Forestry Network Newsletter

// FNN 168: Moratorium on felling to protect pearl mussel

Moratorium - The Good News and the Bad. FOI and Coillte Teo. Recent parliamentary questions - Moratorium on clearfelling - Margaritifera steering group terms of reference - Coillte's exclusion from forestry legislative review - NGO representation on the forestry review - Minutes of the forestry review. EC slam forestry policy. Timber 'incorrectly sold as certified by forest council', says Coillte. INFF Forestry Conference 6 October 2006: 2007, Forestry at the Crossroads.

FOREST NETWORK NEWSLETTER
ISSUE NUMBER 168
20 JUNE 2006
FREE BY EMAIL


1. INTRODUCTION
The Moratorium on Clearfelling, the Good News and the Bad

2. LETTERS
FOI and Coillte Teo. [Irish Times, unpublished]

3. RECENT PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
Moratorium on clearfelling
Margaritifera steering group terms of reference
Coillte's exclusion from forestry legislative review
NGO representation on the forestry review
Minutes of the forestry review

4. NEWS
EC slam forestry policy [Sunday Times]
Minister's moratorium to protect the imperilled mussel [Farmer's Journal]
Timber 'incorrectly sold as certified by forest council', says Coillte [Sunday Times]

5. EVENTS

6. COMING SOON IN FNN

7. ABOUT US


Index

1. INTRODUCTION

The Moratorium On Clearfelling, Good News And Bad

The Parliamentary Reply to Trevor Sargent, Green Party Leader, confirming that a moratorium that has been placed on clearfelling in catchments containing the fresh water pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera, is indeed the good news the environmental community has suggested. [PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS & NEWS]

It is good news simply that we now know this news, which was very much a secret.

But the secret is not good news.

The forestry reaching clearfell in our forest estate was largely planted in the 1960s when afforestation was used as a rural support. The level of silvicultural education was poor and our ecological understandings poorer. Non-native conifers were put into the uplands and bogs, right into the headlands of our rivers, the engines of the catchments.

The trees grew poorly. Arial fertilisation was used to apply phosphates at the recommended rate of 350 kg per hectare, in some cases two or more times.

In acid soils, the availability of phosphates to plants reduces compared to balanced soils. The reduction begins at Ph 5 and if the soils are Ph 4 or lower the phosphates are leached, percolating into the watercourses - or locked up in the soils and unavailable to the trees. Adding more phosphates, the Forest Service answer to poor yields, makes little scientific sense under these conditions.

Research now shows that clearfelling releases phosphates from the soils when it is disturbed. [FNN 163: Biogeochemical impacts of clearfelling and reforestation on blanket peatland streams [I. phosphorus]T. Cummins, Edward P. Farrell [Forest Ecology and management]].

The release of phosphates on clearfelling causes a massive transfer of this dangerous substance into the rivers. It is particularly damaging in waters that are ogliotrophic, nutrient impoverished, waters which typically occur in the headlands of our river systems and lakes.

Phosphate enriches the waters; algae grows rapidly and the now all too familiar algal blooms form.

Initially, the algae remove carbon dioxide through photosynthesis while producing oxegen. This upsets the bicarbonate, carbonate equilibrium and causes a rise in Ph, which in itself is damaging to the ecosystem.

However the additional photosynthesis only produces oxygen during the daylight hours. In the hours of darkness the excess respiration from the new growth depletes the oxygen reserves, causing the death of higher organismns, such as invertebrates and fish.

Finally, as the algae die and decay, they further reduce the oxygen contents of the water.

Even this simplified, de-oxygenation is only one of the effects of the clearfelling, which also releases, for one example - silt, especially fine suspended solids that are carried into the rivers where they precipitate on the stony beds, sealing the cracks and making these spawning beds impenetrable for salmon and trout as well as enriched by the phosphate bound to the fine silt.

The fresh water pearl mussel, the only Irish creature to live longer than man, thrives on highly oxygenated pure water. Hence its prevalence in the headlands of our finest rivers, where the waters ripple across stony beds and cascade down countless natural rapids and waterfalls, oxegenating themselves in the process.

