Forestry Network Newsletter

// FNN 177 - The Vanishing Hen Harrier

The Vanishing Hen harrier

The story of how the Hen harrier became the hostage to the ‘reckless populism of the IFA leadership’ with the areas to be designated reduced from 287,000 hectares to 169,000 hectares. At the demands of the IFA for the ‘constitutional right to achieve optimal returns on your asset’, a further 9,000 hectares of forestry are to be permitted even in the protected areas, though the population fell from 134 to 105 pairs  2000 – 2005 and the Parks and Wildlife Service itself admits that ‘the bottom line is that new planting represents a net loss of foraging habitat'. 

Other news

Row over new plan to protect endangered hen harriers. Coillte defends felling Lough Corrib wood. Agency questions State's forestry policy. Report calls for plans for forest biodiversity. Salvage logging from burned forests worsens later fires. Certification: Meeting to present the proposals for a new process leading to the development of a Sustainable Forestry Standard for Ireland in conjunction with the Forest Stewardship Council.  

Article of the week

FOREST NETWORK NEWSLETTER
ISSUE NUMBER 177
NOVEMBER 2007
FREE BY EMAIL

COMING SOON: FNN 178 - FORESTRY AS AN ENERGY CROP

1. INTRODUCTION
The Vanishing Hen harrier

2. NEWS
Row over new plan to protect endangered hen harriers
Coillte defends felling Lough Corrib wood
Agency questions State's forestry policy
Report calls for plans for forest biodiversity
Salvage logging from burned forests worsens later fires

3. CERTIFICATION
Meeting to present the proposals for a new process leading to the development of a Sustainable Forestry Standard for Ireland in conjunction with the Forest Stewardship Council.

4 ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
Review of the Research and Information on Forestry's Impact on the Hen Harrier

5 ABOUT US

1. INTRODUCTION

The Vanishing Hen harrier

In 2003, Dúchas director, Mr Alan Craig, announced the designation of Special Protection Areas under the EU Birds Directive for the Hen harrier, Circus cyaneus, an endangered species listed in Annex I of the Directive.

He said the area concerned was ‘not very large', and it would be ‘a couple of months' before Dúchas was in a position to publish the plan and notify landowners. After that they would have three months to appeal. "At the moment we are refining the scientific aspects of the proposal", he told farmers.

The barrage of outrage that the announcement provoked was unprecedented.

A public meeting of more than 700 farmers in Templeglantine, Limerick in March 2003 made it plain to Dúchas officials, who were banned from farmer's lands, that curtailing farming activity to save the endangered bird was ‘not on'.

Farmer's leaders claimed that ‘Dúchas is unthinkingly enforcing areas inside lines that faceless bureaucrats have drawn in Brussels.' The IFA's Regional officer said that "talks are currently at a deadlock and, until a deal is done, signs up and down the country will continue to read, 'Dúchas Out'".

According to Michael Viney of the Irish Times, Duchas, the Heritage Service was ‘hostage to the reckless populism of the IFA leadership'. That ‘brave and enthusiastic notion to emerge from the Civil Service' as Viney called it, was, according to the farmers, ‘out of control'. Dúchas was disbanded by a Cabinet decision in April, 2003 and its functions divided up.

The campaign reached the international media in May when a dead hen harrier was delivered to the offices of the Kerryman Newspaper.

In August 2003 EU infringement proceedings under this Directive became public. The Department said it was taking seriously ‘facing fines of €8 million a year or €21,917 a day'. ‘Ireland currently has the second smallest network of special protection areas (SPAs) designated in the EU. National legislation and SPA conservation practice in Ireland is also unsatisfactory', the Commission notified Ireland.

The Government did not accept the suggestion of the Principle Officer of the Forest Service that a Strategic Environmental Assessment [SEA] would ‘establish the constraints and impacts at a high level for all such areas and construct the principles through which new afforestation must proceed'.

Instead, it went behind the scenes, making good on its promise that it would consult with the farmers. This led to the establishment of a Working Group in 2006 to address the issue of forestry controls. Industry, Coillte, and the farmers were all invited. The environmental NGOs were not.

The terms of reference were ‘to consider and advise on ways in which forestry in the proposed SPA and adjoining areas can be planned and managed so as to maximise the compatibility of present and future forests with the foraging requirements of hen harriers and the maintenance of breeding hen harrier populations in these areas.'

