Forestry Network Newsletter

// FNN 50

50 Outstanding Issues. Acid Sensitive Areas. Coillte & ACCBANK: who owns what Christmas tree farms? PQs on broadleaf planting rates. Coillte FMU: East Clare. Mayo Pipeline and Coillte lands. Intertidal Conference. BIOFOREST: Prempting the science? Christmas Tree Growers acknowledge FS support. Joe Barry: people who hunt, shoot and fish.

FOREST NETWORK NEWSLETTER

ISSUE NUMBER 50

FEBRUARY 6, 2002

WEEKLY ON WEDNESDAYS

465 SUBSCRIBERS FREE BY E-MAIL


FREE WITH THIS ISSUE: INDEX FNN 1 - FNN 50


1. INTRODUCTION

50 Outstanding Issues


2. CAMPAIGNING

Acid Sensitive Areas

Coillte & ACCBANK: who owns what Christmas tree farms?

PQs on broadleaf planting rates

Coillte FMU: East Clare


3. COMPLAINT OF THE WEEK

Mayo Pipeline and Coillte lands


4. EVENTS

Intertidal Conference


5. LETTERS

BIOFOREST: Pre-empting the science?

Christmas Tree Growers acknowledge FS support

Joe Barry: people who hunt, shoot and fish

Trees and the Environment.




6. ABOUT US




1. INTRODUCTION

50 Outstanding Issues


This issue marks the 50th of FNN. To avoid the sort of self-congratulatory fawning that characterises most Irish environmental publications on their milestones, the coordinators of FNN have spent some time reviewing the last year's issues to try and isolate and highlight outstanding issues.


Both the length and the depth of the articles have increased since the first issues, and while a break has consciously been put on the length, the depth has a labyrinthine life of its own.


The focus has also widened. FNN arose to answer a need amongst NGOs to inform themselves of the issues that were holding back the development of sustainable forestry in Ireland. It continues to serve that need, but it is also - hopefully - growing up to become an influential platform with a reputation for meaty contributions and trenchant analysis - albeit with an open bias against conifer plantations.


Of all the pitfalls of the ineffective, however, the greatest may be a failure in persistence. It is not one to which the coordinators of FNN intend to fall prey.


The issues that we have picked out of the first 50 issues - more than a thousand pages - begin - of course - with the fact that the current broadleaf planting rate in Ireland of 12.9% is an international scandal. The 1996 forestry policy is indefensible in ecological terms and fatally economically flawed in its reliance on a poor quality monoculture. The current Government's failure to implement a five-year review is bad management and will in the end cost the State dearly.


1 million native trees for the Millennium forests sounded like a death knell for Sitka to the uninitiated. Yet 250,000,000 Sitka would be planted over the same five-year time frame. While the Native Woodland scheme over the next five years has to be welcomed, it also had to be said that in the same period the conifer target is very nearly 100,000 hectares. Applications for Sitka are being processed now. But while we had a glossy launch of the Native Woodland Scheme in 2001, it appears that the procedures and training will not make planting possible until the 2002 - 2003 season.


This threnody runs through all our first 50 issues in every form imaginable. Why does the broadleaf rate in Coillte Farm Partnerships as published on their website not meet the broadleaf planting rate required by Certification? Why is reafforestation - pushing now to 10,000 hectares a year - exempt from even the poor national broadleaf targets? Why do Coillte's Forest Management Unit Plans give projected broadleaf targets that make no attempt to take advantage of the good land available for broadleaf forestry?


These complaints go down to "intimate planting" of "diverse conifers" (the method by which one larch replaces every fifth sitka) - openly ridiculed and hated by contractors and harvesting companies alike, and of no benefit for biodiversity. In practice this means the larch failing and disappearing with the first thinnings, leaving us with another pure Sitka site.