In 2004, after clearfelling by Coillte Teo. in the Owneduff catchment in County Galway the Western Regional Fisheries Board recorded wide spread mussel mortalities. [See the dramatic bar chart at http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/main/download.php?op=getit&lid=28]

A case was taken in the Irish Courts and a complaint was received by the European Commission alleging that the conservation status of the mussel was deteriorating because of a plan, the clearfelling of these forests. Having failed to receive an adequate response, a Reasoned Opinion was sent to Ireland and, in the absence of any convincing response, the matter is proceedings to the European Courts [NEWS].

Coillte Teo denied and continues to deny that there is any association between clearfelling and mussel mortality. In fact, they suggested to the Farmer's Journal [NEWS] that 'forestry has protected this species over the last 50 years and will continue to do so into the future'.

The Minister's response was to form a committee. It consisted of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Department of Agriculture's Forestry Service - and Coillte Teo.

At the outset, it is difficult to see the logic behind appointing to a committee set up to examine possible infringements of the Habitats Directive the organisation whose policies are implicated in the infringement - Coillte Teo.

The Minister explained in her written Parliamentary reply that the remit of the committee was to 'examine the impact of forestry operations on the freshwater pearl mussel catchments areas and to draw up operational guidelines'.

FNN understands the terms of reference were to devise Guidelines that were 'effective in conserving Margaritifera, cost efficient and implementable'.

Unfortunately for the Irish defence against the Commission's infringement proceedings, under the Habitat's Directive before economic consideration, 'cost effective' - can be considered under Article 6 (4) of the Directive, Article 6 (3) needs to be addressed. Article 6 (3) states:

"Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public."

The felling of trees is a plan or project. The preservation of the mussel is the site's objective. [In fact, they are protected in all 137 rivers in which they have been recording because the species is specific listed in the Directive's Annex.]

Under the Habitat's Directive, economic arguments can only be considered after an impact assessment has been carried out, and the impact assessment has led to a likely negative outcome of an operation. In the words of the Waddenzee Judgement, that is the case only where 'no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects.'

In other words, the terms of reference can not include economic considerations until it has been established beyond reasonable scientific doubt - that clearfelling does not damage the conservation status of the mussel.

Only at this stage can it be considered whether the plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, in which case the Member State must still take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 - in this case ensuring the viability and recovery of pearl mussel rivers in Ireland is protected.

In fact, no impact assessment has been carried out nor is it known as to what mitigation measures could prove effective in limiting felling damage, if any. There has been no clear scientific advice as to whether replanting should take place, or what species of tree or alternative land cover is likely to restrict the damage to the rivers in the long term. Even 'trial clearfelling' could be an infringement of the Directive if it would damage a protected species - as would any 'grading' of sensitivity of the sites according to age profiles or abundance of the mussel, both of which are Coillte Teo proposals.

The assessment that is required must be carried out independently of those with an economic interest, Coillte Teo. - and should include at least one university group that specialises in nutrient movements in soils or has experience in these nutrient issues in a forestry situation in order to ensure that best scientific knowledge is used in the assessment.

The problem is reinforced, intentionally or not - by the Minister's failure to include the 1989 Forestry Act in the current review of forestry legislation. [See PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS and LETTERS] Coillte Teo, who owns our forests, is required by the 1988 Forestry Act which established it to 'carry on the business of forestry in a commercial basis'. This poses problems, not least in ensuring that we meet our commitments under the UN Helsinki Agreement requiring that forestry 'does not cause damage to other ecosystems'.

The infringement proceedings that may be emerging from the Habitats Directive in relation to forestry could also be the reason for the Minister's renewed interest in revising the 1946 Forestry Act, a process that began will a call for submissions some 7 years ago.

The 1946 Forestry Act is not listed in Ireland's 1997 Habitat Regulations. Listing means that, in consent decisions such as a felling licence, the relevant ministers are bound by the Habitats Regulations.

As it is not listed, the Forestry Act and decisions under it are unaffected by the 1997 Habitats Regulations and the Act must therefore be judged on the basis of whether, on its own, it meets the requirements of Articles 6 (3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive, the assessments detailed above.

Of course, dating from 1946, it does not contain any provisions that correspond to Article 6 (3) and (4), the two sections that deal with assessment of the impact of projects.