At the first meeting, the terms of reference were changed to remove the words ‘and adjoining'.

The Department was told by stakeholders that the designation could not be accepted if they would result in the removal of forestry as an option as this would devalue the land significantly which ‘must equate to the removal of a constitutional right to achieve optimal returns on your asset'.

‘Consolidation'

The result was the ‘consolidation' of the protection for the Hen harrier. Dick Roche, then Minister for the Environment, told the Dail on 29 November 2006, that since the 2003 announcement, ‘my Department has thoroughly reviewed the research and information on the Hen Harrier, including the results of a second national survey in 2005.  Based on this work, a significant consolidation in relation to the number and extent of Hen Harrier SPA's is now envisaged.'

The second national survey of the Hen harrier on which the Minister partly based his ‘consolidation' in fact showed the number of breeding hen harrier even in those 9 SPAs announced in 2003 had fallen from 2000 to 2005 - by 134 to 105 pairs.

Yet the ‘consolidation' meant that the 9 areas identified in 2003 were cut to 6, and the total hectares to be protected fell from 287,000 hectares to 169,000 hectares. The Kilworths and the Nagles lost all protection.  The Ballyhouras were also excluded from the SPA designation.  This was despite their designation as an SAC under the Habitats Directive and despite the fact that the Ballyhouras had seen the most improved harrier numbers since 2000.

According to files released under the Access to Environmental Information Directive, The National Parks and Wildlife's reason for excluding the Ballyhouras was that ‘they were not satisfied with the long term conservation of the HH in those numbers and as a result were not recommending them for designation.'

Yet the Ballyhoura Mountain SAC site synopsis states that ‘The Ballyhoura Mountain range, including the largely afforested slopes outside the cSAC, are important for birds. Seven pairs of Hen Harrier and one pair of Peregrine are known to use the site. Both these species are listed on Annex I of the E.U. Birds Directive. The unplanted bog and heath within the site provides crucial foraging habitat and potential nesting sites for the very important Hen Harrier population'.

The ‘consolidated' designations also excluded a further 60,000 hectares of intermingled areas classified as ‘dry grassland'/'improved grassland' where no protection applies.  While heath and bog are protected against forestry, the excluded habitats are not used as nest sites but are used extensively for foraging.

Finally a ‘forest management protocol' was negotiated with the farmers that will allow forestry within the designated areas, even though the NPWS - and COFORD and BIOFOREST - all admit that forestry represents a net loss of habitat.

The Forestry protocol

The protocol agreed will allow 9,000 hectares of forestry in the remaining 6 SPAs over the 15 year term of the agreement.

The March 2007 joint press release from Dick Roche [Environment] and Mary Coughlin [Agriculture] went so far as to refer to ‘young forestry, both new and replanted, which the recent research has shown to be a vital component in the foraging pattern of the bird' and spoke of young forests ‘critical importance' to the Hen harrier.

The truth is that COFORD attributes the decline of the Hen harrier to ‘agricultural improvement of marginal rough pasture, bogland and scrub, and to the maturation of the Irish forest plantation estate'.

They note that in areas such as Wicklow, where there is now little afforestation, Hen harriers have disappeared, despite wide availability of young second rotation forests. Elsewhere in Ireland, initial increases in Hen Harrier population have been followed by a decline which can be related to the maturing of large forestry plantations.

Within the protected areas, forest growth from already existing young plantations will inevitably reduce the proportion of the designated areas that is suitable for Hen Harriers without any further intervention.

Even areas designated within forestry plantations as open spaces or biodiversity become rank and unavailable to the hen harrier at the same time the canopy closes and the habitat is lost to the species.

The Department of Parks and Wildlife's own scientific advice was that ‘While suitable afforested habitat is only available periodically, suitable open habitat can be regarded as permanently suitable'. The author of this statement ‘thoroughly reviewed the research and information on the Hen Harrier' for the Department which the Minister claimed justified forestry as a ‘vital component' of the Hen harrier's survival.

A memorandum from Ireland's Parks and Wildlife Service dated 19 April 2006 admits that ‘the bottom line is that new planting represents a net loss of foraging habitat'.

