ceased almost completely in the late 1990s, because of a Court of Justice ruling which found that Coillte Teoranta was ineligible for afforestation supports.

In more recent years, a combination of high land prices, competing land-use options and uncertainty about future agricultural scenarios has led to a reluctance on the part of many farmers to commit their land to forestry. In terms of incentives, the current forestry grant and premium package, including advice from Teagasc, is without doubt the most attractive that has ever been available.

Farmers and landowners can avail of an establishment grant of 100% of costs, a tax-free premium of up to €500 per hectare per annum for 20 years at present and, under the single payment scheme, they can plant up to 50% of their eligible claimed area without losing any entitlements.

Under the new rural development plan 2007-13, we intend to bring forward a new forestry programme. The detail of the new rural development plan and its forestry component has yet to be finalised but it will be made available for public consultation shortly.

Earlier this year our Department embarked on a joint initiative with the Irish Forestry Industry Chain, IFIC, under the heading "Forests for a Bright Future" to highlight the multifunctional benefits of forestry and to stimulate uptake in the afforestation programme.

This promotional campaign is expected to run for at least 18 months and is promoting the advantages of forestry, particularly to farmers, with a view to increasing the rate of new planting.

Mr. Sargent:

I welcome the Minister of State's reply. I wish to tie this question in with the previous question, as there is a considerable energy issue related to forestry as well as the other aspects the Minister mentioned.

The Minister of State advised me in July that forestry premiums were under review. Notwithstanding what she indicated in her rely in this respect, and I can understand the reason she would paint as positive a picture as possible, given that forestry premiums have not risen in the past six years, is it intended to increase those premiums?

A 40% increase is what is perceived would be a fair increase. I will meet representatives of the IFA tomorrow, as no doubt will other Members, to discuss the pre-budget submissions.

Therefore, it would be useful to know if the Minister of State is thinking of introducing such an increase. As she said, land prices are increasing and many issues need to be dealt with separately in that context, the Kenny report being only one of them.

Does the Minister of State intend to increase premiums in light of those other increases in costs, which make it difficult for many farmers to engage in forestry production?

The Minister of State referred to introducing a new forestry programme. Will she assure us she will not simply reduce the target of 20,000 hectares per annum, given that it is not being reached and call that level the new target, or will she be a little more ambitious and recognise that forestry needs to play a more central role in this country for all sorts of reasons?

While there has been much discussion on monopolies, Balcas in Fermanagh is the only company supplying wood pellets. In the interests of ensuring competition, is there not a need to develop the forestry industry to ensure there is more than one supplier of wood pellets, which is an increasingly important fuel source?

The European Commission contracted the Department of Agriculture and Food last February to warn of a possible legal action against Ireland due to neglect of environmental aspects of forestry policy.

Has the European Commission contacted the Department since concerning the issue and, if so, what was the Department's reply?

 Ms M. Wallace:

We would like to see increases in grants and premiums. We have already announced an increase in the plantation grant which increased by 9% in 2005 and we received approval from the Department of Finance this year to increase the plantation grant by a further 14.7%.

We submitted that proposal to the EU Commission for approval and are awaiting a final decision on it.

A proposed increase in premium is currently being closely examined by the Department of Finance and such a proposal is part of the partnership talks.

Deputy Sargent was correct in saying it is important to be positive about the planting targets and to seek to have an increased planting target. One of the main items on our agenda is to encourage more farmers to engage in planting.

That public planting by Coillte ceased as a result of the EU decision in the late 1990s has impacted on our planting targets.

Nevertheless, there is an attractive package in forestry for farmers, as I outlined, be it the planting grants or the tax free premium over 20 years. T

he Deputy was also correct in pointing to the energy aspect of forestry. The development of the production of wood chips and wood pellets, including the availability of SEI grants from the Department Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, is important in encouraging people to switch over to using wood chip or wood pellets.

Such development is also important to the forestry industry because following a tax-free premium over 20 years, farmers can gain additional income from thinnings from year 20 to year 40.

Therefore, the more wood chip and wood pellet outlets we have, the better for the forestry industry. Such a development would provide a continual income from forestry for farmers engaged in it, in terms of tax-free premiums over 20 years and an income derived from the sale of forestry thinnings over the next 20 years. Under the single farm payment farmers can plant up to 50% of their land.

