ireland’s forestry programme 2014-2020 strategic ... · 1.3.5. to meet the needs of ireland’s...

Copyright The proposed approach and methodology is protected by copyright and no part of this document may be copied or disclosed to any third party, either before or after the contract is awarded, without the written consent of ADAS.

Ireland’s Forestry Programme 2014-2020

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

Final Environmental Report

Report by: Helen Davies BSc MSc CEnv MIEMA ACIEEM Michael Image BA MSc

Checked by: Robert Edwards BSc MSc MIEMA Date: October 2014

Submitted to:

Rosalind Henry

RSM McClure Watters

Prepared by:

ADAS UK Ltd

4205 Park Approach

Thorpe Park

Leeds

LS15 8GB

0936648 4001349

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Purpose of this Report ....................................................................................... 1

1.2. Structure of this Report ..................................................................................... 2

1.3. Ireland’s Forestry Programme ........................................................................... 2

1.4. Identifying Areas Suitable for Forestry ............................................................ 15

1.5. Characterisation of the FP Area ...................................................................... 20

2. SEA FRAMEWORK AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................ 23

2.1. Best Practice Guidance ................................................................................... 23

2.2. The SEA Process ............................................................................................ 25

2.3. Links with Appropriate Assessment................................................................. 26

2.4. Sustainability Topics and SEA Objectives ....................................................... 27

2.5. Ecosystem Approach ...................................................................................... 29

2.6. Assessment Methodology ............................................................................... 34

3. FINDINGS OF THE SCOPING PROCESS ............................................................. 39

3.1. Scoping Consultation Responses.................................................................... 39

3.2. Other Plans, Programmes and Environmental Protection Objectives ............. 39

3.3. Summary of Baseline Data .............................................................................. 42

3.4. Key Issues and Likely Future Trends .............................................................. 69

4. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................ 73

4.1. The Process .................................................................................................... 73

4.2. Alternative Scheme Options / Delivery Mechanisms ....................................... 73

4.3. Assessment of Strategic Alternatives .............................................................. 74

4.4. Reasons for Selection of Chosen Strategic Alternative ................................... 96

5. THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS ........................................................... 97

5.1. Consultation on the Environmental Report ...................................................... 97

5.2. Modifications to the Programme following the Public Consultation ................. 97

6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF THE FP ........................................................... 104

6.1. High Level Assessment ................................................................................. 104

6.2. Detailed Matrix Assessment .......................................................................... 116

6.3. Summary of Adverse Effects and Appropriate Assessment Conclusions ...... 124

6.4. Uncertainties ................................................................................................. 130

6.5. Cumulative Effects Assessment .................................................................... 132

6.6. Transboundary Effects .................................................................................. 141

7. MITIGATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 142

7.2. Minimising Adverse Effects ........................................................................... 142

7.3. Enhancing Beneficial Effects ......................................................................... 148

7.4. Residual Effects of the FP ............................................................................. 156

8. MONITORING AND NEXT STEPS ....................................................................... 157

8.1. Next Steps ..................................................................................................... 157

8.2. Monitoring Proposals ..................................................................................... 157

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 173

Appendix A: Scoping Consultation Responses

Appendix B: Relevant Environmental Protection Objectives

Appendix C: Environmental Baseline Maps

Appendix D: High Level Assessment Matrices

Appendix E: Statutory and Public Consultation Responses

Appendix F: Detailed Assessment Matrices

Non-Technical Summary (standalone document provided separately)

Appropriate Assessment Natural Impact Statement (standalone document provided

separately)

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose of this Report

1.1.1. ADAS has been instructed by the Forest Service division of the Department of

Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) to carry out a Strategic Environmental

Assessment (SEA) for Ireland’s Forestry Programme (FP) 2014-2010.

1.1.2. SEA is a systematic process for evaluating the environmental consequences of

proposed plans or programmes to ensure environmental issues are fully integrated

and addressed at the earliest appropriate stage of decision making, with a view to

promoting sustainable development. The process of SEA was introduced under

European Directive 2001/42/EC12 on the assessment of the effects of certain

plans and programmes on the environment (SEA Directive), and came into force

in 2001.

1.1.3. The Directive requires DAFM, as the programming authority, to assess the likely

significant effects of its plans and programmes on: “the environment, including on

issues such as biodiversity, population, human health, fauna, flora, soil, water, air,

climatic factors, material assets, cultural heritage including architectural and

archaeological heritage, landscape and the interrelationship of the above factors”

including “secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium, and long-term,

permanent and temporary positive and negative effects”.

1.1.4. The requirements of the SEA Directive are transposed into Irish domestic law

through the European Communities (Environmental Assessment of Certain Plans

and Programmes) Regulations 2004 (SI 435/2004) and the Planning and

Development (Strategic Environmental Assessment) Regulations 2004 (SI

436/2004), as amended by the European Communities (Environmental

Assessment of Certain Plans and Programmes) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

(SI 200/2011) and the Planning and Development (Strategic Environmental

Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 (SI 201/2011) respectively.

1.1.5. The purpose of this report is to carry out an evaluation of the likely environmental

effects of implementation and non-implementation of the FP as per the

requirements of the Directive and Regulations. This includes an assessment of

realistic strategic alternative approaches and options, as well as the suggestion of

mitigation and enhancement measures to prevent, reduce and offset any

2

significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the FP.

1.1.6. An earlier version of this report was issued to the statutory consultation bodies by

DAFM, and was available to view and comment on by interested organisations and

members of the public during the period 10th September to 13th October 2014, at

the same time as the draft FP. This report has been updated since the consultation

period to incorporate consultation responses and to take into account the revised

and final FP.

1.2. Structure of this Report

1.2.1. The areas considered in this Environmental Report, and their location in the

document, are as follows:

Summary of the FP – Section 1.3;

Characterisation of the FP Area – Section 1.5;

SEA Objectives and assessment methodology – Sections 2.4 to 2.6;

Summary of scoping consultation responses – Section 3.1 and Appendix A;

Relationship with other plans, programmes and conservation objectives –

Sections 3.2 and 6.5 and Appendix B;

Relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely

evolution of the environment without the FP – Sections 3.3 to 3.4 and

Appendix C;

Consideration of alternatives – Chapter 4;

Summary of public and statutory consultation responses – Chapter 5 and

Appendix E;

Identification and assessment of likely significant effects on the environment

– Chapter 6 and Appendix F;

Mitigation and enhancement measures – Chapter 7; and

Proposed monitoring programme and next steps – Chapter 8.

1.2.2. A non-technical summary of the information provided in this report has been

provided separately.

1.3. Ireland’s Forestry Programme

1.3.1. "Europe 2020, a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth" sets the

3

strategic views of the Union for the next programming period. It defines precise

objectives and corresponding targets for the Union at the horizon 20201. All Union

policies (including the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)) are expected to

contribute to Europe 2020 objectives and targets. The Common Strategic

Framework sets the strategic vision of the Union for the use of five funds provided

for under the EU’s Cohesion Policy, Rural Development Policy and the Maritime

and Fisheries Policy (European Structural and Investment Funds known as ESI

funds).

1.3.2. The Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) represents the common strategic

guidelines of the Union for all the ESI funds for the next programming period. In

this way the five funds will better contribute to reaching the Europe 2020 objectives

for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. The CPR aims to achieve this through

the setting of 11 thematic objectives, some of which are linked to the six priorities

and focus areas set out in the Rural Development Regulations (RDR) (No.

1305/2013). These priorities are as follows:

Fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry, and rural

areas;

Enhancing farm viability and competitiveness of all types of agriculture in all

regions and promoting innovative farm technologies and the sustainable

management of forest;

Promoting food chain organisation, including processing and marketing of

agricultural products, animal welfare and risk management in agriculture;

Restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and

forestry;

Promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low carbon

and climate resilient economy in agriculture, food and forestry sectors; and

Promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in

rural areas.

1.3.3. DAFM has carried out a Needs Analysis which has identified four specific needs

of Ireland’s forestry sector. These are:

1 Horizon 2020 is the financial instrument implementing the Innovation Union, a Europe 2020 flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe's global competitiveness.

4

Permanently increase forest2 cover;

Increase and sustain the production of forest-based biomass to meet

renewable energy targets;

Support forest holders to actively manage their plantations; and

Optimise the environmental and social benefits of new and existing forests.

1.3.4. The proposal is to support the new FP with 100% Exchequer funds in line with EU

Guidelines for State Aid in the agriculture and forestry sector and in rural areas

from 2014 to 2020. In order to be considered compatible with the internal market

and therefore compliant with these State Aid rules, measures set out in the new

FP must meet all the conditions laid down in the RDR and contribute towards the

aims and objectives of the CAP. While the new forestry measures will not be

included in the wider Rural Development Programme currently being prepared by

DAFM, they must follow the same general rules and principles.

1.3.5. To meet the needs of Ireland’s forestry sector along with the priorities of the CPR

and the RDR, DAFM has produced a performance framework of measures and

associated schemes for the next 6 years as part of the new FP. The total cost of

the programme is estimated at €262 million for the period 2015–2020. This

excludes historic premium liabilities and refers to new investment. Flexibility will be

applied throughout the FP to allow for the transfer of funds between and within

schemes. Additional opportunities will be explored on a year-to-year basis,

including the possibility of short-term pre-approved projects being ready to

proceed, should short-term funding availabilities arise. A formal midterm review

will also take place to examine in a more structured way any potential that exists

for changing schemes and improving their performance both from a value for

money perspective and environmentally. The proposal for FP 2014-2020 consists

of 11 different measures as set out below:

i. Afforestation and Creation of Woodland: Support for establishment and 15

premium payments for creation of new forests. This measure includes

commercial afforestation, agroforesty, forestry for fibre, and native woodland

2 Forest is defined in the National Forest Inventory (DAFM, 2013) as land with a minimum area of 0.1 ha under stands of trees 5m or higher, having a minimum width of 20m and a canopy cover of 20% or more within the forest boundary; or trees able to reach these thresholds in situ. The definition relates to land use rather than land cover, so integral open space and felled areas that are waiting restocking are included as forest.

5

establishment the latter focused on important native woodland types and

opportunities for habitat linkage, and on environmentally sensitive areas, with

a view to realising wider ecosystem services such as water protection.

ii. NeighbourWood Scheme: Provides support for the development of attractive

'close-to-home' woodland amenities for public access. Aimed primarily at

local authorities.

iii. Forest Roads: Support for the construction of forest roads is provided under

this measure.

iv. Reconstitution Scheme: Support for forest holder to restore and retain forests

following significant damage by natural causes.

v. Woodland Improvement (Thinning and Tending): This scheme provides

support for forest management operations for broadleaf woodlands and

actions within existing forests, which effect structural changes aimed at

protecting and enhancing water quality and other environmental sensitivities.

vi. Native Woodland Conservation: Supports the protection and enhancement

of existing native woodlands and where appropriate, the conversion of conifer

forests to native woodlands focused on important native woodland types and

opportunities for habitat linkage, and on environmentally sensitive areas, with

a view to realising wider ecosystem services such as water protection.

vii. Knowledge Transfer and Innovation: Supports the setting up of knowledge

transfer groups, continuous professional development and training.

viii. Producer Groups: Support is provided under this measure to help forest

holders to work together to create a critical mass for forestry operations and

mobilising timber.

ix. Innovative Forestry Technology: Support for early adopters of new

technology, e.g. variable tyre systems, inventory equipment.

x. Forest Genetic Reproductive Material: Annual payment towards the cost of

managing and conserving registered seed stands and establishing seed

orchards.

xi. Forest Management Plans: Support for forest holders to prepare

management plans for their forest holdings.

1.3.6. Additional details on objectives are provided in Table 1.1 below.

6

Table 1.1: Description and Objectives of FP Measures

Description of Measure (and schemes) Objectives Allocation and Targets (2015-2020)

Measure 1: Afforestation and Creation of Woodlands

One of the aims of Ireland’s forest policy is to encourage planting by private landholders. The principal means of encouraging land holders to plant has been the provision of grants to cover the cost of afforestation, and an annual forest premium to compensate for income foregone as a result of converting farm land to forest. This measure will consume a large proportion of the FP funding. The proposal for the afforestation and creation of woodlands measure is to combine it with climate services, forest environment and agroforesty conservation measures. There are also possibilities for linking the development of Forest Management Plans (FMP) into this measure for all forests above 5ha which reach 12 years of age as a condition of support (currently 10ha for conifers and 5ha for broadleaves). Under Irish legislation, EIA is mandatory for initial afforestation which would involve an area of 50 hectares or more. Grant/Premium Categories (GPCs) for this Measure are as follows:

GPC Total available funding € / ha

Annual premium € / ha

Duration (years)

1 – Unenclosed* 2,600 185 15

2 - Sitka spruce/ lodgepole pine*

3,545 440 15

3 – 10% Diverse Conifer 3,650 510 15

4 – Diverse Conifer 3,965 560 15

5 – Broadleaf 5,435 575 15

6 – Oak / Beech 5,750 615 15

7 – Beech 5,750 615 15

8 – Alder 3,860 575 15

9 & 10 – Native Woodland Establishment

5,435-5,750 635 15

11 – Agroforesty 4,450 260 5

12 – Forestry for Fibre 2,450 180 10 * All plantations regardless of size must include 10% broadleaves The measure will consist of the following 4 schemes: A. Afforestation Scheme

The proposed afforestation scheme aims to increase the area under forest in Ireland from its current low base of 10.7% (EU-27 average 37%); to contribute, inter alia, towards climate change mitigation; to produce commercial timber; to provide a sustainable source of roundwood for wood product manufacture; to provide biomass for energy production; to provide sustainable jobs in the rural economy.

B. Native Woodlands Establishment Scheme This Scheme, now captured under a new Grant & Premium Category (GPC 9 &10), provides opportunities to protect and expand Ireland’s native woodland resource and associated biodiversity and is a key biodiversity measure within Ireland’s national forest policy. It also supports a wide range of other benefits and functions arising from native woodlands, relating to landscape, cultural heritage, wood and non-wood products and services, the practice of traditional woodland management techniques, environmental education, and carbon sequestration. Additionally it aims to improve water and land management and contribute to meeting the Water Framework Directive objectives and to improve soil stability and water quality including high status waters through native riparian woodland development. Regarding site requirements, each site under GPC9 must be capable of supporting the vigorous growth and sustainable long term development of the most appropriate native woodland type(s) identified for the site. Certain afforestation sites will be required to include a GPC 9 &10 plot as part of the forest design, focused on water quality.

C. Agroforesty Scheme This scheme has not previously featured in Ireland’s forestry support mechanisms and there is little experience of agroforesty in Ireland. Initially, therefore, the measure will be targeted at silvopastoral agroforesty systems which combine forestry and pasture. Acceptable broadleaf species will include oak, sycamore and cherry. Other species,

The objectives of the Schemes are as follows: Afforestation Scheme

Contribute towards meeting Ireland’s forest cover target of 18% by 2046;

Establish up to 8,290 ha of new forests per annum;

To provide at least 30% of the area afforested with broadleaved species (at national level) which will include Areas for Biodiversity Enhancement (ABEs);

Plant larger average forest areas with greater access to the public road network;

Increase average yield class, based on use of superior growing stock planted on better quality land;

Encourage forest management practices that restore, preserve and enhance forest biodiversity;

Develop a forest-based biomass resource and generally encourage its use in domestic and commercial markets;

Foster carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation; and

Provide a resource which will contribute to long term sustainable development in the rural economy.

Native Woodlands Establishment Scheme

Increase the area of native woodland;

Encourage a diverse range of native woodland types and increase woodland biodiversity, in keeping with site type and ecology;

Introduce a forestry land use option for farmers in environmentally sensitive areas, including NATURA sites, acid sensitive areas (as agreed with the EPA and detailed in Forest Service Circular 04/13 of 2013), high status waterbodies, Freshwater Pearl Mussel catchments and highly sensitive landscapes.

Promote the use of native woodland creation to deliver wider ecosystem services such as water quality, soil stabilisation, habitat connectivity at a landscape level, etc.

Provide the opportunity for compatible wood production for woodland owners, where appropriate and using 'close-to-nature' silviculture.

Agroforesty Scheme

Establish agroforesty as a realistic land use option for future programmes;

Increase the economic output per land unit;

Increase biodiversity;

Produce high quality hardwood timber where appropriate;

Protect water quality by reducing surface water runoff and protect erosion of riverbanks;

Encourage continuous cover forestry and close-to-nature silvicultural techniques; and

Enhance the quality and diversity of landscapes. Forestry for Fibre Scheme

Develop a wood energy resource and encourage increased wood energy production at farm level and usage at national level;

The GPC is targeted at growing productive species on fertile sites capable of providing wood biomass yields in the region of 150-300 cubic metres per ha over a 10-15 year period.

Areas of Biodiversity EnhancementProviding opportunities for woodland

Indicative Allocation:

Afforestation = €173.4m

NWS (Est) = €16.5m

Agroforesty = €0.97m

Forestry for Fibre = €8.6m

Scheme Targets:

Afforestation = 37,215 ha

NWS (Est) = 2,700 ha

Agroforesty = 195 ha

Forestry for Fibre = 3,300 ha

RDR Focus Areas: 4(a) & 5(e)

7


including conifers will be considered on a site-by-site basis. Ideally, sites under the Agroforesty Scheme should contain free-draining mineral soils and should have no requirement for additional drainage. In general, sites suitable for agroforesty should not require additional fertiliser for tree growth, apart from the possibility of manual application at the base of individual trees at establishment. Land classified by the Department as ‘unimproved/unenclosed’ will not be eligible for support under the scheme. Agroforesty must remain under forestry indefinitely and therefore is subject to a re-planting obligation. D. Forestry for Fibre Scheme

This scheme has not previously featured in Ireland’s forestry support mechanisms, but is needed to meet a forecasted supply-demand gap for fibre for energy and other wood product applications that will be arising over the next two decades. Eligible species are Italian Alder, Hybrid Aspen, Eucalyptus and Poplar. Preference will be given to applications that propose to use improved genetic material. Support for short rotation coppicing, Christmas trees or fast growing trees is not provided for under this scheme. Regarding site requirements, sites must be below 200 m in elevation, enclosed, and with free-draining arable or pasture soils or surface water gleys without a peat layer. Therefore the habitats to be afforested will be predominantly improved agricultural land and arable fields. Once land is planted under the Forestry for Fibre Scheme, it must remain under forestry indefinitely and therefore is subject to a re-planting obligation.

Ensuring Afforestation in suitable sites Decisions regarding the suitability of sites for afforestation will be supported by the Indicative Forest Statement (IFS) for Ireland. The IFS is a map-based approach which integrates the many different spatial datasets contained within the Department’s iFORIS system which take account of a wide range of environmental factors and other opportunities and constraints (for example soil productivity, landscape, water quality, archaeology, biodiversity, and fisheries and acid sensitive areas). These datasets are regularly updated as new spatial data becomes available. (More detail on the IFS can be seen in Section 1.4 of this report). The selection of species to be planted, of areas and methods to be used, shall avoid the inappropriate afforestation of sensitive habitats such as peat lands and wetlands and negative effects on areas of high ecological value including areas under high natural value farming. Forest Service Circular 10/2010 ‘Changes to Afforestation Grant & Premium Schemes 2011’ introduced restrictions on the afforestation of unenclosed / unimproved land, typically comprising upland sites and peat sites. Under the circular, the amount of unenclosed land in any application for financial approval cannot exceed 20% of the total area. On sites designated as Natura 2000 pursuant to the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive only afforestation consistent with the conservation objectives of the sites concerned shall be allowed. This is determined by the implementation of the Forest Service AAP and referral process to NPWS. All afforestation applications within Natura 2000 sites are referred to NPWS for comment and these comments are taken into account by the FS District Inspector when making a decision regarding the application. Currently there is a policy of no afforestation within Hen Harrier SPAs, pending the formulation of the Threat Response Plan (TRP) for the species, led by NPWS. New forests planted under this measure will be established and maintained in a way that enhances the landscape. In order to ensure that these benefits are delivered, applicants must comply with the Department’s Guidelines on Forestry and the Landscape. Hedgerows must be considered carefully when considering forestry activities and the impacts these activities may have on these important landscape features. Hedgerows must also be maintained and not allowed to become invasive thereby reducing the utilisable area of the field. Landowners considering planting trees are encouraged to retain scrub. In relation to landmark trees, the Tree Register of Ireland (TROI) is a database of Irish trees containing over 10,000 entries. Where afforestation development, forest road development, or felling licence applications falls within 200 m of a designated archaeological site or monument, i.e. a recorded monument, applications are identified for referral to the National Monuments Service. The imposition of a hierarchy of relevant archaeological conditions with approvals and the emphasis on preservation in situ of any archaeological remains identified fully accords with the principles and approach as set out in Part III of DAHG’s Framework and Principles for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage. Considerable scope exists for the use of woodlands and forests to proactively contribute to protecting and enhancing water quality. The benefits are potentially greatest for the planting of riparian and floodplain woodland, which can help to reduce diffuse pollution, protect river morphology, moderate stream temperature and aid flood risk management. The Forest Service promotes the delivery of this ecosystem service, primarily through the Native Woodland Scheme which is a suitable option for water-sensitive areas such as FPM catchments, acid sensitive areas, fisheries sensitive areas and high status waterbodies. Specifically, new native woodland established under the scheme on sites adjoining watercourses and elsewhere within catchments, creates natural habitats that act as permanent and stable buffers vis-à-vis water quality. Any proposed planting site (contiguous) with lakes, rivers, streams or drains with continuously flowing

biodiversity is one of the objectives of the programme. In relation to the Afforestation Scheme, NWS Est. and the Forestry for Fibre Scheme, this will be achieved through the creation of Areas of Biodiversity Enhancement (ABEs). ABEs would comprise approximately 15% of individual grant aided afforestation projects which are greater than 10 hectares. In sites less than 10 hectares in area, the open space element of ABEs should be designed in conjunction with neighbouring land use and may be reduced. The following areas are eligible: open space for landscape and biodiversity; hedgerows; scrub; buffers along aquatic zones; archaeological sites and exclusion zones; created lakes/reservoirs; former REPS habitats; public road setback areas; railway setback strips; ridelines and drains; internal roads and turning bay setback areas; dwelling house/associated building setback area. During the lifetime of the programme applicants will be asked to identify ABEs on site at Form one stage of the afforestation measure. This will be supported by ecological training for foresters.

8


water are subject to the Forest Service’s Forestry and Water Guidelines. A key measure (particularly relating to the Afforestation Scheme) is the exclusion of the aquatic buffer zone (10-25m) from all types of pesticide application, unless undertaken with the explicit agreement of relevant bodies to achieve specific environmental aims. Similarly, fertiliser (usually phosphorus, but occasionally nitrogen or potassium) should not be applied within the buffer zone or within 20m of an aquatic zone, whichever is greatest, whilst fertilisers should be prepared and securely stored under shelter on a dry, elevated site at least 50 m from the nearest aquatic zone. Applications for aerial fertilisation are assessed by District Inspectors based on iFORIS and an assessment of the silvicultural requirements of the crop and the environmental sensitivities of the site. Screening is applied in relation to SACs and SPAs, following the Forest Service Appropriate Assessment Procedure.

Measure 2: Investments improving the Resilience and Environmental value of Forestry: NeighbourWood Scheme

The proposed NeighbourWood Scheme will provide support for the development of new and existing “close-to-home” woodland or “NeighbourWoods” for public access, education, recreation and enjoyment on land in or near villages, towns and cities. The NeighbourWood Scheme is subject to specific standards and criteria (see below), and requires an explicit management plan. The NeighbourWoods Scheme is aimed primarily at local authorities and private landholders, working in partnership with local communities. Other landholders may be considered on a case-by-case basis. The proposed scheme will provide financial support (on a cost-basis) under three separate elements: A. Silvicultural enhancement of existing amenity forests – total grant of €5,000/ha B. Establishment of new NeighbourWoods – total grant of €5,000/ha C. Installation and upgrade of appropriate recreational facilities within existing or new amenity woodlands – total

grant of €3,800/ha for the first 10ha, and €2,300/ha thereafter (up to 40ha). In order for both public and private entities to be eligible for funding the following criteria apply;

There must be a clear potential for the development of an attractive amenity woodland that will be strategically located, easily accessible and well-used by local people. Relevant factors will include the suitability of location, the level of existing use, attractive features, local interest, linkage with wider walking routes and other amenities, etc.

The project must adhere to good practice regarding amenity woodland design, establishment and management, as set out in Forest Recreation in Ireland: A Guide for Forest Owners and Managers and Amenity Trees and Woodlands: A Guide to their Management in Ireland.

The project must be developed in partnership with the local community and (where relevant) with specific recreational user groups. This partnership must be clearly demonstrated at the application stage.

The woodland must be open to the general public throughout the year. Apart from fees for car parking and other basic services, access must be free-of-charge.

Particular emphasis is to be placed on providing reasonable access-for-all, to enable people of different ages and abilities to use and enjoy the neighbourwood.

Projects funded under the NeighbourWood Scheme are strongly encouraged to adopt and display the seven principles of Leave No Trace, the national outdoor ethics code, on information boards, booklets, websites, etc.

In the case of applications on privately owned land, the applicant must provide a declaration that the amenity will be maintained and access provided for a period of at least 10 years.

A Forest Service Registered Forester is required to prepare the application and to oversee subsequent work. This individual will have experience of working with Forest Service grant schemes and will be aware of the relevant procedures, standards and environmental guidelines.

Due to the focus of most NeighbourWood Scheme projects on native woodland planting or restoration, the NeighbourWood Scheme will be amended to state that such areas will be funded under the NWS Conservation, and that NWS Cons. requirements will apply. Such projects can still apply for NeighbourWood Scheme Element 3 (Facilities) over the entire area. This mechanism does not compromise the target of achieving 10 NeighbourWood Scheme projects per year, but facilities the transfer of a portion of the NeighbourWood Scheme budget to NWS Conservation. A total of 50% of the NeighbourWood Scheme budget has been transferred to NWS Conservation, meaning that up to 10 NeighbourWood projects per year can be funded up to a maximum of €17,500 for non-native woodland work under Element 1 (Enhancement) and Element 2 (Creation), and for Element 3 (Facilities).

The objectives of the Scheme are to:

Provide increased recreational space and associated health benefits to the general public;

Support the creation of new public amenity forests and forest ecosystems;

Support investment in the provision of facilities to encourage greater public use of forests;

Increase the educational function of forests;

Support actions aimed at protecting and enhancing forests and forest ecosystems located close to population centres;

Enhance protection of waterbodies and watercourses adjacent to the proposed woods; and

Encourage increased public participation in outdoor activities.

Indicative Allocation: €1.05m Scheme Targets: 30-60 projects RDR Focus Areas: 4(a) & 5(e)

Measure 3: Investments in Infrastructure: Forest Road Scheme

The Teagasc Forestry Development Unit report (2007) clearly shows the importance of thinnings to forestry revenues. It shows that the NPV of timber revenues is higher for those forestry areas that have had thinnings carried out compared to


Stimulate the mobilisation of roundwood from forests and thereby contribute

Indicative Allocation: €27.6m

9


those that have not. In addition to providing revenue from the sale of the materials obtained from thinning, thinnings also enable the timber to grow better and more productively so that at harvest time the revenues received are greater. In 2012 the National Forest Inventory showed that 23% of the national estate had reached thinning stage but had not been thinned. Grant aided road density will generally be 20m/ha of the area served, not necessarily the area subject to the forest management operation. A maximum of 100% of total costs of building forest roads will be funded subject to the maximum payment of up to €40/m. In order to be eligible for a road grant 20% of the forest must be thinned within three years of receiving the 1st instalment. This will be a condition of receiving the 2nd grant. Forests must also be thinned on time. A Special construction works (SCW) grant is being introduced at a maximum of 50 % of the cost subject to a maximum of €5,000 per application, whichever is the smaller. The objective of this provision is primarily aimed at facilitating the construction of forest roads in environmentally sensitive sites to limit any potential adverse impact from harvesting operations and in particular the potential for sedimentation of any nearby watercourses. Where it is shown that such works do not have a positive environmental benefit, aid will be refused and consent for construction work will be considered without grant aid. SCW may apply for large culverts, permanent bridge and where the forest areas served exceed 5ha. SCW works must be specified, drawn up and supervised by a qualified civil engineer, and must satisfy at least 1 of the following criteria: Crossing required to protect watercourses e.g. fisheries considerations, freshwater pearl mussel; Protection of Natura 2000 sites; Required to prevent siltation and erosion; Environmental benefit to works proposed. All road construction works shall be undertaken in compliance with the Forest Road Manual (COFORD) unless the Forest Service has approved otherwise. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be submitted in respect of any forest road construction project which exceeds 2,000 metres in length. An EIS may also be required for road projects below the 2,000 metre threshold if the Department feels that the project is likely to have a significant environmental effect. It is a basic requirement of this scheme that any infrastructure funded should be open to the public for recreational use without charge. However, such access may be restricted where it is necessary to protect sensitive areas, or where vandalism or dumping is an issue, or to ensure the proper and safe use of the infrastructure. The Forest Road Manual includes practices and guidelines to ensure that all phases in the construction of forest roads are carried out in a manner that is compatible with environmental values and sustainable forest management. Roads funded under the new programme must adhere to these rules. In relation to the protection of water quality specifically, referral procedures similar to those for afforestation are also in place for forest road applications. The referral process is detailed in Chapter 11 ‘Environmental Protection and Controls – Consultation Process’ and Appendix 21 ‘Areas Potentially Sensitive to Fisheries’ of the Forestry Schemes Manual.

to employment and economic activity;

Provide funding for the construction of forest roads and associated infrastructure such as bell-mouths, turn-tables, drains, culverts and bridges;

Improve the economic value and competitiveness of the forest resource;

Provide access for emergency vehicles;

Provide access for equipment and transport vehicles to facilitate harvesting operations;

Increase the forest road infrastructure by constructing in excess of 110km per year thereby servicing up to 34,500 ha of forest area for future clearfelling and thinning operations over the course of the programme;

Thin and clearfell in line with the “All Ireland Roundwood Production Forecast 2011-2028”;

Achieve net realisable volume production of 4.6million m3 per annum by 2020 and 7-8 million m3 by 2028;

Increase the biodiversity value of commercial forests. Forestry and water quality guidelines set out strict operational rules for building roads so that water quality is protected, e.g.

Roads should be located at least 50 m from an aquatic zone, where possible.

Road layout should aim to direct off-road traffic away from streams. If there is no other option but to cross an aquatic zone, construct an appropriate bridge or culvert.

Where possible, roads should follow the natural contours of the terrain.

All ancillary drainage associated with road construction should be designed to divert water away from buffer zones and should not be allowed to discharge directly into aquatic zones. Sediment traps will be necessary. Roadside drains should not directly intercept run-off from higher ground. Cut-off drains should be constructed to a flat gradient at least 5 m back from the upper edge of the road formation, to avoid erosion.

Carry out construction during dry weather, where practical, ideally from April to October.

Scheme Targets:

690 km

600 SCW applications

RDR Focus Areas: 2(a) & 2(b)

Measure 4: Prevention and Restoration of Damage to Forests: Reconstitution Scheme

The purpose of this scheme is to restore and retain forests and forest ecosystems following significant damage by natural causes. Support under Forest Reconstitution would be available to private forest holders only. The scheme would contribute to the costs of restoring forest potential as a result of damage, or potential damage, from disease outbreaks. The scheme would also support the removal and destruction of trees infected by contagious pathogens, or trees likely to be so infected. Support may also be considered towards the restoration of forests damaged by other natural causes, catastrophic events and/or climate change related events, such as frost, deer, grey squirrel and vole, where more than 20% of the forest potential has been damaged. Calculation of the 20% damage threshold will be by area where significant damage has occurred. Significant damage for the purposes of the scheme will mean death or irremediable damage of 20% or more of the trees in the relevant plantation covered by the one contract number or forest block. It will also include the removal of host species for disease such as Rhododendron in the spread of Phytophthora ramorum. Reconstitution measures will include replanting where appropriate, removal of infected material or host species where required. It is also envisaged that the scheme will be tailored to address specific threats and will form part of an integrated pest management control response. A reconstitution scheme currently exists for forests affected by Chalara fraxinea (Ash dieback disease) and it is envisaged that a similar scheme will be developed to deal with forests damaged by Phytophthora ramourm. Grant assistance will be in respect of costs necessarily incurred in the reconstitution of a forest, subject to the maximum limit laid down as follows: €3,000 for conifers; €4,700 for broadleaves. Support shall be to all private forests.


Support the restoration of forest potential arising from damage by natural events and the introduction of protective infrastructure in forests.

Support the development and promotion of forestry through the incorporation of practices that restore, preserve and enhance biodiversity.

Specific objectives are dependent on occurrences of pest and disease outbreaks and other natural occurrences.

Indicative Allocation: €4.67m Scheme Targets: 1,200 ha RDR Focus Areas: 4(a)

10


Environmental issues are similar to those set out under the afforestation and creation of woodland measure.

Measure 5: Investments improving the Resilience and Environmental value of Forestry: Woodland Improvement (Thinning and Tending- Broadleaves)

Element 1: Thinning and Tending - Broadleaves This scheme will provide financial support to forest holders towards the cost of woodland improvement works associated with tending and thinning of broadleaf forests planted since 1980 and enhancing the environmental qualities of existing predominantly broadleaf forests. The aim of Element 1 is to stimulate investment in the improvement, protection and development of broadleaf woodlands and forests for a range of functions, including: healthy tree growth, landscape improvement, biodiversity enhancement, soil protection and water protection. These aims will be achieved through improvement felling of malformed and over mature trees; felling of additional trees to release potential crop trees (PCT); pruning to improve stem quality; thinning or re-spacing to promote growth and management and re-spacing of natural regeneration. A fixed grant of up to €750 per hectare will be available under the Scheme. An additional cost based grant will be available under the Scheme for brashing operations to improve access to forests for manual application of fertiliser, if required, to a maximum of €750 per hectare on a case-by-case basis. Support will be available for the following operations:

Improvement felling of malformed and over mature trees;

Felling of additional trees to release potential crop trees (PCT);

Thinning or re-spacing to promote growth;

Management and re-spacing of natural regeneration;

Clearing buffer areas around sites and monument which may have become overgrown; and

Improving access for manual fertilisation (cost based grant). Element 2: Environmental Enhancement The aim of Element 2 is to support various actions within existing forests, which effect structural changes that will proactively protect and enhance water quality, archaeological sites, habitats and species, sensitive landscapes and other environmental features. A fixed grant of up to €750 per hectare will be available under the Scheme subject to a maximum of €20,000 per application. Support will be available for the following operations:

The installation of silt traps and appropriate blocking of existing forest drains, to protect water quality and aquatic ecosystems and species.

The retro-fitting, reinstatement or enhancement of setbacks and other open areas within existing forests, for environmental reasons. This includes aquatic buffer zones, and archaeological exclusion zones and related access paths and setbacks introduced along prominent forest edges, to soften landscape impact.

Enrichment planting of appropriate species to enhance the delivery of ecosystem services (e.g. the planting of groups of broadleaves and / or diverse conifers along highly visable forest edges for landscaping, or the planting of single or small groups of native riparian species within the aquatic buffer zone, for bank stabilisation and in-stream benefits).

The application of silvicultural treatments (e.g. heavy thinning, ring-barking) to encourage greater ground vegetation cover along aquatic zones well in advance of final clearfell.

Thinning benefits biodiversity by enabling more light to reach the forest floor, contributing to shrub and ground flora abundance. By opening up tree crowns to light, thinning also promotes higher levels of tree seed production which favours natural regeneration systems and close-to-nature silviculture. Early thinning has been shown to improve forest stability and its overall resilience in terms of wind damage and other risk factors. Thinning also improves the vitality of forests allowing them to sequester more carbon. In addition, thinning opens up forest areas for walking and other recreational uses and improve the visual amenity of forests.Similarly, the measure can be used to introduce, reinstate (where overgrown) or increase (where originally too small) the exclusion zone around archaeological features within forests, thereby creating greater separation distance between these features and surrounding forestry operations. Related access tracks can also be created or reinstated. The measure can also be used to diversify artificially-straight or angled forest edges which are prominent in, and negatively impact, the landscape, through the planting of groups of appropriate species (broadleaved and / or diverse conifers) along the forest edge.

The aim of Element 1 of the scheme is to stimulate investment in the improvement, protection and development of young broadleaf forests for a range of functions, including:

Timber production;

Encourage healthy tree growth; and

Landscape enhancement; The aim of Element 2 of the scheme is to enhance the environmental function of existing forests, including:

Soil and water protection;

Protection of archaeological sites, vulnerable habitats and species, and sensitive landscapes; and

Improve biodiversity function. The aim will be to support the environmental enhancement of 1,000 ha of forests each year under the programme.

Indicative Allocation: €6.75m Scheme Targets: 9,000 ha RDR Focus Areas: 4(a)

11


Measure 6: Investments improving the Resilience and environmental value of Forests: Native Woodland Conservation Scheme

The Native Woodland Conservation Scheme will support the protection and enhancement of existing native woodland habitats. The scheme is primarily focused on the application of appropriate restorative management of existing native woodlands, but can also include the conversion of existing non-native woodlands (including conifer forests) to native woodland, on important ecological sites (e.g. conifer forests within the Priority 8 Freshwater Pearl Mussel catchments). A strong priority will be placed on important native woodland types and opportunities for habitat linkage, and on environmentally sensitive areas, with a view to realising wider ecosystem services such as water protection. NWS Conservation operates alongside Native Woodland Establishment GPC 9 &10 (see Measure 1) as parallel components of the overall Native Woodland Scheme package. Eligible operations include the following:

Preparation of a site-specific Native Woodland Plan by a NWS Participating Ecologist and NWS Participating Forester;

Purchase of suitable native planting stock;

Ground preparation, where appropriate (e.g. light scarification to facilitate natural regeneration);

Forest protection (fencing, tree guards and other measures);

Clearance of non-commercial woody growth (where ecologically appropriate) and invasive exotic species such as laurel and rhododendron;

Costs associated with non-commercial tree felling, where appropriate (e.g. tree felling on highly sensitive parts of the site, where alternative, non-conventional techniques are required);

Woodland rejuvenation (including understory and coupe planting, natural regeneration works and filling-in);

Maintenance (including vegetation management);

Woodland edge management;

Maintenance of open spaces, rides and glades;

Re-spacing;

The restoration (subject to limits) of former coppice or coppice-with-standards woodland to active coppice management; and

Other appropriate operations, where agreed in advance with the Forest Service. Under the scheme, between 18% and 20% of the woodland may comprise Areas of Biodiversity Enhancement (ABEs). The scheme aims to support the conservation of suitable areas of 'scrub', which constitutes emergent native woodland. Such sites would have enhanced biodiversity value, having derived from natural regeneration from onsite and local sources. Grant assistance could be available in respect of 100% of the total approved costs incurred, subject to the maximum limit as follows:

Owner type Total grant / ha (€) Annual premiums (€)

Total targets for this scheme

Private land owner Existing 'high forest' woodland

5,000

350 /ha /yr 520 ha

Emergent native woodland

2,500

350 /ha /yr 360 ha

Public land owner 2,500 1,070 ha Annual premiums are available for 7 years at a rate of To private forest owners only and support is subject to ongoing implementation of a Native Woodland Plan. The premium is aimed at maintaining and improving the environmental stability of forests where the protective and ecological role of these forests is of public interest and where the cost of maintenance and improvement measures exceeds the income from these forests. The target is to establish 1,950 ha of NWS Conservation, with a particular focus on the targeted application of the scheme on key native woodland types where ecosystem services in relation to biodiversity and water quality can be maximised, e.g. appropriate restoration management within a SAC-designated woodland, or the conversion of conifer


Restore, conserve and enhance woodland biodiversity, including in Natura 2000 areas;

Enhance the quality and diversity of landscapes;

Aid the development and promotion of forestry through the incorporation of practices that restore, preserve and enhance biodiversity;

Improve water and land management and contribute to meeting the Water Framework Directive objectives;

Protect and sustain Ireland’s native woodland resource and associated biodiversity on a long term basis;

Conserve native genetic biodiversity;

Improve water quality through native riparian woodland development;

Increase Ireland’s native woodland cover to contribute positively towards climate change mitigation;

Promote the use of close to nature forestry and traditional woodland management systems and related woodcrafts;

Contribute to long term carbon sequestration; and

Encourage the use of wood and non-wood products, where compatible with native woodland biodiversity.

Indicative Allocation: €7.26m Scheme Targets: 1,950 ha RDR Focus Areas: 4(a) & 5(e)

12


high forest to native woodland at strategic locations within one of the priority 8 FPM catchments.

Measure 7: Knowledge Transfer and Information Actions

There are four strands under this measure as follows: A. Knowledge Transfer Groups (KTG)

KTGs will each be managed by an accredited facilitator, approved by DAFM, who can either be Teagasc or private professionals; they would need to be trained to a FETAC-accredited standard in order to operate a group. The group should however have access to a registered forester when required. The aim of this scheme will be to maximise the potential for knowledge and skill transfer to forest owners, thereby stimulating proactive management and appropriate tending, thinning and harvesting interventions. The Scheme will focus primarily on 5 areas: silviculture; financial management; forest health; environmental awareness to include water quality and biodiversity; and finally timber harvesting/marketing. In the initial year, all participants will be required to complete a Going Forward Action Plan. Facilitators will be required to ensure that all members of KTG’s participate fully in the Programme.

B. Continued Professional Development (CPD) Support will be provided for the organisation of a formal continuous professional development structure. This will involve putting in place a process of certification whereby individuals can submit a record of forestry training, seminars or field visits attended during the year. These records will then be accessed by the CPD body who will evaluate the training undertaken and decide whether the training merits the award of CPD certification. The scheme is not restricted by number or membership of any organisation. The CPD certification will be voluntary. The advantage of this scheme for individuals operating in the field of forestry is that they will be able to present themselves as being CPD certified..

C. Targeted Training Training for private forest holders, professional foresters and forest machine operatives. For private forest holders the main focus would be on forest management while training for machine operators would include harvesting and forwarding. Health and safety, environmental legislation\ guidelines, forestry scheme rules and conditions, silvicultural requirements, new FMP format, continuous cover forestry, native woodlands training, as well as forest health could all feature as part of any potential training programme for forestry. This support could also include provisions for training courses around forestry schemes, procedures, guidelines and environmental directives.

D. Advisory Services Support for advisory services will be targeted at individual forest holders and farmers. Advisory services will be delivered in the form of clinics, field days, information meetings, workshops, events such as “Talking Timber” and conferences. Advisors will need to have the appropriate qualifications and skills to undertake this role. The cost per advice will be limited to €1,500.

This measure will provide opportunities for environmentally focus topics for discussion, training and advice. For example advisory service will include advice to forest holders on the relevant obligations under the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive and the Water Framework Directive. There are possibilities for combining this measure with the Producer Groups and Innovative Forestry Technology measures.

Objectives for these schemes include:

Maximise the potential for knowledge and skill transfer to forest owners;

Allow forest holders to enhance their competitiveness and resource efficiency and improve their environmental performance while at the same time contributing to the sustainability of the rural economy.

