ireland’s biodiversity - environmental pillar · ireland’s biodiversity 6 our natural ally in...

IRELAND’S BIODIVERSITY

OUR NATURAL ALLY IN THE FIGHT

AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE


OUR NATURALALLY IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE

Abstract

This report discusses the interdependency of climate, biodiversity and ecosystem services

and shows how integrated policies can achieve climate change mitigation and adaptation

and at the same time prevent further biodiversity loss. It highlights the most urgent Irish poli-

cy issues that need to be addressed in order to mitigate and adapt to climate change without

further degrading ecosystem services. Each section concludes with policy recommendations.

The range of issues is not exhaustive but re"ects the most pressing issues for the WEB groups.

About the Irish Environmental Network (IEN)

The IEN represents to Government the funding needs of its member organisations, which

are national organisations working for the well-being, protection and enhancement of the

environment through advocacy, campaigning, practical conservation work and raising public

awareness of environmental, conservation and capacity needs.

About Working and Educating for Biodiversity (WEB)

WEB is comprised of IEN member groups that are involved in the protection of the unique

natural habitats, "ora and fauna of Ireland’s land and sea. With the support of over a quarter

of a million Irish people, WEB collectively campaigns to prevent further losses of Ireland’s

wildlife and habitats; promotes the public bene#ts of a healthy natural environment and its

role in people’s health and wellbeing; foster improved management of the natural environ-

ment; and works with others, including Government, to restore Ireland’s wildlife and habitats.

The content of this document has been generated through cooperative input from the

following IEN Members:

We gratefully acknowledge the #nancial support of the Department of the Environment,

Community and Local Government under the Irish Environmental Network Biodiversity Policy

Strand. Published August 2014.

Ireland’s Biodiversity

Our natural ally in the #ght against Climate Change2

“Restoration of peatlands is a low hanging fruit, and

among the most cost-effective options for mitigating

climate change”

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General & Executive

Director UNEP1

CONTENTS

BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

BIODIVERSITY IN CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION . . . . . . . . . . . 7

PEATLANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

TREE COVER and FORESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

BIOENERGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

WIND ENERGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

BIODIVERSITY AS PART OF RIVERINE FLOOD DEFENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

COASTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

INVASIVE SPECIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

FOOD SECURITY, CLIMATE CHANGE AND BIODIVERSITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42



BIODIVERSITY AND CLIMATE POLICY

Climate — Biodiversity Interaction

The living elements of the earth — the bio-

sphere — control local and global climate,

yet biodiversity is often regarded as merely

an ‘add on’ to national and global climate

policies.

Oceans, forests, grasslands, wetlands and

peatlands absorb around half of the CO2

emissions from human activities. These

ecosystems are essential for climate change

mitigation but our actions are drastically af-

fecting their capacity to absorb greenhouse

gases.2

Damage to biodiversity and ecosystems

is a major cause of climate change, as the

EU discussion paper Towards a Strategy on

Climate Change, Ecosystem Services and

Biodiversity points out:

“Globally, degraded peatlands contribute to

10% of human emissions; deforestation and

degradation of forest ecosystems to 23%.

There is growing evidence that the capacity

of the Earth’s carbon sinks is weakening due

to global warming itself, but also due to the

degradation of ecosystems caused by other

stress factors such as deforestation, soil ero-

sion, inappropriate infrastructure develop-

ment and poor management of fresh water

and marine resources.”3

Ironically, some of this damage can be

caused by actions taken to reduce green-

house gas emissions. Poorly thought through

renewable energy schemes can cause such

extensive ecosystem damage that they

actually increase net emissions.

Biodiversity is a crucial ally in adaptation to

climate change. Relevant ecosystem servic-

es include provision of shade, shelter, fresh

air and clean water; reduction of soil erosion

and "ooding; regulation of the nitrogen and

carbon cycles; and a genetic resource for

environmental adaptation. Through ecosys-

tem conservation and restoration we can

increase resilience. However, some climate

adaptation measures — such as some hard

"ood defences — can degrade natural sys-

tems even further.

Nature conservation and restoration are

important, cost-ef#cient allies in our

#ght against climate change. Ecosys-

tems should be placed at the core of our

responses to climate change — in both

mitigation and adaptation strategies.

The importance of biodiversity for climate

change mitigation and adaptation has been

recognised at the highest policy levels. The

United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC) emphasises

the importance of carbon sinks and res-

ervoirs.4 In the Convention on Biological

Diversity (CBD) process the role of healthy

ecosystems in storing carbon and the loss

of carbon from degraded ecosystems has

been recognised as essential themes in the

integrated biodiversity and climate change

agenda.5 We must translate this high level

recognition to on the ground action to pro-

tect and restore ecosystems function.


Our natural ally in the #ght against Climate Change 5

Irish Biodiversity and Climate

Policies

Actions for Biodiversity 2011 to 2016, the

current National Biodiversity Plan, recognis-

es the importance of the interaction between

biodiversity and climate policy:

“While climate change is likely to become one

of the most signi"cant drivers of biodiversity

loss, biodiversity itself can support efforts

to reduce the negative effects of climate

change. Conserved or restored habitats can

remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere,

thus helping to address climate change by

storing carbon. Moreover, conserving intact

ecosystems can help reduce the disastrous

impacts of climate change such as #ooding,

landslides and storm surges.”6

However, currently, only two actions build

on this awareness — one addressing the

resilience of the protected areas network

in the face of climate change and the other

continuing the existing forest research pro-

gramme including interaction with climate

and carbon accounting.

Climate policy documents are even weaker.

Little reference is made to biodiversity or

ecosystem services in the National Climate

Change Strategy 2007-2012.7 Two recent

reports by the National Economic and Social

Council, intended to inform the next National

Climate Change Strategy (2013 to 2020), and

national policy over the period to 2050 pay

very little attention to biodiversity and eco-

system issues.8

This persistent omission needs to be

addressed by including biodiversity in

all future climate change mitigation and

adaptation policies.

The recently published National Climate

Change Adaptation Framework makes some

steps in this regard.9 It considers biodiver-

sity as a ‘sector’ which will be impacted by

climate change, and importantly notes that

essential ecosystem services may be threat-

ened by climate change. However, it does

not discuss biodiversity protection as a key

element of resilience nor does it consider

ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation.

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON BIODIVERSITY

Biodiversity and ecosystems are our life support system. Biodiversity describes the variety of

life on earth. It refers to the wide variety of ecosystems and living organisms: animals, plants,

their habitats and their genes. These are important social, cultural and economic assets

as well as having an intrinsic value in their own right. They are our natural capital, and their

presence at the heart of the Government’s economic renewal plan “Building Ireland’s Smart

Economy” is a recognition that economic prosperity depends on maintaining and enhanc-

ing Ireland’s assets: human, social, produced, #nancial and natural capital.10 The value of

biodiversity to the Irish economy has been calculated for Ireland at €2.6 billion per annum.11

This is a conservative estimate, which does not take into account several important services

unique to Ireland.

Climate change poses a major treat to biodiversity, driving losses of species and habitats.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), in its fourth assessment report, pre-

dicts that at warming of just over 2°C above pre-industrial levels, some 20-30% of species



face an increased risk of extinction. Above 2°C, the world’s soils and vegetation are expected

to cease being net sinks for carbon and turn into net sources — fuelling further warming.

Warming above 2°C is likely to wipe out most of the world’s coral reefs and could trigger dry-

ing out and die-back of the Amazon rainforest. Ocean acidi#cation, a direct result of rising

carbon dioxide levels, will have major effects on marine ecosystems, with possible adverse

consequences on #sh stocks. In Ireland the impact of climate change on bog habitats is

particularly alarming.2 While some of these impacts are unavoidable given the existing accu-

mulation of Carbon emissions, this report presents a range of informed recommendations to

address these major challenges.

The most recent overview of anticipated climate change impacts on biodiversity in Ireland is

contained in the EPA report “A summary of the state of knowledge on climate change impacts

for Ireland” (2009).12 They identi#ed particular impacts including those summarised below:

• Many types of disruption to relationships between species due to differing species

responding differently to e.g. earlier spring temperatures.

• Increased opportunities for invasive species.

• Stresses on ecological systems due to heat waves or drier conditions.

• Arrival of exotic species due to more storms.

• Storm damage to fragile ecosystems such as on the coasts.

• Increased pathogens and pests.

• Disruption to seasonally #ooded ecosystems such as turloughs.

• Increased eutrophication due to changes in run-off levels from heavier rain.

• Invasive species in rivers displacing vulnerable native species such as salmon.

• New species in sea waters and potential for exotic aquaculture species to establish.

• Changes in seabird range and migration patterns.

• Changes in ocean micro-fauna which are very sensitive to ocean acidi"cation with

food web implications for many marine species.

• Loss of coastal habitats to rising sea levels and erosion.

Particular risks are identi#ed for peatlands which will be affected by higher temperatures,

drier conditions, heat waves, heavier rainfall leading to higher landslide and erosion risk, and

"uctuating water tables causing disruption of the bog system, with consequences including

potential increases in emissions of CO2 and CH

4 and loss of carbon to water as dissolved

organic carbon.

Seabirds such as Kittiwake, Razorbill, Guillemot and Arc-

tic Terns are not faring well in recent years due to rising

sea temperatures in the North Sea. The sand eels that

many seabirds are dependent on are shifting northwards

into cooler water, beyond the commuting distance for

seabirds breeding at coastal colonies. This may become

problematic for Irish seabirds in years to come.

(Razorbill photo: Colum Clarke)



BIODIVERSITY IN CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION

The Carbon Cycle

The global carbon cycle is an essential part

of the process whereby the biosphere main-

tains the Earth’s climate. The natural carbon

cycle is much larger than the anthropogenic

input to the atmosphere. It maintains a

stable climate through a complex mixture of

positive and negative feedback loops which

even still we do not fully understand.

The global carbon cycle for the 1990s, showing the main annual "uxes in GtC yr–1: pre-industrial ‘natural’

"uxes in black and ‘anthropogenic’ "uxes in red. The net terrestrial loss of –39 GtC is inferred from cumulative

fossil fuel emissions minus atmospheric increase minus ocean storage. The loss of –140 GtC from the

‘vegetation, soil and detritus’ compartment represents the cumulative emissions from land use change, and

requires a terrestrial biosphere sink of 101 GtC. Gross "uxes generally have uncertainties of more than ±20%

but fractional amounts have been retained to achieve overall balance when including estimates in fractions of

GtC yr–1 for riverine transport, weathering, deep ocean burial, etc. ‘GPP’ is annual gross (terrestrial) primary

production. Atmospheric carbon content and all cumulative "uxes since 1750 are as of end 1994.

(IPPC, 2007, Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Working Group I The Physical Science Basis,

Figure 7.3)

Figure 1. Global Carbon Cycle as described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.