And yet the Irish authorities have permitted forestry within the last remaining strongholds of our most protected, endangered, and declining species.

See: Article of the Week below

Slide show of maps showing the vanishing hen harrier 1970 - 2005

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/index.php?do=photos&gId=3

FIE's letters to the Ministers

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/friendswork/index.php?action=view&id=337 [Martin Cullen, 21 April 2003]

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/cmsfiles/files/library/hen_harrier_letter_and_executive_summary_8.10.07.pdf [John Gormley, 9 October 2007]

Index

2. NEWS

2.1 Row over new plan to protect endangered hen harriers

FEATHERS flew yesterday over plans to protect the endangered hen harrier bird.

Environment Minister John Gormley announced six areas in the country where the hen harrier will be protected. The so-called special areas of conservation mean that the birds cannot be interfered with during breeding, feeding, or roosting.

Farmers affected by the move are being offered special compensation. However, a leading environmental organisation claimed the new protection zones would be inadequate to save the bird from extinction.

The proposed six protection zones are:

Slieve Bloom Mountains in Laois and Offaly;

Stack's to Mullaghareirk Mountains, West Limerick Hills and Mount Eagle in Cork, Kerry and Limerick;

Beagh Co. Monaghan;

Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains Co. Cork;

Slievefelim to Silvermines Mountains Limerick and Tipperary;

Slieve Aughty Mountains, Clare and Galway.

The hen harrier is a medium-sized bird of prey, with a small breeding population of only 130-150 pairs in Ireland.

Mr Gormley said one of our obligations as an EU member State was to protect places important to birds. The EU Birds Directive requires the designation of sites in each member state to protect birds at their breeding, feeding, roosting and wintering areas.

A total of 5,500 landowners in these sites will be individually notified. Landowners who wish to object to the proposed designations will have until February 8, 2008, to do so.

However, the Friends of the Environment (FIE) group insisted yesterday that the proposed designations would not save the hen harrier.

FIE claimed the terms of reference were changed to exclude areas adjacent to the special areas of conservation, in spite of the EU Directive's requirements.

"Ireland already has the smallest amount of its area protected for birds of any European country," said FIE spokesman Tony Lowes. "This agreement will not save the hen harrier," he added.
Treacy Hogan

© Irish Independent 8.11.07

2.2 Coillte defends felling Lough Corrib wood

Coillte has defended its decision to fell part of one of the last woodlands on the shores of Connemara's Lough Corrib. The forestry company has been licensed to remove 440 trees from Annagh wood, location of a children's cemetery and public right of way. The mature woodland is on a peninsula bounded by two bays on the lake's western banks, several miles from Oughterard, Co Galway.

Locals have expressed concern about the impact on the landscape, following similar tree felling on Inchagoill island south-west of Cong several years ago. They have questioned why no environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been carried out.

The Forest Service has confirmed that Coillte applied for a general felling licence, under the Forestry Act 1946, and it was granted "following consultation with National Parks and Wildlife Service, the county council, the relevant fisheries board and a site inspection by a Forest Service inspector". Coillte also says that every precaution will be taken to ensure that the children's cemetery is not affected by the felling, which will be "115 to 120 meters away at the closest point".

The licensed area comprises 3.8 hectares of conifer trees within 11.5 hectares of woodland, the Forest Service says.

"The management objective is to convert the woodland from a mixed conifer/broadleaf to mixed broadleaf woodland while retaining some Scots Pine that is the only native conifer tree." The area will be "replanted with a mixture of broadleaf trees", it says, and there is no requirement for an EIA. This is only mandatory for deforestation and conversion where the area is greater than 10 hectares of natural woodland or 70 hectares of conifer forest, the Forest Service says. "Should a particular felling operation require an assessment this can be requested, on a discretionary basis, by the Forest Service," it says, but in practice the consultation allows for approval if the service is "happy that no environmental threat is posed".

Brian O'Donnell, who lives at Gortdrishagh close to Annagh wood, said he was shocked at the decision. "For the sake of an estimated €40,000 which Coillte will get for these trees, it will remove the last significant wood in Lough Corrib,"he said.

Coillte says that local consultation took place on June 8th, 2006, but Mr O'Donnell said that he had not been contacted, in spite of the fact that he had been in touch with the company beforehand.