Bring innovators and researchers together with forest holders to look at the specific topics of interest and concern.

Establish a CPD certification structure for all registered foresters;

Ensure that there are sufficient numbers of adequately trained harvesting (including chainsaw) and forwarding operatives;

Ensure that thinning takes place on time, roundwood production targets are reached, new format of draft FMP proposed being submitted, minimal accidents in forest operations, and reduced pilot cases from the EU re. breaches of habitats directive.

Ensure that the appropriate support is available to forest holders to enable the maximum financial return to be generated from the forest resource in a sustainable manner consistent with legislation and guidelines.

Indicative Allocation: €9m (includes Measure 8) Scheme Targets: Fund 1,000 forest holders per year RDR Focus Areas: 1(a), (b) & (c)

Measure 8: Setting up of Producer Groups

Financial support will be provided towards the cost of establishing forest producer groups in a manner consistent with rules set out in the RDR. A specific objective of the scheme would be to increase the number of new producer groups over the programme period. The objective set for this target is 13. Funding is limited to start ups only. Beneficiaries would need to submit a detailed business plan providing a description of the project, including objectives, timelines and projected expenditure. Aid is limited to a maximum of €500,000 per group and may not be granted for the start-up of new producer groups or producer organisations in a geographical area where, in the opinion of the Competent Authority, the objectives of the business plan submitted by the new producer group or producer organisation are already being fulfilled by an established producer group or producer organisation operating in that geographical area. Producer groups can help reduce the impacts of road building and harvesting on soil and neighbouring water courses by coordinating these activities within a producer group structure. These will minimise the impacts on the environment by ensuring that activities are planned in a coordinated fashion, lessening the amount of traffic and disturbance that might

Broad objectives under this measure would include the following;

Encourage private forest holders to management their forest jointly on a geographical basis;

Create economies of scale to reduce management and marketing costs and improve the viability of private forests;

Increased viability will encourage holders to actively manage their forests;

Increase knowledge transfer between forest holders and registered foresters particularly to ensure that their operations protect and enhance the environment;

Bring more privately owned timber resource to the market;

Increase thinning rates will maximise the quality and value of the final harvest;

Help ensure a constant supply of quality timber to sawmills and processors;

Indicative Allocation: see Measure 7 Scheme Targets: Create 13 new groups over the programming period RDR Focus Areas: 3(a)

13


occur if forest owners operated independently from one another. and

Promote the use of cooperative road construction between multiple forest owners.

Measure 9: Innovative Forest Technology

Grants of up to 40% of eligible expenditure could be made available under this measure. Projects eligible for support will be determined by competitive selection process under a Call for Proposals. Applicants will be required to submit a detailed business plan providing a description of the project, including the objectives of the project, timelines and projected expenditure. A final report on the outcome of the project will also be required. The type of technologies envisaged are not harvesting machines themselves but could relate to harvesting technology in general. What is envisaged is support for smaller scale technologies which are applicable to private forest holders, producer groups, forest contractors and haulage operators. For example consideration may be given to aid variable tyre pressure systems to enable access to forests on low quality roads where haulage operators have to access multiple forest properties. Forest inventory technologies could also be considered where such technologies are innovative and show potential to provide low costs option to private forest holders for assessing the value and productivity of their forest holdings. In order to be eligible for support for this scheme, proposals should ensure (e.g. in the business plan from the applicant) that the investments will contribute to the improvement of the economic value of forests in one or more holdings. In the case of machinery for example, it has to be ensured that they will be used efficiently. Approximately 20-30 projects will be funded per annum

Support for the introduction of new technologies for use in private forests has the potential to reduce management costs and improve accuracy in terms of forest management outputs. Objectives could be measured by the number of new technologies adopted by forest holders, producer groups and contracting companies.

Indicative Allocation: €0.9m Scheme Targets: 180 projects funded RDR Focus Areas: 5(e)

Measure 10: Forest Environment and Climate Services: Forest Genetic Reproductive Material

The scheme will provide funding towards the costs related to the following: A. Management and conservation of broadleaf seed stands; and B. Establishment of new production areas such as seed orchards (including broadleaf and conifer). In relation to a) above eligible costs will include provision for access paths, fencing, control of ground vegetation and thinning to open up crowns for greater levels of seed production. Funding is therefore not based on actual seed production (by weight) but on the basis of the area of an existing seed stand which is already registered but not in production. Costs may also include income forgone. A payment of up to €1,500 per seed stand paid on the basis of invoices received up to 2020 or so long as the area is registered as a seed stand, i.e. for a maximum of 6 years, whichever is the lesser. The aim of this work will be to get the seed stands back into production. The target group will be forest holders and nurseries. The establishment of new seed orchards (clonal and seedling) will also be supported under this scheme for both conifer and broadleaves. The rules governing the granting of this aid will be based on Measure 1: Afforestation and Creation of Woodlands. The scheme will be cost based with funding provided up to a maximum of 50% of the cost of establishment. An annual maintenance payment will be available for 10 years at a rate of €500/annum. Support for both seed stands and seed orchards will depend on the level of seed production, the quality of seed produced and the demand for seed of particular species. 30 ha is the maximum area eligible for both seed stands and orchards. The level of support will be €200/ha per annum up to 2020. For seed stands or seed orchards forest management plan must be presented prior to funding under this measure. Public and private forest-holders will be eligible for support. Environmental benefits delivered by this measure can be summarised as:

Sourcing plants derived from locally produced seed will reduce the risk of disease occurrences caused by imported plants. The Chalara fraxinia outbreak was linked to imported plants;

Plants produced from local seed sources are more suited to the local climate and are therefore more resilient to events associated with climate change;

Seed stands and seed orchards can produce superior plants and forests, sequestering more carbon and producing more timber which in turn can be used to displace more fossil fuel;

Establishing seed orchards can be used as a continuation of existing seed or clonal research and therefore bring to fruition research carried out on resilience, productivity and wood quality.

The primary objectives are to increase productivity and improve the quality of new planting stock; increase self-sufficiency in tree seed production; provide for in-situ and ex-situ conservation of forest genetic resources; and provide breeding populations of designated broadleaf and conifer species (e.g. alder, birch, oak, sycamore, Scots pine, Sitka spruce).

Indicative Allocation: €0.42m Scheme Targets: 2,100 ha supported RDR Focus Areas: 4(a)

14


Measure 11: Forest Management Plans

The Management Plan provides details on the future management of the forest detailing information such as a stocking assessment, nutrient assessment, average height and yield class, planting year, and the projected years for first thinning(s) and clearfell for each plot. The plan will also set out relevant measures regarding the protection and enhancement of the wider environment, primarily based on any environmental conditions attached to approval, but also incorporating, where possible, readily-achievable measures which can deliver additional environmental benefits. Historical sites and monuments along with other environmental designations should also be recorded in the FMP. The plan must be prepared by a forester registered with the Department following a field assessment to record and update data relating to species, areas, plot boundaries and any associated changes, on a certified species map. FMPs must adhere to the principles of sustainable forest management. All grant-aided forests must submit a Forest Management Plan for both broadleaf or conifer plantations at year 12 for areas of 5 hectares or greater. The midterm review or earlier if budgets allow, will look at supporting private non grant aided forest as well.. This might happen when the online Forest Management Plan IFORIS module has been developed.

The aim of this scheme is to encourage the submission of FMPs for all forests over 5ha when the plantation reaches 12years. There is a need to encourage all forest owners to develop these plans, particularly in support of felling licence applications where appropriate. With the right management, forests can produce a range of services and products (wood and non-wood forest products) in a way that is sustainable. FMP’s are an important tool in helping to achieve sustainable forest management.

Indicative Allocation: €1.8m Scheme Targets: 6,000 plans RDR Focus Areas: 4(a) & 5(a)

15

1.4. Identifying Areas Suitable for Forestry

1.4.1. As set out in Table 1.1 above regarding Measure 1 (Afforestation and Creation of

Woodlands) decisions regarding the suitability of sites for afforestation will be

supported by the Indicative Forest Statement (IFS) for Ireland. The IFS is a map-

based approach which integrates many different spatial datasets which take

account of a wide range of environmental factors and other opportunities and

constraints. The aim of the IFS is to provide high-level, national guidance in relation

to the suitability of land for afforestation.

1.4.2. The end-product, the IFS Category map, has been produced by compiling,

reclassifying and overlaying the map layers in a Geographic Information System

(GIS). This is a comprehensive overview of all the opportunities and constraints

which exist for forestry in Ireland, at a national level, with GIS layers including

Natura 2000 sites, Natural Heritage Areas, Reserves, National Parks, soils data,

water bodies, fisheries sensitive areas, acid sensitive areas, and landscape

sensitivity.

1.4.3. Four broad IFS categories have been drawn up to identify opportunity and

constraint areas for forest development. They are described as:

Category 1 - Suitable for a range of forest types;

Category 2 - Suitable for certain types of forest development;

Category 3 - Suitable, where appropriate, for nature conservation and/or

amenity forests; and

Category 4 - Unsuitable, unproductive or unplantable areas.

1.4.4. Each category has been identified on the basis of the presence (or absence) of

specific landscape and environmental characteristics and each category may

result in consultation with one or more prescribed bodies and appropriate

assessment when located inside a Natura 2000 area (Category 3). Table 1.2 below

describes these categories and the resulting consultation process; the IFS Map

output is shown in Figure 1.1 below.

16

Table 1.2: IFS categories

Category Description Proportion of Land Cover

Environmental Designations Applications Process

Category 1 “Suitable for a range of forest types”

Areas identified as being the most suitable for future forest development, where no environmental designations exist and where soil types indicate that trees will grow satisfactorily.

38% Area with no environmental constraints. Forest Service Inspection Procedure

Adherence to the Code of Best Forest Practice, Forestry Schemes Manual and Forest Service Environmental Guidelines.

Public notification via DAFM website

Consult with DAHG if archaeological records of monuments and places are recorded or discovered.

Consult with Local Authority in areas of 25 ha or more.

Full EIA screening procedure (EIA at discretion of Forest Service - mandatory on areas of 50 ha or more).

Category 2 “Suitable for certain types of forest development”

Areas where at least one environmental designation (such as a fisheries sensitive areas) exist. For more details on the consultation system associated with specific environmental designations see Table 1.3.

27% Acid sensitive areas.

Areas sensitive for fisheries.

Catchment areas of local authority water schemes.

REPs areas.

Areas of moderate landscape sensitivity.

Process as for Category 1, plus: consultation with relevant authority (such as Inland Fisheries Ireland, National Parks and Wildlife Service, An Taisce, Local Authority).

Category 3 “Suitable, where appropriate, for nature conservation and/or amenity forests“

Areas where environmental designations (such as Special Areas of Conservation) exist. For more details on the consultation system associated with specific environmental designations

20% pNHAs, SACs, SPAs and National Parks.

Archaeological sites or monuments with intensive public use.

Areas of high landscape sensitivity identified in county development plans or listed in the Inventory of Outstanding Landscapes.

- Process as for Category 2, plus: formal public consultation by way of newspaper advertisement.

17

Category Description Proportion of Land Cover

Environmental Designations Applications Process

see Table 1.3.

Category 4 “Unsuitable, unproductive or unplantable”

Areas where it is considered that trees are unlikely to grow satisfactorily including soil fertility, exposure etc. These areas also include unplantable areas i.e. waterbodies, urban areas and areas of existing forest. Applications for new forest development may be submitted to the Forest Service for consideration where a Registered Forester certifies that the site is suitable for growing trees.

15% N/A N/A

18

Figure 1.1: IFS map identifying areas suitable for forestry

19

Table 1.3: Environmental protection and consultation controls process

Environmental Consideration Afforestation Scheme (public consultation required)

Referral for Other Schemes (public consultation required for forest roads)

Referral Body Maximum Referral Period

Forest Roads Scheme

Woodland Improvement Scheme

Water Quality

Is the area designated potentially acid sensitive by the Forest Service?

Subject to protocol which specifies consultation with the EPA in specified cases.

N/A N/A

Is the area > 5 ha and sensitive for fisheries?

Regional Fisheries Board

4 weeks 4 weeks N/A

Is the area non-sensitive for fisheries and > 40 ha?

Regional Fisheries Board

4 weeks N/A N/A

Is the area >10 ha and within a catchment area of a Local Authority designated water scheme?

Local Authority 4 weeks N/A N/A

Designated Habitats

Is the area within a pNHA, NHA, cSAC, SAC, pSPA, SPA or National Park?

NPWS, An Taisce

2 months 2 months N/A

Is the area within 3km upstream of a pNHA, NHA, cSAC, SAC, pSPA, SPA or National Park?

NPWS 2 months 2 months N/A

Does the area contain a current REPS plan habitat?

DAFM 4 weeks N/A N/A

Archaeology

Does the area contain an archaeological site or feature with intensive public usage?

DAHG An Taisce

2 months 2 months N/A

Does the area contain or adjoin a listed archaeological site or monument?

DAHG 2 months 2 months N/A

Landscape

Is the area within a prime scenic area in the County Development Plan?

Local Authority, Fáilte Ireland An Taisce

4 weeks 4 weeks (Local Authority)

N/A

Area there any other high Amenity Landscape considerations?

Local Authority 4 weeks N/A N/A

Size

Is the area greater than 25 ha? Local Authority 4 weeks N/A N/A

Other Environmental Considerations

TBC As necessary 4 weeks where necessary

4 weeks where necessary

N/A

20

1.5. Characterisation of the FP Area

1.5.1. The geographical area of the FP covers the whole of the Republic of Ireland.

Currently, forest cover in Ireland is 10.7%, making it, along with Malta and the

Netherlands, one of the least wooded countries in the EU-27, where the average

forest cover is 37%.

1.5.2. Table 1.4 below provides statistics on the land area, population size and population

density of Ireland’s counties and NUTS3 Regions, as well as for Ireland as a whole.

Table 1.4: Area and Population of Irish Cities, Counties and Regions

City, County or Region Area (km2) Population (2011)

Population Density (people/km2)

Border Region (IE011) 12,346 514,891 42

County Cavan 1,932 73,183 38

County Donegal 4,860 161,137 33

County Leitrim 1,589 31,798 20

County Louth 832 122,897 148

County Monaghan 1,296 60,483 47

County Sligo 1,837 65,393 36

Midlands Region (IE012) 6,625 282,410 43

County Laois 1,719 80,559 47

County Longford 1,091 39,000 36

County Offaly 1,990 76,687 39

County Westmeath 1,825 86,164 47

West Region (IE013) 14,287 445,356 31

Galway City 51 75,529 1,494

County Galway 6,100 175,124 29

County Mayo 5,588 130,638 23

County Roscommon 2,548 64,065 25

Dublin Region (IE021) 921 1,273,069 1,383

Dublin City 118 527,612 4,486

County Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown

127 206,261 1,625

County Fingal 453 273,991 605

County South Dublin 223 265,205 1,189

Mid-East Region (IE022) 6,061 531,087 88

County Kildare 1,694 210,312 124

County Meath 2,335 184,135 79

County Wicklow 2,033 136,640 67

21

Mid-West Region (IE023) 8,249 379,327 46

County Clare 3,442 117,196 34

Limerick City 20 57,106 2,806

County Limerick 2,740 134,703 49

County North Tipperary 2,046 70,322 34

South-East Region (IE024) 9,452 497,578 53

County Carlow 898 54,612 61

County Kilkenny 2,072 95,419 46

County South Tipperary 2,258 88,432 39

Waterford City 42 46,732 1,124

County Waterford 1,817 67,063 37

County Wexford 2,365 145,320 61

South-West Region (IE025) 12,242 664,534 54

Cork City 40 119,230 3,010

County Cork 7,468 399,802 54

County Kerry 4,735 145,502 31

Republic of Ireland 70,182 4,588,252 60

1.5.3. There are a number of nature conservation, landscape and cultural heritage

designations in Ireland. These are designated as either statutory (protected by law)

or non-statutory (a material planning consideration), and can be of international,

national or local importance. Information on local and/or non-statutory designations

is held by National Monuments Service (DAHG) and has not been obtained for this

strategic level assessment.

1.5.4. The number of statutory nature conservation, landscape and cultural heritage

designated sites in Ireland and its 8 regions are provided in Table 1.5 below. These

have been obtained directly from various GIS data sets and Region-specific data

may contain duplications where designations cross boundaries. Additional

information on what these designations mean is provided in Chapter 3. It should

be noted that there is significant overlap between designations, e.g. most SACs

and SPAs are also designated as pNHAs.

22

Table 1.5: Designated Sites in Ireland

Border Region

Midland Region

Western Region

Dublin Region

Mid-East Region

Mid-West Region

South-East

Region

South-West

Region

Ireland Total

Special Protection Areas (SPA)

46 20 37 8 7 15 15 27 154

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)

80 44 145 12 26 59 35 51 423

Ramsar sites 9 9 8 5 1 1 6 6 45

Natural Heritage Areas (NHA)

26 23 60 29 5 30 2 15 148

Proposed NHAs 206 120 212 0 80 120 142 160 630

National Nature Reserves (NNR) 9 7 14 2 7 6 7 19 78

National Parks 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 6

World Heritage Sites 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

Recorded Monuments 17,618 12,374 26,166 2,582 8,200 18,566 11,937 30,303 120,000

National Monuments and National Historic Properties with dedicated access3

10 5 13 8 13 9 17 12 87

3 Although the remainder of the 741 National Monuments do not have specific visitor facilities, many are still accessible to the public. This includes those Recorded Monuments which are also National Monuments on the Coillte estate. There are over 1,370 Recorded Monuments on the Coillte estate.

23

2. SEA FRAMEWORK AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

2.1. Best Practice Guidance

2.1.1. Our SEA approach takes into account the procedures provided under the following

guidance documents:

European Commission (2003) Implementation of SEA Directive

(2001/42/EC): Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes

on the Environment;

Government of Ireland (2004) Implementation of SEA Directive

(2001/42/EC): Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes

on the Environment Guidelines for Regional Authorities and Planning

Authorities;

Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (2011)

Strategic Environmental Assessment – Best Practice Guidance Note on

Transboundary Consultation and Land Use Plans;

Environment Protection Agency (2013) SEA Pack;

Environment Protection Agency (2013) Integrated Biodiversity Impact

Assessment Methodology;

ODPM, Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and Department of

Environment (2005) A Practical Guide to the Strategic Environmental

Assessment Directive;

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2012) Resource Manual

to Support Application of the Protocol on Strategic Environmental

Assessment.

Cooper, L.M. (2004) Guidelines for Cumulative Effects Assessment in SEA

of Plans (Imperial College London);

Collingwood, LUC, Levett-Therivel, Scott Wilson, TEC and C4S (2006)

Working with the SEA Directive: Do’s and Don’ts Guide to generating and

developing alternatives;

Department of Health (2007) Draft Guidance on Health in Strategic

Environmental Assessment;

Levett-Therivel, Environment Agency, Countryside Council for Wales,

24

UKCIP, Natural England, InteREAM, and CAG Consultants (2007) Strategic

Environmental Assessment and Climate Change: Guidance for Practitioners;

Levett-Therivel (2011) Best Practice Note on Strategic Environmental

Assessment of Forestry Strategies. Preliminary Working Draft for

Environmental Protection Agency;

Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature, Environment Agency and

RSPB (2004) Strategic Environmental Assessment and Biodiversity:

Guidance for Practitioners; and

SNIFFER (online) Strategic Environmental Assessment Guidance on Air,

Water and Soil.

2.1.2. To ensure this SEA follows best practice and adds real value to the FP, we shall

also draw on the following relevant documents:

Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Review of Effectiveness of SEA in

Ireland Key Findings & Recommendations;

Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Ireland’s Environment 2012 – An

Assessment;

Bullock et al (2008) The Economic and Social Aspects of Biodiversity:

Benefits and Costs of Biodiversity in Ireland. (Report to DEHLG);

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008) Strategic

Environmental Assessment and Ecosystem Services;

Partidario, M.R. and Gomes, R.C. (2013) Ecosystem services inclusive

strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment

Review;

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) The Ecosystem

Approach (CBD Guidelines), Montreal; and

White, S., Simmons, B. and ten Brink, P. (2009) ‘Integrating ecosystem and

biodiversity values into policy assessment’ in TEEB (2009) The Economics

of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers.

25

2.2. The SEA Process

2.2.1. In common with other SEA guidance documents from the UK and Europe as listed

above, the SEA guide produced by the Government of Ireland in 2004 sets out a

multi stage process for carrying out SEA. The stages from these various guidance

documents have been amalgamated in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1: Stages in the SEA Process

Stage Tasks

Pre-review If SEA is not mandatory, screen for possible significant environmental effects

Stage A: Setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope

Step 1: Describe briefly the statutory purpose, geographic area, population, and timeframe of the plan, and its relationship (both vertical and horizontal) with other plans/programmes.

Step 2: Summarise the main findings of the survey and analysis stage.

Step 3: Describe in general terms the current state of the physical environment of the area, with particular reference to (a) areas of environmental importance (such as protected sites); and (b) areas experiencing environmental problems (such as waste, or air or water pollution) at present. Describe how that environment would be likely to evolve on the basis of current development trends but no change in current policies.

Step 4: Define (a) broad planning policy objectives for the area based on Steps 1 and 2; and (b) relevant environmental policy objectives for the area taking account of national policy and any relevant international legal obligations (e.g. EU Directives).

Initial public consultation

Consult the Consultation Bodies on the scope of the SEA.

Stage B: Developing and refining alternatives and assessing effects

Step 5: Identify a number of reasonable alternative development strategies for the area which are capable of fulfilling the policy objectives established in Step 4.

Step 6: Evaluate these alternative strategies against the chosen planning and environmental policy objectives (step 4), with a view to establishing the most sustainable option.

Step 7: Select the preferred strategy (which may combine elements of different strategies), stating reasons for the choice, and work it up with detailed policy objectives.

Step 8: Carry out an environmental assessment of the preferred strategy to determine whether implementation would be likely to cause any significant effects on the environment (in particular, the aspects listed in Annex I of the SEA Directive, such as biodiversity, air, cultural heritage, etc.).

Stage C: Preparing the Environmental Report

Step 9: Modify the preferred strategy to eliminate, reduce or offset any significant adverse effects, as appropriate.

Step 10: Propose monitoring measures in relation to any likely significant environmental impacts.

Step 11: Prepare a non-technical summary.

Stage D: Consulting on the draft plan or programme and the Environmental Report

Consult the public and Consultation Bodies on the draft plan or programme and the Environmental Report.

Assess significant changes.

Make decisions and provide information.

26

Stage Tasks

Stage E: Monitoring the significant effects of implementing the plan or programme on the environment

Develop aims and methods for monitoring.

Respond to adverse effects.

2.2.2. This Environmental Report is the main output of Stage D of the SEA process

presented above, incorporating Stages B and C. Chapter 8 discusses in more

detail the subsequent stages and outputs of the SEA process.

2.3. Links with Appropriate Assessment

2.3.1. Under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, an appropriate assessment (AA) is

required where a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect upon a

European site, either individually or in-combination with other projects. The

purpose of AA is to protect sites designated as Special Areas of Conservation

(SACs) and Special Protection Areas (SPAs) – collectively known as Natura 2000

sites – including maintaining the integrity of the internationally important species

and habitats for which they were designated.

2.3.2. There are clear links and analogies between AA of plans and SEA. They are

parallel but separate processes that commonly overlap but also differ in some key

respects. AA is narrower in focus and requires more rigorous tests, with the

conservation and protection of Natura 2000 sites at its core. Nonetheless both SEA

and AA contribute to the integration of environmental considerations in the

adoption of a plan and promote sustainable development.

2.3.3. The three main inter-relationships between AA and SEA are:

AA is a tool that assists in addressing environmental issues as part of the

SEA in relation to Natura 2000 sites;

AA assists the SEA process in the systematic and explicit appraisal of

alternatives in relation to Natura 2000 sites; and

Undertaking AA in parallel with SEA provides for an efficient use of resources

and expertise. Both processes benefit each other’s findings.

2.3.4. AA is being carried out alongside the SEA of the FP. The results of the AA process

are summarised in Section 6.3 of this report and can be read in full in the Natura

Impact Statement (ADAS, 2014).

27

2.4. Sustainability Topics and SEA Objectives

2.4.1. The baseline data, key environmental issues and SEA Objectives have been

presented through a series of sustainability topics derived from Annex I(f) of the

SEA Directive, namely: biodiversity, flora and fauna; population; human health;

soil; water; air; climatic factors; material assets; cultural heritage (including

architectural and archaeological heritage); landscape; and the inter-relationship

between these.

2.4.2. In order to address recently highlighted concerns on the effects that human

activities have had on the world’s ecosystems, and on the public benefits that

ecosystems provide, we have included an additional sustainability topic “Green

Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services” as part of our ecosystem approach to this

SEA. This topic also considers the interrelationships between the topics set out in

the SEA Directive.

2.4.3. Comhar - the Sustainable Development Council (SDC), in its 2010 publication –

“Green Infrastructure for Ireland: Enhancing natural capital for human wellbeing,

for working purposes”, defined green infrastructure as “a strategically planned and

managed network featuring areas with high quality biodiversity (uplands, wetlands,

peatlands, rivers and coast), farmed and wooded lands and other green spaces

that conserve ecosystem values which provide essential services to society.”

2.4.4. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) defined ecosystem services

(ES) as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems”. Classification of ES follows

the four category system developed in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,

which includes provisioning (e.g. food, fibre, and fuel), regulating, (e.g. climate

regulation, air and water purification), cultural (e.g. recreation and aesthetic

appreciation) and supporting services (e.g. habitat provision and pollination).

2.4.5. The SEA Objectives against which the FP measures and schemes have been

assessed are detailed in Table 2.2 below.

Table 2.2: SEA Objectives

SEA Objective Sub-objective (Will the FP…?)

1. Ecology and Nature Conservation – Protect, enhance and manage biodiversity assets

a. Maintain and enhance internationally and nationally designated sites (including SACs, SPAs, and their conservation objectives (general or site-specific), NHAs, proposed NHAs, Nature Reserves)

b. Maintain and enhance locally designated sites (including those identified as locally important biodiversity areas within Local Biodiversity Action Plans and County Development Plans)

28


and ecosystems c. Maintain or restore protected habitats to favourable conservation status (particularly old oak woodlands, residual alluvial woodlands, yew woodlands, bog woodlands, active and degraded raised bogs, blanket bogs, transition mires, calcareous fens, species-rich Nardus grasslands, Molinia meadows, wet and dry heaths, and freshwater habitats)

d. Maintain or restore protected species to favourable conservation status for Natura 2000 species or equivalent status for nationally protected species (particularly the Freshwater Pearl Mussel, Marsh Fritillary, Kerry slug, Desmoulin’s Whorl snail, Brook and River lamprey, Atlantic salmon, bat species, Otter, Pine Marten, Slender Naiad, Coregonas Pollan, Hen Harrier, Merlin, Peregrine, Corncrake, Curlew and Nightjar)

e. Restore or enhance wider habitats and populations of species under the public body Duty to Conserve Biodiversity

f. Maintain and enhance the amount, variety and quality of ecosystems (including features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild flora and fauna, such as those with a “stepping stone” and ecological corridors function)

g. Prevent, minimise or address the spread of invasive species

h. Integrate biodiversity and ecosystem services into land use planning policy

2. Socio-Economics – Reduce deprivation and improve social cohesion of the community

a. Improve accessibility to education, employment and community facilities/services

b. Reduce deprivation and inequality

c. Improve social cohesion and inclusion

d. Ensuring regional policy ensures sustainable employment

3. Health and Quality of Life – Improve health and quality of life

a. Improve long-term health and wellbeing

b. Encourage walking, cycling and other physical activity

c. Facilitate access to the natural environment or urban greenspace

c. Reduce health deprivation

d. Minimise the number of people and species exposed to and levels of noise and vibration pollution

e. Improve the quality of living, working and recreational environments

4. Soil and Land Use – Protect and enhance soil quality

a. Safeguard and improve the highest quality soil and agricultural land

b. Reduce soil pollution, degradation and erosion

c. Encourage local production of food and renewable fuel

e. Prioritise use of land previously used for similar purposes

f. Remediate contaminated land

g. Improve carbon storage and water attenuation

h. Safeguard geology (including designated sites)

5. Water – Protect, enhance and manage water resources and flood risk

a. Protect water resources from pollution

b. Improve the quality of surface water, groundwater and the sea (particularly in Freshwater Pearl Mussel priority catchments)

c. Protect and enhance the status of aquatic and wetland ecosystems

d. Minimise exposure to flood risk and droughts

6. Air Quality – Reduce air pollution and ensure continued improvements to air quality

a. Improve air quality

b. Reduce the need to travel

7. Climate Change – Minimise

a. Improve energy conservation and energy efficiency

29


contribution to climate change and adapt to its predicted effects

b. Encourage use of renewable energy to support a low carbon economy and efforts to meet the targets of the Kyoto Protocol, the EU Renewable Energy Directive, and the Energy Services Directive

c. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions

d. Encourage land management that protects and captures carbon, particularly from peatlands and forests

e. Minimise vulnerability of the natural and built environment and improve its resilience to the impacts of climate change

8. Material Assets – Conserve natural resources and reduce waste production

a. Safeguard natural resources (including minerals and peatland) and minimise unsustainable use

b. Increase recycling rates and re-use of materials

c. Minimise production of waste and quantity sent to landfill

d. Maximise opportunities for ecological restoration of redundant mineral sites.

9. Cultural Heritage and Archaeology – Protect, enhance and manage archaeological and cultural heritage

a. Preserve and enhance designated and non-designated built heritage

b. Preserve and enhance designated and non-designated archaeological sites, monuments and areas

c. Preserve and enhance the settings of archaeological sites and monuments, and architectural assets

d. Provide protection for World Heritage Sites and their settings, as well as for the tentative list of seven properties and groups of properties which the Minister of Arts, Heritage, and the Gaeltacht intends to consider for nomination to the World Heritage List.

10. Landscape – Protect, enhance and manage the character and quality of the landscape

a. Maintain and enhance the quality and character of landscape

b. Maintain and enhance designated sites

c. Create, maintain and enhance (public) green infrastructure assets

d. Improve visual aesthetics

11. Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services

a. Preserve and enhance the ability of an area to provide ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration

b. Encourage multifunctionality of greenspace to provide numerous ecosystem services simultaneously

c. Encourage biophysical changes such as restoration of degraded land and enhanced connectivity of habitats and greenspace

d. Strengthen positive natural connections and interactions between different areas and regions

e. Encourage cultural and outdoor recreational tourism that is landscape and nature based

f. Improve knowledge and understanding of and connection with the natural environment

g. Include biodiversity value in land use and sectoral policy development

2.5. Ecosystem Approach

2.5.1. An ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism

communities and the non-living environment, interacting as a functional unit;

humans are an integral part of ecosystems. Ecosystem services are defined as

goods and services provided by the natural environment that benefit people. These

30

include:

Provisioning services – the products obtained from ecosystems, such as food

and water;

Regulating services – the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem

processes, such as flood and disease control; and

Cultural services – the non-material benefits people obtain from ecosystems,

such as spiritual, recreational and aesthetic benefits.

Supporting services – necessary for the production of all other ecosystem

services (these are intermediate services rather than final services, and are

increasingly being excluded from ecosystem services valuation so as to avoid

the problem of ‘double counting’.)

2.5.2. In 2000, the United Nations requested an investigation into the consequences of

ecosystem change for human well-being. Carried out from 2001 to 2005, the

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) comprehensively demonstrated

the importance of ecosystems and the services that they provide to human well-

being, and found that, at a global scale, many of these services are being degraded

or lost.

2.5.3. Identifying the condition of ecosystems, the provision of services and their relation

to human well-being requires an integrated approach. The most widely-used

definition of an ecosystem approach, from the Convention on Biological Diversity,

is:

“a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that

promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way… humans, with

their cultural diversity, are an integral component of many ecosystems”.

2.5.4. At a national or regional scale, this enables decision makers to determine which

ecosystem services are valued most highly and how to ensure that society can

maintain a healthy and resilient natural environment now and for future

generations. This can then be carried out through land use planning at the local

level.

2.5.5. Ecosystem services that are specifically provided by forests are detailed in Table

2.3 below. The table includes goods that are derived from these services, including

‘market goods’ (those formally traded in markets e.g. timber) and ‘non-market

31

goods’ (those which are un-priced such as recreation and amenity benefits). The

table is based upon an amalgamation of those produced by the World Resources

Institute (2003), Eftec (2011) and DG Environment (2014). Where appropriate, the

final services resulting from supporting services are included as provisioning or

regulating services.

Table 2.3: Forest Ecosystem Services

Service Definition Examples of goods and services

Provisioning Services

Food This includes the vast range of food products derived from plants, animals, and microbes.

Wild plants and animals, e.g. mushrooms, nuts, game (e.g. birds, venison) and berries.

Fibre

Products made from trees harvested from natural forests, plantations, or non-forested lands, and other materials extracted from the natural environment.

Timber, resin, cork, paper, other wood products.

Fuel and biomass-based energy sources

Biological material derived from living or recently living organisms - both plant and animal - that serves as a source of energy, as well as energy occurring through photosynthesis.

Wood, charcoal and plant-based resources.

Fresh water Inland bodies of water, groundwater, rainwater, and surface waters may be present in forests.

Freshwater for household, industrial, and agricultural uses.

Genetic resources and biochemicals

This includes the genetic information used for animal and plant breeding and biotechnology, along with medicines, biocides, food additives, and other biological materials derived from ecosystems for commercial or domestic use.

Genes used to increase crop resistance, ginseng, garlic, paclitaxel as basis for cancer drugs, tree extracts used for pest control.

Regulating Services

Waste treatment

Bioremediation of waste i.e. removal of pollutants through storage, dilution, transformation and burial may occur within forests.

Soil microbes degrade organic waste, rendering it less harmful. Decomposition of organic matter contributes to soil fertility.

Water regulation

Water cycles through ecosystems – the timing and magnitude of runoff, flooding, and aquifer recharge can be strongly influenced by changes in land cover that affect the water storage potential.

Woodlands, wetlands and floodplains maintain the hydrological regime and reduce runoff, whilst permeable soil facilitates aquifer recharge.

Water purification

Ecosystems can be a source of impurities in water, but can also help to filter out and decompose organic wastes and pollutants introduced into inland waters and coastal and marine ecosystems.

Trees, other vegetation and wetlands can remove harmful pollutants from water by trapping metals and organic materials.

Air quality maintenance

Ecosystems both contribute chemicals to and extract chemicals from the atmosphere, along with regulating ventilation and transpiration. Air pollution filtering capacity increases with more leaf area, and is thus

Certain tree species are known to intercept and/or absorb gaseous pollutants such as NO2, O3, SO2 and CO (conifers are better at absorbing PM10, whilst deciduous trees are better

32


higher for trees than bushes or grassland. at absorbing gases).

Climate regulation and carbon sequestration

Ecosystems influence climate both locally (e.g. temperature and precipitation) and globally, regulating greenhouse gas concentrations and reducing climate stress.

Trees can have a cooling effect on neighbouring areas, sequester carbon and remove some greenhouse gases from the air. Conifers store a greater amount of carbon than broadleaves.

Natural hazard protection

Capacity for ecosystems to reduce the damage caused by natural disasters such as hurricanes, fires, storms, floods and landslides.

Appropriately planned forests and tree planting can mitigate the spread and impacts of wildfires, rehabilitate landslide-affected areas, help to stabilise slopes, and protect riparian zones.

Erosion control

Vegetative cover plays an important role in soil retention.

Trees and grass help prevent soil loss (due to wind and rain) and siltation of waterways; forests on slopes hold soil in place, thereby preventing landslides.

Pest and disease regulation

Changes in ecosystems can alter the abundance of human, crop and livestock pathogens and disease vectors.

Predators from nearby forests - such as bats, toads, and snakes - consume crop pests.

Noise regulation

Woodland can buffer and intercept nearby noise sources from receptors.

Amenity value and avoidance of damage/mitigation costs

Cultural Services

Cultural heritage values

Many societies place high value on the maintenance of historically important landscapes.

Reflected in the support for ancient sites such as Brú na Bóinne and ancient (broadleaf) woodlands which provide historical landscape value as they often contain archaeological features and evidence of past agriculture and settlement.

Recreation & ecotourism

Recreational pleasure people derive from natural or cultivated ecosystems.

Camping, adventure courses, bird watching, hiking, mountain biking etc take place in forests.

Aesthetic value

The beauty and aesthetic values of nature, including sense of place, inspiration for art/ architecture/ advertising, and meaningful and socially valued landscapes.

Reflected in the support for parks, “scenic drives,” and the selection of housing locations. Forests can also have aesthetic value.

Educational and scientific value

Ecosystems and their components and processes provide the basis for research and both formal and informal education in many societies.

Subject matter of education both on location and via other media, e.g. forest schools.

Spiritual and ethical value

Spiritual, religious, emblematic, intrinsic, existence, or other values people attach to ecosystems, landscapes, or species.

Spiritual fulfilment derived from sacred forests and rivers; belief that all species are worth protecting regardless of their utility to people.

Supporting Services

Habitat and wild species diversity

Habitats provide everything that an individual plant or animal needs to survive: food, water and shelter. Each ecosystem provides different habitats that can be essential for a species' lifecycle.

Habitat for pollinators, ecotourism, gene pool protection. Ancient broadleaf woodlands in particular provide habitat and wild species diversity. Forests also provide forage and shelter for farm animals.

Pollination Ecosystem changes affect the distribution, Forest edges in temperate ecosystems

33


and seed dispersal

abundance, and effectiveness of pollinators and seed dispersers.

can act as a reservoir of potential pollinators and directly benefit agricultural crops.

Soil retention and nutrient cycling

Weathering, decomposition and fixing processes may occur within forests. Approximately 20 nutrients essential for life, including carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous, cycle through ecosystems (through either biological or geological processes) and are maintained at different concentrations in different parts of ecosystems.

Woodlands can help regulate, store and buffer soil nutrients, ensuring soil fertility. Woodlands can also regulate the flow of nutrients through an ecosystem, e.g. through sequestering carbon and removing nitrogen and phosphorous from soil and water.

2.5.6. An ecosystem approach to forest management dates back to 1993 when the

Second Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe was held in

Helsinki. Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) was defined through the

conference as:

“the stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that

maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their

potential to fulfil, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social

functions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to

other ecosystems”.

2.5.7. The six pan-European criteria for reporting SFM are:

Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of forest resources and their

contribution to global carbon cycles;

Maintenance of forest ecosystems’ health and vitality;

Maintenance and encouragement of productive functions of forests (wood

and non-wood);

Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biological

diversity in forest ecosystems;

Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of protective

functions in forest management (notably soil and water); and

Maintenance of other socio-economic functions and conditions (EC, 2014).

2.5.8. Furthermore, as set out in the New EU Forestry Strategy (EC, 2013), Member

States are asked to consider the following guiding principles and objectives when

setting up and implementing their action plans and national forest programmes.

34

Principles:

Sustainable forest management and the multifunctional role of forests,

delivering multiple goods and services in a balanced way and ensuring forest

protection;

Resource efficiency, optimising the contribution of forests and the forest

sector to rural development, growth and job creation; and

Global forest responsibility, promoting sustainable production and

consumption of forest products.

Objectives:

To ensure and demonstrate that all forests in the EU are managed according

to sustainable forest management principles and that the EU’s contribution

to promoting sustainable forest management and reducing deforestation at

global level is strengthened, thus:

o Contributing to balancing various forest functions, meeting demands, and

delivering vital ecosystem services; and

o Providing a basis for forestry and the whole forest-based value chain to

be competitive and viable contributors to the bio-based economy.

2.5.9. In order for this SEA to incorporate an ecosystem approach, the assessment will

consider to what extent the FP (and its reasonable alternatives) delivers or affects

ecosystem services, green infrastructure and adaptation to climate change. This

includes use of the SEA Objective on green infrastructure and ecosystem services;

and a high level assessment of the chosen alternative against each of the

ecosystem services identified in Table 4.2. An Alternative option with an

ecosystems services focus has not been deemed necessary in the case of the FP.

2.6. Assessment Methodology

2.6.1. This stage of the SEA process involves the identification and evaluation of the

likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the FP and its

reasonable alternatives. This follows a matrix approach and has been carried out

in several stages to include high level and detailed matrix assessments, and a

descriptive cumulative effects assessment.

35

High Level Matrix Assessment

2.6.2. The first step of the assessment process, the high level assessment, is used to

identify the likely adverse, beneficial, neutral and uncertain effects of the FP on the

environment. Presented in matrix format, the assessment ascertains how well

each of the FP measures meet each of the SEA Objectives. A descriptive summary

of the likely effects is provided alongside the matrix. In addition to assessing the

FP measures against these SEA Objectives, the measures will be further assessed

to determine how well they facilitate provision of ecosystem services.

2.6.3. A high level matrix assessment has also been carried out on the different

alternatives, including the ‘do nothing’ option and the ‘ecosystem approach’ option.

This enables comparisons to be drawn between how well each alternative option

correlates with the SEA Objectives.

2.6.4. The high level matrix assessment is not a conclusive tool or model; its purpose is

to identify those measures or schemes for which uncertainties or potential adverse

effects may arise. These particular measures or schemes can then undergo further

scrutiny at the detailed matrix assessment stage.

2.6.5. The key used in the high level matrices is as follows:

Key for Likely Effects

++ Likely strong beneficial effect

+ Likely beneficial effect

0 Neutral / no effect

- Likely adverse effect

- - Likely strong adverse effect

+/- Uncertain effect

Detailed Matrix Assessment

2.6.6. The second step of the assessment process is used to scrutinise the potential

adverse or uncertain effects that have been identified by the high level

assessment. Each measure or scheme identified as potentially having such effects

has been analysed against each of the SEA Objectives in more detail (including

those objectives for which beneficial effects were identified).

2.6.7. In order to determine the likely significance of effects, the second stage of the

assessment addresses the range of criteria identified in Annex II of the SEA

Directive (reproduced below).

36

Characteristics of the effects and of the area likely to be affected, having regard,

in particular, to

the probability, duration, frequency and reversibility of the effects,

the cumulative nature of the effects,

the transboundary nature of the effects,

the risks to human health or the environment (e.g. due to accidents),

the magnitude and spatial extent of the effects (geographical area and size

of the population likely to be affected),

the value and vulnerability of the area likely to be affected due to:

o special natural characteristics or cultural heritage,

o exceeded environmental quality standards or limit values,

o intensive land-use,

the effects on areas or landscapes which have a recognised national,

Community or international protection status.

2.6.8. The detailed SEA matrices used in the assessment of the FP include consideration

of the duration, frequency, permanence and geographic extent of effects (including

transboundary effects) which feed into the consideration of magnitude (i.e. the

degree of change that the proposed scheme would have on the environment). This

is then correlated with the value and vulnerability of the receiving environment,

which includes consideration of the protected status of the area. Table 2.4 below

shows how significance of effect is determined.