However, it is clear that our input of green-

house gases is greater than the carbon cycle

is able to cope with, leading to a consistent

annual increase in carbon dioxide concen-

trations as well as elevated levels of other

greenhouse gases.

About half of the extra CO2 being put into the

atmosphere by human activities is absorbed

through increased uptake of carbon into

the biosphere. So already, the carbon cycle

makes a far greater contribution to the miti-

gation of anthropogenic climate change than

any human activity. The soil carbon store is

about 3 times greater than the atmospheric

store. The most important carbon sinks and

stores are the oceans, especially coastal

wetlands as discussed below, and soils, es-

pecially organic soils found in wetlands and

peatlands, as well as standing biomass and

detritus.

Climate change itself threatens the ability of

many carbon sinks to continue to operate. In

particular, active peat production is suscep-

tible to minor climatic changes. In addition,

the other pressures on biodiversity such as

ecosystem degradation also affect the abil-

ity of ecosystems to continue to function as

carbon sinks and stores. In order to pro-

tect biodiversity from the effects of climate

change while relying on ecosystem services

to help us adapt to climate change, we must

enhance ecosystem resilience.

Ecosystem Resilience

Ecosystem resilience describes the ability

of an ecosystem to cope with disturbances,

such as storms, #re and pollution, without

shifting into a qualitatively different state. A

resilient ecosystem has the capacity to with-

stand shocks and surprises and, if damaged,

to rebuild itself. Degraded ecosystems are

less resilient than healthy ones and are thus

more vulnerable to degradation or collapse

from the effects of climate change.

Ecosystems and biodiversity play a vital

role in protecting against some of the risks

which climate change creates. Important

ecosystem services include local mitigation

of extreme weather events, coastal protec-

tion against storm damage, and hydrological

buffering against both "ooding and drought.

Protecting these ecosystems as well as en-

hancing their resilience in the face of climate

change is crucial for cost-effective climate

adaptation.

Ecosystem resilience, therefore, is central

to both adaptation to climate change and

to mitigation of climate change’s impact

on biodiversity. IUCN’s report Building resil-

ience to climate change: ecosystem-based

adaptation and lessons from the "eld reviews

and learns from case studies of ecosystem-

based adaptation and makes detailed rec-

ommendations.15



THE ROLE OF BIODIVERSITY IN CLIMATE CHANGE

MITIGATION

Policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must address both fossil fuel and

carbon cycle emissions in a manner which protects biodiversity and the ecosystem

services the biosphere provides.

A major concern is how to protect ecosystems at an international level from the

enormous pressure we are already putting on them as well as the extra pressure,

described in the Bioenergy section below, which is starting to result from actions

to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Current UNFCCC approaches to terrestrial emis-

sions, where they address them at all, include them in a global fossil-fuel dominated

emissions trading market, with national caps and trading of emissions rights. This

approach treats two entirely different kinds of emissions as interchangeable. The

Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows the creation of emission rights by

developing sequestration projects whose emissions reductions and resulting credits

are estimated by comparison with a hypothetical scenario. This approach has

demonstrated itself to be open to fraud and to create damaging perverse incentives

as well as being administratively and #nancially out of the reach of Least Developed

Countries.

An alternative approach is the Carbon Maintenance Fee, described in Sharing for

Survival, which would operate separately and in parallel to controls on fossil fuels

and industrial emissions. Countries would receive a payment for maintenance of

carbon stocks on their territories as well as a payment for increases in those stocks.

This fee would have to be funded by international contributions to a fund on an

agreed basis such as GDP. Stocks would be audited internationally, including by

remote sensing and ground truthing, costs which the fund would also cover. It would

be up to countries to decide how best to achieve these goals, but payments would

be conditional on respecting indigenous land rights and commons management

practices.

Speci#c recommendations for integrating consideration of biodiversity in renew-

able energy development (including prioritising energy ef#ciency), and for integrating

climate mitigation as well as adaptation in policies on peatlands, forestry, coastal

wetlands, and agriculture follow in relevant sections below.

Environmentally sensitive climate change mitigation is neither impossible nor

massively costly, as was demonstrated in 80% Challenge: Delivering a low-carbon

UK, by IPPR, RSPB and WWF which shows it would be technologically and

economically practical to cut UK carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050,

while respecting environmental limits.14



PEATLANDS

National and International Policy

The value of peatlands as ecosystems

providing vital ecological and hydrological

services and as carbon sinks and stores has

received insuf#cient attention from policy

makers at national and global levels. Despite

UNFCCC (Arts. 3 & 4) obligations to protect

and enhance carbon stores, the original

Kyoto Protocol provisions on land use, land

use change and forestry (LULUCF), did not

include wetland emissions.

The rules and de#nitions in the Protocol have

now changed. Annex 1 countries such as

Ireland can now opt to include wetland emis-

sions in their Kyoto Protocol accounting.19

Guidelines for such accounting have been

issued by the IPCC in 2013.20

Currently, there is no national policy or strat-

egy for peatlands and responsibility for peat-

lands is shared across numerous govern-

ment departments which often have varied

and con"icting interests. Due to the forestry

emphasis of the original Kyoto Protocol,

COFORD, the Council for Forest Research

has responsibility for addressing carbon

emissions from LULUCF in Ireland. COFORD

works to defend existing forest policy, has

a history of defending forest policies which

favour afforestation of peatlands and has

no remit to protect peatlands or other car-

bon sinks and stores. The National Parks

and Wildlife Service has particular expertise

in peatlands and has some responsibility

for their management and protection, yet it

plays no formal role in Ireland’s UNFCCC

and LULUCF obligations.

Peatlands are a huge global carbon sink

and store. Although they cover about 3% of

the world’s land area they hold 25% of the

world soil carbon pool, equivalent to half of

the CO2 in the atmosphere, and more than

3 times the carbon that is held in tropical

rainforests. The degradation of peatlands,

particularly from drainage and excavation,

results in large-scale emissions of carbon,

turning these vital carbon sinks into car-

bon sources. Global emissions from peat-

lands are estimated at 2 GtCO2/yr. In places

with high rates of peatland loss, such as

in South East Asia, carbon emissions from

peatlands dwarf fossil fuel emissions.16 17

Ireland is home to raised and blanket bogs

rich in biodiversity of international impor-

tance. Peat soils are estimated to cover 20%

of the land area in the Republic and hold

approximately 75% of the soil carbon stock

(1,566 MtC). However peatlands in Ireland

are under constant threat from industrial cut-

ting for fuel and horticulture, domestic cut-

ting, drainage, agriculture, forestry, invasive

species, development (e.g. wind farms) and

climate change. As a result, approximately

95% of Irish peatlands are in a degraded

state. The fragmentary remaining intact

peatlands sequester 57 kt C/yr (0.21 Mt CO2/

yr), but the degraded peatlands release 2.64

Mt C/yr (9.66 Mt CO2/yr).18 This represents

slightly more than emissions from industry

and commerce in 2010 and only slightly less

than emissions from transport in that year.



Peatland restoration

Peatland protection and restoration is

probably the most cost-effective large-scale

climate change mitigation option open to

Ireland. In addition, peatlands reduce "ood

risk, improve water quality, and support a

wide range of "ora and fauna.

Peatland degradation can often be re-

versed, maintaining the remaining peat-

land soil carbon stock and bringing

peatlands back to active, peat-forming

carbon-sequestering status.

There are numerous examples: In Ireland,

there is IPCC’s demonstration project21 and

Bord na Móna’s rehabilitation work at Bel-

lacorick, Co. Mayo where estimates suggest

net emission reductions (considering CO2,

CH4, and N

2O) of 75 tCO

2-eq/ha over the #rst

6 years of rewetting22; in UK, the MoorLIFE

project23 and others are described in IUCN’s

report UK Peatland Restoration demonstrat-

ing success24; the UNDP supported restora-

tion in Belarus and the Ukraine25; and the

pioneering Canadian Peatland Restoration

Guide.26

Detailed recommendations for peatland res-

toration are provided in the IPCC Peatland

Conservation Action Plan 202027 and the EPA

BOGLAND report.18

Although peatland restoration is currently

optional rather than mandatory, the drive of

the global community is towards covering all

emissions under future targets and limits.

Given the opportunity for cost-effective

mitigation and the co-bene#ts of peatland

restoration including biodiversity, hydrol-

ogy and other ecosystem services, Ireland

should be following the example of peat-

land restoration for climate mitigation in

many other countries including Iceland,

Belarus, UK and Germany. Ireland should

include peatland restoration in national

climate change policies and elect to

include wetlands in Kyoto Protocol

reporting.



PEATLANDS RECOMMENDATIONS

The BOGLAND Report contains 39 recommendations. Below we include ex-tracts giving their top 10 recommendations:

1. A much needed National Peatland Strategy

A National Peatland Strategy is required if the proposed protocol for sustainable

management of peatlands is to be implemented. ...

2. More protected peatlands

All remaining areas of priority habitat peatlands ... should be declared as Special

Areas of Conservation (SACs) and more peatland sites (including fens) should

be designated under adequate legal protection. ...

3. Proactive management of protected sites

Designated peatland sites should be appropriately managed with a view to

increasing the total area of near-intact peatlands and reversing the trend of

these endangered habitats. ...

4. Enforcement of regulations

Strict protection of natural peatland sites that have been designated for conser-

vation is critical for the maintenance of their carbon storage and sequestration

capacity and associated ecosystem functions. This means stopping and

removing any disturbances on these sites.

5. Restoration of protected peatlands to stop carbon loss

Peat oxidation is induced by drainage of peatlands and releases carbon to the

atmosphere. Peat oxidation should be stopped or at best reduced in all protect-

ed peatlands through the following actions:

6. Management of non-designated peatlands to stop carbon loss

Opportunities to restore degraded non- designated peatlands should be imme-

diately explored as protected peatlands are only a minor part of the total area of

peatlands. Carbon is constantly emitted to the atmosphere from drained peat-

lands and several management options should be explored, for example: ...



7. Review of the peat industry

...[S]ubsidies that promote excessive and destructive uses of peatlands and their

ecosystem services should be eliminated. Therefore, the Public Service Obliga-

tion Levy allocated to the peat industry should be reviewed since the continued

carbon emissions from peat burning are contrary to the national interest.

8. A code of good practice

A code of good practice for development on peatlands should be produced and

systematically used for assessing any development proposals involving peat-

lands. ...

9. A National Peatland Park for the people

The creation of a National Peatland Park, pushed forward by local communities,

deserves serious consideration and commands a degree of support from the

Government. ...

10. Peatland Strategy Working Group

The implementation of a National Peatland Strategy should be carried out

through the establishment of a special working group whose main role would be

to co-ordinate the development of a consensus that charts the way forward. ...

There are a further 29 well-considered recommendations which WEB also support.