All this comes on the foot of continued complaints to Europe from all over Ireland about the impact of forestry practices on soils and waters [NEWS]. Given the lack of Directives that define or require 'sustainable forestry', the recent renewal of the delay in publishing a draft of the Soil Directive requiring protection of soils, and the slow implementation of the Water Framework Directive, it is not surprising that the Commission has focused on the infringement of the Habitants Directive by certain forestry practices.

Aerial fertilisation of phosphates was in fact halted after last year's ECJ ruling against Ireland for failing to have proper procedures in place for authorising them.

However, for critical catchments the problem has already been created.

This is the bad news - the pearl mussel may in fact face inexorable extinction in Ireland whether the trees are removed or left unfelled.

Unlike sewage discharges or agriculture run offs that can be treated to a high level at source and essentially stripped of phosphorus, afforested areas must now be treated as an area where the damage has - to some extent - already occurred, and where the future damage must be limited as far as is possible.

A moratorium is one element of this, and that, and the opportunity we will have to be consulted about any proposed renewal of clearfelling - is the good news.

Index



2..LETTERS

[Unpublished]
The Editor,
The Irish Times

May 24, 2006

FOI and Coillte Teo.

Madam;

The recent failure by the Minister for Finance to include Coillte Teo. under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act [The Irish Times, 24 May, 2006] is a serious matter, though less than surprising given that the Minister is one of the two shareholders. The organisation has twice been ruled a public authority by the European Court of Justice but continues to operate in Ireland as a private limited company, although it holds more than 300,000 hectares of the nation's forested heritage.

Coilte Teo.'s principal object under the 1988 Forestry Act (which established the company) is to 'carry on the basis of forestry and related activities on a commercial basis'. However, the other shareholder, the Minister for Agriculture, confirmed last week that the company has also been excluded from the current review of Irish forestry legislation.

Ireland has undertaken to both the European Commission and the United Nations Forum on Forestry that it will practice 'sustainable forestry' which requires equal consideration of social and environmental factors. The 1988 Forestry Act precludes this, and the failure to include the 'State Forestry Board' under FOI will continue to limit access to critical information about its activities.

Yours, etc.,
Friends of the Irish Environment

Index


3. RECENT PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

MORATORIUM ON CLEARFELLING

Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if an assurance will be given that the moratorium on clearfelling in catchments with Margaritifera will remain until an appropriate assessment has been undertaken under Article 6 (3) of the Habitats Directive and that the opinion of the general public will be obtained as part of this process.
[18890/06]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan):
The freshwater pearl mussel is protected under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Wildlife Acts (1976, amended in 2000). This species is currently in decline throughout Europe with sedimentation and nutrient enrichment contributing significantly to this decline.
My Department has established a Steering Group comprising representatives of the Forest Service, National Parks and Wildlife Service and Coillte with the remit of examining the impact of forestry operations on the freshwater pearl mussel catchments areas and to draw up operational guidelines. A Technical Working Group was established which has now submitted draft guidelines to the Steering Group for consideration. The management of tree felling within such areas is an important element of the guidelines. It is intended that public consultations will take place before the draft guidelines are published.
In the meantime, a moratorium has been in place on clearfelling in all cases advised to my Department by the National Parks and Wildlife Service as sensitive for the pearl mussel. It is my intention that a moratorium will remain in place until such time as the guidelines are agreed and the public consultation process is concluded.


MARGARITIFERA STEERING GROUP TERMS OF REFERENCE

Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food If the Minister will give the terms of reference of the remit given to the Steering Group comprising representatives of the Forest Service, National Parks and Wildlife Service and Coillte to examine the impact of forestry operations on the freshwater pearl mussel catchments areas and to draw up operational guidelines.

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan):
The Forestry and Margaritifera Group was established last year to identify and address the potential impacts of forestry operations on the freshwater pearl mussel. It consists of a Steering Group and a Technical Working Group.
The terms of reference of the Technical Working Group are to produce agreed guidance for all relevant forestry operations which could affect Margaritifera populations in the rivers designated SAC for the species; the guidance to apply to all relevant forestry operations within those portions of the catchments of these rivers upstream of the Margaritifera populations.
The Working Group is currently finalising draft guidelines and these will be subject to a consultation process shortly.