Measures such as this are important and farmers can eventually gain further income from the sale of the timber. Farmers who have engaged in forestry production have spoken to me about the increased value in their assets.

If farmers are elderly when they engage in forestry production, they know they are passing on a valuable asset to the next generation. We also have an afforestation promotion campaign throughout the country through which we get the message across to farmers about the important energy aspect of forestry and about increasing the area planted.

These two aspects are important and we will continue to promote them.

Mr. Sargent:

The European Commission made a serious complaint to the Government. What was the Department's reply to the Commission on our forestry policy?

Ms M. Wallace:

Discussions with the European Commission on that matter are ongoing.

249. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when her attention was drawn to the halving of the forestry planting target of 20,000 hectares a year which was recently announced in the Ex-Ante Evaluation of the Rural Development Plan submitted to the European Commission; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39903/06] 250.

Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her plans in view of the fact that Ireland's 1996's Strategic Plan for the Forestry Sector here made the case for further investment in the forestry sector primarily on the basis of the ideal or target size for the industry critical mass which can not be achieved under the terms of the Ex-Ante Evaluation of the Rural Development Plan recently submitted to the European Commission, to review forestry policy here; and if plans involve public participation and expert independent advice from outside Ireland. [39904/06] 251.

Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the way, in view of the cuts announced in the planting target for the forestry sector in the Ex-Ante Evaluation of the Rural Development Plan, she proposes to justify the continued heavy subsidisation of the current planting of fast growing conifers of almost €1 billion when the recent review by Bacon and Deloitte confirmed to him that the industry must obtain critical mass and that the reality is that this level must be achieved in the shortest timescale possible, and not later than that outlined in the strategic plan. [39905/06] 252.

Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she will seek to include the Forestry Act 1989, which sets the primary objective of Coillte Teo to operate on a commercial basis, in the current review of forestry legislation in view of the fact that the Ex-Ante Evaluation of the Rural Development Plan 2007 to 2013 has halved the forestry planting targets and made the achievement of the commercial target size for the industry impossible. [39906/06]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan):

I propose to take Questions Nos. 249 to 252, inclusive, together. The Ex-Ante Evaluation of the Rural Development Plan does not announce a halving of the forestry planting target. On the contrary, sufficient funds have been provided in the Rural Development Plan to encourage a renewed planting effort, intended in the first instance to restore annual afforestation rates to at least 10,000 hectares.

We should not underestimate the challenge which lies before us in this regard and the new Forestry Programme takes this into account, incorporating several new and innovative measures to attract farmers into forestry.

These are demand-led schemes and my intention is to stimulate that demand.

As regards forestry policy, this was comprehensively reviewed by Peter Bacon & Associates in September 2004.

The report reaffirmed a planting rate of 20,000 hectare per annum as appropriate but significantly noted that lower levels of planting could still provide a viable basis for support when non-timber benefits are maximised.

 A high-level Group, which includes representatives from the Department of Finance as well as my own Department, have been examining forestry policy in the light of the Bacon Report and wider EU considerations and I expect its report very shortly.

In terms of critical mass, I fully agree with the Deputy on the importance of achieving an appropriate level of forest cover. This is precisely why I am making some €1 billion available over the course of the Programme to encourage the planting of trees.

Finally, on the question of the review of forestry legislation, the main focus here is on the operational provisions of the various Forestry Acts, principally the 1946 Act as amended.

The 1988 Act is not excluded insofar as it deals with operational matters, such as the level of penalties, but the basis for establishing Coillte Teo is not currently under review.

Coillte continues to operate on a commercial basis and is a profitable company with a clear strategy for the future.

 Fresh water Pearl mussel 253.

Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she will provide an assurance that the scientific advice received from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in relation to the protection of the fresh water pearl mussel Margaratifera was incorporated into the Draft Forestry and Freshwater Pearl Mussel Requirements and was not amended for commercial or political reasons. [39907/06]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan):

The National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government was directly involved in the work of the Forestry and Margaritifera Group. In drawing up the Draft Forestry and Freshwater Pearl Mussel Requirements, the scientific advice of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was incorporated into the Requirements in the interests of providing the optimum protection for the Freshwater Pearl Mussel.