In relation to recommendation 4, it should be added that non-compliance in peat-

lands is not limited to designated peatlands. Much peatland degradation is carried

out without necessary consents, or based on consents which have been incorrectly

granted without EIA. In relation to recommendation 7, the peat-#red electricity PSO

is currently under review.

In UNFCCC, Ireland should take an active part in developing the position of peat-

lands and other wetlands. In order to do this effectively we recommend that

responsibility for this area of the negotiations be shared among the DECLG, EPA

and NPWS.



TREE COVER and FORESTS

Trees, woodlands, and forestry often use and

intercept more water than other land uses,

thus maximising in#ltration and reducing

overland water "ow. Woodlands in a catch-

ment can thus help to reduce the speed at

which water moves through a catchment and

consequently reduce "ood peak. Planting

and restoration of $oodplain and riparian

woodland is an important action to allevi-

ate $ooding.

Alluvial woodlands can also do much toward

improving water quality through buffering

aquatic ecosystems from in"uxes of excess

sediment and nutrients pressures which are

increasing as a result of climate change.

Balance must also be achieved with the re-

duced rates of groundwater recharge (‘water

yields’) associated with heavy afforestation

of evergreen forests in some catchments,

which has been identi#ed as a potential

problem in the UK for groundwater resources

and maintenance of river "ows. Broadleaved

woodland presents a smaller threat to water

resources, and may even enhance supplies

in some areas.

Continuous Cover Forestry for

Climate Mitigation and Adaptation

Continuous Cover Forestry (CCF) maintains

the forest canopy at one or more levels

without clear felling. The UK Forestry Com-

mission’s Guidelines Forests and Climate

Change state that:

”Forest management that minimises interven-

tion and results in reduced soil exposure or

Woodlands, including their soils and ground

litter, act as carbon sinks and stores. Howev-

er forestry can be part of the climate change

problem, especially where the greenhouse

gas emissions from drainage and oxidation

of peat soils for planting new forestry exceed

the sequestration from the growing trees.

43% of the Irish forest estate is on peat.18

There is a complex and poorly understood

relationship between soil carbon, woody

biomass and the balance between net GHG

emissions and sequestration over the affor-

estation cycle. Climate change and forestry

policies must not attempt to simplify this

relationship or base strategy on assump-

tions or simpli#cations. This is especially true

in the light of the risk that new forestry may

be a net emitter of GHGs for a considerable

period, perhaps decades. Alternative forest

management systems should be considered

in integrating forestry, environmental and

climate change objectives. Factors such as

soil type and fertiliser use are also important

considerations in policy development.

Some types of forestry can assist climate

change adaptation in a number of ways,

including by creating woodland habitats

which increase ecological connectivity at the

landscape level; by alleviating "ooding; and

by improving water quality and reducing soil

erosion. Current clearfell and replant systems

which are primarily composed of non di-

verse exotic conifer species and dependent

on heavy inputs of fertilisers and pesticides

often do the opposite by contributing to the

pollution and sedimentation of aquatic eco-

systems and by draining wetlands that could

otherwise provide "ood alleviation services.



cultivation, such as continuous cover silvicul-

ture systems, will help preserve soil carbon

stocks.”28

CCF approaches to forest management re-

sult in diverse forests of mixed aged stands.

A Scottish study has found that CCF has

the potential to mitigate many of the risks

posed by climate change to forestry.29 Risks

that CCF mitigates against include increased

incidence of strong storms and heavy win-

ter rains and attacks by pests and diseases.

According to the UK Guidelines, continuous

cover systems are more resilient as CCF

“encourages structural and species diversity

and evolutionary adaptation through the

promotion of natural regeneration. Such

management systems can also make wood-

lands more resilient to wind damage as, for

example, there are always areas of estab-

lished young trees should windthrow affect

the canopy.”

The reduced soil disturbance in CCF also

lessens runoff of silt and nutrients which

causes water pollution as well as being bet-

ter for biodiversity and ecosystems services.

One possibility for greatly increasing the use

of CCF methods in Ireland is to thin exist-

ing stands to encourage natural regenera-

tion with the intention of forming a second

canopy stratum. The main barriers to trans-

forming existing forest stands to CCF stands

are the lack of relevant skills and lack of

con#dence with CCF. These must be over-

come with the development and support of

demonstration stands at various stages of

transformation; training, advice, and support

for CCF management methods; active incen-

tives and support and new grant structures

for new planting of CCF stands; and a com-

prehensive research programme in to various

CCF methods in Ireland according to forest,

soil, and landscape types in Ireland.

Planning for Resilience

Irish forestry is very vulnerable to alien pest

species such as the great spruce bark beetle,

especially in light of climate change which

may make conditions more favourable for

such species.30 As monocultures are more

susceptible to pests, and mixed species

stands have lower incidence of pests, we

must ensure that Irish forestry is robust to

such threats and encourage only mixed

species stands. This is echoed in the Scot-

tish Forest Commission’s research note on

the impacts of climate change on forestry in

Scotland (2008), which states that “[l]ow-

impact silvicultural systems (LISS) and the

use of mixtures could provide the basis for

adaptation strategies” and points out that “[w]

here LISS is inappropriate, use of mixed spe-

cies within stands can help spread risk under

clearfell-restocking management systems.

Managing stands to maintain a more continu-

ous and even canopy roughness will also help

to reduce the risk of wind damage, as will ear-

ly and more frequent thinning interventions.”31

In recent years forest #res have become

a greater problem than ever, largely due to

extended dry spells in spring. Most spring

#res are started deliberately to clear land of

scrub and encourage growth of grass over

natural vegetation. Burning is not permitted

after the 1st April under the Wildlife Amend-

ment Act 2000, yet many of the #res occur

after this date. A system of surveillance and

systematic enforcement of these regulations

is urgently needed in order to protect habi-

tats and forestry, including prosecutions and

penalties for those intentionally setting #res

during nesting season.

The requirements of Area Aid have been

anecdotally referred to as another incentive

to start wild#res. Area Aid payments require

that land be kept clear of scrub. Transfer of

Area Aid participants with scrub to a new

scheme supporting ecologically sound land

management could address this problem.



TREE COVER RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Develop Forestry and Climate Change guidelines.

These guidelines would maximise the contribution of forestry to climate change

mitigation and ensure that both existing and new forestry is planned and man-

aged to adapt to climate change. Guidelines should include the role of lower

impact silvicultural systems and CCF methods in particular as part of climate

change adaptation strategies.

2. Amend forestry legislation to protect peatlands, and biodiverse carbon-rich

grassland soils from afforestation. Land mapping to identify appropriate areas

for new forestry will be required to complement this approach.

3. Promote continuous cover approaches to forestry.

Initiatives are needed to encourage and facilitate widespread application of CCF

methods to existing and new forestry in Ireland, including policy, demonstration,

grants structures, support, research, and training of forestry professionals. One

speci#c and immediately applicable recommendation is to greatly diversify the

species mix and structural complexity of existing and new forestry to enhance

adaptive capacity to climate change impacts.

4. Properly consider climate in forestry EIA.

For both afforestation and deforestation, climate impacts including soil carbon

loss and fossil fuel emissions must be assessed.

5. Promote and facilitate locally based continuous cover woodlots.

These woodlots should be aimed at local provision of fuel wood for domestic

supply in place of turf and other fossil fuels. Their promotion should be integrat-

ed with promotion of clean-burning wood-based heating systems.

6. Promote agroforestry.

Tree cover-based approaches to agricultural production bring bene#ts for food

security and biodiversity as well as climate mitigation and adaptation.

7. Protect scrublands.

Greater enforcement of the Wildlife Acts is needed in order to control the in-

cidence and extent of damaging forest #res. The Area Aid scheme should be

amended to ensure that burning of scrub and heath is not incentivised.

8. Carry out further research.

• Investigate how various silvicultural systems contribute to carbon sequestra-

tion, especially in relation to soil type, release of CO2 and CH

4 from drained

soils, energy and fertiliser inputs, biodiversity and ecosystem services.

• Trial and research tree cover as part of sustainable "ood management in-

cluding catchment-scale studies, pilot planting and restoration of "oodplain

woodlands.



BIOENERGY

Bioenergy has received strong political and

#nancial support around the world. The the-

ory behind this support was that bioenergy

is “carbon neutral”, as growing crops absorb

the carbon dioxide which they later release it

back into the atmosphere as they are burnt.

However the reality is often different.

The most critical factor in terms of GHG

impacts is how direct and indirect land use

changes affect carbon stocks. This impact

has been modelled by researchers compar-

ing the impact of carbon taxation adequate

to bring about a reduction in atmospheric

greenhouse gas concentrations possibly

consistent with a 2°C temperature rise.32

The results of the modelling demonstrate the

enormity of the risk bioenergy could pose to

global biodiversity.

The model compares a reference scenario

with no particular action to reduce fossil fuel

consumption (Panel A) against two forms of

carbon tax adequate to achieve a global CO2

concentration of 450ppm — one a universal

carbon tax (UCT) which would cover emis-

sions from biomass (Panel B) and the other a

fossil fuels and industrial carbon tax (FFICT)

which would only cover fossil fuel and in-

dustrial emissions (cement, etc.) (Panel C). It

predicts that a universal carbon tax (Panel

B) would have a positive protective effect on

natural forests and ecosystems compared to

a do-nothing scenario (Panel A). However, a

carbon tax on fossil fuels alone, in the ab-

sence of other measures to protect natural

ecosystems would drive the complete

destruction of all natural forests and indeed

all natural grasslands in favour of the pro-

duction of bioenergy crops (Panel C).

Figure 2. A comparison of the impacts of a Universal

Carbon Tax (UCT) covering all emissions and a Fossil

Fuel and Industrial Carbon Tax (FFICT) covering fossil

fuel and industrial emissions only, demonstrating the

risk to biodiversity and natural ecosystems posed by

the demand for biomass to replace fossil fuels.32



While the model is based on assumptions

that a carbon tax would be the mechanism

to meet a 450ppm CO2 concentration target,

logically biofuels targets and subsidies are

capable of having the same effect on land

use, but without the bene#t of a global con-

trol on fossil fuel emissions.

This shocking theoretical analysis is borne

out by what is happening in practice. The

EU’s biofuel targets have led to increased

rapeseed oil production in Europe but a ma-

jor reduction in the amount of rapeseed oil

available for food production.

The result has been a large increase in palm

oil imports. This is driving the clearance of

peatland rainforests in South-east Asia with

massive biodiversity and greenhouse gas

impacts.33

Part of the problem has been overly simple

assumptions about the sustainability of bio-

energy. The full life cycle emissions of differ-

ent forms of bioenergy vary dramatically. The

operating assumption up to recent years was

always that carbon emitted when biomass is

burnt would be reabsorbed as the area from

which the biomass was taken regrew. How-

ever, this fails to take account of the length

of time this re-sequestration would take.34 As

documented in the recent report Dirtier than

Coal, UK electricity generators are planning

to switch coal-#red power plants to burning

imported whole tree trunks in order to ben-

e#t from subsidies.35 This type of bioenergy

source would only reach carbon neutrality

many decades after harvest.