Lorna Siggins

© 2007 The Irish Times  7.10.07

2.3 Agency questions State's forestry policy

The effectiveness of the State's tree-planting schemes to combat greenhouse gas emissions has been questioned by the European Environment Agency (EEA). According to the National Council for Forest Research and Development, Irish forests have a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

The council is supported by the Department of Finance which said Irish forestry is worth more in reducing greenhouse gas emissions than it is for the timber value. But the EEA has claimed that up to 84 per cent of Irish forests between 1990 and 2000 were developed on peatland - a feature which releases substantial carbon and greenhouse gases which had already been sequestered in the peat.

The council, which was yesterday holding a one-day conference in Co Wicklow on the impact of forestry on climate change, acknowledged that forests on peatland released previously sequestered carbon. But chief executive Dr Eugene Hendrick rejected the EEA figures, insisting that just 28 to 29 per cent of Irish forestry in the years in question had been developed on peatland and the amount of forestry being established on peatland was being reduced.

Asked if he could explain the wide difference in assessments of the amount of peatland-based forestry, Dr Hendrick said the European figures were incorrect. Irish figures were superior because they were "national figures compiled on the ground" with the aid of site visits. EEA figures were compiled at a distance, he said.

But Jean Louise Weber, of the Spatial Analysis Group in the EEA, said the EEA figures were checked twice for his report, Revision of the Assessment of Forest Creation and Afforestation in Ireland. Mr Weber said afforestation on peat bogs ranged up to 84 per cent of the total afforestation for the period 1990-2000.

© Irish Times 20.09.07

SEE: ‘The definition of peat soils'

http://friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/fnn/index.php?action=view&id=208

Report calls for plans for forest biodiversity

All non-urban local authorities should be required to prepare forestry strategies and compile countrywide habitat surveys and biodiversity plans, a major new report has recommended.

The joint Coford/EPA report, Biodiversity in Irish Plantation Forests, makes 57 recommendations including a call for the establishment of a biological records centre.

The Bioforest project, one of the largest undertakings on biodiversity research conducted here, concluded that, in general, forestry plantations could make a significant contribution to biodiversity if properly planned, but could have a negative effect if not.

The project, which involved more than 20 researchers based in Trinity College Dublin, University College Cork and Coillte, found that each local authority should establish ecological advisory units.

One of the most far-reaching recommendations in the report was that semi-natural habitats should not be afforested unless there were mitigating circumstances. Where possible, improved grassland or arable land should be used for afforestation instead of semi-natural habitat, particularly in landscapes dominated by intensive farming.

"Priority habitats listed in the EU habitats directive should not be afforested, regardless of whether they are part of a designated site or how common they are in the surrounding landscape," it said.

The report also recommended that the Forestry Service should employ ecologists with the number being increased from the present one to adequately cope with the workload.

It said that in the past, local authorities had not had in-house technical expertise available to comment on conservation issues pertaining to grant applications.

However, the appointment of heritage officers had begun to remedy this deficiency and the establishment of ecology units would rectify this situation.

In the section dealing with the hen harrier bird, the report recommended that afforestation and agricultural improvements should be regulated in areas where the bird is found to minimise further decreases in the carrying capacity for the species.

"Wherever possible, afforestation in these areas should target improved agricultural land rather than areas of bog and rough pasture, which are used by hen harriers for foraging," said the report.

It said more information was needed on the habitat requirements of the bird especially in relation to second rotation forests.

To improve the understanding of hen harrier habitat requirements, a combined satellite or radio tracking study of foraging adults should be carried out.

This study would also include a monitoring of the fledging success of hen harrier nests in different habitat configurations.

The publication of the report was welcomed by Minister of State for Agriculture Mary Wallace, who has responsibility for forestry.

Seán Mac Connell

© 2007 The Irish Times 21.11.07

2.4 Salvage logging from burned forests worsens later fires

THE logging industry has had its fingers burned. Turning dead trees into logs after forest fires seems to exacerbate forest damage in any subsequent fires.

"For a long time there was a perception that by salvage-logging fire-killed trees, you would be removing a lot of potential fuel for future fires," says Jonathan Thompson of Oregon State University in Corvallis. The logging industry is keen on salvage logging because commercially valuable trees such as conifers can be planted (New Scientist, 5 August 2006, p 4).