The text itself of the draft Requirements was agreed with the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government before issue for public consultation

Waiving Felling License obligations for environmental reasons 399. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if, in advance of any legislative reform of the Forestry Acts, she is waiving or is prepared to waive the replanting obligation to allow habitat restoration in sensitive areas where forestry is proving uneconomic or has been associated with significant environmental damage. [40429/06]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan):

There are two type of Felling Licence in operation at present, i.e. a General Felling Licence and a Limited Felling Licence. In relation to Limited Felling Licences, Section 41 of the Forestry Act 1946 provides that the Minster may, under certain conditions, release the licensee from the obligation to comply with all or any of the replanting conditions imposed or alternatively reduce the number of trees to be planted by the licensee. Where a General Felling Licence is in operation, which is the normal type of licence used for commercial harvesting, there is still provision to exclude areas from the replanting obligation on environmental grounds, following the detailed consultation process that all felling licence applications go through.

The procedure here is to make such areas subject to a Limited Felling Licence instead and the Minister can then release the licensee from any associated replanting obligation.

Any decision to waive the replanting obligation contained in a Limited Felling Licence for environmental reasons is considered on a case by case basis following detailed examination and assessment by my Department's Forest Inspectorate, and in consultation with the environmental bodies such as National Parks and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Boards and local authorities.

It should be noted that, other than in the most exceptional cases, any area clear-felled must be reforested by the owner.

Brash removal 438. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if her attention has been drawn to suggestions that forest brash should be removed from sensitive sites where the nutrients may be causing damage to the ecosystem; her views on whether this would be feasible or if there are difficulties in operating such a policy. [37410/06]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan):

I am aware of the issues relating to brash management, particularly where sensitive sites are concerned. In general, the removal of brash is not advocated as such a practice may increase the need for fertiliser application following reforestation.

On sensitive sites, the brash can provide protection to the surface soil layers. Its removal, using current technologies, can pose difficulties and the benefits need to be weighed up against the risks of increased sediment loss in removing the protective brash mat. T

he issues of sedimentation and nutrient release from forest sites are the subject of current research by the Western River Basin District's Forest and Water Quality Group.

533. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to suggestions that forest brash should be removed from sensitive sites where the nutrients may be causing damage to the ecosystem; his views on whether this would be feasible or if there are difficulties in operating such a policy. [37411/06]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Roche):

 I am aware of concerns regarding the possibility that nutrient release from forest brash may be harmful to certain ecosystems. Brash management has been discussed by a Steering Group chaired by the Forestry Service of the Department of Agriculture and Food that is currently drawing up a consultation document on requirements for forest management in freshwater pearl mussel catchments.

572. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will assure the Houses of the Oireachtas that the freshwater pearl mussel is protected to the same degree in all the rivers in which it occurs, regardless of whether these locations are within or outside of a designated special area of conservation. [32658/06]

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Roche):

The Freshwater Pearl Mussel is protected under the Wildlife Acts and under the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997-2005.

The protection afforded to the freshwater pearl mussel under the Habitats Regulations is that appropriate to an Annex II species as listed in Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna ("the Habitats Directive"): this involves Regulation 3 of the Habitats Regulations, the selection of areas for designation as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs).

This process does not require that every location for the species should be designated as an SAC.

Article 3.2 of the Habitats Directive clearly indicates that the creation of designated sites shall be proportionate to the representation in the national territory of the Annex II species.

Both the Directive and the Regulations (Article 4.1 and Regulation 3(2) (b) respectively) provide that, in regard to aquatic species which range over wide areas, such sites shall be proposed only where there is a clearly identifiable area representing the physical and biological factors essential to their life and reproduction.

In line with this approach, SACs have been designated in Ireland for the freshwater pearl mussel where the best populations occur and where there are the best prospects for meeting the species' requirements. Detailed requirements in relation to notification and environmental assessment of proposed developments or other activities apply in relation to SACs.

More general protection of the freshwater pearl mussel in all areas is provided by the Wildlife (Protection of Wild Animals) Regulations 1990, made under the Wildlife Act 1976. These provisions prohibit the capture, or wilful destruction of the breeding places, of fauna generally.

Implications of the Habitats Regulations for forestry

1373. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the activities licensed by the Forest Service since the introduction of S.I. No. 378 of 2005 bringing the Forestry Acts under the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations; and the assessments undertaken as a result of this legislation. [2119/07]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan):

The European Communities (Natural Habitats) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, had the effect of making the Forestry Acts subject to the provisions of the Habitat Regulations.

In relation to afforestation, all applications are assessed in accordance with the provisions of the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations, 2001.

This includes screening for EIA.