Table 2.4: Significance of Effects Matrix

MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE

High Medium Low Negligible

VA

LU

E /

VU

LN

ER

AB

ILIT

Y

High Major Major/

Moderate Moderate

Moderate/

Minor

Medium Major/

Moderate Moderate

Moderate/

Minor Minor

Low Moderate Moderate/

Minor Minor

Minor/

Negligible

Negligible Moderate/

Minor Minor

Minor/

Negligible Negligible

37

2.6.9. The significance of effect can be either adverse or beneficial. The key used in the

detailed matrices is therefore as follows:

Key for Significance of Effect

Major or Major/Moderate beneficial effect

Moderate or Moderate/Minor beneficial effect

Minor or Minor/Negligible beneficial effect

Negligible beneficial/adverse effect or neutral effect

Minor or Minor/Negligible adverse effect

Moderate or Moderate/Minor adverse effect

Major or Major/Moderate adverse effect

2.6.10. A descriptive summary of the significance of likely effects for each SEA

objective and an overall verdict on the measure or scheme assessed is provided

alongside the matrix.

Cumulative Effects Assessment

2.6.11. The SEA Directive (in Annex I) also requires identification and evaluation of

likely secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects of the FP. Cumulative effects

are best considered by looking at the FP as a whole, as the insignificant effects of

measures or schemes may combine with one another to create a significant effect.

Synergistic effects go beyond this, producing a total effect that is greater than the

sum of the individual effects. Secondary effects are those that are not a direct result

of the FP, but where, over time the original effects lead to additional impacts. These

terms are not mutually exclusive, and often the term ‘cumulative effects’ is taken

to include secondary and synergistic effects.

2.6.12. In order to ensure that cumulative effects are considered throughout the

SEA and FP preparation process, some consideration has been given through the

SEA Objective ‘Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services’, which is a broad

topic that looks at the inter-relationship between all of the other sustainability

topics. Such effects have also been considered through the review of other plans

and programmes carried out during the scoping process.

2.6.13. The main purpose of the cumulative effects assessment is to report on the

identified significant cumulative effects in a transparent and accessible way. This

is done in descriptive format, with particular focus on analysis of effects on selected

environmental resources; past impacts and future impacts relating to these

38

resources; cumulative impact pathways (including cause-effect relationships);

uncertainties and assumptions; and in-combination effects (of FP measures or

schemes identified as having potentially adverse effects in the high level or

detailed matrix assessments) with the plans and programmes identified in Section

3.2.

39

3. FINDINGS OF THE SCOPING PROCESS

3.1. Scoping Consultation Responses

3.1.1. A Scoping Report outlining the proposed approach and key issues to be

considered in the SEA was prepared and submitted to DAFM on 1st June 2014.

The SEA Directive requires authorities with “environmental responsibilities”

(hereafter referred to as the Consultation Bodies) to be consulted on the scope

and level of detail of the information which must be included in the Environmental

Report (Article 5(4)). The Directive does not require full consultation with the public

or bodies other than Consultation Bodies until the Environmental Report on the

programme is finalised.

3.1.2. The Scoping Report was issued to the Consultation Bodies on 13th June 2014.

This included the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the

Environment, Communities and Local Government (DECLG), the Department for

Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (DCENR) and the Department of

Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG). Due to the likelihood of transboundary

effects, it also included the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). The

Scoping Report was also published on the DAFM website (for information only).

3.1.3. Consultation Bodies must provide a view, once consulted, within four weeks.

Responses were received from EPA, DAHG and NIEA. Consultation responses on

the Scoping Report are reproduced in Appendix A, along with a comment on how

they have been accounted for in the preparation of this Environmental Report.

3.2. Other Plans, Programmes and Environmental Protection Objectives

3.2.1. Assessing the relationship of the FP with the existing International, European and

National framework of plans and programmes and identifying gaps and conflicts is

a key part of the SEA process. This includes the consideration of statutory and

non-statutory environmental protection objectives.

3.2.2. The scoping process involved an initial review of plans, programmes and

environmental protection objectives. This revealed that, in many cases the FP is

expected either to support the other plans and programmes through similar

objectives or to have no relationship with them.

3.2.3. Plans and programmes containing environmental protection objectives which are

40

relevant to the FP are listed below in Table 3.1. An indication is given as to whether

the plan or programme directly supports (or is supported by), indirectly supports,

or has potential conflicts with the FP. Further information on how these

environmental protection objectives will be supported through the FP is given in

Appendix B.

Table 3.1: Relationship with other plans and programmes

Plan or Programme directly supports / is supported by the FP

DAHG (2014) A Draft National Landscape Strategy for Ireland 2014-2024

EPA (2010) Neagh Bann International River Basin Management Plan

DECLG (2012) National Climate Change Adaptation Framework: Building Resilience to Climate Change

EPA (2009) South Eastern River Basin Management Plan 2009-2015

DECLG (2011) Draft Framework for Sustainable Development for Ireland

EPA (2010) Eastern River Basin Management Plan

Midland Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines for the Midland Region 2010-2022

EPA (2009) Western River Basin Management Plan

West Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines for the West Region 2010-2022

Forest Policy Review Group (2013) Forests, products and people: Ireland’s forest policy – a renewed vision

Mid-West Regional Authority (2010) Mid-West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022

Forest Research Ireland (2014) A Strategic Agenda for Forest Research in Ireland

South-East Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines for the South-East Region 2010-2022

NPWS (2011) Actions for Biodiversity 2011-2016 - Ireland’s National Biodiversity Action Plan

South-West Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022

DEHLG (2008) Water Framework Directive Western River Basin District. Programme of Measures and Standards for Forest and Water

DAFM (2014) The Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2014 – 2020

EC (2011) Biodiversity Strategy

DAHG (2013) Format for a Prioritised Action Framework (PAF) for Natura 2000 for the EU Multiannual Financing Period 2014-2020: Ireland (Draft)

EC (2009) Sustainable Development Strategy

DCENR (2013) Ireland’s second National Energy Efficiency Action Plan to 2020)

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament Water Framework Directive (2000)

DECLG (2013) Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

RPS Consulting Engineers (2012) Shannon Integrated Framework Plan

Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds

EPA (2009) Shannon International River Basin Management Plan

EC (2013) New Forest Strategy

EPA (2010) North Western International River Basin Management Plan

EC (2012) A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources (COM/2012/0673)

Plan or Programme indirectly supports / is supported by the FP

Border Regional Authority (2010) Regional DARD (2012) Strategic Plan 2012-2020

41

Planning Guidelines 2010-2022

Dublin Regional Authority and Mid-East Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022

DARD (2010) Renewable Energy Action Plan

DCENR (2012) Strategy for Renewable Energy: 2012-2020

DARD (2007) Flood Mapping Strategy for Northern Ireland

DEHLG (2009) Guidelines for Planning Authorities 20: The Planning System and Flood Risk Management

Defra and DOENI (2012) A Climate Change Risk Assessment for Northern Ireland

Dublin and Mid-East Regional Authorities and National Transport Authority (2011) Greater Dublin Area Draft Transport Strategy 2011-2030

DOE (2012) Northern Ireland Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Action Plan

Fáilte Ireland (2014) Wild Atlantic Way DOE (2002) Biodiversity Strategy

National Transport Authority (no date) Draft National Cycle Network Plan

EC (2007) EU Floods Directive

DAFF (2007) National Strategic Plan: The Fisheries Sector 2007-2013

EC (2013) (Climate) Adaptation Strategy

OPW (2011) National Catchment and Flood Risk Assessment and Management Programme (CFRAM)

EU (2013) Environmental Liabilities Directive (2013/30/EU)

Plan or Programme has potential conflicts with the FP

NPWS (2011) Draft National Peatlands Strategy DAFM (2014) Draft National Raised Bog SAC Management Plan

Plan or Programme has no relationship with the FP

Defra, Scottish Government, Welsh Assembly Government and DOENI (2010) Air Pollution: Action in a Changing Climate

DRDNI (2010) Regional Development Strategy 2035

Defra, Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and DOE (2007) The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

3.2.4. The plans and programmes listed above that have the potential to conflict with the

FP are assessed further through the in-combination assessment in Section 6.5, as

are those which, though supportive of the objectives of the FP, may have similar

adverse effects on environmental receptors. Additional plans and programmes

(without environmental protection objectives) identified through the scoping

process as potentially likely to have adverse in-combination effects with the FP

(which are also assessed in Section 6.5 of this report where relevant), are:

DAFM (2013) Food Harvest 2020;

DCENR (2012) Strategy for Renewable Energy: 2012-2020;

Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (2011) Infrastructure and

Capital Investment 2012-2016: Medium Term Exchequer Framework; and

42

DARDNI (2014) Rural Development Programme 2014 – 2020.

3.3. Summary of Baseline Data

3.3.1. Schedule 2 of the Ireland SEA Regulations specifies that the Environmental Report

must contain the following information in respect of baseline conditions:

“(b) The relevant aspects of the current state of the environment and the likely

evolution thereof without implementation of the plan or programme.

(c) The environmental characteristics of areas likely to be significantly affected.

(d) Any existing environmental problems which are relevant to the plan or

programme including, in particular, those relating to any areas of a particular

environmental importance, such as areas designated pursuant to the Birds

Directive or the Habitats Directive.”

3.3.2. A summary of the current state of the environment in Ireland, in respect of each of

the sustainability topics is provided below. Where appropriate, Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) have been used to assist with analysis of this data;

maps have been produced to display relevant spatial information and can be seen

in Appendix C. A more detailed baseline description is provided in the Scoping

Report, with only a summary produced here. Analysis of baseline information has

been carried out to provide an evidence base for current and likely future

environmental conditions without the FP (it must be noted that DAFM does not

have responsibility for all environmental issues, some lie outside its remit). Key

environmental and sustainability issues for Ireland have also been identified.

3.3.3. Information for this section has been obtained from Government websites such as

those of the National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS), Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and Forest Service; the 2012 EPA report ‘Ireland’s Environment’;

the Forest Policy Review Group’s ‘Recommendations’ and ‘Environmental Report’;

the Forest Service SWOT and Needs Analysis; and other documents as

referenced in the final chapter of this report.

3.3.4. Ecology and Nature Conservation

Strengths and Opportunities

Ireland has a rich natural heritage which includes over 31,000 species, with

only 10% of these being familiar species such as mammals, plants or birds

43

and at least 7,000 species of algae and fungi. Ireland also has a highly

biodiverse marine environment which is rich in cetaceans and supports a

range of bird and invertebrate species.

10% of the country is considered of prime importance – the country contains

423 SACs, 154 SPAs, 45 Ramsar sites and numerous Natural Heritage

Areas. This includes a number of internationally significant habitat types such

as limestone pavements, machair, turloughs and active peatlands.

Additionally there are 630 proposed Natural Heritage Areas in Ireland (EPA,

2012a).

A process for compiling detailed site-specific conservation objectives for

SACs and SPAs has been established. Conservation objectives are based

on the concept of favourable conservation status. A site-specific conservation

objective aims to define favourable conservation condition for a particular

habitat or species at that site using appropriate attributes with targets (DAHG,

2013).

Protection of biodiversity in the wider countryside is an objective of the current

National Biodiversity Plan. This is reflected in Local Biodiversity Action Plans,

which identify locally important biodiversity areas. These have been adopted

by most local authorities and are incorporated into their County Development

Plans. A range of measures and activities have also been developed to

protect birds in the wider countryside, including engagement between DAFM

and DAHG on the management of biodiversity elements in forestry (DAHG,

2014).

Agri-environmental options and Natura 2000 schemes were launched in

Ireland in 2010 to promote biodiversity and climate resilience.

The Midland Region contains significant areas of industrial peatlands - much

of it in semi-state ownership. Water-based habitats are the principal

ecological resources in the Midland region. They vary considerably in their

character and extent – ranging from the very extensive Shannon system and

the Midland peatlands to much smaller scale lakes and rivers (CAAS, 2012).

Woodland created for the purpose of improving the environment and

biodiversity, can have significant ecological benefits. These benefits may

include providing ‘stepping stones’ across the landscape, rapid increase in

44

the abundance of insects amongst establishing trees and attracting birds and

bats. The biodiversity benefits of Ireland’s woodland are valued at €5.6

million per year over the best alternative land use (Bacon, 2004).

The FORECON report (2011) revealed that the Irish public do assign material

values to non-market services provided by forests. Subjects were asked their

willingness to pay for either 15% or 30% of forest to be given over for use by

plants and animals. Results indicated annual values of €21.07 per capita for

the generation of the 15% area and €32.95 per capita for the generation of

the 30% area. The same subjects also indicated a willingness to pay €89.94

per capita per annum for access to and facilities in new forests.

Weaknesses and Threats

Only 7% of habitats and 39% of species listed under the Habitats Directive

(Annex I and Annex II respectively) are considered to be in a favourable state;

forests, peatlands, grasslands, freshwater habitats, dunes, fish, molluscs and

the Natterjack toad are faring particularly badly (DAHG, 2013).

Three out of the four Annex I forest habitats present in Ireland have been

assessed as being in bad conservation status (old oak woodlands; residual

alluvial woodlands; yew woodlands) and one in poor status (bog woodland);

none are in good conservation status (DAHG, 2013).

Ancient tree-scapes are relatively scarce across Ireland, whilst half of the

native Saproxylic species (beetles of decaying wood) have been assessed

as rare, reflecting the overall rarity and fragility of saproxylic habitats across

Ireland (Alexander & Anderson, 2012).

A number of factors are threatening Ireland’s habitats including peat cutting,

wetland reclamation, infrastructure development, overgrazing, water

pollution, alien species, recreation and exploitation of natural fish stocks

(EPA, 2012a).

The West Region has significant and cumulative potential loss of habitats

through the construction of developments and this includes localised adverse

impacts on designated sites and non-designated sites occurring as a result

of individual developments (The West Regional Authority, 2010).

The management of Natura 2000 sites (SACs and SPAs) in compliance with

the conservation objectives of the Habitats Directive is a challenge in all areas

45

but especially in coastal areas and along the banks of lakes where there is

the most pressure for development upon habitats (The West Regional

Authority, 2010).

Few protected nature conservation sites have management plans or detailed

mapping of habitats and some areas of national ecological importance still

remain undesignated. Conservation plans were completed for 45 Natura

2000 sites in 2000/2001 and many more draft plans were compiled. While

these contain useful information, they do not conform to the EC’s current

definition of a “comprehensive management plan” and the conservation

objective-setting as described above has superseded this plan process

(DAHG, 2013).

Although protection of biodiversity in the wider countryside is an objective in

the current National Biodiversity Plan and has been adopted by most Local

Authorities in their Local Biodiversity Action Plans, there are still concerns

regarding the vulnerability of intermediate value habitats due to their

importance in maintaining ecological networks across Ireland. These sites do

have some protection within the planning system (through Environmental

Impact Assessment regulations and some County Development Plans), as

well as through good agricultural and environmental condition (GAEC)

standards which are part of Cross Compliance requirements for those in

receipt of Single Payment Schemes (EPA, 2012a). However, their non-

statutory status does leave them more at risk from land use change.

The environmental issues regarding forests fall into two categories: drivers of

forestry policy such as climate change, inclusion of native species and

recreational demands and problems arising from forest expansion and

increased levels of harvesting (Forest Policy Review Group, 2013a).

Forestry is not listed as one of the key threats to protected habitats or annex

species in the National Parks and Wildlife Service Report ‘The status of EU

protected habitat species in Ireland’, but is identified as a pressure on both.

Forestry has potential to adversely impact on protected species such as the

Freshwater Pearl Mussel and the Hen Harrier, and on important habitats such

as active raised bogs and blanket bogs, particularly with regard to direct

pressures from inappropriate forest operations, as well as habitat

fragmentation and connectivity.

46

The Freshwater Pearl Mussel is listed as critically endangered in the Republic

of Ireland. Eight catchments have been prioritised for their conservation in

Ireland and proposals made for detailed forest management plans for each,

as they represent a potential source for sediment and nutrients that can enter

the watercourse (Forest Policy Review Group, 2013a).

Afforestation of open habitats of high conservation value is generally

associated with negative impacts on local and regional breeding bird diversity

in Ireland (Wilson et al, 2012). This activity has been identified as a potential

threat for a number of protected species, such as the Hen Harrier which is

vulnerable at a European scale (Forest Policy Review Group, 2013a; EC,

2014c).

In July 2010 the Forest Service detected from proactive surveys the first

findings of Phytophthora ramorum on Japanese larch, which was showing

extensive dieback from the crown and down the stem.

Ash dieback (Chalara fraxinea) was first confirmed in Ireland in October 2012

and by April 2014 had spread to 120 sites (DAFM, 2014). An all-Ireland

Chalara Control Strategy is in place to limit the spread of and increase

resistance and resilience to the disease (DAFM & DARD, 2013).

Invasive species are costing the Irish economy €161 million per year (Kelly

et al., 2013).

Invasive species are also affecting Irish forests, including Rhododendron and

Cherry Laurel. These have serious consequences for forest management,

particularly in newly created native woodlands. The spread of Rhododendron,

conifers and Acer species is causing particular problems in Annex I habitats

including old sessile oak woods, alluvial forests and Taxus baccata woods

(NPWS, 2013a).

3.3.5. Socio-Economics


The Building Ireland’s Smart Economy Framework (2008) sets out the

Government’s vision for economic growth in Ireland from 2009 to 2014. The

strategy promotes research and development, renewable energy production

and high quality infrastructure in the country.

47

Ireland has significant strengths in research, technology, development and

innovation and a growing international industry base centred around ICT and

life sciences. These, coupled with strengths in marine science and

technology, provide the means to enable knowledge-based enterprises to

target globally traded products and services in existing and new markets.

The Dublin Region is the least deprived in Ireland and has the highest

disposable income of Ireland’s eight sub-regions, largely due to the economic

success of the country’s capital city. The sector providing the most

contribution to this is the services sector (DEAS, 2013).

After Dublin, the Mid-East Region has the second best Pobal Deprivation

Index score in Ireland. It also ranks high in terms of disposable income

(DEAS, 2013).

The Western Region of Ireland has scored well on the deprivation index in

terms of disposable income and unemployment. It has the highest

employment rate of the regions at 67.3% (DEAS, 2013).

The South-West region has the lowest unemployment levels of all the regions

at 11.1% (DEAS, 2013).

Dublin, the Mid-West and the South-West region score highly in terms of the

number of IDA companies per capita, which indicates the amount of Foreign

Direct Investment into these regions.

The rural economy is based primarily on the SME sector with a variety of

strong indigenous businesses.

The Economics and Social Aspects of Biodiversity report (Bullock et al.,

2008) estimated the value of Ireland’s ecosystems to be over €2.6 billion per

year, in terms of their productive output and human utility.

Forestry is an important sector in Ireland; the economic value of forestry in

Ireland was estimated to be €673 million in 2010, with the overall forestry

sector contributing approximately €2.3 billion (COFORD, 2014).

The leisure and recreation benefits of forestry can also be substantial; Cregan

and Murphy (2006) estimated that the annual return from forest recreation

across the EU is in the region of €2.6 billion. At a national level, Fitzpatrick

Associates (2005) estimated the direct economic impact of forest recreation

by Irish residents to be €268 million.

48

The sector represents a large area of employment within the country, with

12,000 people currently employed in the areas of growing or using forestry

products or in other related sectors.

Based on findings from the ECONOTRIB project (Ní Dhubháin et al., 2006)

each 15,000 ha afforestation will result in the creation of an estimated further

490 jobs in planting, managing, harvesting and processing. This prediction is

based on traditional forest products (sawlogs, stake and pulpwood) whereas

the growing wood energy market (wood chip and wood pellets) is more labour

intensive and thus the predicted growth in jobs is likely to be an

underestimation.

80% of the wood produced in Ireland’s forests is exported. Exports of forest

products were valued at €308 million in 2011 (Forest Policy Review Group,

2014).


Ireland has ongoing issues of deprivation and unemployment. The consistent

poverty rate in Ireland in 2010 was 6.2% and in Ireland the employment rate

over the period July to September 2012 was 59%; in the Border Region of

Ireland the rate was just 53.3% (DEAS, 2013).

In 2011, Ireland had a high proportion of total unemployed persons that are

in long term unemployment (59.4% of those unemployed); significantly higher

than the EU average of 43.1% (DEAS, 2013).

The Border, Midland and Western Region of Ireland has higher levels of

deprivation than the Southern and Eastern Region, and there is also

significant economic deprivation between regions (DEAS, 2013).

The Border Region has the lowest levels of employment of all the regions at

57.8% (RAI, 2014).

Gross Value Added (GVA), a measure of the difference between output and

immediate consumption, is lowest in the Midland region at 3.6%, the highest

being Dublin at 42.1% (RAI, 2014).

The Mid-East Region ranked worst in terms of decline in income. It ranked at

the mid-point with regard to unemployment and it ranks below that in terms

of changes in unemployment. This suggests that the new populations which

grew up in this region in the last decade may be under particular pressure

49

from the economic decline and the associated loss of employment (DEAS,

2013).

The tourism sector as a whole is performing poorly in the Border Region of

Ireland, where the region only accounts for around 7% of Ireland’s total tourist

revenue. This is the lowest contribution of any region in Ireland.

There is a lack of structured amenities in towns, villages and countryside in

the Border Region, especially following the excessive level of residential

development in recent years (Border Regional Authority, 2010).

The property market is under stress due to large numbers of houses being

built before the 2008 recession resulting in vacancy in town centres and

suburbs. The Border Region has a large proportion of dwellings being vacant,

at 16.55% (RAI, 2014). Post-recession, analysts are reporting a shortage of

family housing in some parts of the country, notably Dublin, which is causing

a rise in house prices in the capital city.

There is increasing reliance on export in the forestry sector with 80% of wood

being produced in Ireland being exported, this means that there is a greater

importance in order to maintain a competitive advantage in a global market

(Forest Service, 2014).

3.3.6. Health and Quality of Life


Life-long learning opportunities are emerging in schools, which are leading to

higher levels of participation in higher education, a reduction in early school

leavers, improved level of performance and a reduction in the gap between

different sectors of society. The number of 30-34 year old with tertiary or

equivalent education is second highest (66%) in the West Region, behind

Dublin on 69% (RAI, 2014).

The preservation of Ireland’s environment is important for its resident’s health

and wellbeing as well as Ireland’s biodiversity. Efforts are being focused on

creating a healthy and carefully managed environment and maintaining the

clean and green image of Ireland, all of which underpin the development of

tourism and recreation (EPA, 2012a).

The European vision for forests now includes promoting their use for

50

recreation. Through encouraging activities such as walking, cycling, horse-

riding, nature trails, picnics, den building, orienteering, mountain biking and

camping, forests have a role in promoting a healthier lifestyle (Forest Policy

Review Group, 2014). There are proven benefits to mental and emotional

health, including reduction of stress levels and enhanced wellbeing.

Various studies have found a correlation between community forests and the

average amount of physical activity exerted by neighbourhood residents;

people are more inclined to get outdoors and exercise when their

surroundings are greener (Forest Research, 2005). Trees in urban areas also

improve the health of residents through other means; trees absorb carbon

dioxide produced from the combustion of various fuels Woodlands can

screen out noise, for example, from nearby traffic, and urban trees also

provide shade for people, animals and buildings in the summer thus

conserving energy.


Some health services are poor in Ireland, with less than 275 hospital beds

per 100,000 of the population in 2006 (down from just over 300 in 1995),

compared to the EU25 average of 395 in 2007 (down from 485 in 1995) (EC,

2010). According to the World Bank (2014), the rate in Ireland was up to 320

beds per 100,000 population in 2010, but down to 290 in 2011.

Obesity continues to be one of the most important public health challenges

facing Ireland, with significantly higher rates than the rest of Europe. In 2011,

61% of adults were classed as overweight or obese, and 25% as obese

(DOH, 2011).

Participation rates in life-long learning have been low compared to EU

standards and comparatively stagnant standards of attainment have been

seen at secondary schools. The number of adults aged 30-34 years old with

tertiary or equivalent education is lowest in the Border and Midland Regions

at 58% (RAI, 2014).

Isolation is a key issue effecting the quality of life of many people living in

rural areas in Ireland. This can be both physically, with the lack of rural

transport links, and electronically, with poor or no broadband connection in

many areas. The percentage of people who have no access to internet is

51

highest in the Midland region, being 11.7% (RAI, 2014).

3.3.7. Soil and Land Use


The soil in Ireland is considered to be in good condition and is relatively rich

in soil organic matter, especially wetter soils and blanket and basin peats

(EPA, 2012a).

County Donegal contains Ireland’s largest tracts of both Atlantic Blanket Bog

and Mountain Blanket Bog (Border Regional Authority, 2010).

Many of the bogs within Ireland have internationally renowned status

including Clara Bog in County Offaly which is a designated Ramsar site and

nature reserve (Midland Regional Authority, 2010).

Ireland is, for its size, one of the most geologically diverse regions in the world

and has substantial mineral deposits. Sandstones are most prominent in the

County Donegal, whilst County Wicklow contains prominent areas of igneous

and metamorphic rock. Carboniferous limestones are the main rock across

much of the central lowlands with distinctive karst landscape found in parts

of Counties Leitrim, Sligo and Galway and in the Burren region of County

Clare. Well-known limestone cave systems can also be found in parts of

Counties Kerry, Tipperary, and Kilkenny (Cultural Heritage Project, 2014).

Geologically significant sites in Ireland are recognized under international,

national and local designations. Internationally designated areas within

Ireland include the UNESCO endorsed Marble Arch Caves Global Geopark

located in County Cavan, the Copper Coast Global Geopark in County

Waterford and the Burren and Cliffs of Moher Global Geopark region in

County Clare, whilst the Mourne-Cooley-Gullion region in County Louth is

also being promoted as an important area for international geotourism. A

number of other geological sites previously designated as Areas of Scientific

Interest (ASI) are currently being assessed by the Irish Geological Heritage

Programme for re-designation as National Heritage Areas (NHA) which

would have statutory protection (GSI, 2014).

Quarrying is well developed throughout the Midlands Region due to the

presence of large amounts of glacial deposits in the form of eskers (glacial

sand and gravel deposits) (CAAS, 2012).

52

Irish forests have a high level of productivity which is a reflection of a high

level of soil suitability for the growth of forests. Soil quality and the protection

of soil resources are fundamental to the long term productivity and

sustainability of forest resources.

Afforestation can be highly beneficial to soils as increased surface litter can

protect soils from damage caused by wind and water erosion, whilst roots

can help to stabilise the ground (Elliot et al, n.d.). However this is highly

context-specific and afforestation can also have adverse effects on soil (see

below).

Despite containing most of Ireland’s main urban centres, the South-East

Region land area is predominantly rural and the countryside has become

increasingly important for forestry, recreation and tourism (South-East

Regional Authority, 2007).


Ireland’s soil is fragile due to damage from a number of factors, including

settlement patterns, generation of slurry and sludge, nutrient loss from soil to

water, ammonia emissions to the atmosphere and soil organic carbon losses.

Adverse effects can include reduced soil quality and quantity, such as

erosion, loss of organic matter, compaction, salinisation, landslides and

flooding, soil sealing, loss of biodiversity and contamination (Dublin and Mid-

East Regional Authorities, 2010).

A study on sustainable management of peatland in Ireland (Renou-Wilson et

al. 2011) found that up to 95% of Ireland’s peatland exists in a degraded state

and continues to be disturbed by domestic and industrial peat extraction,

afforestation, wind farms, recreational activities and invasive species.

Ireland has experienced comparatively high rates of land use change since

the 1990s compared to other countries in Europe, with the area of artificial

surfaces increasing by approximately 15% since 2000 (EPA, 2012a).

Many areas of geological/geomorphological interest will be designated as

County Geological Sites (CGS) under the Irish Geological Heritage

Programme, but these do not have statutory protection. These sites will rely

on Local Authorities and the current planning system to protect them against

adverse impacts from development. (GSI, 2014)

53

A number of CGS audits have recently taken place for Counties in the Ireland

including Carlow, Cavan, Clare, Kildare, Kilkenny, Louth, Meath, Monaghan,

Roscommon, Sligo and Waterford. The main concerns include: ensuring

quarrying is conducted in manner which enhances and preserves significant

and interesting features such as karstic depressions, caves, and mineral or

fossil pockets; ensuring any new road development leaves geological

features exposed (unless safety issues dictate otherwise); and the dumping

of waste in carboniferous areas which can cause groundwater pollution as

the limestone degrades (GSI, 2014).

The area under forestry in Ireland has increased from 7% to 10.7% of national

land cover during 1990-2013, but this is primarily due to the planting of

peatland and pasture lands with coniferous plantations (EPA, 2012a). This

rise in forested land cover still puts Ireland lowest in EU-27, where the

average is 37%.

Afforestation on peatland causes acidification due to the drainage required

before planting. Studies have shown that the presence of a coniferous tree

canopy can lead to acidification and long term changes in soil chemistry due

to the absorption of atmospheric pollutants by the trees and subsequent

storage in the soil, where they might subsequently be leached into the

groundwater, resulting in water pollution.

Road infrastructure put into forests can have an adverse effect through

increasing soil erosion and forestry machines also cause soil compaction.

Approximately 74% of Ireland’s national forest estate is composed of

predominantly conifer species, with a few native species such as yew and

Scots pine. The proportion of broadleaf forest is 26%. 43% of Ireland’s forest

estate is privately owned ((Second National Forest Inventory, 2013).

54

3.3.8. Water


River monitoring in Ireland is carried out routinely by the EPA against Water

Framework Directive (WFD) standards.

The water quality compares favourably with that of other EU countries

(typically ranking in the top third of the 30+ assessed), with currently 71% of

rivers, 46.6% of lakes, 46% of transitional and coastal waters and 85.6% of

the area of groundwater aquifers being at high or good status (EPA, 2012a).

Measures to reduce pollution have been successfully implemented through

the Water Services Investment Programme, the Nitrates Action Programme

and River Basin Management Plans.

Intact peatlands act as effective water stores to mitigate against flooding in

times of high rainfall.

As set out in the Provision and Quality of Drinking Water report (EPA, 2013e),

191 public water supplies (out of 939) were on the EPA Remedial Action List

in 2011. EPA audits show overall improvement with only 33 supplies showing

inadequate source protection measures in 2011 compared to 46 in 2010.

As set out in the Integrated Water Quality Report for South East Ireland (EPA,

2012c), County Laois has 19 High Quality sites with stable nitrate levels 10-

25 mg/l and phosphate levels are very low (<0.015 mg/l). The average

concentrations of ortho-phosphate in rivers in the south-east are reducing

relative to 2011, with 36% of rivers having an average concentration of

>0.035mg/l P in 2012, compared with 45% in 2011.

The North-Western River Basin District has 100% of groundwater bodies in

good ecological condition. Nearly 100% of groundwaters in the South Eastern

River Basin District and over 95% of groundwaters in the South Western

River Basin District are in good ecological condition (RAI, 2014).

In the Western River Basin District over 60% of groundwaters, coastal waters,

lakes, reservoirs, rivers and canals are in good ecological condition. In the

Shannon International River Basin District over 60% of groundwaters are in

good ecological condition (RAI, 2014).

In the Eastern River Basin District, 85% of groundwaters are of good

55

ecological condition, as are 100% of estuaries. Over 80% of the lakes /

reservoirs, and over 60% of the rivers and canals in the South Western River

Basin District are also in good ecological condition (RAI, 2014).

According to the Urban Waste Water Discharges report (EPA, 2014) 93% of

urban waste water discharges in Ireland received secondary treatment or

higher.

Afforestation can be environmentally beneficial through filtering agricultural

pollutants before they enter watercourses, stabilising soils and improving

water infiltration rates.


The main challenges for the water quality of Ireland, as set out in Ireland’s

Environment (EPA, 2012a) are to reduce diffuse pollution, eliminate point

source pollution and to use legislative measures to achieve better water

quality.

There has been an increase in the length of rivers affected by slight to

moderate pollution from 1987 to 2011. Approximately half of the 953 polluted

river sites assessed by the EPA in 2010 were polluted due to large point

sources such as municipal wastewater treatment plants and the other half

mainly due to diffuse agricultural sources (EPA, 2012a). Forestry activities

were the suspected cause of 4% of these polluted river sites.

Over half of all waste water treatment plants in Ireland are not fully compliant

with Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) standards and

guidelines (EPA, 2014).

Waste water discharges from 35 agglomerations have potential impacts on

the habitat for Freshwater Pearl Mussel. Eight waste water works are

currently identified as causing serious river pollution (EPA, 2014).

The bulk of poor-status groundwater bodies (particularly in the Western and

Shannon river basin districts) are in areas with excessive phosphate due to

eutrophication from agricultural sources. In the Shannon International River

Basin District over 50% of lakes, reservoirs, rivers and canals are in poor

ecological condition. Over 60% of coastal waters and 20% of estuaries have

not yet had their status determined, as the data is not available. The status

of 60% of estuaries is not yet determined in the Western River Basin District

56

(RAI, 2014).

The North-Western River Basin District has nearly 50% of lakes and

reservoirs and rivers and canals in bad ecological condition. In the South

Eastern River Basin District 80% of estuaries, over 50% of rivers/canals, and

over 30% of lakes/reservoirs are in poor ecological condition (RAI, 2014).

As set out in the Integrated Water Quality Report for South East Ireland (EPA,

2012c), most pollution in rivers is caused by nitrate. Nitrate levels in 2012

remained at similar levels to 2011 with 30% of rivers having an average

concentration above the recommended >1.8mg/l N.

The EPA has identified a number of areas within tidal waters which have

experienced serious deoxygenation. The quality of bathing water and

shellfish waters is generally very good, though the continuing problem of

naturally occurring harmful algal blooms constitutes a significant threat to the

Irish shellfish industry. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) concentrations

increased with 27% of sites having an average BOD >1.5mg/l O2 in 2012

compared with 20% in 2011 (EPA, 2012c).

Inputs of nutrients, namely phosphorous and nitrogen, present one of the

most significant risks to water quality in the Border Region. The protection of

sources of drinking water, bathing waters and fishing stocks, are also of

particular concern (Border Regional Authority, 2010).

One of the most pressing environmental issues in the Mid-West Region

relates to the water quality of Natura 2000 sites. Work carried out in the

context of the WFD and the Shannon River Basin District Management Plan

has indicated that substantial areas of groundwater and surface water require

status improvement, particularly in and around the larger settlements (Mid-

West Regional Authority, 2010). Concerns included predictions of significant

decreases in flow in rivers and the impact of waste water discharges on inland

waters.

The most recent water quality data identifies multiple points on rivers

throughout the Midland Region as being of moderate, poor or bad status. The

data shows that the quality of rivers leaving the main settlements within the

Midland Region does not achieve the good or high status that is required by

the WFD (e.g. the Camlin River at Longford, the Brosna River at Mullingar,

57

the Shannon River at Athlone, the Tullamore River at Tullamore and the

Triogue River at Portlaoise) (CAAS, 2012).

Groundwater issues in Midland Region principally arise from the cumulative

effects of agricultural intensification and a proliferation of under-performing

septic tank systems (CAAS, 2012). Certain areas in this region are not within

the catchment of waste water treatment networks and consequently

development in these areas uses septic tanks systems to treat waste water

arising, which can result in local pollution as a result of poorly maintained

systems (CAAS, 2012).

A number of estuaries, mainly in the south-east and south of the country,

continue to display symptoms of nutrient enrichment and have been classed

as eutrophic (South-East Regional Authority, 2010).

Damage to peatland in Ireland has also impacted on water quality due to silt

release from mechanical peat harvesting, increased nutrient release from

drained bogs and increased acidification from afforestation on bogs.

Acidification is caused by the drainage of sites prior to planting, the

absorption of atmospheric pollutants by coniferous trees and subsequent

storage in the soil, and the deposition of highly acidic pine needles on the

forest floor (Forest Service, 2013b). These acidic pollutants can then leach

into the groundwater, causing deterioration in water quality.

The economic review of forestry (Clinch, 1999) suggested that the costs of

the effects on water from afforestation under the Forestry Strategy of the time

would amount to circa IR₤10 million (excluding acidification costs). However,

the subsequent introduction of environmental guidelines for water quality,

harvesting and aerial fertilisation and particularly the legal requirements of

the WFD means this figure is no longer accurate.

Climate change presents a future challenge for the region, with less summer

rainfall being predicted in the future. This may lead to a reduction in river

flows, affecting public water supplies and increasing the risk of water

pollution.

3.3.9. Air Quality


58

Air quality in Ireland is of a high standard across the country and is among

the best in Europe, meeting all EU air quality standards in 2010 as well as

emission ceilings for sulphur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds and

ammonia (EPA, 2012a).

The Smarter Travel – A Sustainable Transport Future report (2011) sets

actions that are required in order to halt the trend of increasing NOX levels in

Ireland. The actions target the transport system, with particular focus on

improving the efficiency of vehicles and reducing the reliance on private

vehicles.


Ireland is one of the 11 EU Member States that did not meet their 2010

emission ceiling for nitrogen dioxides (NOX) (RAI, 2014).

Although the Air Quality in Ireland report (EPA, 2013a) reveal that

concentrations across the country fell to below the European and WHO limit

values, the continued reliance on car transportation threatens this improved

situation.

Ozone concentrations were below EU limits but exceeded WHO guideline

values across the whole of Ireland, with Cork being a notable exception (EPA,

2013a). In urban areas ozone is depleted through reactions with traffic-

emitted pollutants, therefore levels of ozone are higher in rural areas than in

urban areas.

Ireland faces future challenges to meet new air quality standards for

particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations by 2020. This is particularly a

problem in the more densely populated and wealthier regions or Ireland.

The agricultural sector accounts for 98% of ammonia emissions in Ireland.

Ammonia readily reacts with other substances in the atmosphere to form e.g.

ammonium nitrate. The deposited nitrogen from the atmosphere onto soils

and vegetation can increase plant sensitivity to stress (for example from frost,

drought and insect damage). Whilst data for 2011 show Ireland to be 7.3

ktonnes below the 2010 limit, the ambitious targets of Food Harvest 2020 are

likely to greatly increase levels of ammonia.

3.3.10. Climate Change

59


Ireland has a number of natural resources which may help to mitigate rising

greenhouse gas emissions. Natural peatland acts as a long term carbon

store. Extensive grasslands also act as a potential carbon sink.

Ireland’s forest estate is recognised in the Ireland Climate Change Strategy

for its role in carbon sequestration, provision of renewable fuel and ability to

substitute more energy intensive materials.

The total carbon stock in forest biomass (excluding soil carbon) is estimated

to be circa 210.3 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 in 2012. Forest soils represent a

very significant carbon pool; current estimates are that the total carbon stock

in forest soils is in the region of 1,188.1 Mt of CO2.

The forestry sector is predicted to sequester 4.8 Mt of CO2 in Irish Kyoto-

eligible forests in 2020 (Forest Policy Review Group, 2013), up from an

annual average of 3.23 Mt of CO2 over the period 2008-2012.

Wood fuels are the second largest contributor to renewable energy

generation in Ireland, after wind power. The power is generated in the three

wood fuelled biomass combined heat and power plants in Ireland, where the

largest use of this resource is within the forest product sector itself (Forest

Policy Review Group, 2014).

Forest biomass is an important contributor to meeting renewable energy

targets. There has been a 35% increase in wood fuel demand from 2006 –

2010. Ireland’s Strategy for Renewable Energy (DCENR, 2012) aims to

support the co-firing of biomass in peat power plants at Edenderry and

possibly at Lanesborough and Shannon Bridge in due course.

Energy diversification incentives have led to a 14.3% year-on-year increase

in renewable energy usage from 2005 to 2011 (EPA, 2012a).

Ireland has a substantial renewable energy resource, particularly in the West

Region which has high capacity to produce renewable energy using wind

power; existing turbines generating 181.68 MW in 2013. If all the contracted

wind energy projects are constructed and become operational, the capacity

will increase by 930.1 MW per annum (RAI, 2014).

The South-West Region also has high capacities to produce renewable

energy using wind power, with existing turbines generating 513.66 MW in

60

2013. If all the contracted wind energy projects are constructed and become

operational, the capacity will increase by 508.17 MW per annum (RAI, 2014).

There has been a rapid increase in the uptake of renewable energy in Ireland;

energy diversification incentives have led to a 14.3% year-on-year increase

in renewable energy usage (2005-2011) (RAI, 2014).

The share of electricity generated from renewable energy sources in 2010

was 14.8%, exceeding the interim EU target of 13.2% and almost meeting

the Government target of 15% (EPA, 2013c).


Ireland’s population growth has been significantly greater than the EU

average, resulting in greater demands on fossil-fuel-based energy for heating

and electricity.

Ireland’s per capita aggregate Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions are the

second highest in the EU and its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per capita

are the 10th highest (EPA, 2013c).

The transport sector is a significant contributor to GHG in Ireland, although

they have been falling in recent years; emissions rose 127% over the period

1990-2007, but have fallen by 20% since then (EPA, 2013c). Lack of public

transport and the dispersed nature of the population across much of Ireland

has meant that dependence on private vehicles is high, which results in high

greenhouse gas emissions.

Methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture (30.5% of Ireland’s total

emissions) are projected to increase in the period to 2020 due to agricultural

expansion under the Food Harvest 2020 strategy.

There is a significant risk that Ireland will not meet its 2020 EU targets even

under the most ambitious emission reduction scenario. (EPA, 2014a).

Changing climatic conditions may increase the threat from pests and

diseases (particularly in forest environments e.g. of bark beetles), as well as

from invasive non-native species.

Forest species at the lower altitudes of mountains in Europe are already

suffering from decreased precipitation and increased temperature. Forests

may also become more susceptible to abiotic damages produced by more

61

frequent windstorms, droughts and forest fires (EC, 2014).

Other impacts of climate change on forests include: changes in the nutrient

balance in soils; northward/altitude migration of tree species as well as other

organisms; and forest dieback.

Homogenous and fragmented landscapes created by intensive farming will

restrict the ability of people and wildlife to adapt to climate change.

Climate change presents real challenges to future land use and location of

development in the South-East region. Predicted impacts from projected

temperature rises include more concentrated periods of higher rainfall, more

exposure to flood risk and increasing coastal erosion in Wexford and

Waterford and lower river flows potentially affecting fish spawning and water

supply (South-East Regional Authority, 2010).

The east coast of Ireland is relatively low lying; rising sea levels, more severe

storms and tidal surges therefore place these areas at significant risk. In the

Mid-West, Limerick City and particularly the city centre sits astride the

Shannon Estuary and is consequently subject to periodic flooding related to

combinations of tidal/river/fluvial and weather events (Mid-West Regional

Authority, 2010).

When peatland is damaged its sequestration function is reversed and carbon

is released to the environment. The EPA’s 2011 study on Ireland’s peatland

estimated that due to extensive degradation, Irish peatland releases carbon

at the rate of 9.66 Mt CO2 equivalents per year.

Dublin is the region with the largest amount of energy derived from non-

renewable sources (oil, gas, coal, and peat) (RAI, 2014).

The country is currently overly reliant on peat powered energy plants, which

are a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

There is difficulty in gaining access to the energy grid for renewable energy

developments.

There are concerns that a reduction in energy usage by transport and

industry may lead to corresponding declines in economic activity.

3.3.11. Material Assets


62

Ireland has significant natural resources such as water, carbon rich soils,

orefields, zinc resources and high quality grassland, whilst resources are also

available for renewable energy generation.