On the other hand, bioenergy produced

from various wastes is capable of delivering

good greenhouse gas bene#ts.36 However,

care needs to be taken that they are really

expendable materials and not, for example,

important inputs maintaining soil fertility.

Putative “advanced biofuels” from algae or

other sources also need to be subjected to

sustainability analysis.

For generations, hedgerow management

and coppicing has provided domestic fuel

for farmers. The biodiversity advantages of

maintaining hedgerows for domestic renew-

able energy are greater than those of other

biofuel crops. Research on the carbon se-

questration potential of different hedgerow

types and on the sustainable management

of hedgerows will help reap the full value of

hedgerows as an energy source and carbon

sink.

Bioenergy will play a role in reducing green-

house gas emissions and meeting vital

needs in many parts of the world. However,

the vision of replacing our current fossil fuel

use with bioenergy would be an impractical

nightmare scenario of biodiversity loss with

devastating human consequences. Uncon-

trolled bioenergy demand would accelerate

ecosystem breakdown on a massive scale

through agricultural expansion and intensi#-

cation and further drive biodiversity loss.



BIOENERGY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Protect natural ecosystems from displaced energy demand.

Policies aimed at reducing emissions from fossil fuels must be matched with

equally strong policies and measures aimed at protecting natural ecosystems

from destruction by conversion to meet the displaced energy demand.

2. Develop an integrated approach to environmental assurance for all forms

of bioenergy.

3. Shift the policy priority focus from bioenergy to energy ef#ciency.

Reduce consumption of energy in transport through new transport and spatial

planning policies, and reduce heating and electricity demand by increasing en-

ergy ef#ciency.

4. Take no action to drive biofuel production until sustainability can be dem-

onstrated.

Inherent sustainability including adequate controls to address displacement ef-

fects are necessary. A brake on biofuel production will also reduce the impact

on food commodity prices.

5. Bioenergy targets, if any, must be based on long term sustainability criteria.

6. Bioenergy must deliver greenhouse gas and carbon life-cycle bene#ts over

conventional fuels.

Greenhouse gas savings based on life cycle analysis, including both direct and

indirect land-use change, should be at least 60%.

7. Policy and strategy on bioenergy must undergo Strategic Environmental

Assessment.

8. Increase research on the sustainability of bioenergy.

This research should examine the consequences of an expansion of bioenergy

and how to prevent negative impacts, including: measures to prevent indirect

land-use change; development of enhanced capacity and indicators to monitor

biodiversity, soil organic matter and above ground carbon stocks; and carbon

sequestration potential of different hedgerow types.



WIND ENERGY

Decarbonising the energy generation sys-

tem is a well established European and Irish

energy policy objective. Climate change is an

enormous threat to wildlife. In addition to en-

ergy ef#ciency, renewable energy is essential

to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and

reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The EU

has committed to having 20% of its energy

use from renewable sources by 2020; the

Irish target is for 16% of gross energy and

40% of electricity to be supplied from renew-

able by 2020.37 Renewable energy currently

accounts for approximately 6.5% of Ireland’s

domestic energy use.

Ireland’s natural assets place it in an excel-

lent position to capitalise on the growing

demand for renewable energy and become

a global leader in green energy technologies.

Current policy recognises signi#cant poten-

tial for Ireland to exceed the government’s

targets for domestic use and become a net

exporter of renewable energy, particularly

electricity from wind power.

Recent government negotiations was in-

tended to pave the way for Irish electricity

exports to the UK.38 This was based on a

proposal to construct up to 2,300 turbines in

the Irish Midlands, demonstrating the attrac-

tive potential for new revenue streams and

employment.

However, strategic planning for renewable

energy at local or regional or national levels

will be necessary to assist achieving our

renewable energy targets. Failure to inte-

grate natural environment considerations

into these plans will give rise to further policy

con"icts.

Carbon Emissions

The development of a wind farm requires sig-

ni#cant infrastructure including turbine foun-

dations, roads, cable trenches, substations

and transmission pylons. Optimum locations

are often remote, exposed, upland sites

which frequently in Ireland are peatlands. A

delicate carbon balance exists within these

ecosystems. Healthy peatlands are the most

important long term carbon store in the ter-

restrial biosphere.

Disruption, excavation and drainage of peat-

lands have the potential to cause large scale

carbon emissions. Studies from Scotland

show that up to 77% of a wind farm’s gross

carbon savings can be lost from peat and

soils when development proceeds without

due cognisance of the natural environment.

However, where sensitive design and man-

agement practices to minimise net carbon

loss (i.e. undrained "oating roads, habitat

improvement and site restoration) are used,

emissions can be reduced to as little as <6%

of the potential gross carbon savings, even

on peatlands.39

In order to maximise carbon savings,

careful site selection, sensitive design

and long term management plans are re-

quired. In peatlands, minimising excavation

and drainage and avoiding deep peat must

become a fundamental design objective. The

amount of net carbon gains (or losses) needs

to be fully understood before development

commences.



Biodiversity

Wind farms can have devastating effects on

habitats and species if poorly planned and

designed.40 41 42

Altering natural drainage patterns can cause

the drying out of wetland habitats and the

destruction of sensitive grasses, mosses

and groundwater-fed terrestrial ecosystems.

Excavation and other construction activities

can increase sediment laden run off, espe-

cially during periods of heavy rainfall, affect-

ing water quality for a long distance. Aquatic

species in downstream watercourses will be

affected by changes in water quality, particu-

larly freshwater pearl mussel and salmon fry

which are very sensitive to increases in silt

and sedimentation levels.

Changes to the function and structure of

peatlands can also create peat slide risks.

Signi#cant volumes of material can become

dislodged very quickly causing massive

damage to habitats, species, watercourses

and also to nearby roads and bridges.

During operation, collisions with turbines and

disturbance threaten many bird species, pre-

dominantly raptors and large waterfowl. Bats

are also at risk and are known to suffer lung

damage due to air pressure changes.

Thus, although direct land take from wind

farms is relatively small, ecological impacts

can be wide reaching. However, when de-

signed and sited appropriately often envi-

ronmental gains rather than losses can be

realised from wind farm development. If sited

on already degraded sites or sites subject to

industrial peat extraction, opportunities for

habitat enhancement and restoration can be

easily realised with sensitive ecological man-

agement plans.43 44 Sensitivity mapping is an

essential part of planning for the integration

of wind energy and biodiversity.45

The Planning System

Historically, disregard for environmental as-

sessment and poor planning enforcement

facilitated the construction of poorly de-

signed wind farms on unsuitable sites. This

resulted in signi#cant adverse environmental

impacts — cases of landslides, pollution in-

cidents and widespread destruction of habi-

tats and species such as at Derrybrien Co.

Galway are unfortunately not uncommon.

Decision makers need to be appropriately

trained and informed on all the potential im-

pacts of wind farm development.



WIND ENERGY RECOMMENDATIONS

Sensitivity Mapping

Spatial renewable energy development plans should be based on sensitivity map-

ping. All potential constraints/sensitivities, including impacts on habitats, species

and carbon emissions, should be considered. Bird Sensitivity Mapping has been

found elsewhere to be a useful tool to inform decision‐making and strategic plan-

ning and is currently being developed for Ireland by BirdWatch Ireland.

1. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

SEA should be undertaken for all plans and projects and should guide the devel-

opment of all plans and projects. Cumulative, secondary and indirect impacts of

all plans and projects should also be fully considered.

2. Development of Guidelines

Guidelines should be produced on the development of spatial renewable energy

plans and on consultation, assessment and impacts speci#c to wind farm devel-

opment.

• Guidelines to inform the construction of wind farms on peatlands should be

developed, detailing methods to ensure minimal disturbance to peat soils

and minimal release of carbon.

• The current ‘Best Practice Guidelines for the Irish Wind Industry’ should be

updated to fully consider carbon emissions and carbon payback times. This

is required to ensure credible assessment of carbon emissions, and impacts

on peatlands. The guidance available in Scotland on “Calculating carbon

savings from wind farms on Scottish peatlands” and on the “The assessment

of peat volumes, reuse of excavated peat and the minimisation of waste” are

good models.39

• The guidelines should cover the need for geo-technological assessments to

assess potential instability or landslide risks.



3. Planning conditions

• Forward-looking conditions for monitoring are essential given the lack of

historical experience of wind turbine impacts. Conditions which gather data

on the impacts of wind turbines will assist in our understanding of those im-

pacts and thereby enable better conditions and mitigation measures in future

wind energy developments.

• Peatland restoration should be required where applications are on degraded

peatlands.

4. Existing consents

Existing consents which have been granted without appropriate environmental

assessment, particularly on sites with deep peat and potential stability risks,

should be reassessed in light of the European Court of Justices judgement on

the Derrybrien Case.

5. Implement strong oversight and enforcement systems

A framework of veri#cation and enforcement to ensure planning conditions are

complied with needs to be established. Experience shows this does not happen

automatically. Institutional commitment and resources to facilitate monitoring of

compliance are required.



ECOLOGICAL NETWORKS FOR CLIMATE ADAPTATION

Habitat fragmentation is one of the major

causes of biodiversity loss. Fragmenta-

tion has serious impacts on biodiversity, as

patches of habitat become too small to

support populations of species and their

movement within the landscape for forag-

ing, migration and dispersal, is interrupted. In

combination with climate change, the risk of

extinction is even greater.

Nature Reserves, Special Protection Ar-

eas, Special Areas of Conservation, Natural

Heritage Areas as well as locally important

sites are particularly valuable in the context

of climate change. A recent analysis of spe-

cies movement as climate change alters their

ranges concluded that “many species are

only expected to be able to survive climate

change if they are able to colonize new re-

gions, replacing the populations that are lost

at the trailing edges of their distributions. Our

study shows that species disproportionately

colonize protected areas as they expand into

new regions, and hence that current protect-

ed areas remain valuable for conservation.”46

In a fragmented landscape, the impacts of

climate change on biodiversity will be exac-

erbated by barriers to species movement.

Species that cannot adapt to climate change

due to habitat fragmentation risk extinction.

It is thus vital that habitats are linked through

ecological networks to facilitate dispersion.

Ecological networks provide a tool to ad-

dress habitat fragmentation and to allow

biodiversity to adapt to the effects of climatic

changes. They are essential for the long-

term survival of numerous species.