Applications for a felling licence are made in accordance with a procedure laid down by the Forestry Act, 1946 (Part IV) Regulations, 1949.

The follow up inspection procedures for approval of licence applications include an assessment of the environmental considerations for the sites in question. This can entail referral of the application to the various consultation bodies such as National Parks and Wildlife Service, Fisheries Boards and Local Authorities for their consideration and recommendations if applicable.

Any recommendations made are taken into account by the Forest Service in its decision to grant or withhold a licence.

Aerial fertilisation of forests must now be carried out under licence.

New Regulations were made in November 2006 to provide for a statutory licensing system for the aerial application of fertilisers to forests. The Regulations provide for consultation with prescribed bodies and prior assessment where appropriate.

The Forest Service of my Department continues to keep all of its activities under review to ensure compliance with the habitats legislation.

 No requirements for native trees? 1374.

Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if her attention has been drawn to the fact that, not withstanding the new forestry environmental protection scheme, the Teagasc hedgerow initiative and the native woodland establishment scheme, the national forestry plan, Growing for the Future, seeks 20,000 hectares of planting a year until 2036, the largest land use change in Irish history, but it does not require a single native tree; and the reason this is the case. [2120/07]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan):

I welcome the recognition of these major initiatives to enhance Ireland's environment and biodiversity.

The policy on species in Growing for the Future is to increase the diversity of species in Irish forests. It includes a target for annual broadleaf afforestation of 20% of the total planted.

This was subsequently increased to 30% in the National Biodiversity Plan published in 2002 and the target was achieved under the last Rural Development Programme.

It remains an objective in the new Programme for 2007-2013. The target of 30% broadleaves is not regarded as any threat to Ireland's biodiversity.

On the contrary, it represents a major contribution to the creation of a more diverse rural environment and a richer biodiversity. The most common broadleaf species planted are oak, ash and alder, accounting for circa 90% of total broadleaf planting. These are all native species.

Furthermore, over 80% of the broadleaves planted under the afforestation programme are now produced from native sources. The provenances of imported seed are carefully selected to ensure that the progeny can cope with Irish conditions.

I do not accept that there is any threat to the genetic base of our native species.

Clearfelling and amenity

1391. Mr. Sargent Afforestation Programme asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the extent of clear felling undertaken by Coillte; if the amenity value of forests are taken into account before decisions regarding such clear felling are taken; if there are regulations in place to this effect; and the other regulations in place to ensure that forests are managed sustainably.

[2423/07] Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan):

A total of approximately 8,500 hectares was clear-felled by Coillte Teoranta in 2006. All clear-felling of afforested areas by Coillte and others is subject to the licensing conditions as laid down under the Forestry Act 1946.

Licences are issued following detailed inspection and approval of the proposed clear felling sites by the Forest Service Inspectorate and following consultation with the relevant local authorities, who have a particular role where amenity is concerned. If deemed necessary, on environmental grounds, wider consultations may also be undertaken with other relevant bodies such as the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Fisheries Boards. All forestry operations are undertaken in accordance with the principles of Sustainable Forest Management. Where any area of forest is being felled, a mandatory replanting obligation applies in all but the most exceptional cases. This is to ensure that the national forest estate is maintained and that the many economic, environmental and public goods which our forests provide are sustained for future generations.

The conditions of all felling licences require that the felling and replanting operations must be carried out in accordance with the Forest Service Code of Best Forest Practice and must also comply with the Forest Service guidelines relating to Archaeology, Water Quality, Landscape, Harvesting and the Environment. Felling, along with other forestry activities is also subject to the Habitats Regulations. It should also be noted that Coillte have received Forest Stewardship Council certification in recognition of their commitment to sustainable forest management.