COILLTE'S EXCLUSION FROM FORESTRY LEGISLATIVE REVIEW

Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if the review of forestry legislation will include review of the principle object of Coillte Teo, which is defined in the Forestry Act 1988 as to carry on the business of forestry on a commercial basis, in view of the fact that this country has assured the United Nations and the European Commission that it is practising sustainable forestry which requires equal consideration of social and environmental factors. [18891/06]


Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan):
It is not my intention to include a review of Coillte in the present review of forestry legislation. Coillte Teoranta was established as a private company by virtue of the Forestry Act, 1988 and while it is expected to conduct its business in a cost effective and efficient manner, it is also obliged to have due regard to the environmental and amenity consequences of its operations.
Coillte has a critical role to play in the further development of Irish forestry and I am determined to see it play that role to best advantage.
Coillte has achieved a high standard of international certification for its forest-management, in accordance with strict social, environmental and economic criteria. This certification is awarded by the international NGO, the Forest Stewardship Council. I think it is also important to note that Coillte operates an open-forest policy, encouraging and facilitating the use of its forests by locals and visitors alike, providing car-parks, routeways, signage and other facilities.


NGO REPRESENTATION ON THE FORESTRY REVIEW

Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if environmental non-governmental organisations will have direct representation nominated by themselves on the consultative group for the review of forestry legislation being undertaken by her forest service.
[18892/06]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan):
The Consultative Group on Forestry legislation has been set up to be as representative as possible of the very broad range of interests and organisations active in the sector. To that end, one representative each was sought from the industry, the local authorities, the forestry NGOs, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, research and development interests, and the IFA. The Group has almost finished its work and it is not proposed at this stage to add new members. However, written submissions were sought by public advertisement, with some 26 received, including a number from environmental NGOs. In addition, my Department has recently hosted a seminar, under independent chair, for those who had made written submissions to afford each an opportunity to present their case and to participate in wider debate on the changes required to forestry legislation. I believe that a very open and inclusive consultative process has been developed, which will greatly assist with the drafting of the new forestry Bill.

MINUTES OF THE FORESTRY REVIEW

Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she will make the full and complete minutes of the Consultative Group on Forestry Legislation publicly available on her Department's website. [18893/06]

Minister for Agriculture and Food (Mary Coughlan):
The Consultative Group on Forestry legislation has been set up to be as representative as possible of the very broad range of interests and organisations active in the sector. To that end, one representative each was sought from the industry, the local authorities, the forestry NGOs, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, research and development interests, and the IFA. The Group has almost finished its work and it is not proposed at this stage to add new members. However, written submissions were sought by public advertisement, with some 26 received, including a number from environmental NGOs. In addition, my Department has recently hosted a seminar, under independent chair, for those who had made written submissions to afford each an opportunity to present their case and to participate in wider debate on the changes required to forestry legislation. I believe that a very open and inclusive consultative process has been developed, which will greatly assist with the drafting of the new forestry Bill.

As regards the minutes of the Group, it would not be usual to make such minutes available while discussions are actually continuing, and it was an explicit decision of the Group itself to proceed on that basis. It would be my intention, however, to make these minutes available in due course and in the normal manner. In the meantime, the Group publishes a bulletin after each of its meetings on a dedicated web-page hosted by my Department.
These bulletins summarise the discussion, identifying the key points under debate, and the progress of agreement reached. These bulletins provide an accurate record of each meeting and one which is freely available to anybody interested in the legislative review.

Index


4. NEWS

EC slam forestry policy

IRELAND'S forestry programme has been condemned by European commission officials. The commission is threatening legal proceedings against the government for failing to comply with environmental directives.

Last week a senior official in the commission's environmental directorate said a series of written warnings have been issued to the Irish government and that the next step will be legal action.

The renewed exchange of letters has been sparked by a series of complaints to the commission by Irish landowners and environmental activists. Kathy Sinnott, an MEP, headed a delegation that briefed EU officials on the growing controversy last November.

"If you look across Europe the type of forestry you find in Ireland is virtually unknown," the senior commission official said. "The Irish forestry policy is probably the most controversial in the community."

Problems identified by the commission include inadequate environmental impact assessments (EIA) of newly afforested lands, "industrial" style single species forestry plantations that harm biodiversity and inadequate protection of landscapes.

