COILLTE HAS defended its sale of prime forest and recreational land along the State's busiest walking route in south Dublin to a private landowner.
The State-owned forestry company said the sale of six hectares of land at Kilmashogue last year was unrelated to the rerouting of the Wicklow Way in the area shortly before.
The rerouting of the way, which has seen the existing narrow switchback track in the Dublin mountains replaced by a broad gravelled highway, has dismayed walking groups. The lands by which the walking route formerly passed have recently been fenced off and planted with trees.
A company spokesman confirmed that the fenced-off land was sold to a private landowner in the area in September 2007, but denied this was the reason for rerouting the Wicklow Way.
He said a short section of the way had been rerouted "as part of the planned upgrading of the forest road network in the area". However, much of the forestry in the area has already matured and been felled by machinery using the existing tracks.
"The Wicklow Way is clearly signposted along this new route and full access along it has been maintained at all times," the spokesman added.
He said the sale was conducted in accordance with the company's normal sale procedures after the landowner made an approach. The spokesman declined to state the purchase price, citing commercial reasons.
The landowner, Mark Turley, said he knew nothing about the rerouting of the Wicklow Way. His family has purchased the mountain land in order to protect the trees from Coillte's clear-felling policy in the area and give shelter to his house below. However, the trees, which had matured, fell down, knocked over fences and his herd of deer had escaped.
He had since fenced off the land and planted native Irish broadleafs rather than the conifers favoured by Coillte.
Coillte's action has angered walking groups in advance of the high-profile launch by Minister for Natural Resources Eamonn Ryan next week of the Dublin Mountains Partnership, a new management group for the mountains comprising Coillte, two local county councils, the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Dublin Mountains Initiative.
The new organisation plans to improve access to the hills and develop walking, cycling and horseriding trails.
"Just when we should be opening the mountains up to public use, a State body sells off publicly-owned land on the most widely trafficked walking route in the country and a landowner fences off the land," one source told The Irish Times.
The Coillte spokesman said the company owned 445,000 hectares around the State. Its practice was to sell, lease or develop a limited area of land for purposes other than forestry. "Most sales are made in response to local demand and typically comprise house sites, isolated dwelling houses, sections of recently acquired farms, small outlying forest properties and gravel pits."
Coillte has sold about 12,000 hectares of land since 1989 and purchased 52,000 hectares. The company had done a lot of work in recent years upgrading trails and signs and improving walking and biking trails, its spokesman stated.
The Wicklow Way runs for 127km over mountains from south Dublin to Clonegal in Co Carlow.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Showing posts with label forestry planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label forestry planning. Show all posts
Monday, 20 October 2008
Wednesday, 3 September 2008
Forestry policy appears as thick as two short planks
The environment and economy both suffer from the way forestry, a key natural resource, is being developed here, writes Fintan O'Toole
NOW THAT the boom is over, we have to reflect on two questions. What resources do we have? And how can we use them in a way that is both economically and environmentally sustainable?
These are pretty basic questions - but in the euphoria of the last decade, we've pretty much ignored them. The madness that has resulted is probably best illustrated by the example of forestry.
Here's a simple fact: the State is refusing to take EU money for forestry. Under the EU's Rural Development Fund, member states can apply for 80 per cent grants for afforestation. With just 10 per cent of its land under forest - the lowest percentage in the EU - Ireland has the most obvious need for this funding.
Sure enough, Ireland's draft submission to the development fund contained a proposal for a large-scale afforestation programme. But, bizarrely, this proposal was entirely dropped when the final submission was made. The decision was taken that, instead of getting 80 per cent of the cost from the EU, the State would provide Irish farmers with 100 per cent grants for forestry.
Why on earth would we be doing this? There are two probable answers. One is that the 100 per cent grant scheme delivers larger subsidies to farmers, with less need to justify spending. Since no one has to come up with the other 20 per cent of the cost, there's no need to ask about the long-term viability or sustainability of what's being done.
But the other reason is that the EU money would come with some strings attached. There would have to be proper standards of environmental management and accountability.
If you get EU money to plant trees, you have to submit to annual independent monitoring of the effects on, for example, the quality of water in lakes and rivers. (Inappropriate planting acidifies water courses and leads to the overuse of polluting chemicals.)