Species choice. The short-term economic value of broadleaves has not been researched and so does not influence decision making. The powers that be seem unable to comprehend that two valuable broadleaves - birch and alder - share exactly the same 40 year rotation that conifers have. Species grant analysis: FNN 17 demonstrated that when the Minister told us grants were up by an average of 30% that in fact it was conifer grants that went up as much as 50% higher while broadleaves increased by only 10% - in spite of promises to the Commission.


The other side of the species choice coin is the damage done by conifers. The telling litany in the NGO submission to Brussels of March 2000 [Supplement to FNN 17] that so enraged the industry and their media hacks - FNN subscribers excluded - has an authority to it that time is reinforcing. Critics were vocal - "a number of incorrect statements" - "fundamentally flawed, based on inaccuracies and misleading information" but never specific. The final report by the Commission supported the NGO submission, singling out Ireland for opprobrium. This is on the list for publication by FNN.


Damage through acidification. The clear relationship between forest cover and acidification has been a known fact since Norman Allott and others's Acidification of Surface Waters in Connemmara and South Mayo" [1990] and conclusively agreed by Irish researchers since the 1997 AQUAFOR Report. Yet Ireland had to be dragged through the European Court twice - once for the Judgment and once to seek fines - before the Department's mind could be concentrated enough to produce the Statutory Instruments of December 10, 2001.


And even still the Protocol to prevent afforestation on acid sensitive areas is not agreed. [See CAMPAIGNING]


Questions about pesticides erupted again and again in the first 50 FNNs. What is to replace permasect? Is lindane really gone? What methods are being introduced to limit the use of chemical controls? Is the proposal to further limit the use of CCA hysteria? Why does Duchas continue to use CCA treated timbers in marine situations, where this use is clearly banned under existing regulations? And above all else - how much does monoculture influence the need for chemical controls?


Biodiversity! The Information Note from the Department that is going to ensure that the Biodiversity Guidelines are implemented and that no one can get away with "business as usual". Any progress? A national Biological Recording Centre. Any progress?

FNN sought comments from the Department and from Coillte about the felling of 1,500 hectares of seed stands without the required limited felling licenses. No response to FNN, and no response to The Irish Times when they printed the allegations in August of 2001. So Patricia McKenna asked the Commission and the Commission - [see CAMPAIGNING next week] asked for us. You have to admire democracy.

The court case taken by Coillte relating to legitimacy of more than £38m in grants paid to Coillte but intended to assist farmers for income lost from farming the land while the crop grows was deemed "manifestly unreasonable or manifestly lacking any foundation in law," on 25 April 2001. The fact that this was not raised at the Coillte AGM a month later cost the Company dearly in public relations, particularly as the Chairman of Coillte, Ray MacSharry, had been EU Commission for Agriculture at the time the deal was done for the grants between Coillte and the EU. This year should see the final resolution of the case.

Bioenergy! The success of Project Arbre in Yorkshire as the first coppice powered generator has already spawned imitators in Wales and elsewhere. Yet Ireland could only provide one pilot project in Thurles and a controversial spent chicken litter and mushroom compost project in Monahan.

Those who have recourse to the existing Index, which we attach as a Supplement to this issue, will recognise that this list is anything but comprehensive. If FNN sees 100, the coordinators hope that it will have its own website with a subject index and a search engine all of its own - a place to root endlessly through not only the issues of FNN, but the links within that lead out to all the resources necessary to build a sustainable forestry policy for Ireland.



2. CAMPAIGNING


2.1 Acid sensitive areas

Hugh Scanlan, who must have a mental telepathy relationship with some one in the Forest Service, was the first to release in the Farmer's Journal the details of the Protocol on acid sensitive areas that are a result of the EU Judgment against Ireland in September of 1999 under the EIA Directive. We reprint his article below with thanks to the Farmer's Journal.


FNN readers will remember that the matter arose at the COFORD Water Conference in November of 2000 in Cork, when the three environmentalists present finally wrestled an admission out of the Forest Service auditor that they could not stop planting on acid sensitive areas as no tests were available that could allow the Service to refuse an applicant when his neighbour had already established plantations.