One serious bone of contention between the commission and Ireland is the type of wood being planted. "The idea of using non-indigenous species to make up the bulk of the forestry estate is simply not a feature of other forestry policies," said the official.

The Forest Service in the department of marine and natural resources has monitored plantations grown by the state-owned Coillte and private landowners. It found that almost 90% of Irish woodlands are fast-growing, non-native, conifer plantations, mostly sitka spruce, which produce poor quality wood used for pulp and for woodchips.

The department of agriculture admitted that warning letters had been received from the commission.

A statement issued on behalf of the Forest Service said: "Forestry and biodiversity guidelines must be followed as part of all approvals for afforestation, and other grant-aided projects as well as for felling licences.

"This includes the need to take the biodiversity values of a site into consideration before work commences."
Enda Leahy
© Sunday Times


Minister's moratorium to protect the imperilled mussel

When Minister Mary Coughlan announced in the Dail recently that a moratorium had been placed on clearfelling forests in river catchments, which are habitats of the freshwater pearl mussel, she had quite a few people searching for the exact definition of the word 'moratorium'. To those who welcomed her statement, a moratorium was interpreted as a ban but according to her Department officials it means no more than a postponement of final harvesting until draft guidelines on forest activities within the catchments of freshwater pearl mussel populations are agreed.
The confusion arose when Minister Coughlan replied to Trevor Sargent leader of the Green Party who asked would "the moratorium remain'' until an appropriate assessment has been undertaken of forestry activities under Article 6 (3) of the Habitats Directive and "that the opinion of the general public will be obtained as part of this process''. Virtually all harvesting operations in the protected areas are being carried out by Coillte so the State owned company and its customers are directly affected.
Coillte officials believe that the Minister could have clarified the position by replying that no moratorium was in place as "Coillte had voluntary agreed to suspend all harvesting in the designated areas until the guidelines had been agreed after public consultation''.
Instead, she gave the impression that a suspension of harvesting was needed and actually in place. After explaining the background to the guidelines - currently being produced by a steering group - she stated: "In the meantime, a moratorium has been in place on clearfelling in all cases advised to my Department by the National Parks and Wildlife Service as sensitive for the pearl mussel. It is my intention that a moratorium will remain in place until such time as the guidelines are agreed and the public consultation process is concluded.''
The moratorium has been welcomed by the Green Party and the organisation Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) who hailed it as "the most significant step in nature conservation since the implementation of the Habitats Directive''.
The Minister's own Department is playing down the use of the word moratorium. One spokesperson stated that it means - according to the dictionary definition - "a stopping of an activity for an agreed amount of time''.
"Nowhere in the reply does the Minister talk about 'imposing' a moratorium which she could have done if required but it wasn't necessary as Coillte had agreed to suspend activities'', he said.
FIE's Tony Lowes said that the Minister's announcement was important because the release of phosphates from clearfelling of Coillte's plantations, combined with the release of silt, had resulted in widespread environmental damage to many species.
"Recent Irish scientific publications have identified clearfelling as a source of phosphates, which pollute water'', he said. "The phosphates are released when the soil is disturbed by mechanical tree felling.''
The Coillte spokesperson disputed this and said that the company adheres to the various Forest Service environmental guidelines on harvesting and when the new guidelines are agreed and harvesting is resumed it will continue on a sustainable basis which will ensure the protection of the freshwater pearl mussel.
He said that that the mussels now only survive in heavily forested catchments and have died out in many other catchments.
"The message is that forestry has protected this species over the last 50 years and will continue to do so into the future and that is why these guidelines are being developed specifically for this purpose.''
Currently, it is estimated that over 100,000 m2 of timber cannot be harvested until the draft guidelines - due to go to public consultation within the next few weeks - are agreed. When the guidelines are eventually agreed and implemented it is likely that controlled harvesting will resume.
However FIE said that "it was their understanding that not only would the moratorium have to be made permanent, but that the acceptable level of phosphates in the water would also have to be lowered to ensure the satisfactory conservation status of the species''.
Donal Magner
© Farmer's Journal


Timber 'incorrectly sold as certified by forest council', says Coillte

COILLTE, the state forestry company, has been forced to issue letters to suppliers admitting it sold timber marked as certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) which in fact hadn't been approved by the timber-policing body.
The sale of the timber, "incorrectly sold as FSC certified", is one of 32 problems identified in a certification assessment completed last month.