Function

The theory of ecological networks focuses on

interventions that protect, restore and re-

connect fundamental ecosystem processes

across landscapes. Ecological networks

differ from traditional ‘wildlife corridors’ in

that they incorporate a range of activities

seeking to maintain and improve broader

ecosystem functions and resilience and are

thus an important adaptation response to

climate change. Initially, providing better

managed ‘stepping stones’ such as existing

remnants in the landscape can improve con-

nectivity (which will help some bird species)

or protecting and rehabilitating important

habitat areas such as the banks of rivers and

streams.

Enlargement of these “stepping stones”

through restoration, buffering and connec-

tion can provide a diversity of habitat across

the landscape, promoting recolonisation and

movement of biota and the space to adjust

to climate change. Ecological networks must

be dynamic, to allow for natural and arti#cial

processes to occur over various spatial and

temporal scales.

A range of actions which fall under the broad

Green Infrastructure heading both improve

the resilience of ecosystems and support the

construction of a national ecological net-

work.47 48 Examples include:



• Managing, protecting and rehabili-

tating important habitats, such as

riparian areas, roadsides and areas

on private land that provide impor-

tant ecological connections, such as

stepping stones, corridors and buffer

zones adjacent to protected areas.

• Improving links between small, frag-

mented areas such as patches of

remnant vegetation.

• Improving links between protected

sites.

• Improving connections within land-

scapes such as coastal hinterland

and estuaries.

• Restoring connections between

wetlands, "oodplains and rivers and

streams and protecting and restoring

hydro-ecological systems.

• Providing protection for threatened

species, habitats and populations.

• Buffering protected areas and eco-

logically-connecting isolated reserves

and habitat. Managing and control-

ling weed and invasive alien species

across the network.

CASE STUDY:

Hedgerows as Ecological

Networks

Hedgerows are a distinctive feature

of Ireland’s agricultural landscapes. If

well managed, hedges shelter ani-

mals and crops from weather as well

as being important habitats and act-

ing as ‘corridors’ for the movement

and dispersal of wildlife through the

landscape. Hedgerows cover ap-

proximately 1.2% of the land area of

Ireland and are the most extensive

semi-natural linear landscape feature

on this island. Hedgerows could help

to form crucial ecological networks if

managed appropriately.

However, while hedgerows are a

predominant landscape feature in Ire-

land, the quality of hedgerows varies

greatly. Poorly managed hedgerows,

especially those which are thin and

leggy at the base, have a much lower

biodiversity value than hedges that

are dense at the base. Maintaining

good hedgerow structure — for farm-

ing and for wildlife — often needs

positive management such as side

trimming and hedge laying.

In addition to hedges dying out from

a lack of management, many hedges

are removed every year for devel-

opment purposes and agricultural

activities.



ECOLOGICAL NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS

The implementation of an ecological network approach is key. To achieve this, we

make the following recommendations:

1. Protect and restore existing habitat.

Protected areas form the core of ecological networks and without adequate

protection of core areas, ecological network initiatives will not work. The Natura

2000 network is the core of the wider ecological networks and must be given

real protection in practice not just in theory.

2. Produce guidelines on ecological networks and their integration into spa-

tial planning.

These guidelines should provide guidance on how to integrate biodiversity and

ecological networks into regional, county and local development plans. They

should cover the establishment, maintenance and management of all aspects of

ecological networks (such as buffer zones, stepping-stones, riparian areas etc.)

3. Ensure cross-border cooperation with Northern Ireland.

Ecological networks cross political boundaries so their management must also.

4. Include high priority natural assets and risk management in ecological net-

work planning.

Climate change and its impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems in Ireland are

not fully predictable. A resilient landscape requires identi#cation of high priority

assets and important ecological processes, and the management of threats to

these assets and the ecosystem services they provide.

5. Treat Environmental NGOs as partners in the planning process for ecologi-

cal networks.

These organisations have often extensive or specialised expertise in the #eld of

biodiversity conservation and practical knowledge from the ground.



6. Focus agri-environment schemes on species and habitats as part of eco-

logical networks.

Instead of selecting from a generalised national ‘menu’ of measures, conserva-

tion actions supported by agri-environment schemes should be targeted to meet

site speci#c ecological objectives for species and habitats, tailored to the locally

identi#ed gaps in ecological networks. For example, ponds should be incentiv-

ised where they are lacking and hedgerow management where most needed,

rather than resources allocated on the basis of convenience of implementation.

7. Include qualitative criteria in agri-environment schemes for hedgerows.

Schemes should be based on hedges being maintained in or restored to ‘Fa-

vourable Condition’. Favourable Condition may be based on existing UK criteria,

namely: Average height at least 2m; Average width at least 1.5m; Less than 10%

gaps, with no individual gap wider than 5m; Base of woody component closer

than 50cm to the ground; Less than 10% introduced, non-native species. Man-

agement methods should also be standardised through Teagasc training.

8. Use an interdisciplinary approach and plan ecological networks from the

start of the process.

An interdisciplinary approach involving planner, economist, ecologists and land-

scape architects etc., can provide the necessary tools for successfully address-

ing habitat fragmentation. Such measures are more likely to be effective if inte-

grated at the earliest stage of planning process as well as being cheaper than

measures built retrospectively. Again, this requires the involvement of ecological

expertise at the earliest stage and throughout the process, re"ecting a “Green

Infastructure” approach.



BIODIVERSITY AS PART OF RIVERINE FLOOD DEFENCE

Background

Increased "ooding is possibly the starkest

prediction for climate change in Ireland, as

summarised by OPW:

“signi"cant increases in winter rainfall, with

the average winter water levels in rivers, lakes

and soils higher than at present, and with

more frequent severe #ooding. Areas now

subject to #ooding would suffer #ooding of

greater severity and duration; areas currently

#ood-free would suffer occasional #oods.”49

At the same time, "ood risk is also being in-

creased by urbanisation, ground sealing and

the degradation of natural water absorption

capacity within catchments. This increased

"ood risk poses a major challenge to build-

ings and transport links.

Some traditional approaches to "ood pre-

vention have come at too high a cost either

in economic or biodiversity terms, while oth-

ers have displaced "ooding, increasing risk

elsewhere.50

Sustainable Flood Management

Traditional "ood and erosion mitigation

measures consist of ‘hard’ engineering ap-

proaches such as dams, dykes and retaining

walls and the deepening and straightening

of watercourses to increase their capacity.

At the same time, wetlands and "oodplains

have been drained, reclaimed or developed

for farming, urbanisation and other develop-

ments.

‘Sustainable Flood Management’ (SFM) can

complement and extend the lifetime of more

traditional "ood defences. SFM is achieved

by adopting the following elements to man-

age the risk of "ooding: a strategic, catch-

ment based approach (the whole river basin,

from source to the sea); protecting and using

natural systems and habitats, and; using

‘soft’ engineering techniques.

SFM embodies a shift from our predominant-

ly reactive approach, towards a more strate-

gic catchment-based one which uses natural

processes and natural systems to store and

slow down the "ow of water. SFM can also

be implemented in association with more

traditional hard defences. SFM is a cost-ef-

fective means of tackling "ooding — protect-

ing homes and businesses whilst bene#ting

environment and biodiversity.

The core catchment-based approaches are:

water retention through management of

in#ltration, such as by protecting or enhanc-

ing soil condition; provision of storage, such

as on-farm reservoirs or enhanced wetlands,

and; slowing "ows by managing hill slope

and river conveyance. Many of these mea-

sures offer wider bene#ts than "ood risk

mitigation alone. The protection and en-

hancement of wetlands including peatlands

would make a major contribution to wildlife

and biodiversity in the catchment. These

areas can be of signi#cant amenity and tour-

ism value and the increased water retention

contributes to base"ow in streams and rivers,

with ecological, social and economic

bene#ts.



Existing Irish Flood Policy

Of#ce of Public Works (OPW) is the lead

agency for "ood risk management. Local

Authorities also have a key role including

through development plans and planning

permissions.

The management of river catchments

throughout the EU is now governed through

the Water Framework Directive. The Direc-

tive provides for a participative catchment-

based water management approach, using

integrated catchment management towards

a goal of good status for all waters. However,

"ood management has not been properly

integrated into the River Basin Management

Plans and the governance arrangements for

the integration of "ood management into the

WFD system are not clear.

Unfortunately "ood management practice

in Ireland remains #rmly wedded to a hard

engineering approach. In practice it is usually

about deepening widening and straightening

river channels, with little engagement with lo-

cal authorities or nature conservation bodies.

It fails to value the ecosystems services that

biodiversity offers in terms of ‘soft’ mitiga-

tion measures against the impacts of climate

change. None of the Environmental Impact

Statements carried out to date for major

"ood alleviation or drainage schemes have

investigated in any depth possibilities of

integrated catchment management with

"ood attenuation for "ood management.

Flood management practice should

urgently shift towards building the resil-

ience of ecosystems, by maintaining and

restoring native ecosystems such as wet-

lands, $oodplains, peatlands and riparian

ecosystems.51

By restoring key habitats and preventing

further habitat loss and degradation, a

much more effective and long term

sustainable climate change adaptation

and mitigation measures can be achieved.



RIVERINE FLOODING RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Protect and restore vegetation and ecosystems.

While particular importance attaches to wetlands and "oodplains, ecosystems

throughout a catchment, including woodland and forests in mountainous areas,

riparian woodland and meadows all contribute to the hydrological regime. Veg-

etation edging a waterway should be maintained in a way that is both respectful

of biodiversity, and effective against the risk of "ood damage.

2. Reduce earthworks which increase $ooding risk.

Change land reclamation practices: reduce the drainage of the landscape, re-

verse the straightening of water-courses and the reinforcement of banks.

3. Reclaim former $ood plains and lakes.

These natural water retention areas play a vital role in sustainable "ood manage-

ment to lower "ood peaks. Discharges to these areas can be controlled and in

addition arti#cial "ood retention areas can be created. A good way to restore

former "oodplain can be by means of managed "ood polders which can be used

as extensive grassland or to restore alluvial forests.

4. Ensure land uses and agricultural practices do not contribute to $ooding or

erosion.

Ensure that agricultural policy encourages good practice including soil conserva-

tion avoiding excessive soil compaction and erosion, agricultural roads, practices

such as contour tillage which would take into account water retention objectives

and ecological requirements, and appropriate vegetation cover on river banks

and "ood plain areas. This leads at the same time to a reduction in nutrient and

pesticide input into rivers.

5. Remove manmade obstacles to $ow in middle and lower river sections

Encourage appropriate land uses, e.g. rehabilitation of pastures and mosaic type

"oodplain forests in the "oodway, create bypassing channels in the "ood bed

(where possible and necessary), and increase the "ow capacity of bridge sec-

tions.

6. Limit soil sealing as part of urbanisation and use a Sustainable Urban Drain-

age Systems (SUDS) approach to surface water management in urban areas.

7. Plan on a catchment basis.

Interventions should not exclusively serve the purpose of local "ood reduction

but also "ood reduction in the whole affected area.