It was a direct result of that interchange that Patricia McKenna tabled the following question to the European Parliament.


Would the Commissioner assure this Member of Parliament that the proposals put forward by the Irish authorities to satisfy the European Court Judgement of 22 September, 1999 will specifically ensure that appropriate testing will take place before any further consent is given for afforestation or reforestation in those areas of Ireland identified as acid sensitive? Extensive areas, particularly in the west and north-west, are characterised by rain-fed peat soils with high concentrations of organic acids where the geology is unable to buffer the effects of the increasing acid levels from afforestation. Other areas, particularly in the East, where catchments are dominated by quartz-bearing bedrock, with a shallow, carbonate free soil overburden, areas with sandy, siliceous soils, and highly weathered old leached soils are also vunerable. A map prepared by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency is attached. Extensive Irish research over the last ten years has demonstrated that the acidification in these catchments promotes dissolved organic matter and dissolved Aluminium which can occur in a toxic form, leading to a coating of mucus on the gills and extensive mortality. The streams most severely affected by afforestation in the these areas lack acid-sensitive invertebrates and are too acid to support self-sustaining populations of salmonids, particularly as the research demonstrates that acid episodes tended to occur in winter and spring which is a particularly vulnerable period in the salmonoid life cycle. Sites with the most acid waters showed the lowest survival of salmon ova and eggs developed abnormally brittle shells during incubation. Mayflies are absent from most acid sites in forests and these sites hold a lower diversity of invertebrates. Fish are entirely absent from sites otherwise suitable. All of this has been demonstrated by Irish research and subject to repeated peer group review yet afforestation and reforestation continues unchecked in these areas as no assessment is in place. Will the Commissioner ensure that an appropriate assessment is specifically included in any revised Irish Environmental Impact Assessments procedures to protect these areas from this environmental damage?


The answer was "Yes".


The farmers are also annoyed with the pace of the Department's response to a Judgment that was blatantly clear more than two years ago. They point out that even if the final details are resolved quickly, the protocol calls for four tests over the period November - March - i.e. the first test can now only be taken over the winter of 2002 - 2003 - for use in the season 2003 - 2004, four years after they were told off by the Honourable Justice.


Even at this stage the EPA's proposals have been held up now for months in tri-partite "consultations" between the EPA, the Department of the Environment, and the Department of the Marine. The last stronghold of the Old Guard is to resist to the death the proposal that those who collect the samples should be both qualified and truly independent.


FNN will publish details when they become available from the Forest Service.


Meanwhile, read on:

CONCERN OVER ACID SENSITIVE DETAILS

By Hugh Scanlan

The definition of acid sensitive areas and the details of how they will be treated for forestry purposes, under the new environmental regulations, remains a contentious issue giving rise to concern for landowners and foresters in the regions concerned.

The Forest Service has sent out detailed Ordnance Survey maps to forestry contractors and consultants notifying them that almost 3,000 square miles of land throughout the country is not suitable for forestry planting because the waters in these areas are acid sensitive.

From the accompanying map it can be seen that these areas include large tracts of counties Donegal, Galway, Clare, Kerry, Cork and Wicklow, some of which are otherwise regarded as being particularly suited for planting. Because of the marginal nature of much of this land, there are real fears that this designation will result in a serious drop in land values in these areas.

Applications

Virtually no planting applications from these areas have been processed since this time last year as the Forest Service has yet to approve a set of regulations specifically to deal with this issue.

Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and COFORD (the national forest research agency) are involved in drawing up a protocol covering the testing procedures for these acid sensitive areas.

The Forest Service expects that this matter will be completed within the next two weeks but those involved in planting do not share this confidence.

There is a widespread feeling that this issue has been allowed to drag on for far too long and many are critical of the Service for not being more assertive in defining regulations that are practical and suitable for the forestry industry, while ensuring the protection of our water resources.