The extractive industry is now developing its practices in a more sustainable

and environmentally friendly manner, and provides opportunities for new and

alternative employment within the industry.

In 2010, municipal waste generated in Ireland was 16% less than in 2007

(when it reached a peak of 50 tonnes of domestic waste per person), whilst

household waste generated per person is considerably lower than the EU

average (EPA, 2012a)

With the exception of targets under the End of Life Vehicle Directive, Ireland

is achieving its current EU obligations across a broad range of waste

legislation (packaging, waste electrical and electronic equipment, batteries)

(EPA, 2013d).

As set out in National Waste Report (EPA, 2013d) the recycling rate for

municipal waste is now equivalent to the EU-27 norm (40%). Ireland also

achieved the first target for diversion of biodegradable waste from landfill as

required under the EU Landfill Directive.

The Border Region has the lowest volume of waste per capita, measured at

0.25 tonnes in 2011. The Midland Region is the second lowest at 0.26 tonnes

(RAI, 2014).


15 of Ireland’s 28 operational municipal landfills will run out of consented

capacity in three years, and there is only 12 years gross municipal landfill

disposal capacity in the country (EPA, 2013d).

Ireland has failed to meet the EU re-use and recovery targets for end-of-life

vehicles, and continues to export nearly half of its hazardous waste for

treatment/disposal.

The Mid-East region produced the highest volume of waste per capita at 0.33

tonnes in 2011, closely followed by Dublin and the South-East at 0.32 tonnes

(RAI, 2014).

As stated in the National Waste Report (EPA, 2013d), Ireland cannot rely on

63

a recession to reduce generation of municipal solid waste. In the case of the

target for the diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill, the

decrease contributed to Ireland meeting the 2010 target, but if waste

generation increases with economic growth, future targets will be at risk.

Efforts in waste prevention, diversion to recovery, the development of

necessary supporting infrastructure and the enforcement of the 2009 and

2013 Food Waste Regulations, will be key to meeting future targets.

3.3.12. Cultural Heritage and Archaeology


Ireland has two properties on the World Heritage List, the Archaeological

Ensemble of the Bend of Boyne (located to the south of the border between

the Mid-East region and the Border region) and Skellig Michael off the

country’s south-west coast.

There is also a tentative list of seven properties and groups of properties

which the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

intends to consider for nomination to the World Heritage List. These include

the Burren; the Céide Fields and North West Mayo Boglands; the Monastic

City of Clonmacnoise and its Cultural Landscape; the Historic City of Dublin;

the Early Medieval Monastic sites of Durrow, Glendalough, Inis Cealtra, Kells

and Monasterboice; the Western Stone Forts; and the Royal Sites of Ireland

at Cashel, Dún Ailinne, the Hill of Uisneach, the Rathcroghan Complex and

the Tara Complex.

Ireland has 741 National Monuments listed by Heritage Ireland under state

care, comprising of individual or groups of monuments ranging in age from

the Neolithic period to the 20th Century.

There are estimated to be some 1,600 Recorded Monuments and Protected

Structures on the Coillte forest estate (more than double the number in direct

State or Local Authority ownership or guardianship). The incorporation of

many of these cultural heritage features into sign-posted walking routes by

both Coillte and other local tourism groups, has greatly enhanced the

awareness and accessibility of the sites as well as the economic value of the

recreational/tourism product available in a number of locations (Forest Policy

Review Group, 2014).

64

The historic environment of Ireland supports 25,000 FTE jobs, however, this

number could increase to 40,000 if the indirect impacts are accounted for.

This equates to a national annual income of €1.5 billion to Ireland’s GVA.

Overall the historic environment represents 1% of Ireland’s GVA and 2% of

overall employment (Ecorys, 2012).

Fáilte Ireland's 2012 Visitor Attitudes Survey revealed that three in five

visitors stated Ireland’s interesting history and culture was a very important

factor in choosing to holiday in Ireland.

The South-East of Ireland has a rich and varied architectural, industrial and

maritime heritage, whilst the vernacular architecture is also a very strong

component of the character of the region (South-East Regional Authority,

2010).

The upgrading and maintenance of a wide network of trails and recreation

sites across the public-sector forest estate by Coillte, coupled with the

incorporation of many of the archaeological sites, monuments, structures,

and cultural heritage features into sign-posted walking routes by both Coillte

and other local tourism groups, has greatly enhanced the awareness and

accessibility of the sites as well as the economic value of the

recreational/tourism product available in a number of locations.


Potential threats to Ireland’s cultural heritage include climate change,

development, public access to nature areas, afforestation, changing land

use, renewable energy, funding, skills, materials and maintenance (UCD,

2006).

An issue for rural areas has been the on-going and gradual decline in

archaeological monuments in the countryside and degradation of field

monuments (Border Regional Authority, 2010).

Moreover, a considerable number of archaeological features in upland and

marginal areas do not currently appear on the Sites and Monuments Record

(SMR) making them at risk of damage from development, land use change

or neglect (Heritage Council, 2014).

In the 1990s, in parallel with a renewed focus and enhanced incentives to

encourage private landowners to plant forests, concerns were expressed

65

about mitigating the impacts of new afforestation projects (Cooney 1993;

IAPA 1994; Johnson 1998). As recently as 2006, UCD highlighted the

continuing need for improved planting and land-use strategies to minimise

the potential impacts of afforestation on Ireland’s archaeological heritage.

The replacement of traditional rural landscapes with scrub encroachment and

extensive afforestation with commercial coniferous species is having an

adverse effect on the cultural and natural heritage of upland and wetland

areas in western counties (UCD, 2006).

Woodland creation, if issues are not acknowledged and appropriately

mitigated for, has potential for adverse effects on cultural heritage and

archaeology, including for example damage to historic field boundaries and

walls, ancient settlement and ritual monuments such as ringforts and burial

mounds, post-medieval structures associated with rural economic and social

life such as limekilns, booley huts, and sweat houses, existing veteran trees,

and areas where the landscape history is important.

Preparation of the ground prior to afforestation (including drainage), road

construction, harvesting and felling operations may disturb above and below

ground archaeology.

There has been a lack of coordination across the rural tourism sector, with

many opportunities for sharing and promoting Ireland’s exceptional cultural

heritage being missed, though this is improving with actions taken in recent

years by Coillte and other local tourism groups.

3.3.13. Landscape


There are six areas in the Ireland that have been designated as National

Parks due to the national importance of the landscape: Glenveagh in County

Donegal’s Derryveagh Mountains; Ballycroy on the Western seaboard in

northwest Mayo; Connemara in northwest Galway; the Wicklow Mountains;

the Burren in County Clare; and Killarney in County Kerry. Ireland’s National

Parks consist of a diverse range of landscapes including mountains, lakes,

woodland, heaths and Atlantic blanket bog.

A characteristic feature of the Midland Region are glacial formed eskers

which are particularly attractive for quarrying operations. One of the most

66

significant esker systems is known as the Esker Riada a raised platform

running from east to west Ireland, passing through the counties of

Westmeath, Offaly, Roscommon and Galway in Ireland (Midland Regional

Authority, 2010).

The West Region is comprised of some of the most dramatic and varied

landscapes. The Burren landscape is a unique archaeological landscape that

is recognised internationally. It crosses the border between Counties Galway

and Clare and is a key interface between the West and Mid-West Regional

Authority areas (West Regional Authority, 2010).

The River Shannon forms the boundary between the West and Midland

Regions and is a landscape feature of national significance. Lough Ree is the

second largest lake in the system and has the highest navigation use of

Ireland’s waterways with connection to the Erne system on to Northern

Ireland. The internationally significant, candidate World Heritage site of

Clonmacnoise is located on the Mid-Shannon, a water corridor connecting

Lough Derg and Lough Ree (Midland Regional Authority, 2010).

The South-West Region has a diverse and rich landscape, both built and

natural. The Greater Dublin Area contains particular landscape qualities in

County Wicklow, which is the most forested county in Ireland and home to

the Wicklow Mountains National Park (South-West Regional Authority, 2010).

The Mid-West contains a number of important landscapes that cross Local

Authority and regional boundaries, such as the Burren areas of Clare and

Galway; Lough Derg and Lough Gur; Ballyhoura/Galtees; the Shannon

Estuary; the mountainous area north of Scarriff; Slieve Felim and Slieve

Aughty (Mid-West Regional Authority, 2010). Within the South-East Region

there are scenic areas and sensitive upland landscapes (South-East

Regional Authority, 2010).

Forests are required to balance with the character of neighbouring landcover;

complement landscape integrity in terms of aesthetics; and minimise and

mitigate visual conflicts. Forest expansion and forest operations, when in

keeping with the landscape character of an area, have a great potential to

enhance existing landscapes (Forest Policy Review Group, 2013).

A review undertaken in the UK (Willis et al., 2003) investigated public

67

preferences and willingness to pay for forested landscapes, seen either from

home or during regular journeys to and from home. This revealed that the

strongest preferences were for forests with a mix of tree species and

incorporation of open space and where spacing of trees was random rather

than regular.


There is a lack of landscape expertise within county councils, meaning only

a few Landscape Character Assessments (LCAs) have been used to inform

county landscape strategies.

A number of state bodies influence Ireland’s landscapes at a variety of scales,

which has resulted in a fragmented approach to landscape management

(Heritage Council, 2010b). There is a lack of uniformity between counties in

terms of the approach to the designation of landscapes and protected views,

which leads to inconsistency in their management.

Ireland is experiencing population growth and saw the population increase by

8.2% from 2002 to 2006. As a result landscapes in Ireland have been

affected by rural development, including housing and infrastructure, as well

as agricultural intensification.

An aging population in Ireland is leading to abandonment of upland farms

which is resulting in landscape dereliction.

Concentration and intensification of commercial farming has also affected

landscapes, especially in the more productive agricultural areas of Munster

and south Leinster.

Many opportunities to share and promote Ireland’s exceptional landscapes

are being missed through lack of coordination across the rural tourism sector.

3.3.14. Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services

3.3.15. This section looks at the inter-relationship between the preceding

sustainability topics, as well as GI and ES which are cross-cutting topics of

increasing importance (both concepts are defined below). It also includes

information on other cross-cutting themes such as tourism and environmental

knowledge and understanding. The purpose of this section is to link environmental,

social and economic issues in a more integrated way, and emphasise that a good

68

quality environment is essential to continuing social and economic prosperity.


Ireland’s ecosystems are valued in excess of €2.6 billion per annum (Bullock

et al, 2008), from which the economy and society derive a variety of services

including food production and recreation. Other ‘values’ are more

fundamental and concern the pleasure inherent in experiencing nature in all

its forms, from the solitude of wilderness walks to families enjoying a busy

day at a clean beach.

Forests provide a multitude of ecosystem services (ES): goods that are

derived from these services, including ‘market goods’ (those formally traded

in markets e.g. timber, wild foods, fuel, medicines) and ‘non-market goods’

(those which are un-priced such as recreation and amenity benefits, water

regulation, erosion control and climate regulation).

There has been increasing focus on the value of goods and services provided

by Ireland’s forest estate, with a review by Bacon (2004) valuing the non-

market benefits of forestry, such as biodiversity, recreation and carbon

sequestration, at €88.4 per annum with the potential to rise to €126 million.

Later, Bullock et al. (2008) estimated the value of ecosystem services from

forestry (excluding carbon sequestration) as being €55 million, with the

potential to rise to €80 million per year if more environmentally sensitive

forestry is practiced, or more should the area of broad-leaf trees be

expanded.

Europe’s forests have long since been recognised for their multifunctionality,

delivering multiple environmental and quality of life benefits and supporting

the economic development, employment and prosperity of Europe,

particularly in rural areas. Moreover, forests retain much of the spiritual and

cultural heritage that defines Europe (EC, 2014).

Fingal County Council in the Dublin region has included a chapter on GI in its

County Development Plan 2011-2017.

The Regional Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area (Dublin and

Mid-East Regional Authorities, 2010) also have a section on GI. These

Guidelines reveal that the Area has a number of unique assets which

69

contribute to its diverse richness; notably, the Dublin/Wicklow Mountains, Bru

Na Boinne, Liffey Valley and Dublin Bay.

Within the Border Region, Sligo is the most proactive county regarding GI,

with various projects implemented since 2008 (e.g. Cleveragh Regional Park)

and a policy relating to the use of GI as a means of flood risk management in

its County Development Plan 2011-2017.


Findings from an Irish barometer study on attitudes to biodiversity among the

public (Heritage Council, 2010) indicate that knowledge of biodiversity in

Ireland is well below the EU average.

The EPA’s 2012 assessment stated there is thus a need to incorporate

biodiversity and ecosystem services issues into relevant educational

courses. Environmental issues are still not fully integrated into all sectors,

and there is only limited cross-sector support on environmental issues.

Many difficulties surround expanding the area of GI in Ireland. The creation

of multifunctional GI networks require agreement or cooperation of varied

stakeholders such as landowners, in a participatory planning process.

Access to green corridors and natural heritage is also complex, involving

issues such as private ownership of lands or physical difficulties in accessing

some of those sites which are within public ownership (Dublin and Mid-East

Regional Authorities, 2010).

3.4. Key Issues and Likely Future Trends

3.4.1. In 2012 the Irish Government launched the new sustainable development

framework to identify and prioritise policy areas and mechanisms where

sustainable measures will add value to the lives of current and future generations.

The framework set out clear objectives, define timelines and allocate key

responsibilities. The project aims to promote the green economy as part of the

economic recovery and produce a framework for the coherent approach to policy

and sustainable development.

Public Perceptions

3.4.2. A 2007 survey carried out in Ireland by the Heritage Council into public attitudes

on the environmental and heritage found that 92% of respondents felt more should

70

be done to protect the Irish countryside and 70% felt that access to heritage and

the environment improves their quality of life. When asked what their preferences

for spending additional tax revenue on the environment would be (out of 8

categories), 29% opted for restoration of canals and rivers, 22% for safeguarding

and improving coastal landscapes, and 12% for protection and improvement of

habitats. Cultural heritage assets and attractive landscapes were deemed to be

less important.

3.4.3. A survey conducted by the EC in 2011 found that the environmental issue of most

concern to the public in Ireland was the impact on health of chemicals used in

everyday products. Other environmental issues causing concern in Ireland were

water pollution, growing waste, and man-made disasters. The public also

considered that the efficient use of natural resources and the protection of the

environment were key to economic recovery and growth in the future.

3.4.4. In terms of public opinion of forests, the FORECON report (2011) revealed that the

public ranked nature conservation and biodiversity as the most important outputs

from forests. Recreation and timber production were considered the least

important outputs, however the public expressed a strong preference that there

should be public access for recreation in the forests established under the

afforestation programme and that this access should be complemented with

facilities.

Overview of Key Issues

3.4.5. An assessment carried out in 2012 by the Environment Protection Agency

identified the following key challenges facing Ireland:

Protecting soil and biodiversity;

Protecting water resources;

Improving air quality;

Limiting and adapting to climate change;

Building a low carbon economy;

Using resources sustainably and efficiently;

Implementing and enforcing environmental legislation; and

Putting the environment at the centre of decision making.

71

3.4.6. With regards to forestry in particular, environmental issues fall into two main

categories: drivers of forest policy in their own right (such as climate change

mitigation and adaptation, expansion of native woodland, provision of forest

recreation space), and those arising from forest expansion and increased levels of

harvesting, such as potential impacts on habitats, water quality and biodiversity

(Forest Policy Review Group, 2013a). The Forest Policy Review addresses both

sets of issues through a series of recommendations (Forest Policy Review Group,

2014). The key aspects in relation to the environment were thought to be:

The level(s) of afforestation and interactions with habitats and the provision

of public goods and services;

Species composition and structure of the forest estate and especially the

conservation of indigenous biodiversity and tree species;

Ongoing management of the forest resource to ensure compliance with the

principles of sustainable forest management (SFM);

Future roundwood supply and associated harvesting levels; and

The level of research on and awareness of environmental issues.

3.4.7. At a European level, the main threats and pressures on forests include the

following: forest fires, water or air pollution, drought, climate change, invasive alien

species, pests, habitat fragmentation, other land use developments, lack of

structural and species diversity, inappropriate management or lack of

management, poor access (EC, 2014).

Summary of Key Issues

3.4.8. From analysis of the baseline data, the key sustainability issues facing Ireland are

thought to be:

Continued loss of semi-natural habitat by agricultural conversion and building

and infrastructure development;

Deterioration and fragmentation of habitats and species populations as well

as habitat loss in its own right;

Unfavourable condition of habitats and species in protected sites due to e.g.

over/under-grazing, water pollution and invasive alien species;

Limited protected or consideration for biodiversity outside of protected areas;

Increasing problems of pests, diseases and invasive species;

72

High levels of poverty, deprivation, economic inactivity and unemployment;

Lack of fair and equitable access to services and public transport frequency

and connectivity for rural dwellers;

High obesity levels compared with the rest of Europe (25%) putting pressure

on health services and reducing productivity in the workplace through ill-

health;

Lack of woodland cover;

Ireland’s extensive peatland exists in a degraded state due to disturbance

from domestic and industrial peat extraction, afforestation, wind farms,

recreational activities and invasive species;

Poor water quality has been caused by municipal wastewater treatment

plants and diffuse agricultural sources;

Main centres of population have poor air quality primarily due to road

transport (NO2 and/or PM10) but also from the domestic burning of

bituminous coal;

GHG emissions are higher per capita and/or falling more slowly in Ireland

compared with the UK and Europe, in part due to rising agricultural,

heating/electricity and transport emissions;

Increasingly frequent and severe weather events such as flooding are

disrupting infrastructure and agriculture;

Ireland has lower recycling rates and higher landfill rates than much of the

rest of Europe, whilst domestic material consumption is particularly high;

Lack of coordination across the rural tourism sector, with many opportunities

for sharing and promoting heritage and landscape assets being missed;

Landscapes have been affected by housing and infrastructure development,

agricultural intensification and decline/ loss of natural and cultural features;

Lack of knowledge and understanding of environmental issues, biodiversity

and ecosystem services;

Ireland is also susceptible to causing or being affected by transboundary

effects with Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to water bodies,

biodiversity, landscape and climate, and for activities taking place in coastal,

marine and border areas.

73

4. CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

4.1. The Process

4.1.1. Consideration of alternatives is a key feature of the SEA process; the SEA

Directive requires that the Environmental Report should consider:

‘Reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical

scope of the plan or programme’ and give ‘an outline of the reasons for selecting

the alternatives dealt with’ (Article 5.1 and Annex I (h)).

4.1.2. In practical terms, it refers to possible alternative mechanisms for delivering the

FP, and the assessment of the impacts of each of these options against the SEA

Objectives.

4.1.3. SEA guidance recognises that it is not for the SEA to decide on the options to be

considered. This SEA therefore focuses on the alternative delivery options actually

considered in the preparation of the FP by DAFM. The SEA has assessed which

of the identified options, or combination of options, performs the best

environmentally.

4.2. Alternative Scheme Options / Delivery Mechanisms

4.2.1. With programmes governed by EU regulations such as the FP, constraints on what

practical alternatives exist are often set by the need to comply with pre-set criteria

determined at a European level. This can have the effect of limiting the alternatives

that are available to the programme makers. In this case, measures set out in the

new FP must meet all the conditions laid down in the Rural Development

Regulation (No. 1305/2013) and contribute towards the aims and objectives of the

CAP.

4.2.2. DAFM has carried out its own analysis of options. As the majority of funding

through the FP will be for afforestation, DAFM has chosen to focus on different

options for this scheme alone, in particular regarding the premium rate. The RDR

introduces two significant changes that will affect this rate; premium payments

reduced from 20 years to 12 years and no requirement to differentiate between

farmer and non-farmer. In order to maintain participation in the afforestation

scheme by farmers and encourage participation by non-farmers (who currently

make up just 6% of the total), without increasing the burden on the public finances,

74

it was decided to offer 15 premiums and to offer the same rate to farmers and non-

farmers. Fifteen years rather than 12 is permissible under the General de minimis

regulation and was chosen because stakeholder consultation carried out by the

Forest Service in March 2014 revealed that 12 years is not a sufficient timescale

to persuade farmers to plant. Overall, compared to the 2007-2013 scheme, year-

on-year farmer rates will increase by 8-10% across the GPCs and non-farmer rates

will increase by 35-187%, whilst the Government will save €2m compared to the

current 20 year period through not having to pay out for such a long period.

4.2.3. The SEA has focused only on the reasonable alternatives that have emerged

during the drafting of the FP. Section 5.3 describes the ‘strategic’ alternatives, and

Section 5.4 explains what the preferred Alternative is and why DAFM chose to take

this forward to public consultation. It also sets out why aspects of these and other

alternatives are not considered to be ‘reasonable’ and will not, therefore, be

subjected to further assessment or consultation.

4.3. Assessment of Strategic Alternatives

Alternative 1 – Continue with the FP 2007-2013

4.3.1. This Alternative assumes that the current FP will be extended to the period 2014-

2020, with the current schemes (listed below) continuing.

Afforestation Scheme – to encourage the planting of forests by

compensating forest owners for the costs of forestry establishment and for

the income foregone during the maturation of the timber crop on both

agricultural and (for the first time) non-agricultural land. Objectives are to

contribute towards climate change mitigation; produce a commercial crop of

timber; provide a sustainable source of wood biomass for energy purposes;

contribute to the development of the rural economy; increase the area of

amenity forests; improve water quality through riparian planting; and increase

overall biodiversity by providing woodland habitat which is under-represented

in the complex of habitat types.

Forest Environment Protection (Afforestation) Scheme (FEPS) – to

encourage planting of high nature value forestry on Rural Environment

Protection Scheme (REPS) farms. Objectives are to support, establish or

provide habitat for wildlife; protect water quality; produce a commercial crop

of timber; and contribute positively towards climate change mitigation.

75

Native Woodland Scheme (NWS) – to promote the planting and

conservation of Ireland's native woodland species and associated

biodiversity. Additional objectives of the scheme are to conserve native

genetic biodiversity; improve water quality; contribute positively towards

climate change mitigation; promote traditional woodland management

systems and related woodcraft; and encourage wood and non-wood

production.

NeighbourWoods Scheme – to create new opportunities for the

establishment of attractive, close-to-home woodland amenities for public use

and enjoyment. The Scheme provides grants and premiums (where

applicable) for enhancing existing woodland, establishing new woodland (e.g.

on brownfield sites) and installing recreational facilities (including educational

and fitness trails).

Woodland Improvement Scheme – to promote the thinning and tending of

established forests (mainly old broadleaf woodlands) in order to maximise

economic potential. Operations include the removal of invasive species that

threaten the regeneration of the woodland, thinning, pruning and enrichment

planting. Objectives are to encourage healthy tree growth, landscape

enhancement, soil protection and water protection, whilst deadwood habitat

will be provided which is important for saproxylic species.

Forest Roads Scheme – to provide funding for the construction of roads and

other infrastructural works to improve access to forests for management and

harvesting, as well as additional biodiversity opportunities by increasing open

spaces and forest edge effect.

Forest Reconstitution Scheme – to provide a basis for replanting where

required in order to restore the forest back to its original form following

damage by fire, natural causes and pests such as deer, grey squirrel and

vole. The scheme also contributes to maintaining or restoring forest

ecosystems, biodiversity and traditional landscapes.

Forestry Promotion & Training – to promote knowledge on the sustainable

management of forests; support vocational training; improve the overall

performance and competitiveness of forests; help forest owners to increase

their knowledge of forest management; raise awareness of the many benefits

76

of forestry; and promote the development of Forestry Producer Groups.

4.3.2. The 2007-2013 FP resulted in a total of 47,715 ha of new woodland being planted

under the various afforestation schemes, including FEPS and NWS, an average of

6,816 ha per year. Approximately 945 km of new forest roads were constructed to

facilitate forest harvesting and timber transportation, equating to an average of 135

km per year.

4.3.3. Continuing with the 2007-2013 Programme exactly as presented is not possible as

FEPS was designed as a companion scheme for environmentally-friendly farming

through REPS, a scheme which closed to new applicants in 2009. Premium rates

over 20 years would need to reduce (to 12 or 15 years) for this Alternative to be

compatible with the new RDR which means that delivery of this Alternative would

need to change in order for it to be feasible to continue with. However the types of

projects funded are still relevant to the 2014-2020 period4.

Alternative 2 – Do nothing or ‘zero’ option

4.3.4. This possible Alternative assumes that the current 2007-2013 Programme will run

its course and the new FP will not be adopted in Ireland. Exchequer funding would

thus be removed. This option would not comply with the CPR and the RDR,

however it is useful to include this as an Alternative to highlight what would happen

to the baseline environment in the absence of the FP.

Alternative 3 – Proposed Measures as at March 2014

4.3.5. Compared to the 2007-2013 FP (Alternative 1), this Alternative includes premium

payments over 12 years, an increase in planting levels from approximately 6,800

ha annually to up to 8,290 ha annually, and new schemes including Agroforesty,

Forestry for Fibre, Native Woodland Conservation Scheme, Forest Management

Plans, Investments in Forestry Technology and Forest Genetic Reproductive

Material.

4.3.6. In March 2014 DAFM produced a Consultation Paper containing a summary of

proposed measures. This document was sent out to stakeholders prior to a

stakeholder workshop held on 15th April. The 11 proposed measures and

associated schemes are set out below.

4 It should be noted that, whilst the 2007-2013 FP will not continue, land holders who have entered into agreements prior to 2013 will still receive payments (where applicable) during the 2014-2020 period.

77

Measure 1: Afforestation and Creation of Woodlands – Support for

establishment and 12 premium payments for creation of new forests.

a) Afforestation Scheme

b) Native Woodland Establishment Scheme

c) Agroforesty Scheme

d) Forestry for Fibre Scheme

Measure 2: Investments Improving the Resilience and Environmental

Value of Forestry: NeighbourWoods Scheme – Provides support for the

development of existing close to home woodland for public access (aimed

primarily at local authorities).

a) Silvicultural Enhancement of Existing Amenity Forests

b) Establishment of New NeighbourWoods

c) Provision of Recreational Facilities

Measure 3: Investments in Infrastructure: Forest Roads – Support for

building forest roads is provided under this measure.

a) Forest Road Scheme

Measure 4: Prevention and Restoration of Damage to Forests:

Reconstitution Scheme – Support for forest holder to restore and maintain

forests following significant damage by natural causes.

a) Reconstitution Scheme

Measure 5: Investments improving the Resilience and Environmental

value of Forestry: Woodland Improvement – This scheme provides

support for forest management operations for broadleaf woodlands.

a) Woodland Improvement (Thinning and Tending- Broadleaves)

Measure 6: Investments improving the Resilience and environmental

value of Forests: Native Woodland Conservation – Supports the

protection and enhancement of existing native woodlands and where

appropriate conversion of coniferous forests to native woodlands.

a) Native Woodland Conservation Scheme

Measure 7: Knowledge Transfer and Innovation – Supports the setting up

78

of knowledge transfer groups, continuous professional development and

training.

a) Knowledge Transfer Groups Scheme

b) Continued Professional Development Scheme

c) Targeted Training Scheme

d) Advisory Services Scheme

Measure 8: Producer Groups – Support is provided under this measure to

help forest holders come together to create a critical mass for forestry

operations and mobilising timber.

a) Setting up of Producer Groups

Measure 9: Investments in Forestry Technology – Support for early

adopters of new technology e.g. variable tyre systems, inventory equipment.

a) Investments in Forestry Technology

Measure 10: Forest Environment and Climate Services: Forest Genetic

Reproductive Material – Annual payment towards the cost of managing and

conserving registered seed stands.

a) Seed Stands which are Currently Not in Production (Broadleaves only)

b) Establishment of New Production Areas (seed orchards)

Measure 11: Forest Management Plans – Support for forest holders to draft

management plans.

a) Forest Management Plans

Alternative 4 – Proposed Measures as at June 2014

4.3.7. This Alternative was drafted for internal review. Amendments have been made to

the detail of measures in the March 2014 version based on comments received

from stakeholders during the initial consultation period on Version 6 of the Draft

FP (during April) and on the SEA Scoping Report (during May-June). Proposed

measures are listed above in Alternative 3 and described in more detail in Section

1.3. A summary of the main differences to Alternative 3 are set out below.


The support for creation of new forests now includes 15 premium payments

79

instead of 12. The other main change is additional text setting out how to

ensure that afforestation is focused on suitable sites, thus avoiding adverse

effects on high nature value sites, upland and peat sites that have a high

sensitivity regarding water quality (referencing Circulars 10/2010 and

18/2011), acid sensitive areas and fisheries sensitive areas. Furthermore,

new forests planted under this measure will be established and maintained

in a way that enhances the landscape, whilst any proposed planting site

(contiguous) with lakes, rivers, streams or drains with continuously flowing

water are subject to the Forest Service’s Forestry and Water Guidelines.

Regarding the specific schemes:

Under agroforesty, there will be a replanting obligation, whilst

consideration should be given to supporting the establishment of

demonstration plots for research purposes.

Under Forestry for Fibre, sycamore has been removed from the list of

species as there is an overlap with the afforestation scheme where better

grant rates are available. Support to establish demonstration plots for the

purposes of researching these additional species may also be

considered under this measure.


Value of Forestry: NeighbourWoods Scheme – An additional objective of

the scheme is to enhance protection of waterbodies and watercourses

adjacent to the proposed woods, whilst provision of health benefits are also

specifically referred to. Additionally the measure states that NeighbourWoods

can be used strategically to reinforce existing greenbelts, greenways and

sustainable transport corridors, as well as creating a resource for people

young and old to learn about nature and the environment.

Measure 3: Investments in Infrastructure: Forest Roads – A cost based

special construction grant of €5,000 per forest road application will be made

available where these works help minimise the impact of harvesting

operations on the environment and in particular the potential for

sedimentation of any nearby watercourses. Special works could include large

culverts and bridging to reduce the risk of run-off. Road applications which

include special construction works (SCW) will be prioritised.

80


Reconstitution Scheme – No changes.


value of Forestry: Woodland Improvement (Thinning and Tending

Broadleaves) – The focus will be on broadleaf (and mixed) forests only.


value of Forests: Native Woodland Conservation – The measure now sets

out the ecosystem services that native woodlands can provide.

Measure 7: Knowledge Transfer and Information Actions – The remit for

Knowledge Transfer Groups will now include water quality and biodiversity in

addition to general environmental awareness, whilst targeted training may be

carried out regarding continuous cover forestry, native woodlands and

environmental directives.

Measure 8: Setting up of Producer Groups – An additional objective of the

scheme is to increase knowledge transfer between forest holders particularly

to ensure that their operations protect and enhance the environment (e.g.

through coordinating actions), whilst funding is limited to start-ups only.

Measure 9: Innovative Forestry Technology – The focus is now on

innovation, whilst the type of technologies envisaged can relate to harvesting

technology in general.


Reproductive Material – Priority for funding will be given to improved

Washington seed orchards (Sitka Spruce), whilst support over and above the

amount provided for in the state aid rules is sought for the establishment of

seed orchards in order to reduce the risk of disease occurrences from

imported planting stock and improve plant resilience to climate change.

Measure 11: Forest Management Plans – These must adhere to the

principles of sustainable forest management and are applicable to coniferous

forests over 10ha and broadleaf forests over 5ha.

4.3.8. This Alternative also includes reference to Cross Cutting Measures. The new

forestry programme for Ireland proposes a suite of schemes which will provide

environmental services aimed at protecting water quality, improving soil stability,

81

retaining and enhancing diverse habitats, protecting endangered species,

mitigating climate change and enhancing the visual amenity of surrounding

landscapes. These include:

New woodlands must contain at least 15% open space and retained habitat

(Areas of Biodiversity Enhancement) where the size of the new forest

exceeds 10ha in order to conserve and encourage the development of

diverse habitats, native flora and fauna, and biodiversity;

Afforestation schemes must contribute to the national broadleaf target of 30%

(including >10% broadleaves within all new afforestation projects, where site

quality allows) thereby contributing to a greater range of habitat types and a

more diverse species mix;

The new Forestry for Fibre scheme will increase supplies of forestry biomass

and sawlog sized material for renewable energy uses and for wood product

manufacture;

The Native Woodland Conservation scheme can make a significant

contribution towards the protection of the Freshwater Pearl Mussel through

riparian planting in vulnerable areas which can act as a filtration barrier

reducing sedimentation and possibly eutrophication. In catchments already

planted with Conifer forests this scheme can be applied to convert these

forest to native woodlands.

Alternative 5 – Proposed Measures as at August 2014

4.3.9. This Alternative is the one that DAFM drafted for statutory public consultation (the

actual document assessed by ADAS was Version 19 of the Draft FP, received in

August 2014). Amendments have been made to the detail of measures in the June

2014 version during July and August based on comments received from the

Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER), the EU Directorate-

General for the Environment (DG ENVIRON) and from on-going feedback through

the SEA process.

4.3.10. A new Chapter on Penalties was incorporated into the August version of the

Draft FP. Penalties will be applicable to grants and/or premiums and the penalty

amount will be the % calculated (as set out below for those of most relevance to the

SEA) or €250 whichever is greater, but not exceeding €5,000.

82

Failure to comply with environmental guidelines that results in permanent or

serious damage to the environment, particularly but not exclusively, in

respect of archaeological sites and monuments, water or important habitats,

will result in a penalty amounting to 100% of the grant and all premiums

paid.

Even if no damage is caused, failure to comply with environmental

guidelines5 in relation to each of the following will result in a penalty of 5%

of the grant amount: water/fisheries/aquatic; NHAs/SACs/SPAs; sites and

monuments; distance from roads/dwellings; chemical application; fertiliser

application; disposal of waste/rubbish; hazardous fencing; mounding; silt

traps; scenic areas; health and safety.

Incorrect species selection will result in a penalty amounting to 100% of the

grant and all premiums paid.

Where remedial works are carried out, inadequate vegetation control,

inadequate drainage and/or silt traps or evidence of nutritional issues

(relating to Measures 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6) and inadequate culverts and

drainage relating to the Forest Roads Scheme will result in a penalty

amounting to 5% of the grant at first inspection, 10% at second inspection,

20% at third inspection and 100% of the grant and all premiums paid

thereafter.

4.3.11. Proposed measures are listed in Alternative 3 and described in more detail

in Section 1.3. A summary of the main differences to Alternative 4 by measure are

set out below.

Measure 1: Afforestation and Creation of Woodlands – In terms of

ensuring afforestation occurs in suitable sites, some new sections have been

added. Firstly in terms of archaeological heritage, where afforestation

development, forest road development, or felling licence applications falls

within 200 m of a designated archaeological site or monument, e.g. a

Recorded Monument, applications are identified for referral to the National

Monuments Service. An assessment by the NMS results in the following

5 For the purposes of determining if a penalty will apply where buffer zones and setback distances have been breached, reference will be made to the setback distances listed in the Forestry Schemes Manual, guidelines, watercourses identified on the Department’s iNET system, archaeological buffer zones identified as a condition of approval and any specific setback areas stated as a specific condition of approval.

83

options: increasing the size of archaeological exclusion zone(s); the

exclusion of a larger area or areas of archaeological potential; archaeological

monitoring of specified areas; the refusal of either part or all of the

development without prior archaeological assessment by independent

archaeological consultants; or a recommendation for refusal of the entire

development.

A new section has been added on ‘hedgerows, scrub and landmark trees’ to

make the retention of hedgerows and other semi-natural woody elements

more constraining. Hedgerows must be maintained and not allowed to

become invasive; landowners considering planting trees are encouraged to

retain scrub; Landmark trees are mentioned (those on the Tree Register of

Ireland) though no mention is given of any additional protection. Additionally,

DAFM is considering a 4m buffer around ‘quality’ hedgerows.

There is also now reference in the Ensuring Afforestation in suitable sites

section to ensuring that afforestation achieves compliance with the

requirements of the WFD and River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs)

which implement the requirements of the WFD at national level. The width of

the aquatic buffer zone for excluding pesticide application has now been

specified at 10-25m wide.

It has been clarified that the 30% broadleaf target is at national level. At

plantation level some will be higher than this and some lower; the minimum

threshold at plantation level remains at 10%. Regarding the specific

schemes:

The Afforestation Scheme no longer refers to aims to increase the area

of native woodland and purpose-designed recreational and amenity

forests or to improve water quality through riparian planting. However,

the latter is addressed through the NWS (Est) whilst recreation is referred

to as being an important aspect of sustainable forest management.

The Native Woodland Establishment Scheme now promotes the delivery

of wider ecosystem services such as water quality, soil stabilisation, and

habitat connectivity at a landscape level, and introduces a land use option

for farmers in environmentally sensitive areas.

The Agroforesty Scheme has received a budget cut of approximately

84

one-third, with the target area for creation over the lifetime of the new FP

approximately halved.


Value of Forestry: NeighbourWoods Scheme – It has been made clear

that applications under the NeighbourWood Scheme will undergo project

evaluation by the Forest Service (via desk and field inspections and use of

the GIS-based iFORIS system), referral to statutory consultees, AA

Screening and Appropriate Assessment (where required) under the Habitats

Directive, to ensure compatibility with the environment.

Measure 3: Investments in Infrastructure: Forest Roads – A new section

has been included on protecting against erosion: In order to receive funding,

special construction works (SCW) must now satisfy one or more of the

following criteria: Crossing required to protect watercourses e.g. fisheries

considerations, freshwater pearl mussel; Protection of Natura 2000 sites;

Required to prevent siltation and erosion; or Environmental benefit to works

proposed. SCW works must be specified, drawn up and supervised by a

qualified civil engineer, however the draft FP no longer states that

applications which include a SCW component will be prioritised.

Another new section has been added on linking forest roads planning with

the existing road system to help minimise disturbances, including making use

of existing forest entrances thereby avoiding the need to create new ones. In

addition, funding will be available for up to 100% of the total costs of building

forest roads (this was previously capped at 80%).


Reconstitution Scheme – No change.


value of Forestry: Woodland Improvement (Thinning and Tending

Broadleaves) – The scheme now includes actions within existing forests to

proactively protect and enhance water quality, archaeological sites, habitats

and species and sensitive landscapes.


value of Forests: Native Woodland Conservation – This now includes the

85

possibility for funding to clear invasive species from existing native

woodlands, to enable recovery of woodland ecosystem, if removal is a viable

and sustainable option. The same scheme will be open to native woodland

owners in the eight priority Freshwater Pearl Mussel (FPM) catchments,

enabling them to undertake rhododendron clearance near stream banks,

where the species is causing undue shading and preventing growth of the

type of natural ground vegetation needed to filter silt and sediments.

The site-specific native woodland plan needs to be completed by a NWS

Participating Ecologist and NWS Participating Forester; and planting must be

indigenous. New text has been added that clarifies the premium as aiming to

maintain and improve the environmental stability of forests where the

protective and ecological role of these forests is of public interest and where

the cost of maintenance and improvement measures for these forests

exceeds the income from these forests.

It has also been made clear that for applications under this measure, the

Forest Service will undertake project evaluation (via desk and field

inspections and the use of the GIS-based iFORIS system), referral to

statutory consultees and AA Screening and Appropriate Assessment (where

required) under the Habitats Directive, to ensure suitability and compatibility

with the environment.

The target is to establish 360 ha per annum, with a particular focus on the

targeted application of the scheme on key areas where ecosystem services

relation to biodiversity and water quality can be maximised, e.g. appropriate

restoration management within a SAC-designated woodland, or the

conversion of conifer high forest to native woodland at strategic locations

within one of the eight priority FPM catchments.

Measure 7: Knowledge Transfer and Information Actions – It has been

clarified that those providing advisory services to forest holders and farmers

will need to have the appropriate qualifications and skills to undertake this

role. There are also possibilities for linking Knowledge Transfer Groups and

targeted training to ensure knowledge is transferred to a wider audience

where possible. This is particularly relevant when creating linkages between

environmental awareness, environmental legislation and forest management

86

techniques. Finally, DAFM is looking at providing more training for foresters

to assist in the identification of quality habitats including native (and non-

native) scrub for retention as ABEs.

Measure 8: Setting up of Producer Groups – No change.

Measure 9: Innovative Forestry Technology – No change.


Reproductive Material – Clarification has been provided on the

establishment of new seed orchards; the scheme will be cost based with

funding provided up to a maximum of 50% of the cost of establishment. An

annual maintenance payment will be available for 10 years at a rate of

€500/annum. It is also now a requirement for seed stands or seed orchards

above 5ha for broadleaves or 10ha for conifers that a forest management

plan be presented prior to funding under this measure.

Measure 11: Forest Management Plans – FMPs must now also set out

relevant measures regarding the protection and enhancement of the wider

environment, primarily based on any environmental conditions attached to

approval, but also incorporating, where possible, readily-achievable

measures which can deliver additional environmental benefits. FMPs will also

facilitate forest certification. The thresholds at which management plans will

be required are currently being reviewed with a view to bringing more forests

under active management plans.

4.3.12. A high level matrix assessment has been carried out on each of these five

alternatives showing how well each of the respective measures performs against

the SEA Objectives (see Appendix D). A summary of this assessment, with

accompanying text, is provided in Table 5.1 below. To what extent each of the five

alternatives deliver or affect ecosystem services is set out in a second high level

summary shown in Table 5.2.

87

4.3.13. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 use the following key:








88

Table 5.1: Assessment of Alternatives (SEA Objectives)

SEA OBJECTI

VES

ALTERNATIVES

1 2 3 4 5

Continue with FP 2007-2013 Do Nothing Proposed Measures as at March 2014 Proposed Measures as at June 2014 Proposed Measures as at August 2014

1. Ecology

+/-

Ecology will continue to benefit significantly from the planting and conservation of Ireland's native woodland species and associated biodiversity; the Forest Environment Protection Scheme (FEPS) and Afforestation scheme which require provision of (under-represented) habitat for wildlife; and the Woodland Improvement Scheme (thinning and tending) which increases the amount of light reaching the forest floor thus stimulating vegetative growth, as well as providing deadwood habitat for saproxylic species. However, afforestation (particularly the planting of coniferous species) can reduce extent and quality of habitat and overall biodiversity if planted on protected and/or sensitive grass, heath and bog habitats. NeighbourWoods can potentially cause loss of habitat for brownfield species, whilst species in existing urban woodlands are likely to be disturbed through increasing recreational activities. Thinning and tending can disturb wildlife, as can the construction and use of forest roads.

-

Many habitats and species in Ireland are continuing to deteriorate in terms of their conservation status due to increased pressures on land availability, polluting activities, disturbance and climate change. All four of Ireland's Annex I forest habitats are in poor or bad condition, whilst many species continue to be under pressure from or threatened by forestry activities. Without such measures as the Native Woodland Schemes (both establishment and conservation), the old Forest Environment Protection scheme and improving education of land owners regarding the need to protect biodiversity, the state of Ireland's habitats and species will continue to decline.

+/-

Effects will be similar to Alternative 1, however there will be additional beneficial effects from the specified need to retain 15% of habitat/open space in new woodlands through the creation of 'Areas of Biodiversity Enhancement'; the increased national broadleaf target of 30% for all afforestation schemes; the Forest Genetic Reproductive Material scheme reducing incidences of pests and diseases; and the protection of Freshwater Pearl Mussel catchments through riparian planting and converting coniferous to native woodlands through the new Native Woodland Conservation Scheme. Deadwood habitat is not mentioned, though the works described in the previous FP are in any case part of Forest Biodiversity Guidelines. The latter also specifically refers to enhancement of woodland biodiversity in Natura 2000 sites. There is also some uncertainty regarding the Reconstitution Measure, as the removal of damaged trees and subsequent re-planting could damage sensitive sites.