8. Encourage landowners and managers to take positive measures for $ood

defence.

Many of the measures referred to above can be implemented by means of infor-

mation and incentives.

9. Provide compensation.

Measures against "ooding which bring a wide protection to many can cause eco-

nomic loss to some. Compensation must be fair and prompt.



COASTS AND SEAS

The National Climate Change Strategy

predicts:

“Rising sea levels and more storm events and

storm surges, particularly on the West Coast,

with storms of a greater severity will lead to

erosion, #ooding and environmental change.

Most of the area likely to be affected is on

the West Coast, but the most vulnerable ar-

eas are likely to be on the East Coast. Areas

of the coast subject to human development

would be most at risk, and could suffer loss

of infrastructure.”

Instinctively the engineering response to

coastal erosion and "ooding has been hard

engineering measures. Hard coastal defenc-

es can often cause further erosion problems

at nearby locations and can cost more than

the value of what they defend. In addition

they often involve signi#cant greenhouse gas

emissions due to fossil fuel use and cement

production. Nonetheless there are locations

at which they are the appropriate option. At

many locations, however, policies of soft

coastal defence or of managed retreat are

more appropriate.52

Blue Carbon

While adaptation comes to mind #rst, coast-

al management in the context of climate

change is also about mitigation. Coastal eco-

systems are the most effective at sequester-

ing carbon, a fact which is barely recognised

by public or policymakers.53 UNEP’s 2009

Report Blue Carbon sets out the scale of

coastal carbon sequestration from a global

perspective:

“The ocean’s vegetated habitats, in particular

mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses,

cover <0.5% of the sea bed. These form

earth’s blue carbon sinks and account for

more than 50%, perhaps as much as 71%, of

all carbon storage in ocean sediments. They

comprise only 0.05% of the plant biomass on

land, but store a comparable amount of car-

bon per year, and thus rank among the most

intense carbon sinks on the planet. Blue

carbon sinks and estuaries capture and store

between 235–450 Tg C every year — or the

equivalent of up to half of the emissions from

the entire global transport sector, estimated

at around 1,000 Tg C yr–1. By preventing the

further loss and degradation of these ecosys-

tems and catalyzing their recovery, we can

contribute to offsetting 3–7% of current fossil

fuel emissions (totaling 7,200 Tg C yr–1) in

two decades — over half of that projected for

reducing rainforest deforestation.”54

At the same time, as the report points out,

these ecosystems have the highest rates of

loss of any on the planet. Although Ireland

has signi#cant salt marshes, estuarine eco-

systems and seagrass beds, we have been

unable to #nd any estimates of coastal car-

bon sinks or reservoirs in Ireland. Although

the text of the Convention itself does cover

all GHG sinks and reservoirs, UNFCCC rules

do not require reporting of coastal sinks and

reservoirs.

Considerations of mitigation and adapta-

tion can combine; the creation or enhance-

ment of coastal ecosystems can serve both

functions, often at a far lower cost and with

signi#cant biodiversity and landscape ben-

e#ts. Managed retreat can bring multiple



bene#ts- serving adaptation, mitigation and

biodiversity.

Coastal erosion and "ooding are not new

phenomena, but the speed of sea level rise

under current climate change conditions,

together with the extent of human use of the

coast means that we face a new scale of

challenges. Our response to this challenge

needs to be based in a long-term, fair and

rational approach. A national decision-mak-

ing framework for addressing coastal erosion

is badly needed.

Recent research has drawn attention to the

importance of deep-sea biota in the process

of permanent sequestration of carbon into

marine sediments.55 56

CASE STUDY:

Coastal Protection at Tramore

A review of coastal protection at

Tramore Strand by UCC CMRC

researchers has outlined the history

of repeated hard engineering inter-

ventions to #ght erosion.57 As the

report says “these attempts at hard

engineering have all succumbed, to

varying degrees, to the forces of

nature.” These schemes have been

carried out without the large scale

monitoring programme which would

be required to establish the details of

the natural processes underway.

The report recommends:

“There is no global recognition that

expensive hard engineering solutions

may be sustainable and that in the

future the population may have to ac-

commodate nature. ...This report has

highlighted the cost of coastal de-

fence measures at Tramore, that they

are becoming increasingly expensive

and that historically they have proven

to be inadequate when it comes to

maintaining the position of the coast-

line.”

The key recommendation of the

review is that a thorough baseline

study is needed before long-term

plans or indeed any further signi#-

cant intervention.



COASTAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Quantify carbon sinks and stores on Ireland’s coasts.

2. Support mandatory reporting of coastal sinks and stores to UNFCCC.

3. Incentivise coastal ecosystem protection for biodiversity and carbon stor-

age and sequestration.

Support the introduction of mechanisms at EU and international level to incentiv-ise the protection of coastal ecosystems for their role in sequestering and storing carbon, through methods consistent with the protection of biodiversity and the well-being of local communities.

4. Develop a considered national approach to coastal defence or retreat.

At the moment decisions on how to react to coastal erosion and "ooding are made on an ad hoc basis without a full evaluation of the competing demands for funding or the costs and bene#ts of the various options and alternatives. A na-tional policy framework is required which includes consideration of biodiversity, climate adaptation and climate mitigation.

5. Base decisions on evidence and understanding.

Decision-makers must ensure that any proposal to address coastal erosion is based on an adequate understanding of the geomorphological and ecological processes happening at the location(s) in question.

6. Develop guidelines for assessing the climate mitigation impacts of various

potential responses to coastal erosion/$ooding situations.

Assessing the carbon sequestration and storage capacity of coastal ecosystems is outside the usual analysis carried out in responding to coastal issues. Guide-lines are needed to enable decision-makers to assess the potential positive and negative impacts of options they are considering.

7. Improve the protection of coastal ecosystems.

In practice, the implementation of environmental law in the coastal zone is very poor and enforcement of the legal regime protecting biodiversity is particularly inadequate. A speci#c strategy to improve implementation including an agreed cooperative approach between the various agencies active in the coastal zone should be developed.

8. Create new coastal habitats.

Climate Change is forcing habitats and species to move in response to changes such as predicted sea-level rise, impacting coastal biodiversity. In addition to improving protection of existing habitats, habitat management and protection should include lands outside of protected area boundaries. This includes facilitat-ing the creation of new coastal saltmarshes and other habitats which are valuable for biodiversity as well as for mitigating and adapting to climate change. Hard coastal protection measures (in the instances where they are really required) can have habitat creation designed into them; ‘Bioblocks’ are a good example.58

9. Measure the effectiveness of actions on $ood wave runoff, particularly dyke

relocation and the development of $ood polders.

10. Take the carbon sequestration function of marine species and in particular

deep-sea species into account in developing #sheries policies.

Image: Christine Roberts



INVASIVE SPECIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Invasive Alien Species (IAS) have been a

threat to biodiversity since long before

climate change hit the front news. Invasive

species are species that have been intro-

duced outside their natural range and whose

establishment and spread can threaten

native ecosystem structure, function and

delivery of services. Invasive alien plant

and animal species are the second greatest

threat to biodiversity worldwide after habitat

destruction.59

They can negatively impact on native species,

can transform habitats and threaten whole

ecosystems causing serious problems to the

environment and the economy. Once intro-

duced, invasive alien organisms can modify

their new environment and cause signi#cant

changes which can be extremely harmful to

the native ecosystem. Control, management

and eradication, if possible, of invasive spe-

cies can be very dif#cult and costly.

Alien species are sometimes better able to

adapt to climatic changes getting a competi-

tive advantage over native species.

The Invasive Species Ireland project has

carried out over 600 risk assessments on

established and potential invasive species.57

ISI concluded that the greatest threat will be

to aquatic habitats and species which are

already under the greatest pressure from

invasive species and highly vulnerable to

new invasions.

Comprehensive research has already been

undertaken in the area of IAS in freshwater

systems. Prime examples include the Zebra

mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), Lagarosi-

phon major (African Curly Leaved Water-

weed) and the colonial sea squirt from the

Didemnum vexillum group. Some species

become invasive and not only become a

threat to the native ecosystem but also have

the capability of causing economic hardship

to different sectors. The Gigas Oyster is a

prime example of this scenario.

At the same time, not all new species are

invasive in the sense of being a problem

for ecosystems or humans. Some such as

boar#sh are new commercial #shery spe-

cies, while others such as triggerhead and

guilthead bream are target species for recre-

ational anglers. Both #sheries and biodiver-

sity policies need to adjust to address the

new species present.



CASE STUDY:

Gigas Oyster

The Gigas oyster (Crassostrea gigas),

also referred to as Paci#c Oyster,

was #rst introduced from warm

Paci#c waters in the 1970s. It was

hailed as ideal species for aquacul-

ture due to its fast growth even if

placed in the mid intertidal zone. It

was thought to be of no threat to the

native ecosystem as it was believed

that it could not spawn in Ireland’s

in cold waters. However that proved

wrong. The Gigas Oyster has proven

to become a major threat to native

wild oyster sites.

The Gigas oyster is now established

as an invasive alien species in Lough

Swilly, Lough Foyle and Strangford

Lough. Even the protected Natura

2000 parts of these sites are affected

by the spread of the Gigas Oyster.

It is not yet scienti#cally con#rmed

whether other areas are concerned

as well, but this might be only a

matter of time. Not only the native

oyster but many other native organ-

isms are at risk as the Gigas oyster

takes over bands on the foreshore

occupied by limpets, winkles and

seaweeds. Competition for space

and food become a signi#cant issue

for native species once the Gigas

Oyster becomes established in an

area.

Today European waters are estimated

to contain only about 20 productive

native wild oyster sites. Ireland’s

native oyster is now a red list species

and protected by the Habitats Direc-

tive and under the OSPAR Conven-

tion.

As climate change may result in an

increase of summer temperatures in

Ireland, it is quite likely that the

expansion rate of the Gigas oyster

will increase. Without control mea-

sures it is expected that the Paci#c

oyster will become a dominant

species in Ireland’s foreshore, and

may even lead to landscape changes.



INVASIVE SPECIES RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Draw up an Invasive Alien Species Strategy.

The strategy will aim to prevent, or at least minimise, and control future intro-

ductions (both deliberate and accidental) which may pose a risk to biodiversity.

Although the #rst (2002-2006)60 and the second (2011-2016)61 national Biodiver-

sity Action Plans contained an objective to produce such a strategy, it has not

happened yet. It is an urgent priority.

2. Review the current situation.

The strategy will need to include a review of introductions that have already

occurred and their impacts on biodiversity, identifying actions to reduce, or

eliminate, insofar as possible, these impacts.

3. Back the Strategy with legislation.

Legislation must enable intervention where a threat has been detected, includ-

ing the prohibition of the sale of a species and the removal and eradication of

existing invasive alien species.