It is expected that the procedure will involve the testing of calcium carbonate levels in water in the proposed planting site on a number of occasions, perhaps as many as four, in the first half of the year.

If the results are below the specified level, planting will be refused, but if over the level, it will be approved.

Planting

In borderline cases it is envisaged that planting may be allowed subject to certain species requirements. Approved laboratories throughout the country will carry out the testing.

Because of the protracted testing procedures involved, it can be seen that any planting application for a site within an acid sensitive area will miss out on one planting season before finding out whether or not planting can go ahead.

It is expected that this long delay will put many landowners off applying and, already, some of the forestry contracting companies have pulled out of these areas entirely.

The key aspects of this issue that now concern the forestry sector are:

The likelihood of losing large tracts of potentially highly productive forestry land;

The fear that the EPA is adopting a very broad view as to what areas are acid sensitive;

The long delay by the Forest Service in actually defining what approach is to be adopted towards acid sensitive areas;

The protracted testing procedure which is expected to put most landowners off even applying for planting approval.

Hugh Scanlan

© The Farmer's Journal, 26 January, 2002


2.2 PQs on Broadleaf Rates


30 January 2002


130. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the number of broadleaves which were planted in 2000 and funded through his Department and the European Commission as agreed under the CAP 2000-2006 contract. [1112/02]


131. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the reason the broadleaf planting rate recorded on his Department's database fell from 15.1% to 12.9% in 2001. [1113/02]


Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Fahey): I propose to take Questions Nos. 130 and 131 together.


A total of 2,027 hectares of broadleaves were grant aided by my Department in 2000. This figure represents the planted area of commercial broadleaves and is equivalent to 12.9% of total planting. However, as I indicated in reply to Parliamentary Question No. 57 of 11 October 2001 the data does not include broadleaves planted near rivers, roads and scenic areas. When these factors are taken into account the target of 20% for broadleaf planting was met in 2000.


Within the broadleaf figure for 2000, in absolute terms, the level of commercial broadleaves grant aided increased over 1999. However, in percentage terms there was a decrease. This was mainly due to the non-availability of sufficient land suitable for broadleaves. While the availability of suitable land may fluctuate from year to year it is expected that the recent increase in premium levels will lead to planting figures approaching targets while also making better quality land available.


I am fully committed to achieving a 30% broadleaf target by 2006. I propose commencing a review later this year which will examine the factors necessary to meet this target as outlined in the CAP rural development plan 2000-2006.


Grant Payments.


132. Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources the payments for afforestation and reforestation grants paid in 1997 and to date in 2001, distinguishing between private individuals and State forestry. [1114/02]


Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Mr. Fahey): No such payments are made in respect of state forestry. In 1997, such payments to Coillte Teo amounted to approximately €7.4 million, with approximately €41.5 million being paid to farmers and others. The corresponding total payments in 2001 were approximately €7.8 million and €89.5 million respectively.


FNN Notes: The Minister is misinformed in his defence of the broadleaf plating rate's fall from 15.3% in 2000 to 12.9% in 2001. He states that this was "mainly due to the non-availability of sufficient land suitable for broadleaves being available".


In fact, the percentage of enclosed land increased in 2001 over 2000.


Further, his own civil servants have assured us that the "broadleaves planted near rivers, roads and scenic areas" are counted as biodiversity and will not also be counted as commercial broadleaves.


FNN will seek to have the matter raised with the European Commission, as both the fall in broadleaf rate and the double counting of the broadleaved biodiversity element contradicts the conditions under which CAP 2000-2006 forestry grants were agreed with Ireland.


At least the Minister will not be able to claim to the Commission that the matter was not raised at national level.