The names of those receiving grants have to be placed in the public domain. And the State is supposed to have a set of published standards for the proper management of the forests.
And why would the Government not want all of these worthy things? Because it has failed to apply any serious notion of either sustainability or accountability to the development of forestry policy. It established Coillte 20 years ago as the largest landowner in Ireland, but gave it a purely short-term commercial mandate.
Bizarrely, Coillte (whose only shareholders are the ministers for finance and agriculture) proclaims itself a private company, with no obligations under, for example, the Freedom of Information Act. Coillte's policy has been to cover the 1.1 million acres it owns with cheap, low-grade, non-native sitka spruce which, with other imported conifers, make up 77 per cent of its stock.
According to its last published annual report, for 2006, it planted 8,621 hectares, just 117 of them with native trees.
In economic terms, this means that Ireland, which has some of the world's best conditions for growing trees, is locked in to the mass production of very basic timber.
In environmental terms, the consequences are even worse. The landscape is covered with an ugly and unnatural monoculture that has disastrous effects on biodiversity. These forests are then clear-felled - an industrial process that leaves acidic soil, stripped of nutrients and subject to the kind of erosion and landslides that are becoming semi-regular events.
And if the profit margins are too low, Coillte simply sells off forested land to private companies - Shell in Co Mayo, for example. In 2006, it sold 373 hectares of forest to private developers, mostly for housing and other commercial activities. It further declared its intention to step up the sale of its lands to "key industry participants" for quarrying.
So while the State is giving farmers grants to turn farmland into forests, the State forestry agency is balancing its books by turning forestry into development land.
Coillte will reply to all of this by pointing out that it has a certificate of good forestry management, valid until 2011, issued by the Forestry Stewardship Council. The problem is that, under EU agreements to which Ireland is a party, stewardship council certification is supposed to be conducted according to a written set of standards.
In 1999, the government created a working group to establish these standards. Almost a decade on, they still don't exist. If they did, and if they were being applied, the State wouldn't be afraid to take EU money for fear that the EU might expect it to be spent on sustainable projects.
A decade ago, in Economics of Irish Forestry, Prof Peter Clinch questioned the whole logic of investing large-scale public funds in a forestry development project characterised by "poor quality of information", "the lack of an effective monitoring procedure of the location and extent of the afforestation", and "the lack of any ex-post evaluation to ascertain the effectiveness" of environmental guidelines.
Over the summer, Brian Cowen appointed Peter Clinch as his adviser on the economy. As an example of what's gone wrong, the professor could do worse than tell the Taoiseach a bit about trees.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
NOW THAT the boom is over, we have to reflect on two questions. What resources do we have? And how can we use them in a way that is both economically and environmentally sustainable?
These are pretty basic questions - but in the euphoria of the last decade, we've pretty much ignored them. The madness that has resulted is probably best illustrated by the example of forestry.
Here's a simple fact: the State is refusing to take EU money for forestry. Under the EU's Rural Development Fund, member states can apply for 80 per cent grants for afforestation. With just 10 per cent of its land under forest - the lowest percentage in the EU - Ireland has the most obvious need for this funding.
Sure enough, Ireland's draft submission to the development fund contained a proposal for a large-scale afforestation programme. But, bizarrely, this proposal was entirely dropped when the final submission was made. The decision was taken that, instead of getting 80 per cent of the cost from the EU, the State would provide Irish farmers with 100 per cent grants for forestry.
Why on earth would we be doing this? There are two probable answers. One is that the 100 per cent grant scheme delivers larger subsidies to farmers, with less need to justify spending. Since no one has to come up with the other 20 per cent of the cost, there's no need to ask about the long-term viability or sustainability of what's being done.
But the other reason is that the EU money would come with some strings attached. There would have to be proper standards of environmental management and accountability.
If you get EU money to plant trees, you have to submit to annual independent monitoring of the effects on, for example, the quality of water in lakes and rivers. (Inappropriate planting acidifies water courses and leads to the overuse of polluting chemicals.)
The names of those receiving grants have to be placed in the public domain. And the State is supposed to have a set of published standards for the proper management of the forests.