4. Draw up eradication plans.

National eradication plans should be drawn up for species that are already

spreading such as the Gigas Oysters.

5. Integrate invasive species management in other plans and policies.

The national IAS strategy should integrate IAS management into sectoral

policies, management plans and strategies. For instance, none of Ireland’s

Water Framework Directive River Basin Management Plans include actions to

prevent, manage or eradicate IAS, despite the fact that freshwater habitats are

at the greatest risks of IAS invasion according to ISI.59

6. Integrate with ecological network policies.

Ensure that conservation policies (including those adopted in response to

climate change) such as increasing connectivity and assisted migration do not

inadvertently facilitate species invasions.

7. Adopt and Implement ISI’s Draft Marine Aquaculture Code of Practice.6262

8. Review #sheries and biodiversity policies and practices to take account of

new species.

9. Further Research

Research is needed to fully understand the relationship between invasive spe-

cies and climate change in Ireland. Identifying species which may become a

stronger threat due to climate change will enable measures to prevent popula-

tion spread which is far cheaper than removal of the species once it has estab-

lished. Research is also required into affordable eradication programmes for

species which have already become established in Ireland.



FOOD SECURITY, CLIMATE CHANGE AND BIODIVERSITY

Climate change is a major challenge to agri-

culture both globally and in Ireland.63 Already

shifting climate patterns are affecting food

production. This has been seen with ex-

tended droughts in the grain-growing areas,

signi#cant reduction in grain and forage

yields here in Ireland due to the cool and wet

summer and the fodder crisis in 2013 due to

the late onset of spring.

Paradoxically, certain agricultural systems

are also major contributors to climate change

through fossil fuel use, nitrous oxide from fer-

tilisers, and especially enteric methane from

ruminants and the oxidation of soil carbon.

Some measures to address food security

could increase biodiversity loss and acceler-

ate global warming in particular through land

use changes.

Long-term, sustainable food security

requires resilient agricultural systems sup-

ported by biodiverse ecosystems. The con-

servation of water resources and soil fertility,

along with a reduction in greenhouse house

gas (GHG) emissions, are crucial to lasting

productivity. Biodiversity associated with

farmland provides essential agro-ecological

services (e.g. pest control, pollination, nutri-

ent cycling) supporting crop production. A

highly connected network of wildlife habitats

is needed to enable functional biodiversity

in agricultural landscapes in a changing

climate. Diversi#ed production, healthy soils,

high-quality water resources and a rich func-

tional biodiversity may be the best insurance

against a changing climate, plant and animal

disease and "uctuating commodity prices in

a global market.64 65

Many of these ecological and organic sys-

tems also have the important bene#t of

sequestering carbon in soils, helping to

mitigate the effects of climate change.

Soils

The soil biota is an essential component of

the biodiversity of any terrestrial ecosystem,

yet it is often overlooked and little under-

stood. This underground biological eco-

system of worms, fungi, bacteria and other

organisms creates topsoil, improves soil

structure, extracts minerals, recycles nutri-

ents, #xes nitrogen and feeds plants. This

diverse network of organisms also converts

organic matter and sugars from plant roots

into stable forms of humus which not only

sequesters carbon, but improves the pro-

ductivity and resilience of the soils. The more

diverse and abundant this soil microbial

biomass is, the more adaptive, resilient and

productive the soil will be. This needs to be

recognised as the true basis for agricultural

production, especially in a low energy future

with volatile weather patterns.

Many studies, such as the long term DOK

trials, have shown a close correlation

between aggregate stability and soil micro-

bial biomass, improving both the drainage,

aeration and water holding capacity of the

soils.66 This is critically important in Ireland

where we can expect wetter winters, dryer

periods in the spring and more frequent

extreme weather events. Food production

within this changing climate will depend on

healthy biodiverse soils.



It is often cited that organic systems produce

lower yield per hectare, but this needs to be

balanced with the greater resilience of organ-

ic soils, and greater productivity per input of

nutrients and energy.67 Farmers throughout

the world are achieving dramatic increases

in yield using natural methods, especially

with developments under the broad term SCI

(System of Crop Intensi#cation), even

exceeding high input industrial agriculture,

with fewer inputs.68 In all of these cases

encouraging and feeding soil biota is a key

factor in achieving greater resilience, yield

and C sequestration.

CASE STUDY:

DOK Trial

The longest running research project

comparing organic and conventional

agriculture is the DOK trial in Switzer-

land. It has demonstrated the greater

resilience of organic agriculture and

the contribution it can make to

climate change mitigation:

“The results of this thirty-two-year

study demonstrate that organic food

production is more secure in periods

of high or low rainfall. This was di-

rectly associated with more ef#cient

use of nitrogen and greater biodiver-

sity. The capacity of organic soils to

withstand soil disturbances associ-

ated with intense rainfall events (soil

stability) was enhanced by 10 to 60%

compared to conventional soils. Soils

also had a 30 to 40% higher capac-

ity to conduct water, which renders

them less prone to erosion and/or

"ooding. Organically managed soils

showed more ef#cient nutrient cy-

cling, due to higher biological activity.

Therefore less nitrogen occurred in a

form that is prone to leaching losses

and that can contribute to emissions

of GHG. The number of earthworms

and bene#cial soil organisms favor-

ing inherent soil structure and fertility,

were also two to three times higher in

organic soils.

“The DOK trial showed Organic

Agriculture, relative to conventional

agriculture, enhances C sequestra-

tion and reduces GHG emissions,

thereby mitigating climate change.

In addition, relative to conventional

farming, Organic Agriculture can also

improve inherent soil quality and soil

fertility. The enhanced biodiversity of

the organic system was one of the

key factors favoring more ef#cient

use of water, nutrients and energy for

crop production. This also renders

organically managed systems more

able to sustain production under ad-

verse climatic conditions associated

with climate change.”

Pollination and insects

In Ireland there is increasing production of

both clover and oilseed rape. In addition

there is a signi#cant increase in vegetable

and fruit production. These areas of cropping

are dependent on pollination, both by do-

mestic honeybees and the native population

of bumblebees and other insects. Bumble-

bees are essential in larger #elds of white

clover, due to their greater ef#ciency at pol-

linating many crops, and their ability to adapt

to the wet and cold summers. Bumblebees

require hedgerows, low input grassland, and

other habitats in order to be available to

pollinate the food and energy crops we

depend on.



Biodiverse landscapes also provide habitat

for natural predators of agricultural pests,

including birds, beetles, ladybirds, parasitic

wasps, spiders, hover"ies, bats, hedgehogs

and frogs. This diverse buffer of predators

prevents pest populations from building up.

Climate change means an increasing likeli-

hood of novel pests becoming a problem

here in Ireland, and increasing risks from ex-

isting pests. Healthy biodiversity is essential

to mitigate these effects.

Crop diversity and agroforestry

Mono-cropping increases susceptibility to

pests, diseases and adverse weather condi-

tions. Diverse cropping strategies including

the production of many different species

of vegetables, as well as inter-cropping or

under-cropping several different plants within

the same #eld, increase the likelihood of

yield regardless of seasonal weather abnor-

malities. Agroforestry is a form of diverse

cropping which is particularly bene#cial to

the soil and effective at recycling nutrients

within landholdings. Diverse cropping strate-

gies support an increased biodiversity above

and below ground, which in turn increases

fertility and the bene#ts from other ecosys-

tem services, making the entire farm

ecosystem more resilient and productive.

Diversity within each crop species is

critical in order to adapt to climate change.

This increases the importance of the genetic

diversity preserved by the Irish Seed Savers

Association and other seed banks through-

out the world.



FOOD SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. CAP ‘direct payments’ must minimise negative environmental impacts and

maximise positive measures to support farmland biodiversity so that agriculture

can bene#t from ecosystem services such as pollination and soil fertility. Agri-

environment supports through CAP must be targeted to maintain speci#c threat-

ened habitat types which contribute to the overall health of the natural environ-

ment as part of a holistic approach to improving environmental quality as the

resource base of production.

2. Trial and promote measures to increase total biomass within various soil types

and agricultural systems.

3. Maximise supports for conversion to organic methods of production and for

sustainable horticulture.

4. Agricultural subsidies should work to reduce the use of synthetic fertilisers in

Irish agriculture, especially nitrogen, with a view to phasing them out altogether.

5. Develop policies that limit the use of herbicides and pesticides to protect biodi-

versity of pollinators and predators.

6. Ensure biofuels production does not compete for land used for food production

or drive ecosystem degradation.

7. Perhaps the simplest action to address food security is to tackle food waste.

8. Support rejuvenative management of existing hedgerows and the planting of

new shelter belts.

9. Provide incentives to remineralise soils to provide missing nutrients essential for

healthy soil ecosystems and plants.

10. Conduct research to improve understanding of the effect of different manage-

ment systems on soil biota and carbon sequestration in a range of Irish soil

types and agricultural systems. Prioritise breeding research into crop varieties

that are more adaptable to changing weather conditions in Ireland.



“All Parties, taking into account their common but

differentiated responsibilities and their speci#c national

and regional development priorities, objectives and

circumstances, shall:

...

(d) Promote sustainable management, and promote and

cooperate in the conservation and enhancement, as

appropriate, of sinks and reservoirs of all greenhouse

gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, including

biomass, forests and oceans as well as other terrestrial,

coastal and marine ecosystems”

UNFCCC Article 4.1



BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 Bain, C.G., et al., 2011, IUCN UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands, IUCN UK Peatland Programme,

Edinburgh

http://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/resources/188

2 IPPC, 2007, Fourth Assessment Report

3 Three EU documents available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/climatechange/index_en.htm:

• Summary Report of the study on “Impacts of climate change and selected renewable energy infra-

structures on EU Biodiversity and the Natura 2000 network

• Final Report of the study “Assessing the potential of ecosystem-based approaches to climate change

adaptation and mitigation in Europe”

• Discussion Paper “Towards a Strategy on Climate Change, Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity”

4 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992, Arts. 3 and 4

5 CBD, 2009, Report of the Second Meeting of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity

and Climate Change

http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cc/ahteg-bdcc-02-02/of#cial/ahteg-bdcc-02-02-06-en.pdf

6 Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht, 2011, Actions for Biodiversity 2011 to 2016

http://www.npws.ie/legislationandconventions/nationalbiodiversityplan/

7 Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2007, National Climate Change Strategy

2007-2012

http://environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/Atmosphere/FileDownLoad,1861,en.pdf

8 NESC, 2012, Towards a New National Climate Policy: Interim Report of the NESC Secretariat http://www.

environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/ClimateChange/FileDownLoad,31202,en.pdf NESC 2013, Ireland’s

Climate Change Challenge: Connecting ‘How Much’ with ‘How To’

http://www.nesc.ie/assets/#les/Ireland%20and%20the%20Climate%20Change%20Challenge_