2.3 Coillte & ACCBANK: who owns what Christmas tree farms?

WHEN ONE PLUS ONE IS LESS THAN TWO


"Taking in each other's washing" was practiced until not so long ago within the shadows of the International Financial Services Centre (IFSC). It generated a spirit of good neighbourliness with the added advantage of not reducing the financial well being of the community. More recently, two State-owned companies, ACCBANK PLC (ACC) and Coillte Teoranta (Coillte), have also swapped laundry but not to the communal good.


There is a public information deficit on the details of the relationship between the two companies as the transactions are handled though a partnership, which is not obliged to file documents with the Companies Office. However, some information on the on transactions between the parties can be gleaned from the limited information published in the annual accounts of the Holding companies.


The ACC accounts show the bank as holding all the shares in ACC Christmas Tree Farms Ltd, an investment company. The investment is also referred to in the Coillte accounts, which in turn show that Coillte has a 100% holding in a company named Coillte Forestry Management Ltd, the principal activity of which is forestry and related activities.


The Coillte Accounts show a five million pounds debt outstanding to ACC in connection with an investment in Christmas tree farms. The Accounts also reveal that Coillte Forestry Management Ltd is in partnership with ACC Christmas Tree Farms Ltd. The business of the partnership is the occupation and management of woodlands, the profits of which are exempt from tax under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1969.


The partnership is founded on the favourable tax-free status of forestry by which almost all of Coillte's profits are exempt from tax. By acquiring forests from Coillte and then putting them into the partnership, ACC has been able to shelter some of its own profits from tax. It appears that ACC got a piggyback from Coillte and reciprocated the kindness with a loan at preferential terms.


Such co-operation between State companies would normally be commendable. But in this instance the tax saving being made by ACC results in a reduction of Corporation Profits Tax (CPT) payable to the Revenue Commissioners. All taxes collected by Revenue are lodged to the credit of the Central Fund. For all practical purposes, the net assets of Coillte and ACC and taxes collected by Revenue belong to the Central Fund. (In general, State revenues, including tax revenue and non-tax revenue, are paid into the Central Fund.) Thus, the tax relief obtained by ACC and passed back to Coillte is a circular transaction adding nothing to the value the Central Fund. Indeed, the contrary holds.


Tax efficient schemes do not come cheaply. They have to be crafted by experts in taxation, law and accountancy. Binding agreements are necessary to satisfy Revenue as to the integrity of such schemes. This is particularly so in the case of forestry where the assets transferred do not move physically nor does the vendee put up a new sign or take up residence to prove occupancy.


No doubt, professional advisers earned substantial fees when the forestry partnership was set up. They would also stand to gain from additional work arising out of the plugging of any loopholes by Revenue. Financially engineered schemes are difficult to copperfasten and need constant maintenance. For instance, it appears that Coillte established another subsidiary, Coillte Timber Trading Ltd., when it entered into a forestry partnership with the Bank of Ireland.


The Minister for Finance, whose department has responsibility under statue for the Public finances of Ireland, is the nominee holder, on our behalf, of the shares in both ACC and Coillte. His/our position is in no way improved when an apparent increase in the profitability of State-owned companies comes at a cost to the Central Fund. In fact, the fees paid to create a proper legal framework for swapping tax relief between ACC and Coillte reduced the net value of the companies to the Central Fund.


One might ask who is the real winner from the partnership between ACC and Coillte? The only obvious winner is the band of professional advisers in receipt of fees. Maybe it's time for the Minister for Finance to get his team together and examine the appropriateness of State-owned companies "taking in each other's washing".


Eamonn O Flannagain

eamonn_oflannagain@hotmail.com


[FNN Notes: the above previously unpublished article was written in November 2000. ACCBANK PLC was sold in since and is no longer a semi-state company. FNN would be interested in pursuing the matter, particularly as the growing of Christmas Trees is not part of the 1996 Strategy for the Forest sector in Ireland, does not qualify as "forestry" - no felling licenses are required, for example - and so should not attract the favourable tax status, which is designed to restore the country's forest estate.]