And why would the Government not want all of these worthy things? Because it has failed to apply any serious notion of either sustainability or accountability to the development of forestry policy. It established Coillte 20 years ago as the largest landowner in Ireland, but gave it a purely short-term commercial mandate.
Bizarrely, Coillte (whose only shareholders are the ministers for finance and agriculture) proclaims itself a private company, with no obligations under, for example, the Freedom of Information Act. Coillte's policy has been to cover the 1.1 million acres it owns with cheap, low-grade, non-native sitka spruce which, with other imported conifers, make up 77 per cent of its stock.
According to its last published annual report, for 2006, it planted 8,621 hectares, just 117 of them with native trees.
In economic terms, this means that Ireland, which has some of the world's best conditions for growing trees, is locked in to the mass production of very basic timber.
In environmental terms, the consequences are even worse. The landscape is covered with an ugly and unnatural monoculture that has disastrous effects on biodiversity. These forests are then clear-felled - an industrial process that leaves acidic soil, stripped of nutrients and subject to the kind of erosion and landslides that are becoming semi-regular events.
And if the profit margins are too low, Coillte simply sells off forested land to private companies - Shell in Co Mayo, for example. In 2006, it sold 373 hectares of forest to private developers, mostly for housing and other commercial activities. It further declared its intention to step up the sale of its lands to "key industry participants" for quarrying.
So while the State is giving farmers grants to turn farmland into forests, the State forestry agency is balancing its books by turning forestry into development land.
Coillte will reply to all of this by pointing out that it has a certificate of good forestry management, valid until 2011, issued by the Forestry Stewardship Council. The problem is that, under EU agreements to which Ireland is a party, stewardship council certification is supposed to be conducted according to a written set of standards.
In 1999, the government created a working group to establish these standards. Almost a decade on, they still don't exist. If they did, and if they were being applied, the State wouldn't be afraid to take EU money for fear that the EU might expect it to be spent on sustainable projects.
A decade ago, in Economics of Irish Forestry, Prof Peter Clinch questioned the whole logic of investing large-scale public funds in a forestry development project characterised by "poor quality of information", "the lack of an effective monitoring procedure of the location and extent of the afforestation", and "the lack of any ex-post evaluation to ascertain the effectiveness" of environmental guidelines.
Over the summer, Brian Cowen appointed Peter Clinch as his adviser on the economy. As an example of what's gone wrong, the professor could do worse than tell the Taoiseach a bit about trees.
The Irish Times
www.buckplanning.ie
Monday, 17 September 2007
Commission approves Irish Afforestation Grant and Premium Scheme
The European Commission has authorised Ireland to pay national aid worth more than €900 million over the period 2007-2013 to encourage afforestation.
Ireland has the second lowest rate of forest cover in the European Union - at just 10% of the country's total land area. The primary objective is to bring the level up to 17% of land area.
Aid of up to 100% will be available for establishment of forests. The establishment grants will be conditional on compliance with the Code of Best Forest Practice - Ireland and with environmental and forestry practice guidelines. Short-rotation species are excluded from the scope of the aid scheme.
Under certain circumstances, an additional annual premium for maintenance costs and income foregone will be made available after forest establishment.
Farmers establishing new forests and existing forest owners will be encouraged to create high-nature-value forests. A yearly compensation payment will be offered for a commitment to higher environmental standards in the management of the forests, which go beyond the commitments normally required for planting.
The Afforestation Grant and Premium Scheme complements Ireland's Rural Development Programme 2007-2013. The aid will be granted by the Department of Agriculture and Food in Dublin.
The scheme is one of the first aids to the forestry sector approved under the Community Guidelines for State Aid in the Agriculture and Forestry Sector 2007 to 2013.
The text of the decision will be made available on the Internet - Click Here - once Member States have indicated whether they want parts of the decisions deleted for reasons of confidentiality. The decision can be found under the aid number N 161/07.
Ireland has the second lowest rate of forest cover in the European Union - at just 10% of the country's total land area. The primary objective is to bring the level up to 17% of land area.
Aid of up to 100% will be available for establishment of forests. The establishment grants will be conditional on compliance with the Code of Best Forest Practice - Ireland and with environmental and forestry practice guidelines. Short-rotation species are excluded from the scope of the aid scheme.