+/-

Effects will be similar to Alternative 3, however the overall impact on biodiversity is more beneficial. These additional beneficial effects arise from the need for afforestation applicants to avoid adverse effects on high nature value sites and upland and peat sites that have a high sensitivity regarding water quality using IFS mapping. In addition, aquatic biodiversity will benefit from the protection of waterbodies through NeighbourWoods; prioritisation of special construction works to protect water quality from new road construction; and increased knowledge about ecosystem services through the Native Woodland Conservation measure, about biodiversity and water quality impacts through KTGs and environmental enhancement through Producer Groups.

+/-

Effects will be similar to alternative 4, but overall impact on biodiversity is more beneficial. Additional sections within Measure 1 put constraints on removal of hedgerows, shrub, and landmark trees. The NeighbourWoods scheme will also be subject to site suitability screening and AA. Forest Road construction will link with existing road network and use existing entrances, thus reducing disturbance. Additional funding for landowners to remove invasive species in FPM catchments. FMP's must also set out measures regarding protection of wider environment. Establishment of new seed orchards in FGRM also subject to measure 1 rules. But NWS financial allocation reduced, and still outstanding uncertainties are the proportion of exotic conifers vs. native broadleaves and the disturbance to wildlife from silviculture

2. Socio-Economics

+

Compared to the do nothing option, there will be significant economic benefits for landowners receiving grants to manage their land for forestry purposes and produce commercial crops of timber, whilst funding for roads and thinning and tending will increase forest revenues, as well as providing jobs. These economic benefits will be lower than under the 2014-2020 FP however. There will also be social benefits from forestry promotion and training improving knowledge of best practice, and from the NeighbourWoods scheme which will provide local opportunities for people to socialise, learn about nature and enjoy themselves.

- -

Thinnings have been shown to be extremely beneficial to forestry revenues, both in terms of improving productivity and increasing sales of forest products. Without funding for forest management and the new roads that facilitate this, the forestry sector is likely to suffer a decline in productivity and output. There is also likely to be a detrimental to socio-economics at a local level if funding is no longer provided for the creation and enhancement of accessible amenity woodlands.

++

As per Alternative 1, however there will be additional beneficial effects from the new Agroforesty scheme which should diversify farm incomes and may increase crop productivity and reduce spending on downstream water restoration; the Forestry for Fibre scheme which may increase employment and income; the Innovative Forestry Technology scheme which could potentially increase productivity; and Forest Genetic Reproductive Material which will help sustain the forestry sector in the long-term. Overall, the forest processing sector will grow with the increased level of afforestation (and subsequent management activities) under the FP 2014-2020, allowing Ireland to increase its share of the overseas market.

++

As per Alternative 3. ++

Compared to Alternative 4: Allocation to agroforesty reduced to 205 ha over FP lifetime. On a national scale any socioeconomic benefit from this scheme is negligible. Funding and spatial allocation to FfF scheme increased. Funding to FGRM increased to €500/annum over 10yrs for new seed orchards. Lack of diversity of species composition and overreliance on Sitka spruce cited as an economic risk. FP agrees, but limited scope for diversity given loss of larch/ash to disease. Diversity of output made up by allocation to Eucalyptus spp.

89

SEA OBJECTI

VES

ALTERNATIVES

1 2 3 4 5


3. Health +

Physical and mental health and quality of life will benefit significantly for those able to use attractive, close to home woodland amenities and recreational facilities, whilst there may also be indirect benefits from the air quality benefits that increased areas of woodland can provide. Similarly, urban woodlands can indirectly benefit quality of life through provision of shading and minimising surface water run-off during extreme weather events.

-

If funding is no longer provided for the creation and enhancement of accessible amenity woodlands, then existing problems of obesity, stress, the urban heat island effect, flooding and poor air quality in densely populated urban centres is likely to continue.

+ Effects will be similar to Alternative 1, with most beneficial effects arising from the NeighbourWoods scheme.

+

As per Alternative 3, though there could be indirect beneficial effects from protection of watercourses adjacent to NeighbourWoods, whilst provision of health benefits are also specifically referred to in this Measure.

+

Afforestation measures sets out more mechanisms to ensure compliance with requirements of WFD and RMBP with knock-on benefit for health.

4. Soil +/-

Soil could benefit from afforestation as there will be less erosion and sedimentation during rainfall events with increased tree cover. However initial planting of trees and the construction of roads may cause erosion, compaction, nutrient loss and contamination of the soil, whilst roads also adversely impact forest soil productivity by directly reducing the productive area. In addition, coniferous plantations can cause acidification of the soil, as can planting on peatlands.

0

Existing trends will continue. Ireland's peatlands exist in a degraded state, though afforestation on peatlands (which can contribute to this degradation) is declining year on year.

+/-

Effects will be similar to Alternative 1, however there could be reduced erosion and sedimentation of soil on agricultural land from the agroforesty scheme; whilst the conversion of existing non-native forests to native woodlands through the Native Woodland Conservation Scheme could reduce acidification of the soil. However, improved premium rates over the shorter term could lead to farmers leaving agricultural production and entering forestry, potentially reducing food production.

+/-

As per Alternative 3, though there could be additional indirect benefits from afforestation applicants avoiding adverse effects on upland and peat sites that have a high sensitivity regarding water quality, and also acid sensitive areas, using IFS mapping; from prioritising special construction works to protect water quality from new road construction; from increasing knowledge about ecosystem services through the Native Woodland Conservation measure and environmental enhancement through Producer Groups.

+/-

As per Alternative 4 but Forest Roads measure now includes additional detail to minimise erosion. However, use of Eucalyptus spp as a significant component of FfF - increased demand on nutrient resources (but total allocation of FfF only 2,850 ha and FS have indicated elsewhere that they intend to limit E spp cultivation to fertile soils only). However, could be boundary effects from E spp on neighbouring arable land.

5. Water +/-

Water resources should benefit from increased tree cover as there will be less sedimentation of watercourses during rainfall events, whilst trees and vegetation can also filter pollutants from surface water run-off, thus reducing pollution of water courses. The Native Woodland Scheme and Forest Environment Protection Scheme have particular objectives of protecting or improving water quality. However initial planting of trees, thinning and felling activities and the construction of roads are likely to increase pollution and sedimentation of watercourses. In addition, coniferous plantations can cause acidification of groundwater.

-

Without the FP measures and funding, forestry activities are likely to continue to have isolated adverse effects on water quality. The opportunity to use afforestation to reduce run-off and intercept pollutants caused by non-forestry activities such as agriculture will also be lost, so existing trends of poor water quality in some areas and increased flooding events are likely to continue.

+/-

Effects will be similar to Alternative 1, however there will be additional beneficial effects from the increased national broadleaf target of 30% for all afforestation schemes (as coniferous forests increase acidification of waterbodies); and the protection of Freshwater Pearl Mussel catchments through riparian buffer planting and converting coniferous to native woodlands through the new Native Woodland Conservation Scheme.

+

Effects will be similar to Alternative 3, however, there will be additional beneficial effects through planting under agroforesty which should protect water quality by reducing surface water runoff and reducing erosion of riverbanks (particularly important as agricultural run-off is one of the biggest causes of water pollution in Ireland); protection of waterbodies through NeighbourWoods. There will also be beneficial effects from the need for afforestation applicants to avoid adverse effects on upland and peat sites that have a high sensitivity regarding water quality using IFS mapping; from the protection of waterbodies through NeighbourWoods; prioritisation of special construction works to protect water quality from new road construction; and increased knowledge about ecosystem services through the Native Woodland Conservation measure, about water quality impacts through KTGs and environmental enhancement through Producer Groups.

+

Similar to alternative 4, but afforestation measures sets out more mechanisms to ensure compliance with requirements of WFD and RMBP. These also affect the FGRM orchards. In addition, FPM catchments are eligible for NWS Conservation scheme for water quality/habitat benefits. Measure 5 includes more support for installation of silt traps, creation of aquatic buffer zones. Use of Eucalyptus spp as a significant component of FfF has been questioned by DG Environ who cite increased demand on water resources as a reason to avoid. But rainfall levels in Ireland adequate to cope and, evidence suggests soil water regime of E spp plantation not different from pine plantation. NWS establishment will be considered even in acid sensitive areas without approval, but not likely to have effect as natives mostly broadleaf and not associated with acidification from cone drop.

90

SEA OBJECTI

VES

ALTERNATIVES

1 2 3 4 5


6. Air +

Woodlands are known to intercept air pollutants, providing a buffer to urban areas or sensitive habitats. Trees also remove gaseous pollutants such as NO2, O3, SO2 and CO by absorbing them through the stomata in the leaf surface (conifers are better at absorbing PM10, whilst deciduous trees are better at absorbing gases). Afforestation using a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees will therefore improve Ireland's air quality.

0

Ireland's air quality is already good, with the exception of the more highly populated urban centres. In the absence of independent sustainable transport initiatives, without the FP (particularly the NeighbourWoods scheme), the air quality in these urban areas may continue to deteriorate.

+ Effects will be similar to Alternative 1. + As per Alternative 3. + As per Alternative 4

7. Climate

+

Through forest soils and the trees themselves, measures to increase the area of forest in Ireland by 6,000 ha per year will have significant benefits in terms of carbon sequestration, though less than the 9,000 ha per year as set out in FP 20014-2020. Forests also reduce surface water run-off by drawing water into the ground, thus reducing the risk of flooding. NeighbourWoods will additionally help to reduce the urban heat island effect. The construction of forest roads and subsequent increase in traffic and felling and thinning activities is likely to increase CO2 emissions, however.

- -

If forest land cover in Ireland remains at 10.7% rather than the target of 18% by 2046, then it will be difficult to offset the country's high (and generally increasing) GHG emissions. As well as sequestering carbon, forest soils and trees also reduce surface water run-off, so a lack of afforestation (particularly in urban) areas may result in increased flood events. Ireland may also continue to rely on unsustainable and polluting fuel sources without the benefit of the Forestry for Fibre scheme.

++

Effects will be similar to Alternative 1, however there will be additional benefits from the overall increase in the target for annual afforestation; the Forestry for Fibre scheme helping to minimise unsustainable use of fossil fuels and peat; and the Forest Genetic Reproductive Material which could help ensure the presence of climate resilient trees into the future.

++

As per Alternative 3, though the greater focus on biodiversity and water quality should improve habitat resilience to the effects of climate change.

++

As per Alternative 4, though the greater focus on biodiversity and water quality should improve habitat resilience to the effects of climate change.

8. Material Assets

+

Increasing the funding for forestry activities will ensure better and more efficient use is made of Ireland's forest resources, in terms of habitat provision, space for recreation, and production of wood products, fuel and other raw materials.

0 Existing trends will continue, possibly including the continued use of peat for energy.

+

Effects will be similar to Alternative 1, though with the added benefit of Forestry for Fibre helping to minimise unsustainable use of fossil fuels and peat, whilst meeting the demand for biomass.

+

As per Alternative 3, with an additional benefit from the need for Forest Management Plans (which require adherence with sustainable forest management principles) to be in place for all forests above certain thresholds (currently over 10ha for conifer and 5ha for broadleaf forests).

+

FMP now apply to wider environment. But targeting FfF scheme at fertile soil would deprive Ireland of valuable agricultural land to deliver food security.

9. Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

+/-

Woodland creation, if issues are not acknowledged and appropriately mitigated for, has potential for adverse effects on cultural heritage and archaeology, including for example damage to historic field boundaries and walls, ancient settlement and ritual monuments such as ringforts and burial mounds, post-medieval structures associated with rural economic and social life such as limekilns, booley huts, and sweat houses, existing veteran trees, and areas where the landscape history is important. Site preparation (including drainage) and harvesting activities also have potential to impact on above and below ground archaeology.

0

Existing trends, such as the gradual decline in rural archaeological monuments and possibly commercial afforestation in areas which may affect cultural heritage, will continue.

+/-

The Native Woodland Establishment Scheme sets out for the first time 'cultural heritage' as a benefit or function of native woodland establishment. In general however, afforestation, construction of forest roads and forest management activities have the potential to adversely affect cultural heritage unless protection is a specific objective.

+/-

The Afforestation Measure states that for forestry activities occurring within 200m of a Recorded Monument, one or more archaeological conditions are imposed by the Forest Service following consultation with National Monuments Service, with an emphasis on preservation in situ of any archaeological remains identified. The Forestry and Archaeology Guidelines require that any un-designated archaeological sites or monuments identified prior to or during the course of afforestation works are also protected and notified. There is also an indirect protection for archaeology and cultural heritage assets through the requirement for sustainable forest management (Measure 11).

+/-

20m buffer of recorded monument now applies to Afforestation, Forest Roads, Felling activities. Woodland improvement now includes for creation of archaeological exclusion zones. No mention of risk assessments for neighbouring watercourses (c.f. Scoping consultation response of DAHG)

91

SEA OBJECTI

VES

ALTERNATIVES

1 2 3 4 5


10. Landscape

+/-

New woodland can have both adverse and beneficial impacts on landscape character and visual amenity, depending on where it is located and how it is designed in relation to the landform or the enclosure pattern. The Woodland Improvement Scheme has 'landscape enhancement' as a specific objective, but the afforestation schemes do not. The construction of forest roads and the associated increase in traffic may also cause a deterioration in visual amenity.

0

The fragmented approach to landscape management in Ireland is likely to continue, and the benefits from targeted landscape improvement through afforestation and forest reconstitution will be missed.

+

Effects will be similar to Alternative 1, however there will be additional beneficial effects from the increased focus on enhancing the quality and diversity of Ireland's landscapes, e.g. through the Native Woodland Establishment Scheme, the agroforesty scheme and the Native Woodland Conservation Scheme.

+

As per Alternative 3, though the Afforestation Measure now specifies that new forests planted under this measure will be established and maintained in a way that enhances the landscape.

+

As Alternative 4, but Setback measure now at standard 60m (30m with permission from owner), removing previous 0.2 ha dwelling clause. Landscaping approach will be informed and assisted by Draft National Landscape Strategy for Ireland 2014-2024 (DAHG, 2014).

11. GI & ES

+

Overall, continuing with FP 2007-2013 will benefit this theme. Afforestation will increase the amount of multi-functional greenspace in Ireland and should provide connectivity between isolated habitat patches, particularly in urban and agricultural environments. The provision of ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, climate regulation, water regulation and purification, soil retention, erosion control, air quality maintenance, habitat provision, outdoor recreation and enhanced aesthetic and educational values will all improve. There is some concern over the construction of forest roads (and subsequent increase in thinning and felling activities) however, as these may result in habitat loss/ fragmentation, deterioration in soil, water and air quality, and an increase in CO2 emissions.

- -

Without the FP, the non-market benefits of forestry, such as enhanced biodiversity, water quality, flood control, recreation opportunities and carbon sequestration will decline. Existing woodland habitat will continue to be isolated, and some landowners will continue to be unaware of the ways in which their actions can adversely or positively affect the environment.

+

Effects will be similar to Alternative 1, however there will be additional beneficial effects from Agroforesty potentially increasing pollination services and reducing soil erosion/sedimentation; the Forestry for Fibre scheme increasing biomass energy sources; the Forest Genetic Reproductive Material scheme enhancing genetic resources and reducing incidences of pests and diseases; and an overall increase in (broadleaf) woodland, contributing to habitat provision, carbon sequestration, water regulation and water quality.

++

Effects will be similar to Alternative 3, however, there will be additional beneficial effects from the need for afforestation applicants to avoid impacting on high nature value sites and those with high sensitivity to water quality; protection of waterbodies through NeighbourWoods; increased knowledge about biodiversity and water quality impacts through KTGs; and ensuring that members of producer groups enhance the environment.

++

As per Alternative 4. Slight improvement to following services: habitat/pollination, pest control, water purification, cultural heritage. Slight worsening of following services: water regulation, natural hazard prevention, erosion control. No change to other services.

92

Table 5.2: Assessment of Alternatives (Ecosystem Services)

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

ALTERNATIVES

1 2 3 4 5


Provisioning Services

Food - Planting of forests on agricultural land will reduce potential supply of food.

0 Existing trends in food provision will continue

--

Planting of forests on agricultural land will reduce potential supply of food. Greater economic incentives and larger afforestation targets could increase conversion of farmland to woodland

--

As per Alternative 3. --

Historical uptake of FP grants for afforestation has been predominantly cattle and dairy farms. Evidence from the FP analysis suggests that this reflects farmer attitudes towards forestry (a low income, long term commitment suitable only for poor quality ag. land). Non-farmer participation in afforestation historically low (<6%) but might be greater incentive in new FP as no differentiation between farmer/non-farmer in premium paid. Expect bias towards livestock farm conversion to continue, so would reduce supply of esp. beef/dairy product which are key exports. N.b. also some knock-on impacts to arable farmers who produce food for livestock farms. Slight mitigation because introduction of single premium may reduce incentives to farmers.

Fibre + Objective to produce a commercial crop of timber.

-

Consumption of non-energy related forest products is expected to increase and prices in Ireland will increase if supply does not keep up pace with demand.

++

Greater afforestation rates than Alternative 1 and the creation of a specific Forestry for Fibre scheme.

++


As per Alternative 4

Fuel and biomass-based energy sources

+ Afforestation scheme has a goal to produce sustainable source of wood biomass for energy.

--

Consumption of wood energy products is expected to increase and prices in Ireland will increase if supply does not keep up pace with demand. Moreover, Ireland would become more reliant on non-sustainable fuel sources (e.g. peat) and would not be able to meet its EU renewable energy target.

++

Greater afforestation rates than Alternative 1 and the creation of specific Forestry for Fibre and Agroforesty schemes.

++


As per Alternative 4, but reduction in Agroforesty scheme, increase to FfF scheme but marginal change to big picture.

Fresh water 0 Afforestation activities would not impact on fresh water provision.

0 Existing trends in fresh water provision would continue

0 Afforestation activities would not impact on fresh water provision.

0 As per Alternative 3. 0 As per Alternative 4

Genetic resources and bio-chemicals

-

Existing trends would continue, and Irish woodland would become increasingly vulnerable to disease and other issues related to climate change.

-

Existing trends would continue, and Irish woodland would become increasingly vulnerable to disease and other issues related to climate change.

++

Creation of a distinct scheme to manage and conserve seed stands will improve resilience of forests to climate change and imported diseases.

+ Similar to Alternative 3, but reduced state funding and priority given to coniferous species.

+ As per Alternative 4, but slight increase in funding for seed orchards under FGMR

Regulating Services

Waste treatment

+ Woodland can be an effective sink for waste product generated by agricultural activity in some circumstances

0 Existing trends would continue + As per Alternative 1. + As per Alternative 3. + As per Alternative 4

Water regulation

+/-

In general a greater area of established woodland should reduce flood risk. However, risks would increase during the construction / afforestation / harvesting phases where existing vegetation cover is

-

Existing trends would continue and the lack of increased forest cover and in particular riparian buffer schemes will see increased flood risk related to climate change.

+/-

Similar to Alternative 1. + Potential adverse impacts of Alternatives 1 and 3 would be avoided by focus on riparian buffer planting

+

As Alternative 4, but reduced funding allocation to NWS limits potential to deliver riparian buffers needed to avert construction impacts.

93

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

ALTERNATIVES

1 2 3 4 5


removed.

Water purification

+/-

Established forests, especially the NWS and FEPS would improve water quality. However, initial afforestation activities, construction work and harvesting could increase sediment and nutrient run off. In addition, forests can also increase acidity of neighbouring watercourses in acid-sensitive areas.

+/-

Adverse impacts during certain stages of the forestry process would continue in certain locations without the increased protection that the FP would provide, though they would be avoided at other locations and potentially on a landscape scale.

+/-

Similar to Alternative 1. +

Potential adverse impacts of Alternatives 1 and 3 would be avoided by focus on riparian buffer planting and protection of neighbouring water courses. In addition, afforestation activities would located away from acid-sensitive watercourses.

+ Greater water quality focus in afforestation and forest roads schemes would further reduce negative impacts.

Air quality maintenance

+

Afforestation using a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees will remove atmospheric pollutants improve Ireland's air quality, especially in schemes close to major conurbations and transport networks.

0

Ireland already has good air quality, so it is unlikely that this would worsen in the absence of the FP. However, an opportunity to improve urban/roadside air quality would be missed.

++

Similar to Alternative 1, though a greater rate of afforestation will increase absorption.

++


As per Alternative 4

Climate regulation

+

Afforestation and related activities will increase carbon sequestration, though this will be somewhat offset by the construction process and the creation of forest roads will encourage more vehicle journeys. NeighbourWoods schemes will also provide shade and reduce heat effects in urban areas and also around transportation networks

--

If forest cover is maintained at 10.7% then Ireland will struggle to meet its targets for carbon sequestration and renewable energy. Moreover, it will be increasingly vulnerable to heat and flood stress caused by future climate change.

++

As Alternative 1 but a significantly greater afforestation will be a more material carbon sink and local climate regulator. In addition, the genetic material scheme will improve resilience.

++

As Alternative 3, but increased flood risk mitigation through riparian buffer planting at the expense of less funding for reconstitution/genetic material schemes.

++

As Alternative 4, but slightly better funding for seed orchards under FGRM

Natural hazard protection

+/-

In general a greater area of established woodland should reduce flood and landslide risk. However, risks would increase during the construction / afforestation / harvesting phases where existing vegetation cover is removed. Forest reconstitution scheme to provide basis for restoring forest after damage.

-

Short term construction and afforestation impacts would be avoided, but in the long term Ireland would become more vulnerable to flood and landslide stress. In addition, funding would reduce to restore woodland damaged by natural hazards.

+/-

As Alternative 1, but additional funding to restore and maintain forests damaged by natural causes.

+/-

Potential adverse impacts of Alternatives 1 and 3 would be avoided by focus on riparian buffer planting. But reduced funding for reconstitution scheme

+/-


Erosion control

+/-

Established forests would stabilise soils, but initial afforestation activities and construction work could increase sediment and nutrient run off

-

Short term construction and afforestation impacts would be avoided, but in the long term Ireland would become more vulnerable to erosion stress

+/-

Similar to Alternative 1, but the adverse aspects could be mitigated to an extent by the agroforesty schemes

+/-

As Alternative 3, though downstream impacts on sedimentation and water quality would be somewhat mitigated by the riparian buffer schemes.

+/-


Pest and disease regulation

+ Forest reconstitution scheme to provide a basis for restoring forest damaged by pests such as deer, grey squirrel.

--

Essential funding for schemes to withstand and recover from pest/disease damage would cease and woodlands would become highly vulnerable.

++

Reconstitution scheme and Forest Genetic Reproductive Material to withstand pest/disease related impacts.

+ As Alternative 3 but reduced funding for these schemes.

+

As Alternative 4, but slightly better funding for seed orchards under FGRM. More funding to clear invasive species in protected catchments.

Noise regulation

+ NeighbourWoods schemes can provide a noise screen to increase amenity value of urban/peri-urban areas

0

Existing trends would continue, though an opportunity to improve noise nuisance in certain areas would be missed.

+ As per Alternative 1. ++

As Alternative 3, but the scheme can be used strategically along transport corridors which would provide an additional noise buffer.

++

As Alternative 4

Cultural Services

Cultural heritage values

+/-

The NWS supports the restoration of native woodland species, traditional woodland management systems, and woodcraft. However, afforestation

0 Existing trends would continue +/-

The Native Woodland Establishment Scheme specifically mentions “cultural heritage” as an objective and the same measures applicable under the

+/-

As per Alternative 3. +/-

As per Alternative 4, but 20m buffer of recorded monument now applies to Afforestation, Forest Roads, Felling activities.

94

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

ALTERNATIVES

1 2 3 4 5


schemes in general can have adverse impacts on buried or submerged archaeology and there is no specification in this Alternative to protect it.

Afforestation Measure in respect of Recorded Monuments and other un-designated archaeological sites or monuments identified prior to or during the course of afforestation works are also applicable.

No mention of risk assessments for neighbouring watercourses (c.f. Scoping consultation response of DAHG) Also reduced funding for the NWS establishment scheme

Recreation & ecotourism

+

NeighbourWoods and NWS schemes increase potential for recreational and ecotourism activities, as well as job creation and additional economic spend.

-

Without the opportunities to provide recreation and ecotourism, rural poverty and joblessness would increase

+ Similar to Alternative 1. + As Alternative 3. Improved strategic focus offset by reduced funding for these schemes.

+ As Alternative 4, but reduced funding to NWS establishment scheme.

Aesthetic value

+/-

Creation/restoration of certain forest habitats can be of high aesthetic value, especially NWS and NeighbourWoods schemes. However, coniferous plantations have limited aesthetic value and may be of lower value than previous grass, shrub, wetland, or peatland habitats.

0

Existing trends would continue. An opportunity to improve landscape and visual amenity in certain locations would be missed.

+

Increased focus on broadleaf restoration/afforestation, Native Woodland Schemes (establishment and conservation) and NeighbourWoods can improve the diversity of landscape

+

As per Alternative 3. Reduced funding for Native Woodland Establishment and NeighbourWoods schemes offset by greater strategic focus on location of afforestation.

+ As Alternative 4, but reduced funding to NWS establishment scheme. Greater protection of landscape features.

Educational and scientific value

+

Forestry promotion and training scheme to promote knowledge of forest management, forest benefits, and improve overall performance of forests.

-

Existing forestry knowledge levels would continue. As environmental and other pressures on forestry increase, this could lead to a gradual decline in the quality of management of Ireland’s woodland assets.

++

Knowledge transfer and innovation streams, producer groups measures encourage education and knowledge sharing. Investment in forest technology provides funding for scientific research.

+

Similar to Alternative 3. Significant reductions in funding for knowledge transfer and producer group measures will be partially offset by more targeted training and knowledge sharing.

+ As Alternative 4

Spiritual and ethical value

+/-

Creation/restoration of certain forest habitats can be of high spiritual/ethical value, especially NWS and NeighbourWoods schemes. However, non-native plantations may be of lower value than previous grass, shrub, wetland, or peatland habitats.

0

Existing trends would continue. An opportunity to improve spiritual/ethical value in certain locations would be missed.

+

Increased focus on broadleaf restoration/afforestation, Native Woodland Schemes (establishment and conservation) and NeighbourWoods can improve the spiritual / ethical value of the landscape

+

As per Alternative 3. Reduced funding for Native Woodland Establishment and NeighbourWoods schemes offset by greater strategic focus on location of afforestation.

+ As Alternative 4, but reduced funding to NWS establishment scheme.

Supporting Services

Habitat and wild species diversity

+/-

Activities would have a mixed impact. Woodland related habitats and species would benefit, but afforestation of peatland, grassland, and wetlands would impact associated habitats and species. Aquatic habitats and species may benefit from improved water quality in some schemes under this programme (NWS, FEPS, WIS) but would be impacted by others (general afforestation, roads scheme).

-

Some adverse impacts of large scale afforestation would be avoided. However, native woodland and relative species would continue to remain in a degraded state. Afforestation would continue in a less controlled manner driven primarily by commercial requirements which would result in continued biodiversity loss.

+/-

Would be similar to Alternative 1, but the impact of afforestation schemes would be potentially less adverse through provision of Areas of Biodiversity Enhancement (ABEs) and greater enhancement afforded to aquatic and non-woodland species. Greater target for broadleaf woodland would also be more beneficial.

+/-

Similar to Alternative 3, but potentially even less adverse impacts, due to increased efforts on knowledge transfer as well as increased funding for Native Woodland Conservation Schemes. Additional protection of neighbouring waterbodies/ watercourses and strategic placement of Native Woodland Establishment Schemes to complement ecological corridors also more beneficial. However, still the potential for adverse impacts where afforestation takes place on peatland, grassland, wetland habitats.

+/-

Further protection for wider habitats beyond protected areas (hedgerows, shrub, trees) and further protection for aquatic habitats. Impacts largely limited to farmland and brownfield habitats disturbed during construction activities of Measures 1, 2, and 3.

Soil retention and nutrient cycling

+/-

Established forests would stabilise soils, but initial afforestation activities and construction work could increase sediment and nutrient run off. In addition, where afforestation takes place on grassland or arable then soils would become more acidic.

0 Existing trends would continue. +/-

Similar to Alternative 1, but the adverse aspects could be mitigated to an extent by the agroforesty schemes and the conversion of coniferous to broadleaf woodland.

+/-


As per Alternative 4, but note reduction in NWS establishment and Agro-F schemes.

95

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

ALTERNATIVES

1 2 3 4 5


Pollination and seed dispersal

+/-

Woodland can provide a habitat for pollinators and animals which help disperse seeds. However, the relative value may be less than grass or shrubland habitats they are replacing. Construction of roads could also create barriers to these animals.

0 Existing trends would continue. +/-

As Alternative 1, but the provision of Areas of Biodiversity Enhancement (ABEs), broadleaf target and management could retain key pollinator habitat.

+/-


As Alternative 4, but additional protection of hedgerows and solitary trees improves habitat quality for pollinators. But uncertain benefit unless these protected hedgerows retain surrounding insect pollination crop context.

96

4.4. Reasons for Selection of Chosen Strategic Alternative

4.4.1. As has been seen in Table 5.1, the ‘do nothing’ Alternative performs the worst for

both environmental and socio-economic objectives due to the existing problems in

Ireland that the FP continues to help to address, particularly regarding mitigation

of and adaptation to climate change and the financial viability and sustainability of

the forestry sector. Though marked as uncertain for each of Alternatives 1, 3, 4

and 5, impacts on biodiversity and cultural heritage have become more beneficial

with each version of the draft FP; Alternative 5 therefore has the most positive

outcome for biodiversity and cultural heritage. There is also a greater emphasis on

complying with the requirements of the WFD in Alternative 5. Overall, Alternatives

1, 3, 4 and 5 perform similarly against the SEA Objectives, though Alternative 5

marginally has the greatest beneficial effects, and Alternative 1 the least of the

four.

4.4.2. Table 5.2 shows to what extent each of the four alternatives deliver or affect

ecosystem services. The ‘do nothing’ Alternative provides significantly fewer

ecosystem services than the other alternatives, though provision of food is the

obvious exception as previously agricultural land is given over to afforestation.

Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 perform similarly and are noticeably better at providing

ecosystem services than Alternative 1. Particular benefits arise from the increased

target for afforestation and the new measures encouraging agroforesty, forestry

for fibre and investing in forest genetic reproductive material.

4.4.3. The option DAFM chose to take forward to public consultation is Alternative 5. This

builds on the benefits of Alternative 4 which itself builds on Alternatives 1 and 3.

The consultation version of the Draft FP had a strong emphasis on not just

protecting biodiversity and water quality but enhancing these important assets.

There is a commitment to enhance landscapes, the protection afforded to recorded

monuments is set out, and the benefits that forests can and should provide in terms

of ecosystem services are discussed. The chosen Alternative also focuses on the

need to improve knowledge and understanding of environmental protection,

enhancement and legal compliance amongst forest holders.

97

5. THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS

5.1. Consultation on the Environmental Report

5.1.1. The consultation draft version of this Environmental Report was presented for

public and statutory consultation over the period 10th September to 13th October

2014, at the same time as the draft FP.

5.1.2. The statutory Environmental Authority for Ireland is the EPA, along with DECLG,

DAFM, DCENR and DAHG. The Environmental Report was also issued to the

NIEA, though this is for information only as transboundary effects are not

anticipated. Members of the public who participate in SEA consultation are typically

those affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in the decision-

making, including relevant non-governmental organisations, such as farmer

organisations and those promoting environmental protection.

5.1.3. The purpose of this stage is to give the public and the Consultation Bodies an

opportunity to express their opinions on the findings of the Environmental Report,

and to use it as a reference point in commenting on the FP. In line with the SEA

Directive and Regulations, DAFM must take account of the Environmental Report

and of any opinions which are expressed upon it as it prepares the FP for adoption.

Therefore, comments received from the Consultation Bodies, members of the

public and other stakeholders during the consultation process must be considered

and, if appropriate, addressed in the final FP document.

5.1.4. Comments were received from the EPA, DAHG (both the NPWS and the

Development Applications Unit), NIEA, DAFM Forest Research, An Taisce, Inland

Fisheries Ireland, Teagasc, Woodlands of Ireland, the Heritage Council,

Environmental Pillar, Coppice Society of Ireland, Irish Rural Link and various

private individuals. This final Environmental Report has been modified to reflect

the comments received from the stakeholders; a summary of the comments and

how they have been addressed is presented in Appendix E. The European

Commission was also given the opportunity to comment on the draft FP, and these

comments have also been incorporated into this report and the final FP.

5.2. Modifications to the Programme following the Public Consultation

5.2.1. Since completion of the public consultation exercise in mid-October 2014, DAFM

have undertaken further work on the FP, particularly in response to comments

98

received from the European Commission on the Consultation version of the FP.

Furthermore, in September 2014 the Programme budget was reduced which has

required modifications to the targets of certain schemes. The updated Measures

and Schemes are detailed in Section 1.3 of this report; it is this updated version

that has been assessed in the following chapters. There have been various

changes to some of the Measures, and to the Programme as a whole; these are

summarised below.

Overall Programme

5.2.2. The most significant change to the Programme since the version that was

previously assessed by ADAS is the reduction in budget from approximately €400

million down to €266 million. This has particularly affected the budgets for the

Afforestation and Forest Road Measures, as well as the Investment in Forest

Technology and Forest Management Plan Measures.

5.2.3. Crucially, the Programme sets out a new section, following the description of

measures in Chapter 6, on minimising the adverse environmental effects of the

programme. These 36 mitigation measures may relate to all, some or just one of

the FP measures, but should ensure that adverse effects are minimised to

acceptable levels in most cases.

5.2.4. In section 2.2 of the FP it states that DAFM will utilise relevant research findings to

identify and develop appropriate mitigation measures aimed at avoiding adverse

impacts on Natura habitats and species, particularly raptors, and will also explore

the influence of forest age, structure and size with regard to predator (e.g. fox,

corvids and mustelids) numbers, distribution and their impact on ground nesting

birds breeding in clearfelled and pre-thicket areas within the forest or in adjacent

habitats.


5.2.5. The overall budget for this measure has reduced by approximately 40% from the

previous assessment. New text states that afforestation within Natura 2000 sites

is only approved where it is compatible with the conservation objectives of the SAC

or SPA. This is determined by the implementation of the Forest Service AAP and

referral process to NPWS. All afforestation applications within Natura 2000 sites

are referred to NPWS for comment and these comments are taken into account by

the FS District Inspector when making a decision regarding the application.

99

Currently there is a policy of no afforestation within Hen Harrier SPAs, pending the

formulation of the Threat Response Plan (TRP) for the species, led by NPWS.

5.2.6. There is also new text regarding the environmental aspects of sitka spruce. For

example it states the species’ resilience to diseases thus far; its ability to fix over

200 tonnes of carbon per hectare over a rotation; and its productivity in terms of

timber production compared with other species. As justification for the prioritisation

of sitka spruce in the FP, this text emphasises that new plantation rules stipulate a

certain percentage of broadleaves and diverse conifers to increase crop

biodiversity and enhance the visual appearance of Sitka spruce woodlands in the

landscape; whilst there are also other requirements for example the inclusion of

Areas of Biodiversity Enhancement, aquatic buffer zones and archaeological

exclusion zones to reduce the potential adverse effects.

5.2.7. Regarding the specific schemes:

Afforestation Scheme – The budget for this scheme has reduced

significantly, to the extent that only 37,215 ha of afforestation is being

targeted (down from 51,350 ha). There is now a requirement that all conifer

afforestation applications with stream/river/lake frontage within certain

water-sensitive areas include a Native Woodland Establishment (GPC 9

&10) plot at least 20m wide (tree to tree) adjoining the aquatic buffer zone

(where site suitability for broadleaves allows).

Native Woodland Establishment Scheme – The budget for this scheme has

reduced, with a total of 2,700 ha targeted for native woodland establishment

(down from 3,075 ha). The focus is now specifically biodiversity and

ecosystem service delivery and is aimed at supporting the creation of new

native woodland on 'greenfield' sites, at opportunities for habitat linkage,

and at environmentally sensitive areas, with a view to realising wider

ecosystem services such as water protection. Future close-to-nature forest

management is now a requirement under this scheme. Wood production

realised through CCF silviculture is allowed under the scheme, where

compatible with the site's ecological objectives.

Within certain water-sensitive areas, the 10% broadleaf requirement for all

grant-aided conifer afforestation projects within or partially within various

water-sensitive areas (including aquatic-based SACs, the Freshwater Pearl

100

Mussel 6 km zone, Fisheries Sensitive Areas, and Acid Sensitive Areas) is

to include (site permitting) a Native Woodland Establishment GPC9 plot (or

plots) along aquatic zones adjoining or crossing the site. This plot (minimum

width of 20m tree-to-tree) is in addition to the required undisturbed Aquatic

Buffer Zone.

The designation of NWS Establishment as a single Grant & Premium

Category (GPC 9 & 10) is for the following reasons:

With this change, applicants can apply to establish native woodland over

the entire site (i.e. all GPC9), or as a plot(s) within an afforestation project

involving other GPCs, such as Sitka spruce. This facilitates the greater

integration of the various ecosystem services and protective functions of

native woodland into standard forest design.

This measure will place more emphasis on identifying the most

ecologically-appropriate native woodland type for each site and removes

the potential that previously existed for a disproportionate focus on

particular mixtures, based on differences in GPC rates.

The Unenclosed / Unimproved GPC1 rate may also apply under NWS

Est., under the 20% rule.

Agroforesty Scheme – The budget for this scheme has reduced slightly,

with an overall target of 195 ha (down from 205 ha). After the initial planting

using a stocking rate of 400-1000 trees per hectare (equal spacing), the

trees will be thinned out over the tree species rotation, so that when the

trees are finally ready for felling (using continuous cover forestry principles)

there may be as few as 160-250 trees per hectare.

Energy from Fibre Scheme – The budget for this scheme has increased,

with 3,300 ha now targeted for production of fibre (up from 2,850 ha).

Otherwise the scheme has not changed.

Measure 2: Investments Improving the Resilience and Environmental Value of

Forestry: NeighbourWoods Scheme

5.2.8. Due to the focus of most NeighbourWood Scheme projects on native woodland

planting or restoration, the NeighbourWood Scheme has been amended to state

that such areas will be funded under the NWS Conservation, and that NWS Cons.

101

requirements will apply. Such projects can still apply for NeighbourWood Scheme

Element 3 (Facilities) over the entire area. This mechanism does not compromise

the target of achieving 10 NeighbourWood Scheme projects per year, but facilities

the transfer of a large portion of the NeighbourWood Scheme budget to NWS

Conservation. Up to 10 NeighbourWood projects can be funded per year up to a

maximum of €17,500 for non-native woodland work under Element 1

(Enhancement) and Element 2 (Creation), and for Element 3 (Facilities).

Measure 3: Investments in Infrastructure: Forest Roads

5.2.9. The maximum payment has increased from €35/m to €40/m at project level,

however, the overall Measure has seen a budget cut of approximately 25%. This

means that the new target for forest road creation is 690km (down from 1,080km).

The number of applications and level of funding permitted for Special Construction

Works is unaffected.

Measure 4: Prevention and Restoration of Damage to Forests: Reconstitution

Scheme

5.2.10. The budget for this measure is unaltered, however a target of 1,200 ha will

now be restored or retained over the duration of the programme (increased from

600 ha). Calculation of the 20% damage threshold has been clarified to mean

death or irremediable damage of 20% or more of the trees in the relevant plantation

covered by the one contract number or forest block. It will also include the removal

of host species for disease such as Rhododendron in the spread of Phytophthora

ramorum and will form part of an integrated pest management control response.

Importantly, support will now be available to all private forest holders, not only

those which were established under one of DAFM’s Afforestation schemes.

Measure 5: Investments improving the Resilience and Environmental value of

Forestry: Woodland Improvement (Thinning and Tending Broadleaves)

5.2.11. The budget for this measure is unaltered, whilst the target area of forest to

undergo woodland improvement works remains at 9,000 ha. However, there are

now two separate elements to this measure; Element 1 is Thinning and Tending,

Element 2 is Environmental Enhancement of forests. The latter introduces the new

objective to protect archaeological sites, vulnerable habitats and species, and

sensitive landscapes, specifying that the measure can be used to introduce,

reinstate or increase the exclusion zone around archaeological features within

102

forests, and create or reinstate related access tracks. The measure can also be

used to diversify artificially-straight or angled forest edges which are prominent in,

and negatively impact, the landscape.

Measure 6: Investments improving the Resilience and environmental value of

Forests: Native Woodland Conservation

5.2.12. The funding for this measure has been greatly increased, partly from the

transfer of funds from the NeighbourWood Scheme, with a total of 1,950 ha of

woodland now targeted for conservation (up from 360 ha6). The measure has also

been restructured and now offers three different levels of funding depending on

whether the woodland is existing ‘high forest’ woodland, emergent native woodland

or public woodland. The focus of the measure will be on important native woodland

types and opportunities for habitat linkage, and on environmentally sensitive areas,

with a view to realising wider ecosystem services such as water protection. This

measure will also include the appropriate restorative management conservation of

ancient woodlands, Annex II woodlands, old oak forests and emerging native

woodlands under threat from “scrubbing out”. Wood production realised through

CCF silviculture is allowed under the scheme, where compatible with the site's

ecological objectives

5.2.13. New text has been added to this measure to emphasise the environmental

benefits of coppicing. In particular, the Measure now states that a mechanism may

be applied by the Forest Service, at its discretion, to facilitate a multi-annual rolling

programme of coppice restoration cuts within a single application, to facilitate

appropriate coppice restoration within large projects. This a multi-annual

mechanism will be limited to larger (greater than 30 ha) privately-owned NWS

Conservation sites.


5.2.14. Funding for the four strands under this Measure and for Measure 8 have

been merged to a total of €1.5m per annum, though the total planned expenditure

remains the same. The continuous professional development (CPD) strand has

been rewritten to ensure that the scheme is not restricted by number or

membership of any organisation; the CPD certification will be voluntary.

6 It should be noted that the consultation Environmental Statement referred to and assessed this scheme at the level of 360 ha per annum, but this was due to a typo in the version of the FP assessed, and should have read 60 ha per annum.

103


5.2.15. Funding for this Scheme has been merged with Measure 7, though the total

planned expenditure remains the same. Aid is limited to a maximum of €500,000

per group and may not be granted for the start-up of new producer groups in a

geographical area where the proposed objectives of the group are already being

fulfilled by an established producer group operating in that geographical area.

Measure 9: Innovative Forestry Technology

5.2.16. The funding for this measure has reduced by one third, however the target

number of projects to be funded over the lifetime of the programme remains at 180.

In order to be eligible for support, proposals should ensure (e.g. in the business

plan from the applicant) that the investments will contribute to the improvement of

the economic value of forests in one or more holdings. In the case of machinery

for example, it has to be ensured that they will be used efficiently.