Connecting%20How%20Much%20with%20How%20To_Main_Report.pdf

9 Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, 2012, National Climate Change

Adaptation Framework

http://environ.ie/en/Publications/Environment/ClimateChange/FileDownLoad,32076,en.pdf

10 Department of the Taoiseach, 2008, Building Ireland’s Smart Economy

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_#les/BuildingIrelandsSmartEconomy.pdf

11 Bullock, C., Kretsch, C. & Candon, E., 2008, The economic and social aspects of biodiversity – bene#ts and

costs of biodiversity in Ireland, National Parks and Wildlife Service

http://www.npws.ie/publications/archive/Bullock_et_al_2008_Economic_&_Social_Bene#ts_of_Biodiversity.

pdf

12 Desmond, M., et al., 2009, A summary of the state of knowledge of climate change impacts in Ireland, EPA.

http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/research/climate/name,27091,en.html

13 Davey, Brian (ed.), 2012 Sharing for Survival, Feasta, Cloughjordan

http://www.sharingforsurvival.org

14 WWF, IPPR, and RSPB, 2007, 80% Challenge: Delivering a low-carbon UK

http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/report_tcm9-176645.pdf



15 Andrade Pérez, A., et al. (eds.), 2010, Building Resilience to Climate Change: Ecosystem-based adaptation

and lessons from the #eld. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN

http://www.iucn.org/knowledge/publications_doc/publications/?6297/Building-resilience-to-climate-

change--ecosystem-based-adaptation-and-lessons-from-the-#eld

16 Joosten, Hans, 2010, The Global Peatland CO2 Picture, Wetlands International

http://www.wetlands.org/WatchRead/Currentpublications/tabid/56/mod/1570/articleType/ArticleView/

articleId/2418/The-Global-Peatland-CO2-Picture.aspx

17 IUCN UK National Committee, 2011, Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands


18 Renou-Wilson et al., 2011, BOGLAND: Sustainable Management of Peatlands in Ireland http://erc.epa.ie/

safer/iso19115/displayISO19115.jsp?isoID=236

19 Decision 2/CMP.7 taken at UNFCCC Conference of the Parties 17 in Durban

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cmp7/eng/10a01.pdf

20 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013 Supplement to the 2006 Guidelines for National

Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/home/wetlands.html

21 IPCC, 2012, Five steps that have the potential to restore living bogs in Ireland (Press Release)

http://www.ipcc.ie/#ve-steps-that-have-the-potential-to-restore-living-bogs-in-ireland/

22 Wilson et al., 2012, Carbon Restore – The Potential of Restored Irish Peatlands for Carbon Uptake and

Storage

http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/research/climate/name,33710,en.html

23 MoorLIFE (EU-funded blanket bog restoration)

http://www.moorsforthefuture.org.uk/moorlife

24 Cris, R, et al. (eds.), 2011, UK Peatland Restoration – Demonstrating Success. IUCN UK National

Committee Peatland Programme


25 http://restoringpeatlands.org/

26 Quinty,F. and Rochefort, L., 2003, Peatland Restoration Guide

http://www.peatmoss.com/blog/environment/peatland-restoration%20guide

27 IPPC, 2009, Peatland Conservation Action Plan 2020

http://www.ipcc.ie/a-to-z-peatlands/peatland-action-plan/

28 Forestry Commission, 2011, Forests and Climate Change UK Forestry Standard Guidelines

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-8BVEVV

29 Stokes, V. and Kerr, G. October, 2009, The evidence supporting the use of CCF in adapting Scotland’s

forests to the risks of climate change, The Forestry Commission, Scotland

30 Purser, P.M., Byrne, K.A. and Farrell, E.P., 2006 ‘Impact of Climate Change on Irish Forestry’ Environmental

Protection Agency

31 T.R. Nisbet & H McKay, year unknown, ‘Sustainable Forestry and the Protection of Water in Great Britain’,

Forestry Commission, Great Britain.

32 Wise et al., 2009, The Implications of Limiting CO2 Concentrations for Agriculture, Land Use, Land-use

Change Emissions and Bioenergy, Paci#c Northwest National Laboratory http://www.globalchange.umd.

edu/data/publications/PNNL-18341.pdf

33 International Council for Clean Transportation, 2013, Vegetable Oil Markets and the EU Biofuel Mandate,

http://www.theicct.org/sites/default/#les/publications/ICCT_vegoil_and_EU_biofuel_mandate_20130211.pdf



34 Timothy D. Searchinger et al., 2009 Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error, Science 23 October 2009:

326 (5952), 527-528.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5952/527.short

35 RSPB, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, 2012, Dirtier than Coal

http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/biomass_report_tcm9-326672.pdf

36 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) (2008) A Cool Approach to Biofuels. Making Transport

Choices that Protect the Environment. Agriculture Policy Team. Bedfordshire, UK.

37 Department of Energy Communications and Natural Resources, 2010, National Renewable Energy Action

Plan

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/C71495BB-DB3C-4FE9-A725-0C094FE19BCA/0/2010NREAP.pdf

38 Department of Energy Communications and Natural Resources, 2013, Press Statement: Energy Trading

Creates Opportunities for Ireland and UK – Rabbitte and Davey

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Press+Releases/2013/Irish+and+UK+Energy+MOU.htm

39 Scottish Government, various guidance documents on wind turbines, peatlands and carbon available at

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Energy-sources/19185/17852-1/CSavings

40 H. Hötker, K-M Thomsen & H. Köster, 2004, Impacts on biodiversity of exploitation of renewable energy

sources: the example of birds and bats, Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU). Michael-Otto-Institut

http://bergenhusen.nabu.de/bericht/VoegelRegEnergien.pdf

41 Pearce-Higgins et al., 2012, Greater impacts of wind farms on bird populations during construction than

subsequent operation: results of a multi-site and multi-species analysis, J. Applied Ecology 49, 386-394

42 Bolin, Vivi, 2012, A study into the biodiversity concerns related to wind energy planning in the West of

Ireland, M.Sc Thesis, Trinity College Dublin

43 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and The Wildlife Trust (2008) “Wind Turbines, Sensitive Bird

Populations and Peat Soils: A Spatial Planning Guide for on-shore wind farm developments in Lancashire,

Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside”

44 Birdlife International, 2003, Windfarms and Birds: An analysis of the effects of windfarms on birds, and

guidance on environmental assessment criteria and site selection issues. http://www.birdlife.org/eu/pdfs/

BirdLife_Bern_windfarms.pdf

45 Tierney, N., et al., 2012, Bird Sensitivity Map for Ireland; a tool to aid planning and conservation in relation to

wind energy, BirdWatch Ireland, SEAI

46 Thomas, Chris, et al., 2012, Protected areas facilitate species’ range expansions, PNAS vol. 109 no. 35

14063-14068

47 UCD Urban Institute Ireland, 2008, Green City Guidelines

http://www.uep.ie/news/greencity.htm

48 Comhar, 2010, Creating Green Infastructure for Ireland

http://www.socialjustice.ie/sites/default/#les/#le/Organisations/Comhar/2010-08%20-%20Creatng%20

Green%20Infrastructure%20for%20Ireland%20-%20COMHAR.pdf

49 Smyth, Tony, 2009, Inland Flooding Impacts, paper for ‘Ireland at Risk’ workshop, OPW http://www.iae.ie/

site_media/pressroom/documents/2009/Jun/09/Inland_Flooding_Impacts.pdf

50 Kelly, B and Stack, M, 2009, Climate Change Heritage and Tourism: implications for Ireland’s coasts and

inland waterways, Heritage Council

51 Williams, et al., 2012, The use of wetlands for "ood attentuation, Report for An Taisce by Aquatic Services

Unit, UCC

http://www.antaisce.org/Portals/5/Final%20Wetland%20Flood%20Attenuation%20report%202012.pdf



52 Ancorim (Atlantic Network for Coastal Risks Management), 2011, Overview of soft coastal protection

solutions

http://ancorim.aquitaine.fr/IMG/pdf/2_Outil2_56P_EN.pdf

53 Laffoley et al., 2009, The management of natural coastal carbon sinks, IUCN

http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2009-038.pdf

54 UNEP, 2009, Blue Carbon http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/blue-carbon/

55 Trueman, Johnston, O’Hea and K. M. MacKenzie, 2014, Trophic interactions of #sh communities at

midwater depths enhance long-term carbon storage and benthic production on continental slopes http://

rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1787/20140669.abstract?sid=6e4a36c1-03c2-4351-8d69-

262889512c4b

56 Rogers, A.D., Sumaila, U.R., Hussain, S.S. and Baulcomb, C, 2014, The High Seas and Us

http://www.globaloceancommission.org/wp-content/uploads/High-Seas-and-Us.FINAL_.FINAL_.high_.

spreads.pdf

57 CMRC, 2006, Review of Coastal Protection at Tramore Strand

http://www.cmrc.ie/projects/review-of-coastal-protection-at-tramore-strand.html

58 Firth, L. B., et al., (2013), The importance of water-retaining features for biodiversity on arti#cial intertidal

coastal defence structures. Diversity and Distributions. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12079

59 Stokes, K., O’Neill, K. & McDonald, R.A., 2004, Invasive species in Ireland, Unpublished report to

Environment & Heritage Service and National Parks & Wildlife Service. Quercus, Queens University Belfast

http://npws.ie/media/npws/publications/media,3701,en.pdf

60 Dúchas, 2002, Biodiversity Action Plan

61 DAHG, 2011, Actions for Biodiversity 2011-2016 Ireland’s National Biodiversity Plan

62 Invasive Species Ireland, Draft Aquaculture Code of Practice

http://invasivespeciesireland.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Aquaculture_CoP.pdf

63 Sweeney, John, 2008, Climate Change and Irish Agriculture

http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2008/20081110/reps2008_paper01.asp

64 FAO, 2008, Climate Change and Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/013/ai784e.pdf

65 FAO, 2011, FAO-Adapt Framework Programme on Climate Change Adaptation

http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2316e/i2316e00.pdf

66 Scholberg, Johannes, and Muller, Adrian, 2009, Carbon sequestration in Switzerland – the DOK trial

http://orgprints.org/17937/1/scholberg-muller-2009-ifoam.pdf

67 Mader, Paul, et al., 2002, Soil Fertility and Biodiversity in Organic Farming

http://www.eve.ucdavis.edu/catoft/eve101/Protected/PDF/lit/Mader%20et%20al.%202002.pdf

68 Latham, Jonathan, 2012, How Millions of Farmers are Advancing Agriculture For Themselves

http://independentsciencenews.org/un-sustainable-farming/how-millions-of-farmers-are-advancing-

agriculture-for-themselves


OUR NATURAL ALLY IN THE FIGHT

AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE

ireland’s biodiversity - environmental pillar · ireland’s biodiversity 6 our natural ally in...

Documents