The decision to renew Coillte's FSC certificate has been criticised by European and Irish environmental groups that claim the company has failed to meet the minimum standards.

The FSC certification is an international benchmark, and in theory confirms that Coillte's forests are managed according to strict environmental, social and economic standards. The FSC logo is displayed on Coillte's corporate material and a copy of the new five-year certificate, granted on May 24, is on the company's website.

But the Soil Association, which carried out a five-year review of Coillte on behalf of the FSC, has found a number of shortcomings, including the company's decision to exclude 360 hectares of land from the forestry review. Timber incorrectly marked with FSC certification came from this "excised" land.

Jutta Kill, a forestry specialist with Fern, a Brussels-based environmental lobby group, visited Ireland earlier this year to carry out an independent assessment of Coillte's forestry practices. She said the sale of timber marked "certified" from a non-certified portion of land is an abuse of FSC regulations by the company, and this is one of a number of concerns about the Irish forestry industry.

"The FSC has very clear minimum requirements in terms of principles and criteria, and from some of the concerns raised in the Soil Association reports on Coillte it is obvious that Coillte is not meeting those minimum requirements," she said.

Other areas of concern raised in the certification report include insufficient consultation with the public before selling or developing land, insufficient biodiversity monitoring, cutting down old woodlands and replacing them with non-native conifers, and pollution of water as a result of tree felling practices.

Tony Hennessy of Coillte said the company is fully in compliance with international standards. "There are always some outstanding issues, that's perfectly normal. Any of the issues that have been raised by the Soil Association either have been dealt with already or will be dealt with, and we continue to be certified."
Enda Leahy
© Sunday Times


Index


5. EVENTS

October 6: 2007: Irish Forestry at the Crossroads
The Irish Natural Forestry Foundation
Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin, Dublin

'TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood…'
Robert Frost

This conference will present the alternative vision of sustainable forestry for Ireland. Of particular note will be contributions from the European, Welsh, and Scottish foresters. These will address changes in forestry policy in Europe and the United Kingdom, including the increasingly topical subject of transformation or restructuring of existing monoculture conifer plantations into diverse resources.

Using INFF's Manch Project as an example, the on-the-ground problems of matching sustainable forestry with current Forest Service Procedures will be addressed. The conference is funded by The Forest Service under its Sustainable Forestry Programme and will be chaired by Ronan O'Flaherty, the Principle Officer of the Forest Service.

The Irish Natural Forestry Foundation was established in West Cork in September of 2002 to research, demonstrate, and promote sustainable forestry practices based on native broadleaf trees.
irishnff@eircom.net
www.inff.ie



6. COMING SOON IN FNN

Coillte Teo.s' changed Forestry Management Plans 2006 - 2010, how they infringe Forest Stewardship Council's Principles.

Standish Sawmills: Licence granted in spite of EPA Inspector's Report ruling company 'unfit' to have a licence - with transcripts from the Dail committee hearing.

How Coillte avoids planting 10% broadleaves by planting them in their 15% areas of biodiversity while the private planting must have both 15% biodiversity and 10% broadleaves.

The Ticknock mountains above Dublin: Is clearfelling our amenity woodlands being done on a 'commercial basis'? Eamon Ryan, TD, brings it to the floor of the Dail.

And as preliminary figures suggest the 2005 planting rate will be less than half the Government's 20,000 target and EU funding is reduced, what are the implications for the failure to reach 'critical mass' for Irish forestry?

Coillte land sales: what, when, where, and how.


Index


7. ABOUT US

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

Newsletter editors:

Caroline Lewis
carolinelewis@eircom.net

Tony Lowes
tony@friendsoftheirishenvironment.org

Ian Wright
wrighton@eircom.net

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

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

FNN is supported by the Friends of the Irish Environment free internet services.

Please visit their Home Page
http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/main/index.phphttp://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/main/index.php

The FIE network includes the highly popular The Irish Papers Today [TIPT], a review of the Irish papers and selected sources outside Ireland about the environment. This is available as an email and from the website, which is updated every day. You can subscribe and unsubscribe through this site. A newsfeed with the changing headlines is also available free for any website.
http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/index.php

Index