Reproductive Material

5.2.17. The budget for this measure is unaltered, whilst the target area of seed

stands and seed orchards to be supported remains at 2,100 ha. Changes to the

measure are twofold; priority for funding will no longer be given to improved

Washington seed orchards (Sitka Spruce), whilst forest management plans will be

a requirement for all seed stands or seed orchards regardless of their size or

whether they are broadleaf / coniferous.


5.2.18. The funding for this measure has reduced by 40%, however the target

number of FMPs to be funded over the lifetime of the programme remains at 6,000.

The other main change to this scheme is that submission of FMPs is now

encouraged for all grant-aided forests over 5ha when the plantation reaches 12

years, regardless of whether they are broadleaf or coniferous (a mid-term review

will consider extending this to non-grant-aided forests). Historical sites and

monuments along with other environmental designations should also now be

recorded in the FMP.

104

6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF THE FP

6.1. High Level Assessment

6.1.1. A high level matrix assessment has been carried out on the chosen Alternative

(draft proposals as at August 2014 as modified following Public Consultation in

October 2014); this can be seen in Table 6.1 at the end of this Section. Some

uncertainty was identified over whether impacts would be beneficial or adverse

across the sustainability topics, particularly for ecology and cultural heritage, but

also for soil, air, climate, material assets, landscape and GI/ES. Most of the

proposed measures are predicted to have either neutral or beneficial effects,

however, and in some cases these may be strongly beneficial, e.g. regarding

ecology, socio-economics, health, water, climate and GI/ES.

6.1.2. The likely beneficial and potentially adverse (uncertain) effects are summarised by

sustainability topic below. The measures and schemes to which the

uncertain/adverse effects relate are then explored further through the detailed

matrix assessment. This is followed by a discussion on the reasons for the

uncertainties.

Ecology and Nature Conservation

6.1.3. Ecology will continue to benefit significantly from the planting and conservation of

Ireland's native woodland species and associated biodiversity, including provision

of woodland habitat for wildlife; the specified need to retain 15% of habitat/open

space in new woodlands through the creation of 'Areas of Biodiversity

Enhancement'; the increased national broadleaf target of 30% for all afforestation

schemes; thinning which increases the amount of light reaching the forest floor

thus stimulating vegetative growth; the Forest Genetic Reproductive Material

scheme reducing incidences of pests and diseases; and the protection of

Freshwater Pearl Mussel (FPM) catchments through riparian planting and

converting coniferous to native woodlands through the new Native Woodland

Conservation Scheme. The latter also specifically refers to enhancement of

woodland biodiversity in Natura 2000 sites.

6.1.4. Furthermore, afforestation applicants will be required to avoid adverse effects on

high nature value sites and upland and peat sites that have a high sensitivity

regarding water quality. This will be achieved using IFS mapping (GIS-based

105

iFORIS system) followed by further assessment as necessary; whilst aquatic

biodiversity will benefit from the protection of waterbodies through

NeighbourWoods; prioritisation of special construction works to protect water

quality from new road construction; and increased knowledge about ecosystem

services through the Native Woodland Conservation measure, about biodiversity

and water quality impacts through KTGs and environmental enhancement through

Producer Groups. The use of IFS/iFORIS mapping (which ensures that trees are

planted in the right place regarding the possible effects on the environment) is also

now a requirement for applications under the NeighbourWood and Native

Woodland Conservation schemes, along with project level Appropriate

Assessment Screening.

6.1.5. Other important additions to the draft FP which are likely to have positive effects

on Ireland’s biodiversity include the following. DAFM has set out its powers to

impose penalties on applicants for failure to comply with environmental guidelines,

even if no damage is caused, in relation to designated sites, water quality and the

application of chemicals and fertilisers. Penalties are also applicable if damage has

been caused as a result of failure to follow environmental guidelines even at non-

designated sites. This should reduce the level of non-compliance with important

guidelines for protecting biodiversity. The protection of hedgerows, scrub and

landmark trees has been explicitly set out, making it more difficult for applicants to

remove such important habitat features. The Native Woodlands Schemes

(Establishment and Conservation) now specifically promote the delivery of wider

ecosystem services such as water quality and habitat connectivity at a landscape

level which will further benefit biodiversity, particularly within Freshwater Pearl

Mussel catchments. There is also a focus in this scheme on key woodland habitats,

including the four Annex II woodland habitats, old oak forests, ancient woodlands,

and emerging native woodlands Site-specific native woodland plans for NWS

Conservation Scheme must be completed by a NWS Participating Ecologist, whilst

Forest Management Plans will need to set out relevant measures regarding the

protection and enhancement.

6.1.6. However, afforestation (particularly the planting of coniferous species) can reduce

extent and quality of habitat and overall biodiversity if planted on protected and/or

grassland, heath and bog habitats. NeighbourWoods can potentially cause loss of

habitat for brownfield species, whilst species in existing urban woodlands are likely

106

to be disturbed through increasing recreational activities. The construction and use

of forest roads can disturb wildlife, as can the thinning and tending of broadleaves..

6.1.7. Afforestation can have different impacts on bird diversity depending on the stage

of the work. In early stages, there may be a greater abundance of birds and species

at the site. However, once a closed canopy is formed the location will ultimately be

adverse for birds that previously required open habitats, for example by facilitating

access for predators. This could potentially impact a number of bird species

including those protected at European and national level, as well as birds in the

wider countryside. Furthermore, the impact of afforestation on habitats may extend

beyond the area of land that is planted as conifers may well colonise the adjacent

unenclosed areas.

6.1.8. Finally, though in theory the agroforesty scheme should be beneficial for wildlife,

the proportion of funding is extremely small and has declined again with the August

draft of the FP (just €1m of the €262m is allocated to this scheme). The total

programme target of just 34 ha per year (out of a total of up to 8,290 ha per year

expected to be afforested), means the beneficial effects of this scheme will be

negligible.

Socio-Economics

6.1.9. There will be significant economic benefits for landowners receiving grants to

manage their land for forestry purposes and produce commercial crops of timber,

whilst funding for roads and thinning and tending will increase forest revenues, as

well as providing jobs. Ní Dhubháin et al. (2006) suggested that an afforestation

programme could increase rural employment provided by forestry by at least 1,900

jobs. This analysis reflects a 15,000 ha / yr expansion, so the impact would be

lower given the currently proposed afforestation rate. There will be additional

beneficial effects from the new Forestry for Fibre scheme which may increase

employment and income; the Innovative Forestry Technology scheme which could

potentially increase productivity; and Forest Genetic Reproductive Material which

will help sustain the forestry sector in the long-term. Overall, the forest processing

sector will grow with the increased level of afforestation (and subsequent

management activities) under the FP 2014-2020, allowing Ireland to increase its

share of the overseas market. The economic benefits for Knowledge Transfer

Groups will be significant as previous research has found that farmers participating

107

in groups have a higher uptake of new technologies, achieve higher physical

performance, and generate higher profits (Bogue, 2013).

6.1.10. There will also be social benefits from forestry promotion and training

improving knowledge of best practice, and from the NeighbourWoods scheme

which will provide local opportunities for people to socialise, learn about nature and

enjoy themselves.

6.1.11. In theory the Agroforesty scheme could diversify farm incomes and

potentially increase crop productivity and reduce spending on downstream water

restoration, however the scale of this scheme is very small so any socio-economic

benefits are expected to be negligible at a national level. Furthermore, a lack of

diversity in species composition and overreliance on Sitka spruce have been cited

as an economic risk, but there is limited scope to address this given the loss of

larch and ash to disease.

Health and Quality of Life

6.1.12. Physical and mental health and quality of life will benefit significantly for

those able to use attractive, close to home woodland amenities and recreational

facilities. Of course, not all of the planned private sector afforestation is likely to be

available or used for recreation due to a combination of access, small size, owner’s

concerns and lack of facilities, however the FORECAST project (Philips, 2011)

estimated that some 30% of the future afforestation is considered to have the

potential to provide recreational benefits. Urban woodlands can indirectly benefit

quality of life through provision of shading and minimising surface water run-off

during extreme weather events. There could be indirect beneficial effects from

protection of watercourses adjacent to NeighbourWoods, whilst there may also be

indirect benefits from the improvements in local air quality that increased areas of

woodland can provide. In addition, the increased focus on meeting the

requirements of the WFD mean that water quality, and thus indirectly human

health, may improve.

Soil and Land Use

6.1.13. Soil could benefit from afforestation as there will be less erosion and

sedimentation during rainfall events with increased tree cover, especially on

agricultural land due to the agroforesty scheme; whilst the conversion of existing

non-native forests to native woodlands through the Native Woodland Conservation

108

Scheme could reduce acidification of the soil which coniferous plantations are

known to cause. Measure 1 specifically requires applicants to avoid adverse

effects of inappropriate afforestation on upland and peat sites that have a high

sensitivity, and also acid sensitive areas. This will be achieved using IFS mapping

where soil type is a key factor. Measure 3 promotes special construction works to

minimise erosion and protect water quality from new road construction. There

could be additional indirect benefits from increasing knowledge about ecosystem

services through the Native Woodland Conservation measure and environmental

enhancement through Producer Groups.

6.1.14. However initial planting of trees and the construction of roads may cause

erosion, compaction, nutrient loss and contamination of the soil, whilst roads also

adversely impact forest soil productivity by directly reducing the productive area.

Improved premium rates over the shorter term could lead to farmers leaving

agricultural production and entering forestry, potentially reducing food production.

Furthermore, there is some uncertainty over the possibility of Eucalyptus spp.

planted under the Forestry for Fibre scheme being located in areas with fertile soils

due to the species’ high demand for nutrients. This could potentially deprive Ireland

of valuable agricultural land to deliver food security whilst the species could also

spread to neighbouring land.

Water

6.1.15. Water resources should benefit from increased tree cover as there will be

less sedimentation of watercourses during rainfall events, whilst trees and

vegetation can also filter pollutants from surface water run-off, thus reducing

pollution of water courses. The Native Woodland Schemes have particular

objectives of protecting or improving water quality as well as the protection of

Freshwater Pearl Mussel (FPM) catchments through riparian buffer planting and

converting coniferous to native woodlands. In particular, the Native Woodland

Conservation scheme will enable native woodland owners in the eight priority FPM

catchments to undertake rhododendron clearance near stream banks, where the

species is causing undue shading and preventing growth of the type of natural

ground vegetation needed to filter silt and sediments. There will also be beneficial

effects from the need for afforestation applicants to avoid adverse effects on

upland and peat sites that have a high sensitivity regarding water quality using IFS

109

mapping; and from the prioritisation of special construction works to protect water

quality from new road construction.

6.1.16. There will be additional beneficial effects from the increased national

broadleaf target of 30% for all afforestation schemes (as coniferous forests

increase acidification of groundwater and waterbodies). In addition, certain

afforestation sites will be required to include a Native Woodland Establishment plot

in addition to aquatic buffer zones, which will offer further protection to the aquatic

environment. Planting under agroforesty which should protect water quality by

reducing surface water runoff, reducing erosion of riverbanks, and eutrophication

- this latter point is particularly important as agricultural run-off is one of the biggest

causes of water pollution in Ireland. Moreover, protection of waterbodies is a key

component of the NeighbourWood and Woodland Improvement schemes. KTG’s

will increase knowledge about water quality impacts and ensuring that members

of producer groups enhance the environment. The 2014-2020 FP places much

stronger emphasis on meeting the requirements of the WFD and RBMPs which

should help to improve water quality. The FP also deals with the application of

chemicals and pesticides by specifying a 10-25m buffer from watercourses where

pesticides cannot be used, whilst aerial fertilisation is strictly controlled. The

woodland improvement scheme also includes support for the creation of aquatic

buffer zones and increase in ground cover along these zones.

6.1.17. However initial planting of trees, thinning and felling activities and the

construction of roads may increase pollution and sedimentation of watercourses.

In addition, coniferous plantations can cause acidification of groundwater. There is

also some uncertainty as to the impact of promoting Eucalyptus spp. as a

significant component of the Forestry for Fibre scheme due to the species’ high

water use.

Air Quality

6.1.18. Woodlands are known to intercept air pollutants, providing a buffer to urban

areas or sensitive habitats. Trees also remove gaseous pollutants such as PM10,

NO2, O3, SO2 and CO by absorbing them through the stomata in the leaf surface

(conifers are better at absorbing PM10, whilst deciduous trees are better at

absorbing gases). Afforestation using a mix of coniferous and deciduous trees will

therefore improve Ireland's air quality.

110

Climate Change

6.1.19. Through forest soils and the trees themselves, measures to increase the

area of forest in Ireland by up to 8,290 ha per year will have significant benefits in

terms of carbon sequestration. Forests also reduce surface water run-off by

drawing water into the ground, thus reducing the risk of flooding; planting under

agroforesty and Native Woodland (Enhancement) schemes will especially help

with this. NeighbourWoods will additionally help to reduce the urban heat island

effect; the Forest Genetic Reproductive Material scheme could help ensure the

presence of climate resilient trees into the future; and the Forestry for Fibre scheme

will help to minimise unsustainable use of fossil fuels and peat. Furthermore, the

greater focus on biodiversity and water quality should improve habitat resilience to

the effects of climate change.

6.1.20. However, the construction of forest roads and subsequent increase in traffic

and felling and thinning activities is likely to increase CO2 emissions.

Material Assets

6.1.21. Increasing the funding for forestry activities will ensure better and more

efficient use is made of Ireland's forest resources, in terms of habitat provision,

space for recreation, and production of wood products, fuel and other raw

materials. Forestry for Fibre in particular should reduce unsustainable use of fossil

fuels and peat, whilst meeting the demand for biomass. An additional benefit arises

from the need for Forest Management Plans (which require adherence with

sustainable forest management principles) to be in place for all coniferous forests

over 10ha and broadleaf forests over 5ha. The new funding available for coppicing

within the NWS Est. and NWS Cons schemes (including NeighbourWood) can also

provide a valuable source of material assets for local communities.

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

6.1.22. The Afforestation Measure states that for forestry activities occurring within

200m of a Recorded Monument, one or more archaeological conditions are

imposed by the National Monuments Service, with an emphasis on preservation in

situ of any archaeological remains identified. This requirement also applies to the

NeighbourWood, Forest Road, Native Woodland Conservation and Thinning and

Felling Measures. In addition, the Native Woodland Establishment Scheme sets

out for the first time 'cultural heritage' as a benefit or function of native woodland

111

establishment. There could also be an indirect benefit through the requirement for

sustainable forest management. In addition, Element 1 of the Woodland

Improvement measure includes funding to clear overgrown buffer areas around

sites and monuments, whilst Element 2 introduces a new objective to protect

archaeological sites and create access paths. Finally, Forest Management Plans

must now record historical sites and monuments.

6.1.23. However, if not acknowledged and appropriately mitigated for, afforestation,

construction of forest roads and forest management activities have the potential

for adverse effects on cultural heritage that is undesignated, for example by

causing damage to undiscovered or unrecorded historic field boundaries and walls,

ancient settlement and ritual monuments such as ringforts and burial mounds,

post-medieval structures associated with rural economic and social life such as

limekilns, booley huts, and sweat houses, existing veteran trees, and areas where

the landscape history is important. The main processes associated with

afforestation which cause this damage are the initial site preparation (including

drainage), planting and associated root activity. Subsequently, the creation of

forest roads and harvesting activities also impact on above and below ground

archaeology. Afforestation, construction works and site drainage can also have

indirect adverse impacts on submerged archaeology in neighbouring wetland

areas.

Landscape

6.1.24. Enhancing the quality and diversity of Ireland's landscapes is a specific

objective of the Native Woodland Scheme (establishment and conservation) and

the agroforesty scheme, whilst the Afforestation Measure as a whole specifies that

new forests will be established and maintained in a way that enhances the

landscape. This is important as new woodland can have both adverse and

beneficial impacts on landscape character and visual amenity, depending on

where it is located and how it is designed in relation to the landform or the

enclosure pattern. The Afforestation Measure also put constraints on removal of

hedgerows which are important landscape features. The proposed species mix of

the FP (approximately 36% broadleaf and 64% conifer), together with the scale of

private planting and the requirement for 15% open space and retained habitat is

thus likely to enhance the landscape and have a positive impact on visual amenity.

112

DAFM’s approach to landscaping through forestry activities will be informed by the

Draft National Landscape Strategy for Ireland 2014-2024 (DAHG, 2014). The

woodland improvement scheme (Environmental Enhancement) also includes

support for retro-fitting setbacks along prominent forest edges to soften landscape

impact.

6.1.25. The construction of forest roads and the associated increase in traffic could

potentially cause a deterioration in visual amenity, though this is likely to be of

minor importance.

Green Infrastructure and Ecosystem Services

6.1.26. Afforestation will increase the amount of multi-functional greenspace in

Ireland and should provide connectivity between isolated habitat patches,

particularly in urban and agricultural environments. The provision of ecosystem

services such as carbon sequestration, climate regulation, water regulation and

purification, soil retention, erosion control, air quality maintenance, habitat

provision, outdoor recreation and enhanced aesthetic and educational values will

all improve with an increase in forest land cover.

6.1.27. There will be additional beneficial effects from the Forestry for Fibre scheme

increasing biomass energy sources; the Forest Genetic Reproductive Material

scheme enhancing genetic resources and reducing incidences of pests and

diseases; the need for afforestation applicants to avoid impacting on high nature

value sites and those with high sensitivity to water quality and record the flora and

fauna and ecosystem services that the woodlands will seek to enhance; the

protection of waterbodies through NeighbourWoods and NWS Conservation;

increased knowledge about biodiversity and water quality impacts through KTGs;

and ensuring that members of producer groups enhance the environment. The

knowledge transfer measures are an important vehicle to advance innovation,

enhance environmental protection and promote resource efficiency across the

silviculture sector.

6.1.28. Particular benefits introduced by the August draft of the FP include:

ensuring that afforestation achieves compliance with the requirements of the WFD

and RBMPs; promoting the delivery of wider ecosystem services such as water

quality, soil stabilisation, and habitat connectivity at a landscape level through the

Native Woodland Establishment Scheme; special construction works required to

113

prevent siltation and erosion; funding to clear invasive species from existing native

woodlands to enable the recovery of woodland ecosystems; and Forest

Management Plans required to set out relevant measures regarding the protection

and enhancement of the wider environment. The Agroforesty scheme can

potentially increase pollination services, reduce soil erosion/ sedimentation and

promote riparian planting, however the scale of this scheme is extremely small so

overall benefits at national scale will be negligible.

6.1.29. There is some concern over the construction of forest roads (and possibly

from the subsequent increase in thinning and felling activities) however, as these

may result in habitat loss/ fragmentation, deterioration in soil, water and air quality,

and an increase in CO2 emissions. However the prioritisation of and support for

special construction works to reduce erosion and protect water quality from new

road construction should minimise this.

6.1.30. Table 6.1 below uses the following key:








114

Table 6.1: High Level Matrix Assessment

FP: Final Version, October 2014 High Level Matrix

SEA OBJECTIVES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Measures and Schemes Ecology Socio-

Economics Health Soil Water Air Climate Material Assets

Cultural Heritage Landscape GI & ES


1a Afforestation Scheme +/- ++ + 0 + + ++ + +/- + +

1b Native Woodland Establishment Scheme

++ + + + ++ + + + + + ++

1c Agroforesty Scheme 0 0 0 + + + 0 + 0 + 0

1d Forestry for Fibre Scheme + ++ 0 +/- 0 0 ++ + 0 0 +

Measure 2: Investments improving the Resilience and Environmental value of Forestry: NeighbourWoods Scheme

2a Silvicultural Enhancement of Existing Amenity Forests

+/- + + 0 + 0 0 + 0 + ++

2b Establishment of New NeighbourWoods

0 ++ ++ + ++ + ++ + +/- + ++

2c Provision of Recreational Facilities

+/- ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++


3 Forest Road Scheme +/- ++ 0 0 0 +/- +/- 0 +/- +/- +/-


4 Reconstitution Scheme +/- + 0 0 0 0 0 0 +/- + +


5a Woodland Improvement (Thinning and Tending- Broadleaves)

+/- ++ 0 + + + + + +/- + ++


6 Native Woodland Conservation Scheme

++ + 0 + ++ + + + 0 + ++


7a Knowledge Transfer Groups Scheme

+ ++ 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 +

7b Continued Professional Development Scheme

0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7c Targeted Training Scheme + + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +

7d Advisory Services Scheme + + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0

115

FP: Final Version, October 2014 High Level Matrix

SEA OBJECTIVES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Measures and Schemes Ecology Socio-

Economics Health Soil Water Air Climate Material Assets



8 Setting up of Producer Groups + + 0 + + 0 0 + 0 0 +


9 Innovative Forestry Technology

0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


10a Seed Stands which are Currently Not in Production (Broadleaves)

+/- + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 +

10b Establishment of New Production Areas

+/- + 0 0 + 0 + + +/- 0 +


11 Forest Management Plans + + 0 + + 0 0 + + 0 +

116

6.2. Detailed Matrix Assessment

6.2.1. Where measures or schemes were predicted to have uncertain or adverse effects

at the high level assessment stage, they have been analysed further in the detailed

matrix assessment to ascertain the significance of the potential adverse effects

and how these can be avoided or minimised. The detailed matrices in Appendix F

show the likely environmental effects by objective, whilst the commentary below is

arranged by sustainability topic for those with likely adverse effects. A final

summary of effects before mitigation is shown in Section 6.3.

Ecology and Nature Conservation

6.2.2. It is envisaged that the areas which will be afforested through the FP 2014-2020

will largely consist of wet mineral soils (generally land with poor drainage and

varying levels of rush cover, which are currently or were formerly enclosed for

agriculture), as well as semi-natural grassland and improved grassland. However,

there are restrictions on the afforestation of unenclosed / unimproved land,

typically comprising upland sites and peat sites, under the Forest Service Circular

10/2010, which specifies that the amount of unenclosed land in any application for

financial approval cannot exceed 20% of the total area. The greatest concern

regarding the FP 2014-2020 is thus where afforestation is to take place, i.e. which

habitats it will replace. Afforestation can reduce extent and quality of habitat and

overall biodiversity if planted on protected and/or sensitive grass, heath, wetland

and bog habitats. These adverse effects would be amplified for uniform coniferous

plantations, although there have been efforts to move away from monocultures. In

the case of wetland and bog habitat categories the soil would need to be drained

prior to planting; even if this does not occur the soil may dry out, shrink and crack

after planting as the growing trees draw up water through their roots.

6.2.3. The Afforestation and Creation of Woodland Measure has an objective of restoring,

preserving and enhancing forest biodiversity, and will avoid afforestation on high

nature value sites and upland and peat sites that have a high sensitivity regarding

water quality. Sensitivity will be determined through IFS site selection and further

assessment processes. Additional protection is afforded to hedgerows but is is not

clear if this also applies to landmark trees. Significant adverse effects should thus

be avoided, particularly with required biodiversity protection measures such as the

creation of Areas of Biodiversity Enhancement and the requirement for GPC9 and

117

GPC10 buffers in addition to aquatic zone buffers where coniferous plantations

would come close to water courses. The impact on species composition and

biodiversity could still be adverse, however, if intermediate value habitats are

destroyed, impacting on protected or sensitive species such as Marsh Fritillary,

Kerry Slug, and Hen Harrier.

6.2.4. A change from open to afforested habitats has complex impacts for bird species

diversity. During the early stages of afforestation, species which depend on ground

or shrub layer vegetation could benefit. However, once the woodland reaches the

canopy closure stage, these and other open habitat specialists will be adversely

impacted (for example by increased predation, lack of suitable breeding/nesting

sites) and the site will only benefit generalist bird species and specialist conifer

species such as crossbill and siskin. Specialist bird species such as curlew, golden

plover, hen harrier, merlin, lapwing, red grouse, and whinchat are typically

associated with grass, heath, wetland and bog habitats. Migratory birds would also

be affected. Hence, to determine whether the FP will have an adverse impact on

bird biodiversity it would be necessary to know exactly where the proposed

afforestation would take place. Then it would also be possible to assess the impact

of fragmentation on a landscape scale. The uncertainties surrounding this impact

are discussed further in Section 6.4.

6.2.5. The NeighbourWoods scheme could have an adverse effect of negligible to minor

significance. As with the afforestation scheme, establishment of new

NeighbourWoods could have positive or adverse effects depending on how

biodiverse the previous habitat is; brownfield sites can be very biodiverse, often

more so than the agricultural fields that surround urban areas. The proposed site

suitability screening (using IFS/iFORIS mapping) and AA screening will reduce the

risk of adverse effects, however. Enhancement of existing amenity forests could

increase the level of wildlife disturbance and perhaps result in the loss of dead or

dying trees; the provision of recreational facilities in existing urban or urban-edge

woodlands can also increase disturbance and possibly cause loss of habitat or

nesting/roosting sites.

6.2.6. The construction of forest roads will cause a minor adverse effect on ecology due

to the land take involved which will destroy a small amount of forest or non-forest

habitat (the effect will be greater where forestry has been located in peatland

118

areas, especially lowland raised bogs). The construction and use of forest roads

can disturb wildlife and may also facilitate the spread of invasive species, pests

and diseases. There is also the potential for these roads to cause habitat

fragmentation. However, the encouragement that Forest Road construction should

link with the existing road network and use existing entrances, would reduce

disturbance.

6.2.7. Many of Ireland’s afforested sites have sensitive ecological aspects and many

forestry plantations pre-date any legal requirement for environmental assessment.

Therefore, whilst the intention of Measure 4 is to restore forests that have been

damaged by storms, pests or diseases, the felling and replanting associated with

this could cause significant disturbance depending on the characteristics of the

forest, e.g. Annex I woodland habitat, be home to Annex I birds or Annex II species,

or be located in a sensitive water catchment. There may also be effects on

neighbouring land – for example drainage during these operations.

6.2.8. The thinning and tending broadleaves scheme is likely to have an overall

biodiversity benefit, but there could be an adverse effect from the felling of

malformed and over mature trees as these can be important habitats for a number

of species. However, provision of deadwood is a requirement in the Forest

Biodiversity Guidelines. Thinning and felling activities can also disturb wildlife and

may also facilitate the spread of invasive species.

6.2.9. In terms of the Forest Genetic Reproductive Material scheme, there could be minor

adverse effects on existing animal and bird species: seed orchards are intensively

managed and seed stands may each comprise only one species; whilst

maintenance and creation activities may cause disturbance or minor/temporary

loss of habitat.

Socio-Economics

6.2.10. No adverse effects were identified, however DG ENVIRON notes a risk to

strategy from an over-reliance on Sitka spruce. This is due to two potential species

in larch/ash already being lost from many areas due to disease, however mitigation

has been proposed within the plan to use Eucalyptus spp. for the Forestry for Fibre

scheme. Furthermore, socio-economic benefits depend on farmer uptake of the

Measures which is not certain

6.2.11. Removing the differential between the farmer and non-farmer rate of

119

premium presents a new opportunity for land owners who are not farmers or are

retired farmer to plant their land and avail of higher premium than before. While this

is likely to increase non- farmer owned land available for afforestation, there is a risk

that it may have an adverse indirect effect - outside forestry interests may compete

with local landowners in certain parts of the country thereby pushing up land prices

resulting in local landowners being out-bid for neighbouring properties and unable to

expand their holdings. This effect caused significant disquiet in the late eighties and

early nineties when private afforestation took off.

Health and Quality of Life

6.2.12. There may be a negligible adverse dust, noise, vibration or local traffic effect

during forestry creation and maintenance operations, including construction of

roads and tree harvesting, but this will be highly localised, temporary, and unlikely

to have an effect on the general public, except perhaps in the case of

NeighbourWoods.

Soil and Land Use

6.2.13. Overall, the afforestation and creation of woodlands measure will have a

beneficial effect on soil quality. However, the initial planting of trees may cause

erosion, compaction, nutrient loss and contamination of the soil, particularly if

planted on peatland or wet soils which require draining prior to planting, or if the

growing trees cause previously wet soils to dry out. The Measure does seek to

avoid adverse effects on high nature value sites, upland and peat sites that have

a high sensitivity regarding water quality and acid sensitive areas, however, so

significant adverse effects will be avoided. Disturbance may be caused through

the Forestry for Fibre scheme as associated activities will occur on a more frequent

basis than for regular thinning. Geology could also be affected if trees are planted

in sensitive or designated areas. Furthermore, improved premium rates over the

shorter term could lead to farmers leaving agricultural production and entering

forestry, potentially reducing food production. Targeting the Forestry for Fibre

scheme at fertile agricultural land could reduce a valuable resource in the provision

of crops for food and fodder. Eucalyptus species are particularly noted for being

nutrient draining, which would limit the potential for returning the land to agricultural

use at a future stage. Eucalyptus plantations could also impact on neighbouring

fields as some research suggests there are boundary effects on nutrient depletion,

120

albeit not specific to an Irish context (Kidanu et al, 2005).

6.2.14. An adverse effect of minor/negligible significance is expected from the

construction of forest roads due to the possible erosion, compaction, nutrient loss,

sealing and contamination of the soil. However, measures have been put in place

to protect against erosion. To obtain funding for special construction works (SCW)

grant, one of the criteria is to prevent siltation and erosion. If roads are constructed

through the forest rather than at the edge or nearby, they may also adversely

impact forest soil productivity by directly reducing the productive area. The

construction of roads can also have an impact on the geological properties of an

area, e.g. through the physical removal or importation of rocks, the compaction of

the ground or damage to geology deemed to be of national or county importance.

6.2.15. The NeighbourWoods scheme will have a beneficial effect on soils overall,

but there could be a small adverse impact whereby increased recreational use of

existing woodlands causes erosion and compaction of the soil in certain locations.

It should also be noted that if trees are planted in drought-prone urban areas with

clay soils, the subsequent shrinkage and swelling of the soil due to changes in

moisture content could cause physical damage to structures and hard surfaces.

Water

6.2.16. Overall afforestation should have significant positive effects on the

regulation and quality of water. As mentioned earlier there is a strong emphasis on

meeting the requirements of the WFD and RBMPs which should improve water

quality, including reduction of eutrophication. However, the initial planting of trees

and subsequent management activities are likely to increase pollution and

sedimentation of watercourses, whilst coniferous plantations can cause

acidification. This will be mitigated by the required use of additional GPC9 and

GPC10 buffers in addition to aquatic buffer zones. There could also be adverse

effects if wet soils are drained prior to or as a result of planting.

6.2.17. The water use of fast-growing species such as Eucalyptus is a controversial

issue, however a review paper (Sunder, 1998) shows that the general conclusion

across the literature is that while the water use of certain eucalypts is high, this

conforms to the normal behaviour of other fast growing tree species. Water-usage

is less of a concern in Ireland than in some other European countries due to the

maritime climate and high natural rainfall levels, reducing or eliminating the need

121

for irrigation from potable sources.

6.2.18. Significant adverse effects will be though by avoiding afforestation on

upland and peat sites that have a high sensitivity regarding water quality. In

addition, acid sensitive areas and fisheries sensitive areas will be subject to

additional screening and assessment to determine suitability. Furthermore, any

proposed planting site (contiguous) with lakes, rivers, and streams with

continuously flowing water are subject to the Forest Service’s Forestry and Water

Quality Guidelines. The initial planting of new orchards and thinning activities

associated with production and collection of seeds may similarly increase pollution

and sedimentation of watercourses.

6.2.19. The Forest Roads Measure could have a negligible adverse effect on water

resources. There could be adverse effects relating to pollution and sedimentation

during the construction phase, both from surface water run-off during rain events

and also where the roads may cross watercourses, whilst pollution may also occur

from run-off when the roads are in use by vehicles. In addition, inappropriately

constructed water crossings may impede fish passage. However, these effects will

be minimised by prioritising and assisting applications that help minimise the

potential for sedimentation of any nearby watercourses using e.g. culverts and

tunnels. The SCW grant has been included to aid construction of forest roads in

environmentally sensitive sites. This seeks to avoid sedimentation of nearby

watercourses and requires the works proposal to demonstrate its environmental

benefit. In addition, the FP now also includes a penalty for inadequate culverts and

drainage.

Air Quality

6.2.20. The overall effect of the FP on air quality will be beneficial. There may be a

temporary adverse dust/local traffic emissions impact during forestry operations

associated with afforestation, thinning and clearance and during the construction

of roads, but this will be highly localised and infrequent.

122

Climate Change

6.2.21. The FP will be significantly beneficial to both mitigating and adapting to

climate change. However, there could be some adverse effects associated with

increased vehicle emissions and energy use during forestry operations, along with

short-term losses of carbon stocks from soil and the trees themselves as a result

of thinning and felling. The Forest Roads Measure will result in an increase in a

minor/negligible increase in energy use and vehicle emissions during both

construction and operation. The strategic approach to avoid inappropriate

afforestation in peatlands will also avoid the risk of net releasing more greenhouse

gas than could be sequestered by forests.

6.2.22. Climatic changes for Ireland could include more intense summer heat and

more severe storms. If the extent of forest cover is to increase, then the risk of

forest fires and windfall will be more prominent.

Material Assets

6.2.23. It is not known to what extent the materials used for road construction will

be local or sustainable, however the overall effect of the FP measures on material

assets will be positive.

Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

6.2.24. Whilst the NW Establishment scheme mentions cultural heritage as a

benefit, there is no detail as to how this can be achieved. The process regarding

protection of recorded monuments is discussed in the Afforestation Measure,

however undesignated and/or undiscovered cultural or archaeological

monuments/sites/objects such as historic field boundaries and walls, ancient

settlement and ritual monuments such as ringforts and burial mounds, post-

medieval structures associated with rural economic and social life such as

limekilns, booley huts, and sweat houses, existing veteran trees, and areas where

the landscape history is important could be at risk if not acknowledged and

mitigated for. Tree planting on agricultural land could possibly cause damage to

archaeological remains and hidden monuments if planted on areas not previously

disturbed by deep ploughing or intensive land reclamation or drainage works. In

addition, afforestation and related construction work can have indirect adverse

impacts on submerged archaeology in neighbouring wetlands. This can occur

where water levels are lowered, exposing previously submerged artefacts to

123

aerobic conditions and thus making them vulnerable, and also where the roots of

trees penetrate into watercourse or wetland areas directly damaging structures

and artefacts in their path.

6.2.25. Construction of roads and improving access to woodland for thinning, felling

and other forest management activities could possibly cause damage to forest

heritage (e.g. boundary banks and dykes, burial mounds, charcoal-burning

platforms, saw pits and kilns, existing veteran trees), including hidden underground

(and overground) archaeological remains.

6.2.26. Conditions have been established for afforestation projects where there are

known historical monuments, and further risk assessment process has been

developed to screen for potential undiscovered buried or submerged heritage.

Moreover, he FP now includes a penalty for the failure to comply with

environmental guidelines resulting in damage to archaeological sites and

monuments.

Landscape

6.2.27. New woodland can have both adverse and beneficial impacts on landscape

character and visual amenity, depending on where it is located, what the previous

land use was, and how the woodland is designed in relation to the landform or the

enclosure pattern. Some areas may be particularly sensitive to landscape impacts

from forestry such as National Parks, and areas given landscape designations

within County/Local Authority Development Plans. A more robust system of

classification is expected from the forthcoming National Landscape Character

Assessment proposed in the National Landscape Strategy 2014, which may

increase sensitivity levels of certain areas. However, adverse effects are unlikely

as the Afforestation Measure (and specifically the NW Establishment and the

Agroforestry schemes) require improvements to the quality and diversity of

Ireland's landscapes and will be guided by the outputs of the National Landscape

Strategy. The Afforestation Measure also puts constraints on the removal of

hedgerows, but it is not clear if this also applies to landmark trees.

6.2.28. Constructing access roads in or alongside existing forests may affect visual

amenity, as may the resulting increase in construction traffic, the presence of forest

machinery, and felling/thinning activities.

124


6.2.29. Overall the FP will have significant positive effects on Ireland’s green

infrastructure and ecosystem services. There could potentially be adverse effects

if local biodiversity or water or soil quality is impaired from forestry management

activities or from the construction of roads, though with the FP’s overarching theme

of protection and enhancement of the environment, this is unlikely to impair

ecosystem functioning to a significant degree.

6.3. Summary of Adverse Effects and Appropriate Assessment Conclusions

6.3.1. As can be seen in Table 6.2 below, the only adverse or uncertain effects of concern

relate to biodiversity, soil and cultural heritage.

6.3.2. Measure 1 (Afforestation and Creation of Woodland) has the potential to

significantly adversely impact on the integrity of protected and/or sensitive habitats

and species (and possibly Natura 2000 sites and the habitats and/or species for

which the sites were designated) if afforestation is not located and/or carried out

sustainably, whilst Measure 4 (Prevention and Restoration of Damage to Forests:

Reconstitution Scheme) could have similar impacts as sensitive areas may be

difficult to avoid. The effects of the latter are therefore potentially greater (though

on a much smaller scale). DAFM has indicated that the same spatial controls

(using the IFS/iFORIS mapping) will apply for Measure 4, though as this is not

clearly stated in the FP, it should be communicated at project level.

6.3.3. Forestry activities are known to be putting pressure on certain habitats and species

(those listed under Annex I, II and IV of the Habitats Directive and under Annex I

of the Birds Directive) in Ireland, and are predicted to continue as a threat in the

future (NPWS, 2013a; DAHG, 2013). Depending on where and how the measures

in the FP are undertaken, adverse effects could continue to affect these habitats

and species. Potential effects include the loss of (protected and/or sensitive)

habitat through afforestation, felling/thinning and new forest roads; the drainage of

bogs through afforestation; the diffuse pollution of surface and groundwater

through afforestation, thinning and use of fertilisers; and the spread of pests and

invasive species. Particularly sensitive species include the Freshwater Pearl

Mussel and the Hen Harrier which require specific additional procedures in relation

to forestry activities, though other species such as ground-nesting birds, the Marsh

Fritillary and the Kerry Slug are also susceptible to afforestation and felling.

125

6.3.4. The Appropriate Assessment revealed that Measures 1 – 6 in particular had the

potential to have detrimental impacts on Natura 2000 sites. Of these, Measures 1,

3, 4 and 5 had the potential for causing the greatest impact on Natura 2000 sites.

Despite this, it was felt that existing safeguards built into Measures 1 – 6, as well

as best practice measures adopted by the Forest Service, means that the majority

of impacts should be avoided. It is welcomed that that proposed forestry projects

would be subject to an appropriate assessment of their impacts and the proximity

of Natura 2000 habitats and species should be taken into account when proposals

are generated. This is particularly important for Natura species and habitats of

restricted distribution, of particular sensitivity or for which Ireland is a key European

stronghold.

Cultural heritage and archaeology assets in the rural environment are under

potential pressure from a range of land use changes, including afforestation.

Though designated archaeological sites or Recorded Monuments within or near

an afforestation development, forest road development, or felling licence

applications are protected, as stated in Archaeology 2020 (UCD, 2006), more

extensive afforestation poses a particular concern for low-level and sub-surface

archaeological features as these are largely unknown with limited protection by

legislation. The likely significance of effect for the Afforestation Scheme is

therefore considered to be uncertain, despite the proposed archaeological

assessment regime.

6.3.5. Finally, there is uncertainty over the effects of the Forestry for Fibre scheme on

soil and land use. This is because of the high nutrient demand of Eucalyptus spp.

and the possibility that they may be planted on fertile soil that would likely be better

suited to crop production. A number of consultees expressed the desire that

Eucalyptus be removed from the species list, in particular because there is a

possibility it would be classified as an Invasive Alien Species under the forthcoming

EU Directive (EC, 2014). Overall, however, the impact of the Afforestation Measure

on soil and land use is positive.

6.3.6. Other adverse effects will only be of negligible or minor significance.

126

6.3.7. Table 6.2 below uses the following key:

Key for Significance of Effect

Major or Major/Moderate beneficial effect

Moderate or Moderate/Minor beneficial effect

Minor or Minor/Negligible beneficial effect

Negligible beneficial/adverse effect or neutral effect

Minor or Minor/Negligible adverse effect

Moderate or Moderate/Minor adverse effect

Major or Major/Moderate adverse effect

Uncertain beneficial/adverse effect

127

Table 6.2: Summary of the Detailed Matrix Assessment

FP: Summary of Detailed Matrix

SEA OBJECTIVES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Measures and Schemes Ecology

Socio-Economics Health Soil Water Air Climate

Material Assets



1

Overall Impact of Afforestation and Creation of Woodlands Measure

Moderate/ Minor

Major/ Moderate

Minor/ Negligible

Minor Major/

Moderate Minor

Major/ Moderate

Moderate/ Minor

Uncertain Minor Major/

Moderate

1a Afforestation Scheme

Uncertain Major/

Moderate Minor

Negligible beneficial

Moderate/ Minor

Minor Major Moderate/

Minor Uncertain Minor Moderate

1b Native Woodland Establishment Scheme

Major/ Moderate

Minor/ Negligible

Minor Moderate Major Minor Moderate Minor/

Negligible Minor/

Negligible Minor

Major/ Moderate

1c Agroforesty Scheme

Minor/ Negligible



Minor Minor Minor Negligible beneficial

Minor Neutral Minor/

Negligible Minor

1d Forestry for Fibre Scheme


Major/ Moderate


Uncertain Negligible adverse


Major/ Moderate

Moderate/ Minor

Neutral Neutral Moderate

Measure 2: Investments improving the Resilience and Environmental value of Forestry: NeighbourWoods Scheme

2 Overall Impact of NeighbourWoods Scheme

Minor/ Negligible

Major/ Moderate

Major Minor Major/

Moderate Minor

Major/ Moderate

Moderate/ Minor

Negligible adverse

Moderate/ Minor

Major

2a

Silvicultural Enhancement of Existing Amenity Forests

Minor Moderate/

Minor Minor

Negligible adverse


Negligible adverse

Neutral Moderate/

Minor Negligible adverse

Moderate/ Minor

Moderate

2b Establishment of New NeighbourWoods

Moderate/ Minor

Major/ Moderate

Major Moderate/

Minor Major/

Moderate Moderate/

Minor Major/

Moderate Moderate/

Minor Minor/

Negligible Moderate Major

2c Provision of Recreational Facilities

Minor Major/

Moderate Major

Negligible adverse

Negligible adverse

Negligible adverse

Neutral Moderate/

Minor Negligible adverse

Negligible adverse

Major


3 Forest Road Scheme

Minor Major/

Moderate Negligible beneficial

Minor/ Negligible

Negligible adverse

Minor/ Negligible

Minor/ Negligible


Minor Minor Minor/

Negligible


4 Reconstitution Scheme

Moderate/ Minor

Moderate Neutral Minor/

Negligible Minor/

Negligible Neutral Neutral


Minor Moderate/

Minor Moderate/

Minor

128


SEA OBJECTIVES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



Material Assets



5

Woodland Improvement (Thinning and Tending- Broadleaves)

Minor/ Negligible

Major/ Moderate

Neutral Minor/

Negligible Negligible beneficial


Minor/ Negligible

Minor/ Negligible

Uncertain Minor Moderate/

Minor


6 Native Woodland Conservation Scheme

Major Minor/


Minor Major/

Moderate Minor/

Negligible Moderate/

Minor Minor/

Negligible Minor/

Negligible Moderate Major


7

Overall Impact of Knowledge Transfer and Information Actions

Moderate/ Minor

Major/ Moderate



Moderate/ Minor

Neutral Negligible beneficial



Moderate/ Minor

7a Knowledge Transfer Groups Scheme

Moderate Major/

Moderate Neutral


Moderate Neutral Negligible beneficial



Moderate

7b

Continued Professional Development Scheme

Neutral Moderate Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral

7c Targeted Training Scheme

Minor/ Negligible

Moderate Minor/



Neutral Neutral Neutral Negligible beneficial


Minor/ Negligible

7d Advisory Services Scheme

Moderate/ Minor

Moderate Neutral Neutral Moderate/

Minor Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral


8 Setting up of Producer Groups

Minor Moderate Neutral Minor Minor Neutral Neutral Moderate Negligible beneficial

Neutral Minor


9 Innovative Forestry Technology

Neutral Moderate/

Minor Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral


10 Overall Impact of Negligible Moderate/ Neutral Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor/ Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor

129


SEA OBJECTIVES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11



Material Assets


Forest Genetic Reproductive Material Measure

adverse Minor adverse adverse beneficial Negligible beneficial adverse beneficial

10a

Seed Stands which are Currently Not in Production (Broadleaves)

Negligible adverse

Moderate/ Minor

Neutral Negligible adverse

Negligible adverse

Negligible adverse



Negligible adverse


Minor

10b Establishment of New Production Areas

Negligible adverse

Moderate/ Minor


Minor/ Negligible

Minor/ Negligible

Minor Negligible beneficial

Minor/ Negligible

Neutral Minor


11 Forest Management Plans

Minor Moderate Neutral Minor Minor Neutral Negligible beneficial

Minor Minor Negligible beneficial

Minor

130

6.4. Uncertainties

6.4.1. None of the measures proposed through the FP are location-specific as this is a

strategic level document (it will be for individual land owners across Ireland to

decide whether or not to apply for funding for forest creation or management,

subject to the constraints imposed through the FP). For example, the strategic

nature of the FP means that it cannot be determined where roads will be built,

where afforestation will occur, or which existing forests will undergo enhanced

management for biodiversity benefit.