Thompson and colleagues studied before and after satellite images of two large fires in south-west Oregon. The 2002 Biscuit fire engulfed more than 200,000 hectares, over 18,000 of which had already been burned in the 1987 Silver fire. In the three years after the Silver fire, more than 800 hectares were logged to salvage any wood that could be sold, and the land was replanted with conifers. The team discovered that areas logged for salvage burned between 16 and 61 per cent more severely during a second fire than areas left to regrow naturally (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 104, p 10743).

"Areas logged for salvage burned 16 to 60 per cent more severely in a second fire." Thompson now says this type of forest management should not be used in an attempt to limit the risk of future fires, although he says it may still have economic value. The satellite data wasn't detailed enough to allow the team to determine whether it was the logging or the replanting that made the second fire worse in certain areas. Salvage-logging operations can leave a lot of the higher branches on the ground, where they can fuel future fires, says Thompson, but it is difficult to say how much of an effect this would have had 15 years later.

He says it is more likely that the conifers which replaced the original forest provided a homogenous fuel for the 2002 fire, causing replanted areas to burn more fiercely.

© New Scientist

Index

3. CERTIFICATION

Meeting to present the proposals for a new process leading to the development of a Sustainable Forestry Standard for Ireland in conjunction with the Forest Stewardship Council.

Location: Aquila Room, the Clarion Hotel, Limerick. 

Date and time:  8th December, 14.00-17.00

Contact for this meeting: ewing.michael@itsligo.ie

Please invite anyone that you feel might have an interest in the establishment of the Irish Sustainable Forestry Standards to either attend the meeting or to contact IFCI to register their interest in being involved in the future work.

See FIE's draft proposals for open and transparent procedures for developing an Irish Standard for certification:

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/cmsfiles/files/library/proceduredevelopmentproposaldraft918oct07.doc

Index

4. ARTICLE OF THE WEEK

Review of the Research and Information on Forestry's Impact on the Hen Harrier

Circus cyaneus, commonly known as the Hen Harrier, is included in Annex I of the Council Directive of 2 April 1979 on the Conservation Of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC)

This Directive stipulates three key requirements:

1. ‘The species mentioned in annex I shall be the subject of special conservation measures concerning their habitat in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in their area of distribution'.
2. ‘Member states shall classify in particular the most suitable territories in number and size as special protection areas for the conservation of these species...'
3. ‘Member states shall take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the birds, in so far as these would be significant having regard to the objectives of this article. Outside these protection areas, member states shall also strive to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats.'

The following extracts are from a report commissioned by the National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS), a division of the Department of the Environment; a Bioforest^[1] presentation; and a National Council for Forest Research and Development (COFORD) publication. All confirm the concerns in relation to the impact of forestry on the hen harrier and the deficiencies in current knowledge.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service Report entitled ‘Report on 2005 Hen Harrier survey data (October 2006)' states:

‘In Ireland, the Hen Harrier has traditionally been regarded as a bird of open upland habitats, such as heather moor, bog and rough pasture. In recent decades, the suitability of many upland areas for Hen Harriers has been reduced by agricultural intensification. Over the same period, large tracts of Hen Harrier habitat in the Irish uplands have been afforested. ... The maturation of Irish plantation forests therefore has the potential to impact on the Irish Hen Harrier population.'

‘While suitable afforested habitat is only available periodically, suitable open habitat can be regarded as permanently suitable.'

‘The data on breeding locations of Hen Harriers are of variable quality and, more importantly, are taken from only one year's data. The summer of 2005 was warmer and drier than average (Met Eireann website, 2006), and it is possible that availability of suitable foraging habitat was not as important in 2005 as it would be during a colder, wetter breeding season. The habitat information used in these analyses is also imperfect, particularly with regard to classification of forest age. As illustrated by the discrepancies between the findings of this report and the previous report on Hen Harrier habitat requirements, discussed above, even a relatively small degree of uncertainty in forest age classification can affect the findings of such analyses.'