Under certain circumstances, an additional annual premium for maintenance costs and income foregone will be made available after forest establishment.
Farmers establishing new forests and existing forest owners will be encouraged to create high-nature-value forests. A yearly compensation payment will be offered for a commitment to higher environmental standards in the management of the forests, which go beyond the commitments normally required for planting.
The Afforestation Grant and Premium Scheme complements Ireland's Rural Development Programme 2007-2013. The aid will be granted by the Department of Agriculture and Food in Dublin.
The scheme is one of the first aids to the forestry sector approved under the Community Guidelines for State Aid in the Agriculture and Forestry Sector 2007 to 2013.
The text of the decision will be made available on the Internet - Click Here - once Member States have indicated whether they want parts of the decisions deleted for reasons of confidentiality. The decision can be found under the aid number N 161/07.
Monday, 15 January 2007
BIODIVERSITY PROTEST OVER IRISH FORESTRY
The environmental group Friends of the Irish Environment [FIE] will greet the Minister for the Environment with a Sitka spruce log when he arrives to launch the new national Biodiversity Public Awareness Campaign.
The log is being brought to Customs House by six environmentalists wearing green hard hats and reflective vests. FIE claims that there is no requirement to use any native species in the national afforestation programme, 'Growing for the Future'.
'Sitka spruce remains by far the most planted species, and it is not native and not a hardwood. It is a fast growing poor quality timber that is not suitable for the construction industry and is not recommended for solid fuel wood burning stoves and boilers. To be economic it requires large blocks of clearfell that are entirely destructive of the environment and landscape.'
The group also cites the European Environmental Agency [EEA] analysis which showed that 84% of Irish forestry 1990 - 2000 was planted on peatlands.
'Planting on our peatlands irreparably destroys these rare habitats and greatly diminishes our native biodiversity - the opposite of what the Government claims it is doing for national biodiversity'. More than 100,000 hectares of peatlands were destroyed in this way in those 10 years alone, according to the EEA. FIE claims the Government disputes the figures only because it uses an inappropriate definition for peat soils. 'If the Forest Service used the definition of peat soils the farmers must use under the Nitrates Regulations, the figures match', FIE says:
'It has been clearly proved by Irish scientists that planting in many areas has led to acidification, with the death of streams and rivers. While since 2000 the worst of these areas are now no-go for initial afforestation, they are being replanted with the same damaging species. More than 10,000 hectares of Ireland is being replanted every year, and not a single native species or broadleaf tree is required', FIE alleges.
'Only minor schemes like the Native Woodland Scheme and the new Forestry Environmental Protection Scheme require native species. The national afforestation programme requires 10% broadleaves only "if sites permit"- and they do not have to be native.
In fact the current broadleaf requirement of 10% damages Irish biodiversity as planting non-native broadleaves weakens our genetic base. The national target of 30% broadleaves is a potential threat to native biodiversity as trees from non-native sources have not adapted to conditions here in Ireland and will interbreed with our better adapted genetic stock.
'The national afforestation programme has been and continues to be reliant on Sitka spruce which must be clearfelled to be economic. Clearfelling in peaty soils has now been linked to deteriorating water quality through the release of massive amounts of phosphates, much of it applied at the headlands of our most important rivers to try and make the trees grow. Instead of making the trees grow, the phosphates feed the algae in the rivers and the biodiversity crashes.
'The afforestation programme target has just been confirmed under the National Development Plan 2007 - 2013 as 20,000 hectares a year until 2036 - the most massive land use change in Irish history. Yet not one hectare has to be planted with native species under the current regulations.'
The group has called on the Minister to address the situation.
The log is being brought to Customs House by six environmentalists wearing green hard hats and reflective vests. FIE claims that there is no requirement to use any native species in the national afforestation programme, 'Growing for the Future'.
'Sitka spruce remains by far the most planted species, and it is not native and not a hardwood. It is a fast growing poor quality timber that is not suitable for the construction industry and is not recommended for solid fuel wood burning stoves and boilers. To be economic it requires large blocks of clearfell that are entirely destructive of the environment and landscape.'