6.4.2. As stated in Chapter 5 of the FP, the availability of land for forestry may be more

limited than previously thought, constrained by land already in agricultural

production or land with environmental constraints for afforestation. It is envisaged

that the areas which will be afforested over the period of the FP 2014-2020 will, in

the main, comprise wet mineral soils (generally land with poor drainage and

varying cover of rush species, which are currently or were formerly enclosed for

agriculture). In addition, other categories of semi-natural grassland and improved

grassland and are likely to be afforested, though there would be a greater level of

protection for unenclosed land under the Agroforesty and Forestry for Fibre

schemes.

6.4.3. Depending on the condition of these sites and the species they may support, it is

not known whether afforestation would result in an overall loss or gain in

biodiversity. New forests must contain at least 15% open space and retained

habitat where the size of the new forest exceeds 10ha (to be known as Areas of

Biodiversity Enhancement), however if the forest is planted on protected and/or

sensitive grassland, heathland or wetland then the overall effect may still be

adverse. The Forest Service will assess applications for afforestation grants on a

case-by-case basis, and will use IFS mapping to avoid the inappropriate

afforestation of sensitive habitats such as peat lands and wetlands and negative

effects on areas of high ecological value including areas under high natural value

farming.

6.4.4. Unenclosed / unimproved lands, typically comprising upland sites and peat sites

are often characterised by poor fertility, high elevation, high risk of fire, poorer

timber productivity and poor road access. These types of sites generally contain

natural vegetation associated with heath land and peatland and are also often

131

situated in parts of upland river catchments, where small inputs of sediment and

nutrients can have significant effects on aquatic habitats and species. Forest

Service Circular 10/2010 ‘Changes to Afforestation Grant & Premium Schemes

2011’ therefore introduced restrictions on the afforestation of unenclosed /

unimproved land to a maximum of 20% of the total area in the application for grant

aid. Furthermore, Circular 18/2011 ‘Land Types’ lists specific land types not eligible

for grant aid on silvicultural or environmental grounds, including infertile blanket

and midland raised bogs; unmodified raised bogs; designated blanket and raised

bogs, and plots with rock outcrop and associated shallow soils in excess of 25%

of the plot area. The FP also states that afforestation applications within

designated acid sensitive areas must be accompanied by water sampling to

determine the acid sensitivity of surface water, and sites found to have <8 mg

CaCO3 cannot be afforested.

6.4.5. As a result of existing EIA and AA procedures and the other controls in place which

aim to ensure that forestry development is carried out in a sustainable manner

taking into account environmental sensitivities, habitats and species, water quality

and so on, the risk of adverse impacts on Natura 2000 sites should be minimal.

However, given the existing threats and future pressures that habitats and species

face as a result of forestry activities (DAHG, 2013), there is concern that controls

may be insufficient to mitigate the risk of impacting on Natura sites and their

associated habitats or species. Furthermore, it has been suggested that some of

these existing controls may not be fulfilling their requirements (Environmental

Pillar, 2014; An Taisce, 2014).

6.4.6. In cases where there remains some uncertainty as to the likely effect of schemes

and projects funded through the FP, project level EIA or AA may be appropriate.

Mitigation and enhancement measures have also been suggested in the next

chapter.

6.4.7. Some uncertainty exists with regards to the positive impacts identified, as it is not

known to what extent these Measures will be taken up by landowners. Strong

environmental requirements, though a positive step, could actually deter some

landowners from applying for funding.

6.4.8. There are also considerable uncertainties regarding the uptake of various aspects

of the afforestation scheme from farmers given the funding differentials between

132

agricultural activities and the long term commitment required for forestry (Teagasc,

2014). In particular:

- Greater incentives for larger plantations may discourage smaller farmers,

especially in western Ireland.

- Lower total premia for afforestation than the previous FP albeit over a longer

time horizon.

- General desire amongst farmers to continue agricultural activities.

- Perceived permanence of forestry and relative low premia for agroforesty.

- Predicted expansion of dairy opportunities under Food Harvest 2020.

- Ongoing costs of maintaining Neighbourwoods.

6.4.9. Finally, some of the more environmentally beneficial aspects of the FP have very

low levels of funding, and DG ENVIRON in particular has voiced concern that

Measures 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 may not achieve the desired effects with such a low

proportion of the overall budget. In addition to this, within Measure 1, the level of

funding available for Agroforesty makes the large potential benefits of such a

scheme almost negligible.

6.5. Cumulative Effects Assessment

Cumulative effects within the FP

6.5.1. The assessment process predicted similar adverse impacts for some of the

measures, which could have a cumulative (additive or perhaps synergistic) effect

on the identified receptors. These potential cumulative effects include: the impact

on ecology of Measure 1a (Afforestation Scheme), Measure 1d (Forestry for Fibre

Scheme), Measure 2a (Silvicultural Enhancement of Existing Amenity Forests),

Measure 2c (Provision of Recreational Facilities), Measure 3 (Forest Road

Scheme), Measure 4 (Reconstitution), and Measure 5 (Thinning and Tending

Broadleaves).

6.5.2. The combination of afforestation, thinning and felling, silvicultural enhancement,

increased recreation and construction of roads could all result in increased

disturbance to wildlife and loss and fragmentation of habitats. Loss of habitat is

likely to be off-set to some degree by Measure 1b (Native Woodland Establishment

Scheme) and Measure 6 (Native Woodland Conservation Scheme) which are likely

133

to result in an increase in high quality semi-natural habitat. However, it is not yet

known whether the ecological value of habitat likely to be lost (grassland, wetland,

heathland and brownfield sites) will be lower or higher than the forest habitat that

replaces it. Cumulative effects of the FP measures on ecology are therefore

uncertain, but given the overall emphasis of the FP on protecting and enhancing

biodiversity, these are unlikely to be significant.

6.5.3. Cumulative adverse impacts are also possible on undesignated cultural heritage/

archaeological sites and monuments from measures 1a (Afforestation Scheme), 3

(Forest Road Scheme), 4 (Reconstitution) and 5 (Woodland Improvement

(Thinning and Tending – Broadleaves). Planting of trees, constructing roads and

carrying out thinning, felling and other management activities could all result in

possible damage to the heritage assets present in forests and other habitats (e.g.

historic field boundaries and walls, ancient settlement and ritual monuments such

as ringforts and burial mounds, post-medieval structures associated with rural

economic and social life such as limekilns, booley huts, and sweat houses),

including hidden underground (and overground) archaeological remains. Given the

emphasis on protecting Recorded Monuments from forestry activities through the

application a tiered hierarchy of archaeological mitigation responses from

increasing the size of the archaeological exclusion zone, to archaeological

monitoring of specified areas, to the refusal of either part or all of the development

(as appropriate), the cumulative effect of these measures is unlikely to be

significant, though as mentioned above there needs to be a commitment to also

resource and maintain screening and assessment regime to consider

undesignated sites and monuments.

In-combination effects with other plans and programmes

6.5.4. In-combination effects on the environment could also occur between the FP

(particularly measures 1a, 2c, 3, 4, 5) and other plans and programmes promoting

a change in land cover or land use. These could put pressure on existing habitats,

species, nature conservation sites, archaeological sites and cultural heritage

assets. The potential in-combination effects are considered in more detail in Table

6.3 below.

6.5.5. Of particular relevance are the following plans and programmes which may have

insignificant in-combination effects:

134

Border Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022;

Mid-West Regional Authority (2010) Mid-West Regional Planning Guidelines

2010-2022;

South-West Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-

2022;

DAFM (2014) The Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2014 – 2020;

DAFM (2013) Food Harvest 2020;

DAHG (2014) National Raised Bog SAC Management Plan: Draft for

Consultation;

NPWS (2011) Draft National Peatlands Strategy;

Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (2011) Infrastructure and

Capital Investment 2012-2016: Medium Term Exchequer Framework;

DARDNI (2014) Rural Development Programme 2014 – 2020; and

DRDNI (2010) Regional Development Strategy 2035.

6.5.6. The Strategy for Renewable Energy 2012-2020 (DCENR, 2012) is the only plan

considered likely to trigger significant in-combination effects.

135

Table 6.3: In-Combination Assessment with Other Plans and Programmes

Plan or Programme

Objectives and Policies of Relevance Likely In-Combination Effects

Plans and programmes resulting in land use or land cover change relating to FP Measures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

Border Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022

The Regional Planning Guidelines (RPG) set the planning framework for the planning and development of the Region.

A number of the strategies/policies contained in the RPG promote new development and improvements to infrastructure:

Land Use Zoning Policy Framework CSP3 - CSP11

Rural Housing Policy CSP1

Regional Economic Strategy ESP4, ESP6 - ESP10,

ESP14.

Infrastructure Strategy INFP2, INFP3, INFP7, INFP9 -

INFP12

Water Services Policy INFP18, INFP19

Energy Policy INFP23 - INFP26

Telecommunications Policy INFP27

Waste Management Policy INFP28, INFP29, INFP30

Social Infrastructure and Community Development

Policy SIP2

Depending on where development is located there could be increased land pressure resulting in further habitat loss or fragmentation, disturbance of wildlife and potential damage to cultural heritage/ archaeological sites and monuments.

The Draft SEA Environmental Report (2010) identified a number of policies having potential conflict with the ecology and cultural heritage Strategic Environmental Objectives but considered these to be likely to be mitigated to an acceptable level. Policy ENVP16 requires that mitigation measures are incorporated and implemented and INFP1 requires that the SEA and EIA Directives are complied with. With mitigation measures in place it is unlikely for there to be significant in-combination effects.

Mid-West Regional Authority (2010) Mid-West Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022

The Regional Planning Guidelines (RPG) includes the vision to provide the development of the social, economic and physical infrastructure demanded by foreign and indigenous industry in Limerick-Ennis-Shannon and that social, community and economic infrastructure necessary for suitable living will be provided in rural areas. Its economic development strategy, settlement strategy and transport and infrastructure strategy promote growth, new development and infrastructure improvements.

The RPGs also state that Development Plans should make

Depending on where development is located there could be increased land pressure resulting in further habitat loss or fragmentation, disturbance of wildlife and potential damage to cultural heritage/ archaeological sites and monuments. Depending on where afforestation is proposed, these could result in further similar in-combination effects.

The Environmental Report and Habitats Directive Assessment (2010) identified the potential impact on Natura 2000 sites of developments within them or in their vicinity but these would have conditions (mitigation) imposed. With

136

Plan or Programme


provision for new uses of agricultural land including afforestation and alternative energy, where sustainable.

mitigation measures in place it is unlikely for there to be significant in-combination effects.

South-West Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022

The RPG vision is to maintain and develop a sustainable and competitive economy, optimise the quality of life of its residents and visitors, protect and enhance its unique environment, culture and heritage.

The following strategies/guidelines promote growth and infrastructure improvements and may result in additional development:

Economic development strategy RES-01 - RES-06

Settlement Strategy, population and housing RSS-01

– RSS-07

Transport and Infrastructure Strategy RTS-02, RTS-

04, RTS-05, RTS-07 - RTS-09, RI-03.

Depending on where new development and improvement to infrastructure takes place, these could also result in habitat loss and fragmentation, disturbance to wildlife and potential damage to cultural heritage/ archaeological sites and monuments.

Guideline REAS-03 however seeks to conserve, manage and enhance the natural heritage and Guideline REAS-06 seeks to conserve built heritage. With mitigation measures in place it is unlikely for there to be significant in-combination effects.

DAFM (2014) The Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2014 – 2020

The draft RDP describes a number of measures for rural development. One of the measures of the RDP is the Bioenergy Scheme which supports the establishment of energy crops for use in renewable energy production. The objective of the scheme is to increase the area of energy crops planted.

This measure could result in further habitat loss, wildlife disturbance and possible damage to cultural heritage/ archaeological sites and monuments, depending on where energy crops are planted and harvested. However, the Draft Environmental Report (2014) noted that energy crops can support a wide diversity of invertebrates and birds in particular. If the published best practice guidelines are followed for the growing and harvesting of Willow and Miscanthus the overall impact of the RDP in supporting this initiative is environmentally positive. Other measures within the RDP such as the Green Low-Carbon Agri-Environment Scheme aim to improve habitats. Considering the above measures, it is considered unlikely for there to be significant in-combination effects.

DAFM (2013) Food Harvest 2020

This document aims to achieve growth in the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector. It cites that improved productivity and increasing scale are some of the essential

Increasing scale and productivity could result in more intensive farming practices, reduction of high nature value farmland and increased pollution indirectly affecting habitats.

137

Plan or Programme


requirements to sustain the future growth in this sector.

With regard to the forestry industry, the document recommends a significant increase in annual afforestation, support for the provision of forest road network and support for growing the bioenergy sector.

The Environmental Analysis Report (2014) concluded that by adopting an iterative approach to expansion, monitoring and application of best practice, potential impacts could be reduced to below slight negative. Where intensification or land use pattern may impact on a Natura 2000 site, individual assessments would be required.

With mitigation measures in place it is unlikely for there to be significant in-combination effects. Furthermore, the afforestation recommended in Food Harvest 2020 would be carried out through the Forestry Programme.

DAHG (2014) Draft National Raised Bog SAC Management Plan

The plan has two broad aims: 1) Conservation and Management of Raised Bog SACs and 2) Addressing the needs of Turf-Cutters & Land-Owners. These will be met through the following measures:

Protection 1: Cessation of drainage of raised bog

habitat or surrounding wetland habitats;

Protection 2: Cessation of peat harvesting and turf

cutting;

Protection 3: Cessation of planting of commercial

forestry;

Protection 4: Cessation of spread of fires;

Protection 5: Cessation of other human activities

such as water abstraction from groundwater and

quarrying which can have a significant impact on the

raised bogs by lowering the regional groundwater

level;

Restoration 1: Drain blockage on high bog;

Restoration 2: Drain blockage in marginal areas;

Restoration 3: Removal of forest plantations;

Restoration 4: Marginal dams;

The SEA Environmental Report of the Management Plan states that cessation of the aforementioned activities (Protection Measures 1-5) could lead to a loss of cultural heritage in addition to the negative impact on the material asset value of the bogs. There is also a possibility of significant adverse effects to the integrity of Natura 2000 sites through: changes to hydrology (in particular to water levels) which in turn indirectly impact on habitat requirements for e.g. Vertigo, Marsh Fritillary and Red Grouse; and disturbance and habitat loss for bird species of SPAs in / adjacent to the Raised Bog SACs that use the raised bog habitat as feeding / breeding grounds.

Regarding Restoration Measures 1-6, increasing water levels may impact on the requirements for ling heather, Red Grouse, Devil’s-bit Scabious, the Marsh Fritillary and the Vertigo snail. Of particular concern is the loss of suspended solids to the catchment during bund formation, re-profiling and deforestation leading to negative impacts on aquatic flora and fauna and loss of soils. Deforestation in particular could lead to negative impacts in relation to acidification of local watercourses, increased organic matter loss and changes to the water chemistry.

Some of these impacts are similar to those that may occur

138

Plan or Programme


Restoration 5: Bunding on high bogs;

Restoration 6: High bog and cut-over bog

excavation/reprofiling;

Replacement 1: Re-designation of appropriate NHAs;

Replacement 2: Designation of appropriate non-

designated sites.

through the FP, e.g. the impact of felling on ecology and cultural heritage and the effect of afforestation and other forestry activities (e.g. road building and reconstitution) on ecology, soil, water and cultural heritage.

However, with the mitigation measures proposed through the SEA ER of the Management Plan, there are unlikely to be significant in-combination effects with the FP.

NPWS (2011) Draft National Peatlands Strategy

The draft strategy aims to provide the vision, values and principles to guide Government policy on the conservation and management of peatlands. The strategy primarily deals with the sustainable management and protection and conservation of peatland.

However, Principle NPS P6 allows for the continuation of turf cutting for domestic fuels. Action NPS A7 refers to support of biomass power generation projects through the REFIT scheme and working with the biomass sector on the potential of co-firing in the short term at State owned peat stations.

The strategy also states that wind farms could be developed on cutaway bogs in conjunction with recreational and nature amenity.

Continued use of peatland for fuel does have the potential to damage peat habitat and unknown buried archaeological resource (peat in particular is able to preserve many types of organic material). However Principles NPS P7 and NPS P8 look to restrict extraction in sensitive areas and incentivise alternatives to turf burning, whilst further actions are proposed to regulate turf-cutting and undertake environmental assessments for wind farm development.

Principles NPS P9 – 11 and NPS A8 aim to manage forestry to ensure no inappropriate afforestation takes place on peat and forestry is managed so as to protect peatland habitats.

With the overall aim to conserve and sustainably manage peatland, there is unlikely to be significant in-combination effects.

Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (2011) Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-2016: Medium Term Exchequer

The Investment Strategy covers four main components; the economic infrastructure, the productive sector and human capital, the environmental infrastructure and critical social investment. The main Government investment priorities include new schools, a new national children’s hospital and job creation and enterprise development.

The framework provides funding for 40 new schools and major expansion or new buildings for over 180 existing schools. The framework also mentions investment in an ambitious afforestation programme through the DAFM capital grants scheme.

Proposed development e.g. new schools, is likely to take place in urban areas as well as the LUAS Broombridge (Line BXD) project and could result in additional loss of habitat/disturbance for brownfield species. Depending on where development is proposed this could also result in damage to cultural heritage assets. However public transport projects such as the LUAS Broombridge (Line BXD) project are subject to EIA which will seek to identify and minimise impacts on ecology and cultural resource.

It is thus unlikely for there to be significant in-combination effects. Furthermore, the afforestation mentioned in the

139

Plan or Programme


Framework Funding is also proposed for a small number of public transport projects such as the LUAS Broombridge (Line BXD) project.

document would be carried out through the Forestry Programme.

DCENR (2012) Strategy for Renewable Energy: 2012-2020

This document outlines the strategy to grow renewable energy to provide sustainable and secure supply of energy. The two main strategic goals that promote renewable energy development are:

Strategic Goal 1: Progressively more renewable

electricity from onshore and offshore wind power for

the domestic and export markets.

Strategic Goal 2: A sustainable Bioenergy sector

supporting renewable heat and power generation.

The strategy also refers to REFIT 3 (Renewable

Energy Feed in Tariff) to develop a demand for

biomass, which includes forest harvesting residues

and thinnings as well as energy crops.

New renewable energy projects, such as wind farms, could also result in habitat loss, fragmentation, wildlife disturbance and damage to cultural heritage/ archaeological sites and monuments depending on where they are located. However these are likely to be subject to the EIA process and significant impacts mitigated.

Increased demand for biomass could result in further afforestation and thinnings which could result in similar effects as FP measures 1, 3, 4 and 5. The document notes that while the DAFM Afforestation, Forest Roads and Bioenergy Schemes serve to encourage and develop the supply side of the bioenergy industry, this is complemented by REFIT 3 developing a solid and predictable demand side. It could thus result in-combination effects with the Forestry Programme.

DARDNI (2014) Rural Development Programme 2014 – 2020

The Northern Ireland RDP provides the objectives, schemes and actions for six EU Priorities for Rural Development.

The following schemes promote new/improved developments or improvements which could result in more landtake:

Priority 2: Business Investment.

Priority 5: Capital Support for Renewable Energy

Technologies.

Priority 6: Rural Business Development Scheme,

Rural Tourism Scheme, Village Renewal Scheme

and All Island Co-operation Scheme.

Construction of new agricultural development, tourist facilities and renewable energy could further impact on habitats, cause fragmentation and disturbance and potential damage to cultural heritage/ archaeological sites and monuments on the island as a whole.

The Draft SEA Environmental Report (2013) notes that the scale of development proposed is small with the main focus being improvement and upgrades and that developments are likely to be subject to planning requirements/EIA. Through the adoption of mitigation measures, none of the effects are likely to be more than of minor significance and therefore it is unlikely for there to be significant in-combination effects across the border.

DRDNI (2010) Northern Ireland’s RDS provides an overarching strategic New economic development, renewable energy installations,

140

Plan or Programme


Regional Development Strategy 2035

planning framework influencing spatial development for the Region up to 2035, facilitating and guiding the public and private sectors. A number of policies encourage growth and new development:

RG1: Ensure adequate supply of land to facilitate

sustainable economic growth

RG4: Promote a sustainable approach to the

provision of tourism infrastructure

RG5: Deliver a sustainable and secure energy supply

RG6: Strengthen community cohesion

RG7: Support urban and rural renaissance

RG8: Manage housing growth to achieve sustainable

patterns of residential development

SFG1: Promote urban economic development at key

locations throughout the BMUA and ensure sufficient

land is available for jobs

SFG7: Strengthen the role of Londonderry as the

principal city for the North West

SFG8: Manage the movement of people and goods

within the North West

SFG11: Promote economic development

opportunities at Hubs

SFG12: Grow the population in the Hubs and cluster

of Hubs

SFG13: Sustain rural communities living in smaller

settlements and the open countryside

SFG15: Strengthen the Gateways for Regional

competitiveness

housing and mixed use development, and transport links could result in further habitat loss, fragmentation, wildlife disturbance and potential damage to cultural heritage/ archaeological sites and monuments within the island depending on where these are built. The RDS however states that new energy infrastructure would be subject to SEA/EIA or HRA.

New tourism facilities and increased tourism could lead to further loss of habitats, disturbance to wildlife and damage to cultural heritage assets however the RDS does specify that these need to be appropriately located to ensure natural assets are protected.

In addition, RG11 and SFG9 seek to conserve, protect and, where possible, enhance the built heritage and natural environment.

It is thus unlikely that there would be an in-combination effect across the border with the Irish Forestry Programme.

141

6.6. Transboundary Effects

6.6.1. As the specific location of projects likely to be funded under the FP proposals is

not known, transboundary effects on NI are not certain at this stage.

6.6.2. In terms of impact on biodiversity, the Detailed Matrix Assessment revealed that

afforestation could potentially have adverse effects on designated nature

conservation sites or protected and/or sensitive habitats or species (including

peatland) depending on where it is carried out. A number of Natura 2000 sites lie

directly adjacent to the NI border with Ireland (e.g. Slieve Beagh SPA and Pettigo

Plateau SAC), whilst Annex I species (Birds Directive) such as the Hen Harrier and

Annex II species (Habitats Directive) such as the Otter or Marsh Fritillary, have

populations in NI which migrate or move across political borders.

6.6.3. If afforestation is undertaken in the Border Region, there are also possibilities for

cross border effects on water quality, particularly within the North-western

International River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) and the Neagh Bann

International RBMP areas (this includes estuaries, coastal waters and marine

waters where appropriate). There are direct ecological pathways, for example, to

the River Foyle and Tributaries SAC, the River Roe & Tributaries SAC and Lough

Neagh and Lough Beg SPA and Ramsar site. In terms of landscape and visual

impacts, NI’s Ring of Gullion AONB lies adjacent to Ireland and could be affected

if there was substantial afforestation in County Louth.

6.6.4. Such impacts will be minimised by adhering to existing Forest Service controls and

additional mitigation measures (see Section 7.2 for more details). Sensitive and

protected areas should be avoided wherever possible.

142

7. MITIGATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1.1. Annex 1 of the SEA Directive requires the Environmental Report to set out ‘the

measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any

significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan or

programme’. This chapter therefore sets out mitigation measures appropriate to

minimising the adverse effects identified in Chapter 6.

7.1.2. Though not a legal requirement, this chapter also includes enhancement measures

to maximise the beneficial effects offered by the FP. Finally, an opinion of the FP’s

residual effects has been given.

7.2. Minimising Adverse Effects

7.2.1. Due to the potential of forestry activities (those relating to afforestation, forest road

construction, tree felling, reforestation and aerial fertilisation) to cause adverse

environmental effects, a licence or written approval is required from the Forest

Service. The Forest Service exercises additional controls over forestry activities

through a range of standards, guidelines and requirements, whilst consultation with

statutory bodies and the public may be required (see Table 1.3 in Section 1.4).

Adherence to these statutory and regulatory controls (those of most relevance are

set out below) is mandatory for all licensed and approved activities.

European Communities (Forest Consent & Assessment) Regulations 2010

(as amended) – approval required for afforestation of any area >0.1 ha, forest

road construction and ancillary works;

Forestry Act 1946 (Part IV) – felling licence required for tree felling;

European Communities (Aerial Fertilisation) (Forestry) Regulations 2012 –

licence required for aerial fertilisation of forests;

European Communities (Birds & Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011;

European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003;

Forest Service (2000) Irish National Forest Standard - outlines the basic

criteria and indicators relating to the implementation of Sustainable Forest

Management (SFM) in Ireland;

Forest Service (2000) Code of Best Forest Practice - describes all forest

operations and the appropriate manner in which they should be carried out

to ensure the implementation of SFM in Ireland;

143

Forest Service (2012) Appropriate Assessment Procedure (AAP) –

Appendices C and D apply regarding Hen Harrier and Freshwater Pearl

Mussel;

Forest Service (2008) Forestry and Freshwater Pearl Mussel Requirements;

Forest Service (2000) Forest Biodiversity Guidelines;

Forest Service (2000) Forestry and Water Quality Guidelines;

Forest Service (2000) Forest Harvesting and the Environment Guidelines;

Forest Service (2000) Forest Protection Guidelines;

Forest Service (2014) Forestry and Aerial Fertilisation Requirements;

Forest Service (2009) Forestry and Otter Guidelines;

Forest Service (2009) Forestry and Kerry Slug Guidelines;

Forest Service / EPA / COFORD (amended 2013) Protocol for the

determination of the acid sensitivity of surface water in acid sensitive areas

(ASAs) – allows Native Woodland Establishment Scheme applications within

ASAs, without requirement for water sampling (enclosed land only);

COFORD (2004) Forest Road Manual.

7.2.2. The EPA is currently drafting a Practice Note on SEA of Forest Strategies; the

unpublished preliminary draft was prepared by Levett-Therivel in 2011. Once

finalised, this Practice Note should be considered when drafting the FP 2014-2020

(where relevant).

7.2.3. The SEA process has identified some uncertain or potentially adverse effects on

the environment of the proposed FP being implemented. To ensure that these

identified effects are minimised, in addition to adherence with the above guidelines,

the following mitigation measures are proposed, by sustainability topic (the FP

measures that the mitigation measures relate to are included afterwards in

brackets).

7.2.4. It must be noted that responsibility for carrying out these mitigation measures does

not necessarily lie with DAFM or the Forest Service. Responsibility may lie with the

individual land owner.


The FP now states that the inappropriate afforestation of sensitive habitats

144

such as peat lands and wetlands will be avoided, and that afforestation on

Natura 2000 sites can only take place if consistent with the ecological

requirements of that site. In addition, negative effects of afforestation must

also be avoided on areas of high ecological value including areas under high

natural value farming and the amount of unenclosed/unimproved land

available to afforestation projects is also restricted. In the context of ensuring

protection of biodiversity in the wider countryside, land immediately adjoining

these areas (and in particular Natura 2000 sites) should also be carefully

screened and afforestation of this land should be avoided if this may

compromise a broader ecological network linking these habitats. The extent

of this buffer zone should be discussed with NPWS (or DOENI if site is in NI)

and other stakeholders as appropriate. Outside these areas, afforestation on

intermediate value habitats should favour sites which result in improved

biodiversity compared to the previous habitat (this should be monitored at

project level). (Measures 1a and 1d).

The screening process will more successful if the IFS system is first

enhanced to include ecological data held by other bodies (National

Biodiversity Data Centre, IDEAL-HNV, DOENI, local wildlife groups and

environmental record centres). (Measure 1).

The project evaluation by the Forest Service should include an appropriate

ecological assessment before works within or to create NeighbourWoods

commence, particularly if these are likely to occur at sensitive times of year

(e.g. breeding season). (Measures 2a, 2b and 2c)

Local residents should be encouraged to keep to paths and avoid sensitive

areas at sensitive times of year. (Measure 2c)

Avoid facilitating access to forestry land located in peatland areas or other

sensitive areas where Annex I habitats, Annex I Birds or Annex II species

may be present without first carrying out an appropriate ecological

assessment to determine that the impact will not be significantly adverse.

(Measure 3)

Where disease, pest or storm damage occurs in high nature value sites or

sensitive areas, then the need for felling and replanting should be assessed

and only undertaken if necessary, ensuring that these activities do not cause

145

further damage. If trees must be felled, carry out an appropriate ecological

assessment surveys beforehand and ideally leave some on the forest floor

as deadwood habitat. If protected species are present, avoid sensitive times

of year and follow biodiversity guidelines. (Measure 4)

Avoid felling and thinning in sensitive areas where Annex I habitats, Annex I

Birds or Annex II species may be present without first carrying out appropriate

ecological assessment to determine that the impact will not be significantly

adverse. If such species are present, avoid sensitive times of year and follow

standard biodiversity guidelines. (Measure 5)

Before proceeding with funding for Eucalyptus spp under the Forestry for

Fibre scheme (Measure 1d), the Forest Service should conduct a risk

assessment to judge whether they are likely to be included on European

Union’s list of Invasive Alien Species (EC, 2014d).

Clarify what additional protection is afforded to landmark trees under the FP.


No mitigation is required.


Adhere to Forest Service’s Code of Best Forest Practice and other guidance

regarding soil protection. (Measures 1a, 1d, 2b, 3, 4 and 5)

The potential impact on neighbouring fields should be considered before the

planting of Eucalyptus species. (Measure 1d)

Avoid forest road construction on areas designated for their geological

importance. (Measure 3)

Adhere to best practice forest road construction procedures. (Measure 3)

7.2.8. Water

Review recent research in the area of forestry and water quality, including

HYDROFOR, CROW, INTERREG Freshwater mussel Project, DAFM

Research Division / EPA funded research into forest management for the

FPM, which assesses the effectiveness of various measures, from aquatic

buffer zones to Continuous Cover Forestry, in avoiding potential impacts from

forestry on Ireland's aquatic ecology, such as acidification, eutrophication,

146

sedimentation and hydromorphological change. Such research will also

highlight further opportunities for forestry to make a positive contribution to

water quality, e.g. through the creation of more native woodland buffers along

watercourses. (Measures 1a, 1d, 2b, 3, 4 and 5)

Avoid forest road construction in the vicinity of protected or vulnerable

watercourses, including those within highly sensitive catchments and high

status water bodies. Where unavoidable in such areas, consider alternatives,

such as use of temporary roads that can be re-instated later. (Measure 3)

High status waterbodies and areas with other water-relation priorities (include

Freshwater Pearl Mussel catchments) must not be compromised by forestry

activities. In catchments where existing forestry developments may impact

water quality, more detailed planning and control may be needed during

thinning, clearfelling and replanting, and forest road construction. (Measure

1, 2a, 3, 4, 5)

All forest development should be considered within the context of any

relevant water management strategy in place for the area. Forest

development should be compatible with the objectives of any such strategies,

and where possible, opportunities to realise a positive contribution should be

explored and realised. (Measures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11)

7.2.9. Air Quality

Adhere to best practice construction procedures. (Measure 3)

Avoid habitats which may be vulnerable to NOx emissions. (Measure 3)


Require consideration of the distance to market for timber, fibre and biomass

products to minimise GHG emissions related to transport. (Measures 1a, 1c,

1d)

Encourage use of low emissions vehicles, and minimise the distance

travelled by each vehicle. (Measure 3)

Risk from climate change impacts such as forest fires and storms will be

mitigated to an extent by creation of firebreaks and certain silviculture

operations. (Measures 1, 3, 4, 5).

147


Road-building should be fully compliant with the Waste Management Act and

associated waste regulations. (Measure 3)


When it is known which areas specifically will be targeted for any afforestation

or construction work, the risk of works to potential buried or submerged

structures or artefacts on the site itself as well as in neighbouring wetlands

need to be considered. Although a screening and risk assessment regime

has been included in the FP to avoid these impacts, it is important that this

covers a sufficient area to capture the risk of forestry on submerged

structures, and uses appropriate data sources and field inspections where

necessary. It should be made clear that the risk assessment approach

applies to other measures involving forest creation, ground works or forestry

operations (Measures 1a, 2b, 3, 4 and 5).

Avoid disturbing the ground on or near sites of historical significance and

avoid using areas of historical importance for storing material, stacking timber

or as a parking area for machinery. (Measures 1a, 3 and 5)

Measures to encourage scrub retention should not apply in proximity to

monuments and scrub removal should be encouraged where this would

ensure that access pathways and exclusion zones are well maintained

(Measure 1, 2, 5).

7.2.13. Landscape

Afforestation measures will be subject to a number of criteria to ensure they

enhance rather than detract from the landscape based on the established

guidance documents. These should also consider the range of existing local

authority landscape designations in terms of site selection, species selection

and scheme design. At a future point the system developed under the

forthcoming National Landscape Character Assessment should be

incorporated into these criteria. (Measure 1)

Plantations should be avoided in wilder and more sensitive parts of National

Parks. (Measures 1a and 1d)

148

Avoid constructing roads in visible locations, particularly in areas protected

by National Park and other designations. (Measure 3)

Consideration should be given to the landscape effects and sensitivity of

forestry operations, in particular felling, harvesting, and remedial work

(Measures 1, 2, 4, 5).

Clarify what additional protection is afforded to landmark trees under the FP.


Measures as set out for ecology, soil and water should be adhered to in order

to avoid or minimise adverse effects on ecosystem functioning and thus the

provision of goods and services.

7.3. Enhancing Beneficial Effects

7.3.1. The majority of measures proposed through the FP are expected to have at least

some beneficial effects on the environment of Ireland (see Section 6.1). This is

particularly so when compared to the ‘do nothing’ Alternative as many aspects of

the environment are currently in poor and/or deteriorating condition (see Sections

3.3 and 3.4).

7.3.2. The FP’s strong focus on protecting and enhancing water quality and biodiversity

as well as increasing rate of afforestation will add to the benefits delivered through

the current FP. Enhancement measures are suggested below; such measures

may be regarded as best practice, but DAFM is under no obligation to consider or

endorse these.


7.3.4. Given the importance of forestry activities in both enhancing and potentially

adversely affecting biodiversity, the following important ecological receptors should

be specifically referred to in the FP and considered by the landowners when

applying for funding (as set out in the DAHG response to the scoping consultation):

Sites with nature conservation designations, including SACs, SPAs, and their

conservation objectives, NHAs, proposed NHAs, Nature Reserves;

Annex IV (Habitats Directive) species of fauna and flora, and their breeding

sites and resting places, which are strictly protected under the European

Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations, 2011;

149

Other species of fauna and flora which are protected under the Wildlife Acts,

1976-2000 and the Flora Protection Order;

‘Protected species and natural habitats’, as defined in the Environmental

Liability Directive (2004/35/EC) and European Communities (Environmental

Liability) Regulations, 2008, including:

- Birds Directive – Annex I species and other regularly occurring migratory

species, and their habitats (wherever they occur)

- Habitats Directive – Annex I habitats, Annex II species and their habitats,

and Annex IV species and their breeding sites and resting places

(wherever they occur);

Other habitats of ecological value in a national to local context (such as those

identified as locally important biodiversity areas within Local Biodiversity

Action Plans and County Development Plans); and

Features of the landscape which are of major importance for wild flora and

fauna, such as those with a “stepping stone” and ecological corridors

function, as referenced in Article 10 of the Habitats Directive.

7.3.5. Other specific enhancement measures for consideration through the FP include:

The EPA considers the Agroforestry element under the Afforestation

Measure as the best mechanism to establish links between the RDP

Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs) and WFD. The RDP objective is for that at

least 5% of farm area is designated as EFAs for farms with 15ha or more

arable land. (Measure 1c)

The Agroforestry and Forestry for Fibre measures should open up to a wider

list of native broadleaf and coniferous species which have better biodiversity

fit and benefit (e.g. Salix spp., Alnus glutinosa, Betula pendula, Betula

pubescens, Pinus silvestris). References to “oak” should specify which

Quercus spp in particular is being recommended. (Measure 1c, 1d).

Consideration could be given to putting up bat boxes and bird boxes in

NeighbourWoods if these would be beneficial to the species present.

(Measures 2a, 2b and 2c)

Leave woody cuttings from trees in piles on the forest floor. Woodpiles are a

valuable habitat for mosses, lichens and fungi, as well as many insects.

(Measures 1d, 2a, 4 and 5)

150

NPWS would welcome the opportunity to discuss how the Native Woodland

Conservation Scheme could further benefit Natura 2000 sites and species by

offering priority access for projects relating to the four Annex I forest habitats

present in Ireland, and/or relevant freshwater species listed in the Habitats

directive. (Measure 6)

NPWS can provide GIS and other datasets which would improve the targeting

approach to prioritise funding under NWS Establishment and Conservation

towards projects which related to the aforementioned habitats and species.

Forest Management Plans should include provisions for preventing tree

disease and invasive species. (Measure 11)

Material dispatched from nurseries, orchards, and seed stocks under

Measure 10 (Forest Genetic Reproductive Material) should include

provenance certificates at point of sale to identify its genetic stock and

source.

A funding stream within the CPD (Measure 7b) would be of use to improve

the resource base and skill set of those charged to carry out project level AA’s

to be able to cope with the increased demand placed by the FP.

Reference could be made in the FP to the Forest Biodiversity Guidelines in

relation to deadwood and felled trees. For example, this could include leaving

dead trees and shrubs standing (as long as they are not in a dangerous

place) to decompose naturally. If malformed trees must be felled, leave piles

of logs on the forest floor as deadwood habitat. (Measure 5)


Outdoor recreational activities should be encouraged in rural and out-of-town

woodlands (where this would not compromise safety or landowner privacy),

as well as in NeighbourWoods. (Measures 2 and 11).

Where national trails pass through areas of commercial forestry, a buffer area

of mixed native woodland would provide an amenity and safety benefit for

hikers. This would improve the quality and usage of these trails whilst having

side benefits for biodiversity and water quality. (Measure 1a)

The provision of public access on grant-aided roads should be highlighted to

151

forest owners as part of the Forest Roads scheme details (Measure 3).


People should be encouraged to keep to paths. (Measures 2b and 2c)

Consider imposing similar restrictions/objectives for the reconstitution

scheme as for Measures 1 and 5. (Measure 4)

7.3.8. Water

Avoid creating plantations in sensitive catchments unless adequate and

functioning aquatic buffer zones are in place. (Measures 1a and 1d)

Some guidance of the most advantageous location for NeighbourWoods and

native woodland establishment (in terms of the benefits they can bring to

water quality) should be provided to applicants considering this measure.

(Measure 2)

Consider imposing similar restrictions/objectives for the reconstitution

scheme as for Measures 1 and 5. (Measure 4)

Forest management should contribute towards achieving the objectives of

WFD River Basin Management Plans and Freshwater Pearl Mussel

Management Plans to identify areas of potential synergy between forestry

management and water quality management and ensure that forestry

pressures on the aquatic environment are addressed and opportunities for

contributing to water quality are realised. DG ENVIRON suggest use of

catchment opportunity mapping to help identify forest management required

to contribute to WFD outcomes. (Measures 5 and 11)

The EPA is currently developing a training course on catchment management

and certain elements of that course will be relevant to foresters, forestry

workers and others providing advisory services. This should link in with

knowledge transfer and information actions. (Measure 7)

Reconsider the removal of grant aid for deer fencing of conifer species as this

may act as a disincentive to diversification of forest estate with implications

for water quality. Species like Douglas fir, western red cedar and other deer-

vulnerable species may no longer be considered as they are ineligible for

deer fencing unless planted with a 70% mix of broadleaves. This is

152

particularly true in areas with high deer populations. Many of these species

offer the opportunities to diversify silvicultural practices to address issues

such as the maintenance of water quality through the use of low impact

silvicultural systems (Measure 1a).

7.3.9. Air Quality

Encourage use of low emissions vehicles and cover cargo to avoid dust.

(Measure 3)


The role of forestry in carbon sequestration should be highlighted and

reflected. The targets for Measure 1 are expressed in terms of increasing

forest land cover but it would be useful to include a target in terms of CO2e

sequestered and some commitment to monitoring of this. (Measures 1 and

11)

There are some instances where support for measures to avoid climate

change impacts and increase resilience to these could be more clearly

identified regarding afforestation, woodland improvement and genetic

reproductive material. (Measures 1, 5, 6 and 10). For example, the use of

these schemes to provide shelterbelts to protect against higher wind speeds

could be one example of such an enhancement measure.

The Reconstitution Scheme currently appears to prioritise damage caused

by disease over other natural causes which would be considered on a

discretionary basis. Wind damage is not explicitly mentioned as one of the

other natural causes, but this should be reconsidered given the potential for

more significant storms due to future climate change. (Measure 4).

There would be merits in including where relevant, further information on the

Forest Environment and Climate Services components of the Forest Genetic

Reproductive Material Scheme. (Measure 10)


Minimise dropping of litter and dog fouling by providing bins. (Measures 2b

and 2c)

Wood recycling centres could be established to serve both forest holders and

153

members of the public. (Measures 7 and 8)


Consider the setting as well as the individual heritage features. Where

evidence suggests that significant historical remains may be present, but

specific features have not been identified, identify these areas in forest

management plans and restrict any planting to ensure an appropriate

exclusion or buffer zones are established. The Heritage Council would be

willing to collaborate on the production of a guidance note in this regard.