‘Hen Harriers do not hold exclusive hunting ranges. and in some places it is common to see Hen Harriers from different pairs simultaneously hunting over the same general area. While breeding Hen Harriers are therefore unlikely to be forced to hunt further from their nest due to direct exclusion by neighbouring pairs. Prey depletion in areas where breeding Hen Harrier density is high may cause at least some birds to extent their range to include less heavily utilised foraging habitat. As shown above, the distribution of suitable habitat in the ocSPAs will change markedly over the next 10 years, even in the absence of further planting. This may result in configurations of habitat type that are very different from any found in the ocSPAs in 2005 and about which we have no information concerning their suitability for breeding Hen Harriers.'

‘Hen Harriers in Ireland are known to hunt regularly over unimproved grassland habitats (Norriss et al., 2002; O'Donoghue, 2004), and in some areas, these may even be selected in preference to any other foraging habitat (Barton et al., 2002).

During the 2005 survey, several Hen Harriers were even observed hunting along field boundaries in improved grassland, sometimes 5km or more from their nest sites (Nagle et al.. 2005). This suggests that avoidance of grassland is due to more than simply its value as a foraging habitat. It is possible that the value of landscapes with high proportions of grassland of any type is compromised by a lack of suitable nest sites or adequate cover to conceal provisioning adults returning to the nest with prey. It may be possible to make such landscapes more suitable for Hen Harriers, either by increasing the prey density they support, or by providing increased cover for nests and provisioning adults.'

‘However, it should be borne in mind that avoidance of second rotation forest by foraging Hen Harriers has not only been demonstrated in the UK, (Petty et al., 1986; Madders, 2000), but also in some parts of Ireland (Barton et al., 2002; Norriss et al., 2002).'

‘The conclusions that can be drawn from the analysis of the breeding success data are limited by the very low level at which breeding failure was detected.'

‘Information on Hen Harrier breeding location could be improved in two main ways. Firstly. both the precision and the accuracy with which many Hen Harrier nests are recorded could be improved. Secondly, and most critically, analysis of data from several breeding seasons would allow a better understanding of habitat preferences and requirements. ... More intensive monitoring of breeding Hen Harriers pairs would generate data better suited to identifying the factors that influence breeding success or failure. Tagging of young Hen Harriers would also allow identification of fledged birds that go on to breed in subsequent years. Depending on the importance of parental care and breeding situation for post-fledging survival, the recruitment of offspring to the breeding population could be a better measure of successful breeding than simply fledging young. However, this information will not be captured by a short-term study as, at least in some populations, birds may not breed for the first few years of their lives (Watson, 1977).'

‘However, a study such as this, which is restricted to analysing the habitat around Hen Harrier breeding locations in relation to the habitat composition of the wider landscape, is limited in the extent to which it can resolve questions about the requirements and, especially, the preferences of this species. A detailed study relating habitat use, prey abundance, and measures of parental care and breeding success, would contribute immeasurably towards our understanding of these matters.'

‘Changes in habitat resulting from specific land improvements, or other developments (e.g. windfarms) could be notified to the persons responsible for managing habitat information for the ocSPAs, and more gradual changes could be recorded by comparing current records with recent aerial photographs.'

‘It should not be interpreted as meaning that the level of suitable foraging habitat can always be reduced to such low levels without negative consequences for Hen Harriers. In particular, we need to improve our understanding of the foraging habitat requirements of Hen Harriers within radii of more than 1km, and of variation in the value of land for foraging Hen Harriers within as well as between habitat types.'

‘Further improvement of agricultural land in areas managed for Hen Harrier conservation should be avoided. More research is needed in order to say whether the avoidance of grassland is principally due to selection against it as a foraging habitat, or against grassland-dominated landscapes for other reasons, such as considerations to do with nest site location.'