Back to Index

4. NEWS New protocol to protect hen harrier

An agreement has been reached between Government and forestry and farming groups which will allow afforestation in areas designated for the protection of the hen harrier, one of Ireland's most endangered birds. A forestry management protocol covering Special Protection Areas important to the hen harrier will be introduced, which will allow an annual quota of new plantings in the six areas involved. The protection areas, which will be designated shortly, are in the Slieve Bloom mountains (Laois and Offaly); Stack's to Mullaghareirk mountains, West Limerick hills and Mount Eagle (Cork, Kerry and Limerick); Mullaghanish to Musheramore (Cork); Slieve Felim to Silvermines (Limerick and Tipperary); Slieve Beagh (Monaghan) and Slieve Aughty mountains (Clare and Galway). A blanket ban on planting forestry in the areas concerned to protect the bird had caused conflict between the farmers, foresters and the Government. The key component of the agreement reached is that an annual quota of new planting will be established for each of the six proposed Special Protection Areas, based on the areas identified as available for planting by National Parks and Wildlife Service, so as to manage and monitor the impact on habitat. Under the new rules, the heath-bog habitat which is so important for the hen harrier will be fully preserved. The objective will be to establish a mosaic of different landscape types in hen harrier areas that will encourage the further development of the species. This should include young forestry, both new and replanted, which the recent research has shown to be a vital component in the foraging pattern of the bird. Making the announcement, the Minister for the Environment, Dick Roche, said the agreement reached represented a balance between good and sensible environmental practice and the legitimate desire for sustainable development in the areas involved. The Forest Service will be responsible for processing forestry applications, and will implement the new protocol immediately. All applications for approval to plant in the areas had been suspended pending agreement on the new management regime, but it was now expected that decisions could be made quickly in these cases. The Irish Farmers' Association's farm forestry chairman John Jackson has welcomed the agreement on a protocol. "A quota system has been allocated for each of the six areas . . . Although planting on heath and bog will be restricted, farmers wanting to plant other types of land should be facilitated by this agreement. "Any farmers who have been held up from planting over the last few months should be able to plant in the current year," according to Mr Jackson.

Seán Mac Connell ¬

© 2007 The Irish Times

Killarney fencing in breach of Habitats Directive?

Killarney Nature Conservation Group (KNCG) has made an official complaint to the European Commission regarding a controversial fencing project in Killarney National Park. The project, to erect deer fencing in the Ullauns, Poulgower and Gortroe areas of the park, is being carried out by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) with funding being provided by the Forest Service under the auspices of the Native Woodland Scheme. KNCG believe that the proposal to fence off the famous woodland is in breach of the EU Habitats Directive, the recently published Killarney National Park Management Plan 2005, 2009, and Native Woodland Scheme guidelines. Furthermore, KNCG insists that NPWS has completely ignored a study on the effect of fencing off areas of these woodlands which has been on-going in the park for over thirty years. This study, by Dr. Daniel Kelly of TCD, has found that fencing off areas from all grazers led to an overall reduction in plant biodiversity. The Native Woodland Scheme guidelines however, insist that projects to be funded must improve plant biodiversity. Dr. Kelly's interim conclusions, which were published by the Royal Irish Academy during 2000, conclude that a limited amount of grazing is beneficial to the woodland ecosystem. The move to complain NPWS and the Forest Service comes after several months of contact between KNCG and the Forest Service. KNCG initially agreed to allow NPWS and the Forest Service time to resolve the issue behind closed doors. However, despite KNCG solicitors having received assurances from NPWS that they would respond in detail, no such response has been received during the last six months and the fencing is currently being flown in to the area by helicopter. Two independent reports compiled by Mr Bill Quirke, a professional ecologist based in the area, have also not been addressed by NPWS. Referring to damage done by heavy earth-moving track machines over a six to eight kilometre stretch of the woodlands and surrounding area during the initial phase of the project, Mr Quirke stated that it could only be described as "an act of vandalism." KNCG members have catalogued several hundred photographs which clearly show breached pre-famine settlement walls, damage to lazy beds and to at least one stone-built cottage. Members were outraged that the evocative and haunting landscape left behind by the last inhabitants of the area during the Great Famine was desecrated by the machines which cut an indiscriminate four metre wide swath through the area. They suggest that their cultural heritage in this remote mountainous area was, in effect, spat upon by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. "The Parks and Wildlife Service are very quick to erect signs warning people of the dire consequences which await them should they be caught picking a wild flower, but they themselves then proceed to desecrate one of the most important ecological landscapes in the country" the group insists. Project funding under the NWS is shared between the Irish Government and the European Union and projections indicate that total funding for this woodland alone has been costed at €696,000. KNCG's main concern however, is that the project is fundamentally flawed in that excluding all grazers will substantially alter the woodland ecology. No Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) appears to have been done for the project, even though the Habitats Directive specifically requires one to be completed before any work commenced. KNCG insists that these woodlands and the native herd of red deer have coexisted for probably 9,000 years or so. Red deer are naturally woodland animals and to exclude them from these woods would be to deny them a very important winter and calving refuge. They are adamant that what is required for natural regeneration of the woodlands is to achieve a natural, sustainable level of grazing by a cull of the deer and feral goat populations, coupled with the complete exclusion of trespassing sheep. Scottish Natural Heritage, who have many years of expert research to rely on, actively promote sustainable levels of grazing rather than fencing. Fencing off the area, KNCG argues, means that the animals will be pushed out onto private lands and blanket bog. The Forest Service has admitted to KNCG in writing, that the bryophyte (mosses and lichens) community of plants, for which the woodlands are internationally famous, may suffer a reduction should the project be completed. The conservation group points out that the varied plant life in these woodlands gives credence to the fact that Killarney National Park is a UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve, one of only two such reserves in Ireland. PRO for Killarney Nature Conservation Group, Mike O'Sullivan has slammed NPWS for their lack of response. "It is not the first time we have been in conflict with them" he said. KNCG was successful in the past in having a decision to hand over almost 80 acres of the park to a private golf course overturned. "Lessons should have been learned from the past," he argues, "Killarney National Park belongs to the people and NPWS are showing extraordinary arrogance in not consulting with them. Section 1.3 of the Management Plan for the park states that Permanent fencing will not generally be used as a means of controlling grazing in the uplands, and will not be undertaken prior to adequate assessment being carried out. Any proposals for major fencing projects will be discussed with the liaison committee beforehand. The KNCG member of the Liaison Committee, Jim O'Malley says that no such discussion took place." At an emergency meeting of the conservation group last week, members promised to take their fight against the proposal as far as they would have to. Mike O'Sullivan said that "nothing seems to have changed with NPWS over the years, other than their name. If they think for one second that they are going to be allowed to 'garden' one of the most evocative and unspoilt landscapes in Ireland into a chess-board of fenced-off enclosures separated by eroded animal highways, they are sadly mistaken."