The group also cites the European Environmental Agency [EEA] analysis which showed that 84% of Irish forestry 1990 - 2000 was planted on peatlands.
'Planting on our peatlands irreparably destroys these rare habitats and greatly diminishes our native biodiversity - the opposite of what the Government claims it is doing for national biodiversity'. More than 100,000 hectares of peatlands were destroyed in this way in those 10 years alone, according to the EEA. FIE claims the Government disputes the figures only because it uses an inappropriate definition for peat soils. 'If the Forest Service used the definition of peat soils the farmers must use under the Nitrates Regulations, the figures match', FIE says:
'It has been clearly proved by Irish scientists that planting in many areas has led to acidification, with the death of streams and rivers. While since 2000 the worst of these areas are now no-go for initial afforestation, they are being replanted with the same damaging species. More than 10,000 hectares of Ireland is being replanted every year, and not a single native species or broadleaf tree is required', FIE alleges.
'Only minor schemes like the Native Woodland Scheme and the new Forestry Environmental Protection Scheme require native species. The national afforestation programme requires 10% broadleaves only "if sites permit"- and they do not have to be native.
In fact the current broadleaf requirement of 10% damages Irish biodiversity as planting non-native broadleaves weakens our genetic base. The national target of 30% broadleaves is a potential threat to native biodiversity as trees from non-native sources have not adapted to conditions here in Ireland and will interbreed with our better adapted genetic stock.
'The national afforestation programme has been and continues to be reliant on Sitka spruce which must be clearfelled to be economic. Clearfelling in peaty soils has now been linked to deteriorating water quality through the release of massive amounts of phosphates, much of it applied at the headlands of our most important rivers to try and make the trees grow. Instead of making the trees grow, the phosphates feed the algae in the rivers and the biodiversity crashes.
'The afforestation programme target has just been confirmed under the National Development Plan 2007 - 2013 as 20,000 hectares a year until 2036 - the most massive land use change in Irish history. Yet not one hectare has to be planted with native species under the current regulations.'
The group has called on the Minister to address the situation.
Friday, 12 January 2007
News on forestry grants
Here's a subject I did my undergrad' dissertation on. The Irish Times covers this story as follows:
Increased grants for forestry planting were announced by Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture Mary Wallace.
The new Forest Environment Protection Scheme (FEPS) is part of the Rural Development Plan 2007-2013, which aims to diversify land use in the wake of reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
Additional grants of up to €200 per hectare for tree planting will be available to farmers for five years. The scheme will operate on a one-year pilot basis and is only available to those participating in the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS).
"Properly planned forestry is one of the most environmentally friendly end-uses to which we can put our land," Minister Wallace said.
She pointed out that while the FEPS would increase tree planting, the Afforestation Scheme, which aims to increase forest cover from its current level of 9 per cent of the State's land area to 17 per cent by the year 2035, would remain the principal incentive for Irish forestry.
"With the increasing evidence of climate change before us, with the need to find alternative fuels, with the demand for cleaner air and a better environment, it is more important than ever that we plant more forests," Ms Wallace said.
To qualify for a FEPS grant farmers will have to follow adhere environmental objectives such as biodiversity, habitats, species mix, environmental impact and visual considerations.
Increased grants for forestry planting were announced by Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture Mary Wallace.
The new Forest Environment Protection Scheme (FEPS) is part of the Rural Development Plan 2007-2013, which aims to diversify land use in the wake of reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
Additional grants of up to €200 per hectare for tree planting will be available to farmers for five years. The scheme will operate on a one-year pilot basis and is only available to those participating in the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS).
"Properly planned forestry is one of the most environmentally friendly end-uses to which we can put our land," Minister Wallace said.
She pointed out that while the FEPS would increase tree planting, the Afforestation Scheme, which aims to increase forest cover from its current level of 9 per cent of the State's land area to 17 per cent by the year 2035, would remain the principal incentive for Irish forestry.
"With the increasing evidence of climate change before us, with the need to find alternative fuels, with the demand for cleaner air and a better environment, it is more important than ever that we plant more forests," Ms Wallace said.
To qualify for a FEPS grant farmers will have to follow adhere environmental objectives such as biodiversity, habitats, species mix, environmental impact and visual considerations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)