2.4 Coillte's Forest Management Unit [FMU] Plans:

East Clare


As part of Coillte's initiatives for certification and to fulfil their commitment to sustainable management, the State Forestry Board produced 36 Plans for the country. At the start, NGOs complained that the boundaries did not coincide with water basins or catchments or were designed for administrative purposes only. In recent weeks, FNN has analysed the FMU's to see the time scale for sustainable forestry contained in them.


Most of the FMU management plans around the country are virtually identical.

Plans gives information on for example, soil types, area, species mix, long term vision. Only soil type and species mix vary.


The FMU gives 5-year objectives and issues, monitoring including pesticide use, and appendices that can include maps, Coillte staff, lists of clearfelling and restocking areas, restructuring blocks, landscape design, Property Sales. The FMU do not show registered seed stands.


Each FMU has a target to increase its broadleaf rate. It is interesting to see that Coillte never ventures above the minimum level of 10% broadleaves currently required in the FSC certification standards.


Caroline Murphy wrote last week about the Wexford Lowlands, an area with 40% brown earth where the broadleaf planting rate works out at 3 hectares a year. The Wexford Lowlands represent the best of the land for broadleaf growing and yet it will be 30 years before Coillte reaches 10% broadleaves.


This week, she writes about the other extreme - The East Clare FMU where the 10% target will require the best part of a century more planting at the proposed rates.


The Burren dominates this Forest Management Unit (FMU) to the North, the Sleive Elva Mountain range lies to the north west. The southern boundary consists of the Shannon estuary, the western and northern boundaries by the Atlantic ocean and the eastern boundary by the Limerick-Ennis road. Significant hills are Sleive Callan, Sleivebeg and Bendash.

Apart from the Kilrush area, forestry has only become established in the last 20 years.


In the case of the West Clare FMU Coillte is only aiming for half the required percentage of broadleaves in the estate. The current percentage is 3% and the 30-year goal is only 5%. In the five-year plan, the proposed planting of broadleaves works out at 10.1 hectares per year.

It is considered to have good prospects for forestry expansion, despite the poor soil types and difficulties in relation to access, extraction and windthrow.


The Area of Coillte forest in this FMU is 7 950 hectares.


The main Forest soil types as percentage of the forest area are:

Peat 66%

Brown earth 8%

Gley 21%

Podsol 5%


Species Composition as a % of forest area.


Species Existing% Short term target (5 Years) Long term target (30 Years)

Broadleaves 3 3.7 5

Sitka spruce 89 89 81

Norway Spruce 2 2 3

Lodgepole pine 3 2.3 3

Scots pine -- 1 1

Douglas Fir -- -- 1

Larch 2 1 4

Others 1 1 2

Total 100 100 100



New planting and restocking in hectares.


Year Farm partnership(ha) Restocking (ha) Total (ha)

2002 70 140 210

2003 70 86 156

2004 70 50 120

2005 70 60 130

2006 70 50 120

Total 350 386 736


The existing situation is that the FMU has 3% broadleaves from a total of 7950 ha. That is 239 ha. The target is 3.7% broadleaves. This is 294 ha.

Therefore over 5 years 294ha - 239ha = 55 ha of broadleaves will be planted.


However there is a discrepancy in these figures. There is a total of 736 hectares that will be planted between 2002 and 2006. If 10% of 736 ha. are broadleaves then 73.6 ha. broadleaves must be planted to meet certification. Yet the Plan is only for 55 ha. There is a shortfall of 19 ha.


If farm partnership is planted at the recommended rate of 20% then 70ha of broadleaves should be planted

If the reforestation is planted at 10% broadleaves then 38.6 ha should be planted, a total of 108.6ha. In this case there is a shortfall of 53.6ha

The percentage of broadleaves is only to increase by 2% over 30 years.

2% of 7950ha = 159ha

This is equal to 5.3ha per annum on average over the 30 years.