These concerns were reinforced in the 2006 Bioforest^[2] presentation Habitat Requirements of Hen Harriers in Ireland

• ‘Over the past 50 years, most of the upland areas where Hen Harriers exist have been heavily forested
• Over this period, initial increase in Hen Harrier population followed by population decline
• Hen Harriers use young forests for nesting and foraging
• Hen Harriers do not use forests after canopy closure
• Value of second rotation forest uncertain
• Forestry probably results in habitat loss for Hen Harriers
• By 2015, forest growth will reduce the proportion of the IAs [original candidate SPAs] that is suitable for Hen Harriers
• This may cause a decline in the number of Hen Harriers in these areas'

Finally, the COFORD Connects publication ‘The distribution of Hen Harriers in Ireland in relation to land use cover, particularly forest cover' address the Hen harrier in the following terms:

‘Although the traditional breeding habitat of Hen Harriers in Ireland and Britain is open moorland (Gibbons et al. 1993), the ground vegetation of young plantation forests can be more suitable for Hen Harrier nesting and foraging than that of surrounding open habitats, where heather and long grass cover can be limited by heavy grazing or burning (Madders 2003). Hen Harriers in Ireland used newly established conifer plantations for both hunting and nesting, and reached an estimated peak of between 200 and 300 pairs (Watson 1977).

However, since 1970, the Hen Harrier population in Ireland has undergone a rapid decline (Newton et al. 1999, Whilde 1993), and more recent estimates have placed the breeding population at 120 -140 pairs (Gibbons et al. 1993, Norriss et al. 2002). This decline has been attributed to agricultural improvement of marginal rough pasture, bogland and scrub, and to the maturation of the Irish forest plantation estate (O'Flynn 1983, Whilde 1993).

However, in areas such as Wicklow, where there is now little afforestation, Hen Harriers have disappeared, despite wide availability of young second rotation forests (Gibbons et al. 1993, Norriss et al. 2002).

Reforested sites may be less suitable for foraging than young new plantations due to the presence of brash and a lower cover of ground vegetation (Madders 2000, Norriss et al. 2002). Moreover, forest areas generally have a closed canopy for about two thirds of the forest cycle. This means that even if pre-thicket first and second rotation forests are as valuable to Hen Harriers as the pre-planting open habitats they replace, afforestation will still result in a net loss of habitat to Hen Harriers (Bibby and Etheridge 1993).

Our estimate of suitable habitat cover in 2015 does not take account of any of the afforestation that will have occurred between 1999 and 2015. Despite the recent move of afforestation in Ireland away from the most marginal lands for agriculture (Fahy and Foley 2002), the majority of land currently put forward by farmers for afforestation is still relatively unproductive from an agricultural perspective, and could potentially be used by Hen Harriers for foraging.

Unless financial incentives are put in place to encourage the establishment of new forests on high quality pasture land, it is likely that the majority of afforestation will continue to occur on marginal agricultural land. If this is the case, then new plantations will not result in the creation of substantial areas of entirely new Hen Harrier habitat, as many of these marginal areas will have been used by Hen Harriers before planting.'^[3]

See FIE's letter to John Gormley, Minister for the Environment, with an Executive Summary criticising the Parks and Wildlife commissioned Review of the Research and Information on Forestry's Impact on the Hen Harrier.

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/cmsfiles/files/library/hen_harrier_letter_and_executive_summary_8.10.07.pdf

and the slide show of maps showing the vanishing hen harrier 1970 - 2005

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/index.php?do=photos&gId=3

Index

5. ABOUT US

FNN is an independent voluntary service. It is distributed only by e-mail and is free. It receives no funding from any source.

Newsletter editors:

Caroline Lewis

caroline@friendsoftheirishenvironment.org

Tony Lowes

tony@friendsoftheirishenvironment.org

The editors take collective responsibility for what they publish. The omission of an authors name indicates that the editors generally agree with and stand over the contents. There may be and often are a number of collaborating authors on each article and additionally some authors may for valid reasons not wish to be identified. This does not mean the editors never make mistakes and they look forward to having their attention drawn to any factual inaccuracies in any articles they have published.

Fully searchable Forest Network Newsletter archive and free email subscriptions are at: http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/fnn/

Index

[1] The BIOFOREST was a research team comprised of the following organisations:

• Department of Zoology, Ecology and Plant Sciences (ZEPS), Environment Research Institute (ERI), University College, Cork (UCC)
• Department of Botany, Trinity College, Dublin (TCD)

• Coillte Teoranta, The Irish Forestry Board (Coillte)

[2] Bioforest, (2006) Habitat Requirements of Hen Harriers in Ireland

[3] Mark Wilson, Tom Gittings, John O'Halloran, Tom Kelly and Josephine Pithon (2006) The distribution of Hen Harriers in Ireland in relation to land use cover, particularly forest cover COFORD