(Measures 1 and 11)

For new woods in areas where the landscape history is important, consider

restoring tree cover on previously wooded sites. (Measures 1, 2 and 6)

Look for indications of the historic environment on the ground and conduct

further investigation where evidence is found; commission specialist surveys

where evidence is significant. (Measures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6)

Record the nature and position of any historical features or objects such as

pottery, flint or bone, and report them to the relevant authorities. (Measures

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6)

Include long-established boundaries, field banks and walls, and veteran trees

as historic environment features to be protected. (Measures 1 and 11)

Monitor important historic environment sites and features, including

woodland features, to check they are not being damaged or degraded.

(Measures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6)

Element 2 of the Woodland Improvement scheme (Measure 5) could include

further measures to enhance the potential for access to monuments and their

amenity for the benefit of visitors and maintenance staff.

The NWS Est Scheme (Measure 1b) could be further enhanced by ensuring

that planting in proximity to monuments is all native tree woodlands as this

would be the authentic setting for these monuments. Furthermore, the

objectives of this scheme and the general afforestation scheme (Measure 1a)

could include cultural heritage objectives.

The Agroforestry scheme (Measure 1c) could be expanded to include

154

provision for farmers to plant areas at a distance from monuments to provide

alternative shelter for animals and so reduce damage to the monument.

The Reconstitution Scheme (Measure 4) could include an additional objective

to support the identification of archaeological deposits exposed due to the

effects of extreme weather events.

The design of drainage on steep slopes from forest roads could reflect a

herringbone design where appropriate to slow down run off (Measure 3).

Include cultural heritage topics into training (Measure 7).

7.3.13. Landscape

For new woods in areas where the landscape history is important, consider

restoring tree cover on previously wooded sites. (Measures 1, 2 and 6)


A wider range of alternate agroforestry systems should be considered and

investigated. The proposed 400 – 1000 stems / ha under GPC9 precludes

alley systems where, for example, tree rows can be spaced 20m apart or

greater and trees 1.25m within the rows. More research will be required so

that advisory agencies have good information to advise both the industry and

potential growers. Training will be required of advisors, contractors,

consultants, etc. with particular emphasis on the prevision of adequate stock

proofing of trees. This will help the measure contribute to increased

sustainability and a greater range of ecosystem service provision (Measures

1c, 7).

The Producer Groups Measure aims to encourage private forest holders to

manage their forest jointly on a geographical basis. A more catchment based

spatial scale approach is suggested for all other forest measures, e.g.

catchment scale farm co-operatives for forest holders. This would assist in

realising benefits for both the forest industry and the environment by

providing economies of scale and facilitating appropriate and more strategic

level planning, management and assessment. (Measures 1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and

11)

Forest Schools should be encouraged to extend education about woodland

155

management and the environment to a wider audience, as well as to improve

human interaction with the outdoors. Training in particular may be needed for

Local Authorities considering or managing Neighbourwood projects

(Measures 2 and 7)

The EPA would welcome engagement with the Forest Service to assist in

defining some of the requirements for Continuing Professional Development

(CPD), which should specifically cover climate change and water

management and relate to the WFD. (Measure 7)

It important that a link is established between the Knowledge Transfer Groups

and the targeted training group to ensure knowledge is transferred and that

the link between environmental awareness, environmental legislation and the

required management techniques is made. The EPA suggests that advisors,

forestry owners and local communities should be informed of the status of

their local environment and of the challenges that exist in achieving a clean

and healthy environment via advisory services and is willing to assist in

providing relevant information to those involved in developing actions under

the Knowledge Transfer Mechanisms of the Forestry Programme. (Measure

7)

Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) should be carried out in all forests.

This could be ensured by requiring all forests (including those below the

proposed thresholds of 5ha for conifers and 10ha for broadleaves) to prepare

a Forest Management Plan (FMP), whilst monitoring will also be necessary

to ensure that FMPs are implemented. A staged approach to submission of

FMPs could be considered as a possible mechanism to improve

implementation. (Measure 11).

Additional training strands may be required for SFM and agroforestry,

especially where these are being undertaken at community level. The

Coppice Society of Ireland would welcome engagement on this to help

develop a programme (Measures 1d, 2, 7).

Opportunities could be taken to include a research element within a number

of the measures and not just the technology aspect of forestry (Measure 9).

The EPA would welcome more focus on research which seeks to restore,

preserve, and enhance ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry, as well

156

as work which promotes resource efficiency and supports the shift towards a

low carbon and climate resilient economy in agriculture, food, and forestry

sectors. Forest Research Ireland would in particular recommend support for

the establishment of demonstration plots could be considered under the

Agroforestry scheme (Measure 1c); support for the enhancement of

integration between research results and practice could be considered within

the Knowledge Transfer Groups (Measure 7), and; that the seed orchards

established under Forest Environment and Climate Services (Measure 10)

be linked to existing seed or clonal research. The Forest Service is referred

to the FORI report for further information (Forest Research Ireland, 2014).

Improved genetic material from Forest Genetic Reproductive Material may

also be of use the NWS Est. scheme (Measure 1b).

Finally, where possible, it is recommended that all Forest Service Guidance

produced in 2000 is updated to reflect current best practice and legislation.

7.4. Residual Effects of the FP

7.4.1. Through adoption of the mitigation measures suggested in Section 7.2 (these will

need to be specifically referred to in the final FP 2014-2020 document to ensure

that they are adhered to by all projects funded over the life of the Programme), it

is anticipated that none of the effects identified as adverse in the detailed matrix

assessment will be of greater than negligible significance. This will ensure that,

even without adoption of enhancement measures, the overall effect of the FP is

strongly positive.

7.4.2. Adoption of the proposed mitigation measures should also ensure that identified

adverse cumulative effects, both between the measures within the FP and

between the FP and other plans and programmes, will not be significant.

157

8. MONITORING AND NEXT STEPS

8.1. Next Steps

8.1.1. Once the FP has been adopted, an SEA Statement will be produced to provide

information on how the Environmental Report and consultees’ opinions were taken

into account in deciding the final form of the FP.

8.2. Monitoring Proposals

8.2.1. Article 10 of the SEA Directive requires DAFM, as the Managing Authority, to

monitor significant environmental effects of implementing the FP. This must be

done in such a way as to also identify unforeseen adverse effects and to take

appropriate remedial action. Monitoring should commence as soon as the

programme is adopted, with annual reporting carried out for the life of the

programme. It may be necessary to revise the monitoring programme periodically

so that it takes account of new methods and increased understanding of the

baseline environment.

8.2.2. It is important that any monitoring proposed by the SEA should aim to specifically

monitor the impact of the FP rather than monitoring trends in the baseline

environment that would have occurred regardless of the FP. In accordance with

the Ireland SEA Regulations, monitoring should also focus on aspects of the FP

where environmental impacts are predicted to be significant.

8.2.3. However, the SEA did not predict any significant adverse effects of the FP being

implemented. As revealed in Section 7.4, residual environmental effects of the FP

(i.e. after mitigation measures have been adopted) are unlikely to be of greater

than negligible significance.

8.2.4. Indicators that DAFM could consider to monitor the environmental impact and

achievement of the FP are listed below.

Applicants for afforestation schemes will be obliged to keep records of the

main species (flora and fauna) that they seek to promote. This should include

any protected species identified on the site at project level. These records

should be monitored against national / local targets. (Applicants – project

level, with overall coordination from DAHG, Local Authorities, Local

environmental records offices: ongoing)

158

Monitor land use change due to FP relative to pre-programme and likely

baseline evolution. This should include metrics such as total area of forest,

total area of forest by cover type and scheme type (broadleaf, coniferous,

NWS, NeighbourWood, Reconstitution scheme) forest road, previous habitat

loss. This should be monitored against FP or national targets as appropriate.

(DAFM: for duration of programme)

Monitor carbon sequestration against a long term target reflective of time

taken for afforested trees to mature (DAFM, EPA: tbc).

Monitor production and consumption metrics in relation to domestic timber,

fibre, and biomass pre/post programme. Compare against metrics for non-

sustainable or imported sources (DAFM: ongoing).

Monitor condition of known historical environment features where FP-related

work takes place including the number of checks of the RMP, the number of

field surveys, and the number of previously unrecorded monuments

discovered. Also monitor the number of monuments/artefacts protected

under a FMP. (Project level, with coordination from DAHG, local historical

records offices: duration of programme).

Monitor water quality of catchments where FP work takes place against WFD

targets. (Project level with overall coordination from EPA and FS: duration of

programme).

Monitor air quality at sites pre/post afforestation and during construction work

phase. (Project level with overall coordination from EPA and FS: duration of

programme).

Monitor content and implementation of FMP, and report findings to FS/DAFM

(Project level: FS/DAFM, regular audit cycle).

Monitor delivery of projects by category against the IFS exercise. If the IFS

is expanded to derive an ecosystem services opportunity map (especially for

NWS, NeighbourWood and other riparian schemes) then monitor delivery of

projects against sites recommended by this opportunity map. (FS, duration

of programme).

8.2.5. More specific details in relation to SEA objective, potential adverse or beneficial

effects, mitigation and enhancement measures to which they relate are provided

159

in Table 7.1 below. The measures in the FP to which they relate are given in

brackets.

160

Table 7.1: Suggestions for possible monitoring measures

SEA Objectives

Potential adverse and beneficial environmental impacts of implementing the FP 2014-2020

Recommended mitigation and potential enhancement measures for inclusion in the FP

Possible monitoring measures for undertaking by relevant Government Departments, land owners or organisations

Ecology & Nature Conservation

Loss of biodiversity due to afforestation and drainage of sensitive grass, heath, wetland, and bog habitats; in particular impact on birds requiring open habitats; loss of intermediate value and brownfield habitats which do not have statutory protection (1, 2b, 3) Disturbance to wildlfe due to silviculture, construction of roads, and provision of recreational facilities (1, 2a, 2c, 3, 4, 5) Seed orchards are intensively managed and seed stands may each comprise only one species; whilst maintenance and creation activities may cause disturbance or minor/temporary loss of habitat (10) Introduction of potentially invasive species (1d)

Afforestation screening requirements on Annex I habitat, or the habitat of Annex I birds or Annex II species (where not consistent with ecological requirements), and restrictions on other areas (peatlands, uplands, unenclosed habitats, high nature value farmland should be extended to neighbouring areas which may provide an ecological network. (1, 2b) Ensure afforestation and silviculture does not affect the habitats/species above and other nationally protected species. Prior surveys required to identify existing composition. Surveys should be carried out at appropriate times of year and construction work should avoid sensitive periods (e.g. breeding season). (1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5, 10) IFS system should be updated to include ecological data held by other bodies. (1) Applications for afforestation under the FP should be assessed in conjunction with local Biodiversity Action Plans and regard to the importance of intermediate and brownfield sites for local biodiversity and ecological networks (1, 2b) Avoid facilitating access to forestry land located in peatland and other sensitive areas where Annex I habitats, Annex I Birds, Annex II species, and nationally protected species may be present. (3) Use of various media to encourage local residents/tourists to keep to paths and avoid certain areas at sensitive times of year (2c) Risk assessment to judge merit of including E spp in FfF scheme. (1d)

Applicants for all afforestation schemes will already need to keep records of the main species (flora and fauna) that their project will promote. These should be monitored against national/regional/local targets for these species where available. Monitor land use of statutory and non-statutory designated sites during the course of the programme to ensure that conversion to woodland is not adversely impacting other important habitats on a landscape scale.

161

SEA Objectives




Ecology & Nature Conservation

Biodiversity gains resulting from increased native woodland planting / restoration. (1b, 3, 6) Biodiversity gains resulting from creation of ABE and thinning/woodland management schemes (1, 4, 5, 11) The use of the Forest Genetic Reproductive Material scheme to preserve seed stocks and protect against pest/disease (10) Protection of Freshwater Pearl Mussel through riparian planting and conifer->broadleaf conversion (1a, 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 6)

Consideration could be given to putting up bat boxes and bird boxes in NeighbourWoods if these would be beneficial to the species present (2) Avoid felling and thinning in sensitive areas where Annex I habitats, Annex I Birds or Annex II species may be present without first carrying out surveys to determine that the impact will not be significantly adverse. If such species are present, avoid sensitive times of year and follow standard AA and biodiversity guidelines (1c, 1d, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Follow Forest Biodiversity Guidelines in relation to deadwood and thinning processes (1c, 1d, 2a, 2c, 3, 4, 5, 6) Leave woody cuttings from trees in piles on the forest floor. Woodpiles are a valuable habitat for mosses, lichens and fungi, as well as many insects (1c, 1d, 2a, 3, 4, 5, 6) Open Agro-F and FfF schemes to wider list of native broadleaf and conifers. (1c,1d) Greater priority for Natura 2000 habitats/species under NWS Conservation and funding for additional resources/training for those conducting project level AA (6, 7b). FMPs to included provisions for preventing tree disease/invasive species. (11)

Applicants for all afforestation schemes will already need to keep records of the main species (flora and fauna) that their project will promote. These should be monitored against national/regional/local targets for protected species using metrics suchs as:- - Area of Native Woodland (annual target and overall target of 30% broadleaf cover) - Percentage of designated woodland sites in favourable or unfavourable recovering condition - Progress against local and national BAP targets - Proportion of BAP species/habitats listed as increasing or stable status - Area of woodland with active, approved Forest Management Plans - Performance against metrics for woodland birds, and woodland structure and composition (e.g. shrub cover, no of species, deadwood, old growth) - Conservation status of freshwater pearl mussel in 8 priority catchments Monitor performance against total hectares of broadleaf woodlands thinned. Performance against ABE, NWS, and Agro-forestry targets set under the FP must be monitored. Prevalence of tree disease, pests, and invasive species should also be monitored.

162

SEA Objectives




Socio-Economics, Health and Quality of Life

No adverse effects predicted

Socio-Economics, Health and Quality of Life

Economic benefits from forestry grants to landowners, revenues and employment from commercial timber and other forest products (e.g. agro-forestry, fibre). (1a, 1c, 1d) Social benefits from Neighbourwood and NWS schemes (socialising, education, enjoyment, woodfuel/products) (1b, 2, 6) Health benefits from increased recreational activity opportunity and improved air quality. (1, 2, 6) Noise reduction and overall amenity improvements (1, 2, 5, 6)

Establish a system of metrics relating to socio-economic and quality of life factors which can be monitored to assess success of scheme delivery. (1, 2, 6) Outdoor recreational activities should be encouraged in rural/out-of-town woodlands (where this would not compromise safety/owner privacy) as well as Neighbourwoods. (2, 11)

Measure and monitor forestry’s contribution to Irish GVA Measure and montior employment supported by the Forestry Sector Monitor the number of statutory development plans referring to woodland benefits Measure and monitor numbers of people enrolling in, registering for and completing forestry related short courses, qualifications and apprenticeships programmes Measure number of visits to forest, and amount of forest habitat within an accessible distance of settlements. Measure delivery of NeighbourWood scheme.

163

SEA Objectives




Soil and Land Use

Initial afforestation work and road construction may cause erosion, compaction, nutrient loss and soil contamination. Impacts on peatland/wet soils are particularly adverse. (1, 2b, 3 In established forests, silviculture and recreational activities could have a similar effect as above. (2a, 2c, 4, 5) New coniferous afforestations can cause acidification of soils. (1a, 1c, 1d, 2b) If trees are planted in drought-prone areas, the subsequent shrinkage and swelling of the soil due to moisture changes could cause physical damage to structures and hard surfaces (1, 2b)

Adhere to Forest Service’s Code of Best Forest Practice and other guidance regarding soil protection. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Avoid road-building on the most productive soil and areas designated for their geological importance. (3) Adhere to best practice construction procedures as detailed in COFORD. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Avoid planting close to man-made structures in drought-prone areas. (1, 2b) Use of various media to encourage public to keep to paths (2c)

Monitor land use change relative to baseline and targets. In particular: - Total area of forest - Total area of native woodland - Total area of coniferous woodland - Total area of specific tree species - Total area of forest protected by Reconstitution Scheme - Total area of NeighbourWoods - Total area of forest covered by an FMP - Total length of forest road - Total area of habitat lost to afforestation scheme by habitat type, including any sites with statutory or non-statutory designation. Monitor soil pH, nutrients and other key metrics recommended in the Code of Best Forest Practice

Soil and Land Use

Overall, afforestation will benefit soil quality by improving integrity of soils. (1, 2b) Conversion of coniferous to broadleaf forests can reduce soil acidification (6)

Adhere to Forest Service’s Code of Best Forest Practice and other guidance regarding soil protection. (1, 2, 6)

Monitor soil pH, nutrients and other key metrics recommended in the Code of Best Forest Practice

164

SEA Objectives




Water

Initial afforestation work, road construction, and silviculture can cause pollution and sedimentation of neighbouring watercourses, and may impede fish passage. (1, 2b, 3, 4, 5) New coniferous afforestations can cause acidification of groundwater and neighbouring watercourses.(1a, 1c, 1d, 2b) Draining of naturally wet soils / peatlands represents the loss of a water resource.(1, 2b, 3) Afforestation with fast growing trees could cause material loss of water resource in drought-prone areas. (1, 2b)

Adhere to Forest Service's Forestry and Water guidelines. In addition the recommendations of the UCD HYDROFOR project in regards to measures to mitigate impacts of forestry operations on water quality and quantity should be incorporated. (1, 2b, 3, 4, 5) Avoid road-building in the vicinity of protected / vulnerable watercourses and good status water bodies; If unavoidable, special construction works (e.g. culverts, sediment traps) should be mandatory to minimise harm. (3) Avoid creating afforestations in sensitive catchments unless riparian buffers have been established. Tighter controls on clear-felling and harvesting operations in catchments with good status water bodies. (1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5) Adhere to requirements of Local Catchment Management Plans, especially in the eight Freshwater Pearl Mussel catchments.(1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4 5, 10, 11) Consider impact of afforestation with fast-growing trees in catchments with potential water shortage issues (Measures 1, 2b)

Monitor water quality along catchments where FP-related work takes place. In particular: - length/area of catchments at good water quality status (relative to baseline) - number of projects responsible for adverse change in water quality. Monitor content of FMP to ensure that water-related mitigation recommendations are being included

165

SEA Objectives




Water

Established forests reduce pollutant run-off and sedimentation of watercourses. (1, 2b) Increased broadleaf coverage will reduce acidification of ground water and neighbouring watercourses in key locations. (1a, 1b, 6) Strategic location of afforestation and conversion programmes using Indicative Forest Strategy mapping will ensure that overall and specific forest cover is delivered to areas where it will most benefit water quality (1, 2b, 6)

Make use of synergies with the GLAS scheme, in particular to identify target areas for riparian buffer afforestation. (1, 2b) Make use of GIS and Ecosystem Service mapping technology to identify most appropriate locations for riparian buffer and NeighbourWoods to maximise benefit for water quality and flood regulation. (1, 2b) Ensure forestry workers, managers and advisors attend EPA training course on catchment management. (7a, 8) Ensure incentives for lower water-impact conifer species are sufficient to encourage their use. (1a)

Establish quantity and location targets for riparian buffer planting and monitor overall activities against this target. Monitor water quality along catchments where FP-related work takes place. In particular: - length/area of catchments at good water quality status (relative to baseline) - number of projects responsible for favourable change in water quality.

Air Quality

Initial afforestation, road construction and certain forestry work can cause dust and localised emissions of air pollutants. (1, 2 3, 4, 5)

Adhere to best practice construction procedures for road construction, and Forest Service’s Code of Best Forest Practice. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Avoid road construction work in areas vulnerable to NOX emissions. (3) Use low emission vehicles and cover cargo to minimise dust and pollution emissions. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Monitor gases/PM along during construction / afforestation / operations to ensure emissions are within acceptable thresholds as appropriate to the environmental vicinity (at project level).

166

SEA Objectives




Air Quality

Established forests can absorb airborne pollutants, thus improving air quality in urban areas, near major transport infrastructure, and in sensitive habitats. (1, 2b)

Make use of IFS exercise to use GIS and Ecosystem Service mapping technology to identify most appropriate locations for afforestation and NeighbourWoods in particular to maximise benefit for air quality regulation (1, 2b)

Monitor overall levels of gas/PM at sites pre/post afforestation over a number of years (at project level). Establish quantity and location targets for afforestation-related air quality improvement and monitor overall activities against this target.

Climate Change

Initial afforestation, road construction and certain forestry work will create greenhouse gas emissions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) More extreme summer heat and more powerful storms may provoke more forest fires and windfall (1, 2b)

GHG emissions from forestry activities would be only a minor factor, but could be reduced further by including maximum recommended distance to market for forestry products, and by using low emissions vehicles in construction and operation. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Road construction will facilitate access to forest for emergency vehicles. (2) Firebreaks and silvicuture operations envisaged should mitigate some of this risk. (1, 3, 4, 5)

167

SEA Objectives




Climate Change

An correctly targeted increase in forest cover will increase carbon sequestration (in trees and in soil) (1, 2b) Forestry for Fibre and Agro-Forestry measures will net reduce emissions relating to use of fossil fuels and peat for energy and raw materials. (1c, 1d) Riparian buffer planting, NeighbourWood scheme, and increases in overall forest cover will provide shade and water regulation services, as well as protecting biodiversity and water quality. The Forest Genetic Reproductive Material Scheme will also protect biodiversity. All of these will increase Ireland's resilience to future climate change (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10)

Establish a GHG sequestration target (in CO2e) in addition to an overall land cover target. (1, 2b) More clearly identify and specify measures within the afforestation, woodland improvement, and genetic reproductive material streams to increase climate change resilience. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10) Consider changes to afforestation, reconstitution and woodland improvement measures which support protection from / remedial action as a result of greater frequency and intensity of storms. (1, 2b, 4, 5)

Monitor FP against GHG sequestration target during an appropriate phase of forest operation. Once resilience measures are more clearly established, set targets and monitor overall FP against them.

168

SEA Objectives




Material Assets

Raw materials will be required for the forest road construction programme. (3) Waste material will be generated during road construction work, forestry operations, and recreational actitivies.(1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Removal of deadwood may have adverse effects on saproxylic species, as well as reducing the capacity of the forest to slow or store water during floods. (2a, 3, 4, 5)

Best construction practice to be followed during road building, in particular with reference to the Waste Management Act and associated regulations. Forest Service’s Code of Best Forest Practice should be adhered to with respect to waste management. (1, 2a, 2b, 3, 4, 5) Provide bins to minimise litter and dog-fouling in areas of recreational activity. (2c) Leave deadwood on the forest floor in locations where this may benefit biodiversity and flood storage requirements. (2a, 3, 4, 5)

Monitor FMPs to ensure that these measures are being included.

Material Assets

Forestry for Fibre and Agro-forestry schemes will reduce unsustainable use of fossil fuels and peat, and meet demand for biomass and other forest materials (1c. 1d) Support for coppicing under NWS and Neighbourwood measures will also encourage use of sustainable resources by local communities (1b, 2, 6)

Provide wood recycling centres to serve forest holders and members of the public (1, 2, 6) Provide bins to minimise litter and dog-fouling in areas of recreational activity (2b, 2c).

Monitor timber, fibre, and biomass production from Irish forests against baseline and established targets. Monitor consumption of domestic forestry product, on an absolute basis as well as relative to imported and non-forestry alternatives. Monitor other consumption related indicators such as installation rates of wood-fuelled boilers Monitor production and consumption of peat and related products.

169

SEA Objectives




Cultural Heritage

Afforestation, road construction, and forest management activities may adversely affect buried and overground historical artefacts.(1, 2, 3, 4, 5) In addition, submerged archaeology in neighbouring watercourses can be adversely affected by drainage and other reductions in water levels caused by afforestation. (1, 2b)

RMP and Tree Register should be checked and land surveyed prior to activity including an archaeological risk assessment to identify the potential for buried or submerged artefacts on site and in neighbouring watercourses. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Record nature / position of any features found and report to relevant historic environment services. (2) If archaeological risk assessment suggests the possibility of buried/submerged artefacts, minimise ground disturbance in these locations and limiting afforestation to smaller trees/shrubs. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Monitor condition of known historical environment features where FP related work takes place. Monitor number of checks to the RMP, number of field surveys, number of previously unrecorded monuments discovered.

170

SEA Objectives




Cultural Heritage

Afforestation sets out conditions to preserve archaeological remains in situ. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Ireland's native woodland is a part of its cultural heritage which NWS will seek to restore. (1b, 4, 5, 6)

Consider settling as well as individual heritage features. Look for indications of historic environmnent on the ground and conduct further investigation, commisioning specialist surveys where significant (1,2,3,4,5,6,11) Include long-established boundaries, banks, veteran trees in list of protected features. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Prioritise afforestation works to areas which have an established history of woodland cover. (1, 2b) The woodland improvement scheme could include further measures to enhance the access to and amenity value of monuments (5) The NWS Est. could consider planting exclusively native trees in proximity to monuments (1b) Cultural heritage objectives could be considered in relation to the general afforestation scheme (1a)

Monitor number of monuments/artefacts in forests protected under a FMP.

Landscape

Afforestation can have adverse effects on landscape quality where: - attractive open views are replaced by forest cover - rare and unique landscape is replaced by forest - diversity of landscape is replaced by afforestation (especially of single species conifers) - the forest is unsympathetic to previous land use, landform, and enclosure pattern (1, 2b) Construction of forest roads, felling/thinning activities may create temporary loss of visual amenity (1c, 1d, 3, 4, 5)

Afforestation should be sensitive to local designations and future landscape character designations. It should be avoided in wilder and more sensitive areas of National Parks. (1) Road construction should be avoided in visible locations where possible especially in National Parks or other sensitive landscape designations. (2) Forestry operations, in particular felling, harvesting, and remedial work should consider their impact on landscape (1, 3, 4, 5) The additional protection status of landmark tree needs clarification (1).

Monitor extent of afforestation by type in areas of open habitat and previous woodland use.

171

SEA Objectives




Landscape

Afforestation can have beneficial effects on landscape quality where: - unappealing views are shielded by tree cover - diversity of landscape is enhanced, especially by native woodland - afforestation is sympathetic to previous landuse, landform and enclosure pattern (1, 2b)

Afforestation should take into consideration landscape history, for example by prioritising afforestation on previously wooded sites. (1, 2b) Afforestation and NeighbourWood schemes in particular can use GIS methods to target locations which would shield residents from adverse visual impacts of roads, railways or other developments. (1, 2b)

Monitor extent of afforestation by type in areas of open habitat and previous woodland use. Monitor afforestation and NeighbourWood scheme implementation against targets based on GIS opportunity assessment.


Afforestation, road construction, and forest management activities may adversely affect certain ecosystem service provision. Water quality, air quality, GHG emissions soil retention, erosion control impacts are likely to be temporary, but habitat provision, aesthetic value and soil quality may be permanently impacted by some land use changes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) FMPs are only required for schemes > 5ha / 10ha for conifer/broadleaf forest, which may limit the scope of sustainable forest management. (11)

Proposals set out above to minimise adverse effects on specific environmental factors (air, climate etc.) will minimise ecosystem service disruption. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) To ensure that knowledge transfer permeates to all levels of forest management, FMPs could be made mandatory for forests below the 5ha/10ha thresholds. (11) Forest service guidance should be updated to reflect best practice/legislation (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

Extend the IFS exercise to map and monitor ecosystem services provision by the FP. This could be done by establishing metrics and targets for all services provided based on monitoring targets proposed above. Monitor implementation of FMPs

172

SEA Objectives





Afforestation will increase amount of multifunctional greenspace, increase connectivity, and provide a suite of ecosystem services including: - biomass and fibre provision - carbon sequestration, air quality and climate regulation and resilience, water regulation and purification, soil retention, erosion control, biological/pest control - habitat provision - outdoor recreation, aesthetic, and education value (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) The benefits to ecosystem services and green infrastructure are likely to outweight the negatives.

Proposals set out to enhance beneficial effects on specific environmental factors will also improve the ability of the measures specified under the FP to deliver green infrastructure and provide ecosystem services. (1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10) Education and knowledge sharing initiatives will improve awareness and delivery of green infrastructure and ecosystem service related benefits. As such: - Forest schools should extend education and activity provision to a wider audience - catchment based approach for producer groups - Forest Service should work with EPA to develop CPD requirements which incorporate climate change and water quality management (in particular in relation to European and national legislation). These should also be worked into Knowledge Transfer Groups. - Additional training strands for sustainable forestry managment (7,8) A wider range of agroforestry systems should be considered along with training to increase the scheme's potential for sustainable outcomes (1c, 7) A stronger research focus especially towards agroforestry, integration of research/practice, and climate resilience could be included in the FP (1c, 7, 10)

Extend the IFS exercise toecosystem services provision by the FP. This could be done by establishing metrics and targets for all services provided based on monitoring targets proposed above. Monitor implementation of FMPs

173

REFERENCES

ADAS (2014) Ireland’s Forestry Programme 2014-2020: Appropriate Assessment

(AA) Natura Impact Statement.

An Taisce (2014). Submission in response to the Public Consultation on the draft

Forestry Programme 2014-2020.

Alexander, K. N. A. and Anderson, R. (2012) The beetles of decaying wood in

Ireland. A provisional annotated checklist of saproxylic Coleoptera. Irish Wildlife

Manuals, No. 65. NPWS, DAHG, Dublin, Ireland.

Bogue (2013). Impact of Participation in Teagasc Dairy Discussion Groups. An

evaluation report prepared for Teagasc.

Border Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022.

Bullock, C., Kretsch, C. and Candon, E. (2008) The Economic and Social Aspects

of Biodiversity: Benefits and Costs of Biodiversity in Ireland. (Report to DEHLG).

CAAS (2010) Environmental Report of the Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-

2022 for the Midland Region SEA Non-Technical Summary.

Clinch, P. J. (1999) Economics of Irish Forestry: Evaluating the returns to economy

and Society, COFORD, Dublin.

Collingwood, LUC, Levett-Therivel, Scott Wilson, TEC and C4S (2006) Working

with the SEA Directive: Do’s and Don’ts Guide to generating and developing

alternatives.

Comhar Sustainable Development Council (2010) Creating Green Infrastructure

for Ireland: Enhancing natural capital for human wellbeing.

Cooney, G. 1993: Forestry and the cultural landscape - understanding the past in

the present. Irish Forestry 50, 13-19.

Cooper, L.M. (2004) Guidelines for Cumulative Effects Assessment in SEA of

Plans (Imperial College London).

Countryside Council for Wales, English Nature, Environment Agency and RSPB

(2004) Strategic Environmental Assessment and Biodiversity: Guidance for

Practitioners.

Cregan, M. and Murphy, W. 2006. A review of forest recreation research needs in

Ireland. COFORD, Dublin.

174

Cultural Heritage Project (2014). The Physical Landscape of Ireland. Available at

www.askaboutireland.ie

DAFM (2014). Chalara fraxinea confirmed findings 7 Apr 2014.

DAFM (2013) The Second National Forest Inventory - Republic of Ireland – Main

Findings.

DAFM (2012) Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth: An Integrated Marine Plan for

Ireland.

DAFM & DARD (2013). All-Ireland Chalara Control Strategy – July 2013.

DAHG (2013) Format for a Prioritised Action Framework (PAF) for Natura 2000 for

the EU Multiannual Financing Period 2014-2020: Ireland (Draft).

DAHG (2014). Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C

418/04 Commission v. Ireland: “The Birds Case”. A programme of measures by

Ireland to ensure compliance with the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the

European Union.

DCENR (2012) Strategy for Renewable Energy: 2012 – 2020.

DEHLG (2009) Freshwater Pearl Mussel Sub-Basin Management Plans: SEA

Scoping Document.

Defra (2013) Government Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statement:

Incorporating the Government’s Response to the Independent Panel on Forestry’s

Final Report.

Department of Education and Skills, Border, Midland & Western Regional

Assembly and Southern & Eastern Assembly (DEAS) (2013) Needs Analysis for

the ERDF and ESF Co-financed Operational Programmes 2014-2020.

Department of Health (DOH) (2007) Draft Guidance on Health in Strategic

Environmental Assessment.

Department of Transport (2011) A Sustainable Transport Future: A New Transport

Policy for Ireland 2009 – 2020.

Dublin Regional Authority and Mid-East Regional Authority (2010) Regional

Planning Guidelines for the Greater Dublin Area 2010-2022.

EC (European Commission) DG Environment (2014a) Natura 2000 and Forests:

Frequently asked questions. A Guidance Document (Draft).

http://www.askaboutireland.ie/

175

EC DG Environment (2014b) Nature 2000 and Forests: Questions and Answers –

Draft Document Version 2.

EC (2014c). Annex 2: Bird species' status and trends reporting format for the

period 2008-2012. Available at

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/Converters/run_conversion?file=ie/eu/art12/envuvesy

a/IE_birds_reports-14328-144944.xml&conv=343&source=remote (Accessed: 23

Jun 2014)

EC (2014d). Invasive Alien Species. Available at

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm (Accessed:

24 Oct 2014).

EC DG Environment (2013) A new EU Forest Strategy: for forests and the forest-

based sector. COM (2013) 659 final, 20.9.2013.

EC (2012) Europe 2020: Sustainable growth - for a resource efficient, greener and

more competitive economy (online). Available from

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/priorities/ sustainable-

growth/index_en.htm

EC (2010) Health trends in the EU. Prepared by the Health Network at the request

of European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal

Opportunities.

EC (2003) Implementation of SEA Directive (2001/42/EC): Assessment of the

Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment.

EC (2001) Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of

27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes

on the environment.

Ecorys (2012) Economic Value of Ireland's Historic Environment.

Eftec (2011) Scoping Study on Valuing Ecosystem Services of Forests Across

Great Britain – Final Report.

Elliot, W.J., Page-Dumroese, D. and Robichaud, P.R. (no date) The Effects of

Forest Management on Erosion and Soil Productivity. USDA Forest Service RMRS

- Microbial Processes Project.

EPA (2014) Focus on Urban Waste Water Discharges in Ireland report in 2012.

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/Converters/run_conversion?file=ie/eu/art12/envuvesya/IE_birds_reports-14328-144944.xml&conv=343&source=remote


http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/invasivealien/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/priorities/%20sustainable-growth/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-a-nutshell/priorities/%20sustainable-growth/index_en.htm

176

EPA (2013a) Air Quality in Ireland 2012, (EPA, 2013).

EPA (2013b) Integrated Biodiversity Impact Assessment Methodology

EPA (2013c) Ireland National Inventory Report, Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990-

2011.

EPA (2013d) National Waste Report 2011.

EPA (2013e) The Provision and Quality of Drinking Water in Ireland – A Report for

the Year 2012.

EPA (2012a) Ireland’s Environment: An Assessment.

EPA (2012b) Review of Effectiveness of SEA in Ireland Key Findings &

Recommendations.

EPA (2012c) Integrated Water Quality Report for South East Ireland.

EPA (2010) Water Quality in Ireland (2007-2009).

EPA (2014a) Ireland’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections 2013-2030

Levett-Therivel sustainability consultants (2011) Best Practice Note on Strategic

Environmental Assessment of Forestry Strategies: Preliminary Draft for EPA

(UNPUBLISHED).

EU (2013) Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Strategic

Environmental Assessment.

Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants (2005) Economic Value of Trails and

Forest Recreation. Report for Coillte and the Irish Sports Council.

FORECON (2011) An economic evaluation of the market and non-market

functions of forestry.

Forest Policy Review Group (2013a) Environmental Report on the Forest Policy

Review.

Forest Policy Review Group (2014) Forests, products and people Ireland’s forest

policy – a renewed vision.

Forest Research (2005) Trees and woodlands: Nature’s health service.

Forest Research Ireland (2014). A Strategic Agenda for Forest Research in

Ireland.

177

Forest Service (2014) Forestry Programme 2014 – 2020 – IRELAND. Submitted

in accordance with European Union Guidelines on State aid for agriculture and

forestry and in rural areas 2014 to 2020.

Forest Service (2013a) DRAFT Forest Management Plan for Priority Freshwater

Pearl Mussel Catchments (unpublished report).

Forest Service (2013b) The application of the Native Woodland Establishment

Scheme in Acid Sensitive Areas: A proposed refinement of the existing acid

sensitivity protocol for afforestation.

Forest Service (2012a) Appropriate Assessment Procedure Information Note.

Forest Service (2012b) Water Framework Directive: Report on Progress under the

Programme of Measures for Forestry.

Forest Service (2008) Indicative Forestry Statement: The right trees in the right

places.

Forest Service (2000a) Forestry and Archaeology Guidelines.

Forest Service (2000b) Forestry and Landscape Guidelines.

Forestry Commission (2011) The UK Forestry Standard: The governments’

approach to sustainable forest management. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.

Forestry Commission England (2014) Corporate Plan Performance Indicators and

Woodland Indicators.

Forestry Commission Scotland (2011) The Scottish Forestry Strategy: Description

of Indicators.

Forestry Focus (2014) Invasive Species (online). Available from

http://www.forestryfocus.ie/growing-forests-3/threats-to-forests/invasive-species/

Accessed 08/05/2014.

Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) (2014). Heritage and Planning. Available at

www.gsi.ie.

Greig, S. (no date). Carbon Issues in Irish Forestry (online). Available from:

http://www.inff.ie/cmsfiles/pdf/Carbon%20Issues%20in%20Irish%20Forestry.pdf.

Accessed 26/05/2014.

Heritage Council (2014). Submission to the public consultation on the draft

http://www.forestryfocus.ie/growing-forests-3/threats-to-forests/invasive-species/

http://www.gsi.ie/

http://www.inff.ie/cmsfiles/pdf/Carbon%20Issues%20in%20Irish%20Forestry.pdf

178


Heritage Council (2010a) Biodiversity Awareness Understanding and Impact of Its

Loss: A Barometer Survey Prepared for the Heritage Council, Kilkenny.

Heritage Council (2010b) Proposals for Ireland’s Landscapes.

Heritage Council (2007) A review of research needs in Irish archaeology.

Heritage Council (2000) A Guide to Habitats in Ireland.

lAPA,1994: Strategy for the Development of the Forestry Sector In Ireland.

Unpublished report produced by the Irish Association of Professional

Archaeologists.

Johnson, G. 1998: Forestry and Archaeology in Ireland. Heritage Council,

Kilkenny.

Kelly, J., Tosh, D., Dale, K. and Jackson, A. (2013) The economic cost of invasive

and non-native species in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Kidanu, S., Mamo, T., Stroosnijder, L., (2005). Biomass production of Eucalyptus

boundary plantations and their effect on crop productivity on Ethiopian highlands

vertisols, Ethiopia. Agroforestry Forum, 63, 281–290.

Levett-Therivel, Environment Agency, Countryside Council for Wales, UKCIP,

Natural England, InteREAM, and CAG Consultants (2007) Strategic

Environmental Assessment and Climate Change: Guidance for Practitioners.

MA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-

being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington D.C.

Midland Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines for the Midland

Region 2010-2022.

Mid-West Regional Authority (2010) Mid-West Regional Planning Guidelines

2010-2022.

Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (2006) Forestry and

our Cultural Heritage: Proceedings of the Seminar 13-15 June, 2005, Sunne,

Sweden

Natural England (2014) Green Infrastructure (online). Available at:

http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/planningdevelopment/greeninfrastruct

ure/default.aspx [Accessed 4 Jun 2014].

179

Ní Dhubháin, Á., Fléchard, M-C., Moloney, R., O’Connor, D. and Crowley, T.

(2006) The socio-economic contribution of forestry in Ireland. COFORD, Dublin.

NPWS (2013a) The Status of EU Protected Habitats and Species in Ireland.

Volumes 1, 2 and 3. Version 1.0. Unpublished Report, NPWS, DAHG, Dublin,

Ireland.

NPWS (2013b) Annex 2: Bird species' status and trends reporting format for the

period 2008-2012 (online). Available from:

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/Converters/run_conversion?file=ie/eu/art12/envuvesy

a/IE_birds_reports-14328-144944.xml&conv=343&source=remote. Accessed

27/05/2014.

NPWS (2011) Actions for Biodiversity 2011-2016 - Ireland’s National Biodiversity

Action Plan

ODPM, Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and Department of

Environment Northern Ireland (2005) A Practical Guide to the Strategic

Environmental Assessment Directive.

OpenForests UG (2013) FairForest Voluntary Rating 1.0: Rating Report.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2008) Strategic

Environmental Assessment and Ecosystem Services.

Partidario, M.R. and Gomes, R.C. (2013) Ecosystem services inclusive strategic

environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review.

Philips, H. (2011) All Ireland Roundwood Production Forecast 2011-2028.

COFORD, Dublin.

Regional Authorities of Ireland (RAI) (2014) Regional Indicators Report: Monitoring

Framework for Implementation of the Regional Planning Guidelines.

Renou-Wilson, F., Bolger, T., Bullock, C., Convery, F., Curry, J., Ward, S., Wilson,

D. and Muller, C. (2011) BOGLAND: Sustainable Management of Peatlands in

Ireland – Final Report. STRIVE 75, EPA, Wexford.

Ruddock, M. & Dunlop, B.J., O’Toole, L., Mee, A., Nagle, T. (2012) Republic of

Ireland National Hen Harrier Survey 2010. Irish Wildlife Manual, No. 59. NPWS,

DAHG, Dublin, Ireland.

Scottish Executive (2006) The Scottish Forestry Strategy.



180

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) The Ecosystem

Approach (CBD Guidelines), Montreal.

SNIFFER (online) Strategic Environmental Assessment Guidance on Air, Water

and Soil.

South-East Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines for the South-

East Region 2010-2022.

South-West Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines 2010-2022.

Sunder, S. S. (1998) The Ecological, Economic and Social Effects of Eucalyptus.

Consultant Report for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Teagasc (2014). Submission in response to the Public Consultation on the Draft


United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2012) Resource Manual to

Support Application of the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment.

University College Dublin (2006) Archaeology 2020. Repositioning Irish

Archaeology in the Knowledge Society.

West Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines for the West Region

2010-2022.

West Regional Authority (2010) Regional Planning Guidelines for the West

Region: Strategic Environmental Assessment (2010-2022) SEA Statement &

Environmental Report. Chapter 5. Vol. 2.

White, S., Simmons, B. and ten Brink, P. (2009) Integrating ecosystem and

biodiversity values into policy assessment’ in TEEB (2009) ‘The Economics of

Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers.

Wilson, M.W., Gittings, T., Pithon, J., Kelly, T.C., Irwin, S. and O'Halloran, J. (2012)

Bird diversity of afforestation habitats in Ireland: current trends and likely impacts.

Biology & Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 112:1, 1-14

Woodland Trust (2010) More trees more good: Tree planting and woodland

creation for farms.

World Bank (2014) Data: Hospital beds (per 1,000 people) (online). Available from

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.BEDS.ZS. Accessed 28/05/2014.

World Resources Institute (2013) Weaving Ecosystem Services into Impact

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.MED.BEDS.ZS

181

Assessment: A Step-by-Step Method.

World Resources Institute (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: A framework

for assessment. A Report of the Conceptual Framework Working Group of the

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

ireland’s forestry programme 2014-2020 strategic ... · 1.3.5. to meet the needs of ireland’s...

Documents