It is interesting to note that there is 8% brown earth in this FMU, a soil type suitable for growing broadleaves and yet despite the forty year rotation period given for Sitka spruce the rate of increase of broadleaves is 2% over thirty years. One can only presume that it will take an additional 45 years (75 years in total) to achieve 8% broadleaves and 75 years (that's 105 in total) to achieve the 10% minimum given in the certification standards - over two rotations of Sitka spruce. So what is going on that 8% brown earth?


One can but wonder if this area is suitable for afforestation at all.


The area designated for alternative silvicultural practices is a mere 1% of each FMU, which appears to be in all cases long-term retention. NGOs point out that long-term retention is the term used to identify sites that are too inaccessible and remote for economic felling. Is abandonment being dressed up as an "alternative silivcultural practices".


Environmental questions have to be raised on the policy of washing out chemical containers, and of disposing of residual pesticide sprays by spraying the washings on "waste ground". Serious damage can result to bees as they use large quantities of water, which they will inevitably collect from these sites. "Waste ground" is an oxymoron, like "useless scrub".

In fact in FSC Princliple 6 Environmental Impasct it states in point 6.7 Chemicals , containers, liquid and solid non-organic wastes including fuel and oil shall be disposed of in an environmentally appropriate manner at off site locations.


The same questions must hang over the proposal to purchase incinerators for the disposal of waste such as plastic bags. It is known that the burning of such waste can emit, amongst other chemicals, carcinogenic dioxins. Is this part of Sustainable Forest Management? "Incineration. This option is being investigated. A specially designed low-cost incinerator has been successfully sourced which will burn small amounts of waste e.g. bags, containers, used ppe etc at high temperatures (8000C to 950C) . A number of these may be purchased within the Region."


murphycaroline@eircom.net



3. COMPLAINT OF THE WEEK

TO: Coillte Teoranta

The Irish Forestry Board

Leeson Lane

Dublin 2

24/11/2001


Complaint regarding Coillte Land and Forrest in Bellanaboy, Co. Mayo


1. Complaint

The local communities have not prior to the sale of land been informed or consulted about the planed sale.

The Sunday Business Post, 11/3/2001 published the following: "Coillte approves sale of 250 acres in Mayo for Corrib gas terminal complex". Enterprise Energy Ireland had lodged a planning application for a gas terminal in November 2000. There were further announcements on local radio. Coillte never held any public consultation or information meetings in the local area in regard to the sale in clear breach of your obligations and you only announced the sale 5-month after the planning application had been lodged.


Coillte did not inform us of the existence of Coillte, Stakeholder Consultation, Code of Best Practice, November 2000 or forwarded us a copy.

We only realised our rights after reading an article in a newsletter explaining about the SGS Group and Forest Stewardship Council.


Effectively Coillte refused a public meeting to discuss the sale of the land/forest with local communities.

Coillte refused a meeting to discuss the sale of the land/forest with local communities.

Coillte agreed to attend a meeting in the local area, 28/5/2001 but cancelled the meeting at short notice. You offered to reschedule to meet representatives of our group, which we declined as stated in our emails. Mr.Egan said in his interview on local radio, that Coillte would not meet with individuals. So Coillte declined our invitation to an open meeting and yet declined to meet individuals at the same time.


Enterprise Energy Ireland refused to discuss the sale of the land/forest with local communities

Coillte informed us that EEI would consult extensively with the local people. (Letter 8th May 2001). EEI held public information presentations to advertise the proposed terminal. They did not consult local communities about the change of forestland to industrial land or discussed the matter prior to development of the gas terminal project.

Local people and organisations arranged public meetings and invited EEI who refused in writing to attend.


Coillte seemingly never supervised Enterprise Energy Ireland's supposedly consultation and made sure of it being done according to their own Code of Best Practice.

Mr. Egan, Manager Coillte, in his letter dated 8.5.2001 stated, "Coillte is monitoring progress of this consultation closely." We contend that Coillte, in spite of th