Coillte denies pesticides threat to Sneem water

Coillte has strongly denied claims that Sneem's water supply is being threatened by pesticides used in forestry work adjacent to Dromtine Lough. The West Cork based group 'Friends of the Irish Environment' has accused Coillte of 'totally ignoring' forest service Guidelines for felling. Group spokesperson Tony Lowes says marine species are being put at risk by Coillte's actions. '

Dromtine Lough and the adjacent Sneem River, supplies the water for Sneem village and surrounds. Coillte has felled a large area of forestry. Signs have been erected warning the public that a pesticide has been used and 'not to gather berries, fruits and mushrooms'. But the run off from the land is going straight into the water supply. '

There are no silt traps being used and there are no buffer zones to protect the Lough. Drains run directly into the mountain streams which enter the Lough and Sneem River', he said. Mr. Lowes says the waters at Sneem River and the Kenmare River are 'pristine clean waters' but marine life is at risk because of Coillte's actions. 'The phosphates and nitrates released by this felling encourage algae growth which threatens all forms of life in the lakes and river through algae bloom', he said.

 Mr. Lowes admitted his group has not independently tested the water as it 'too expensive to test for pesticides', but he called on Kerry County Council to test the water. A spokesman for Coillte said it had a clear policy in relation to the use of pesticides. 'Coillte manages this site, as with all of its sites', to the highest standards and is subject to the internationally recognised and monitored Forest Stewardship Council or FSC. We operate a clear policy in relation to the use of pesticides and only use ones which are authorised for forestry use in Ireland by the Pesticides Control Service (PCS) of the Department of Agriculture and Food. '

We only use pesticides where absolutely necessary', he said. The Coillte spokesperson said the sign referred to by Mr. Lowes was erected two years ago and does not relate to any current or recent activity. 'The particular area in question has not been sprayed since then although it would be normal to use a pesticide at this time of the year in the south-west to control the pine weevil which can destroy the young trees if left untreated.

 'In relation to the potential for any chemical use to enter the lake, buffer zones up to 20m wide are in place, the normal silt traps, use of brash and vegetative zone are used as per Forest Service Guidelines to filter any water leaving the site', he added. Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Kerry County Council told The Kerryman that drinking water is regularly monitored in the Sneem area. In 2006 it was monitored approximately 26 times. Furthermore, the local water caretaker monitors water for chlorine residues on a daily basis.

 Kathy O'Sullican ¬

© The Kerryman

Back to Index

5. ARTICLE OF THE WEEK