Biodiversity Assessment in Preparation for Afforestation:
A Review of Existing Practice in Ireland and Best Practice Overseas
Tom Gittings1, Anne-Marie McKee2, Saoirse O’Donoghue2, Josephine Pithon1, Mark
Wilson1, Paul Giller1, Daniel Kelly2, John O’Halloran1, Fraser Mitchell2 and Susan
Iremonger2
1
BIOFOREST Project, Department of Zoology and Animal Ecology, University College
Cork
2 BIOFOREST Project, Department of Botany, Trinity College Dublin
University College, Cork
University of Dublin, Trinity College
Report Number:
3.1.1/1/1
Revision:
Final revised 2
Circulation:
EPA and COFORD
Approved by:
BIOFOREST Research Group
Date:
08 December 2004
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 SCOPE ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2.1
Biodiversity Assessment ................................................................................................... 1
1.2.2
Geographical Scope ........................................................................................................... 1
1.3 STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT.................................................................................................. 1
1.4 PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT .............................................................................................. 2
1.5 TERMINOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 2
1.5.1
Environmental Impact Assessment .................................................................................. 2
1.5.2
Scientific Names................................................................................................................ 2
1.5.3
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... 2
1.5.4
Glossary............................................................................................................................. 2
1.6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 2
2
CONTEXT ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT ................................................................................... 3
2.1.1
Background to Policy Development .................................................................................. 3
2.1.2
Adoption of Sustainable Forest Management ................................................................... 3
2.2 TRENDS IN IRISH FORESTRY .................................................................................................... 4
2.3 BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 7
2.3.1
Definitions of Biodiversity ................................................................................................ 7
2.3.2
Methodologies ................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.3
The Use of Indicators ...................................................................................................... 10
3
METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 11
3.1 RATIONALE ............................................................................................................................ 11
3.2 EXISTING PRACTICE IN IRELAND .......................................................................................... 11
3.2.1
Information Sources ........................................................................................................ 11
3.2.2
Environmental Impact Statement Review ...................................................................... 11
3.3 EXISTING PRACTICE OVERSEAS ............................................................................................ 12
3.3.1
Information Sources ........................................................................................................ 12
3.3.2
UK Environmental Statements Review .......................................................................... 14
3.4 EVALUATION ......................................................................................................................... 14
4
EXISTING PRACTICE IN IRELAND.................................................................................... 15
4.1 LEGISLATION ......................................................................................................................... 15
4.1.1
European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment)
Regulations, 2001 (S.I. No. 538 of 2001) ...................................................................................... 15
4.1.2
European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 (S.I. No. 94 of 1997) ... 16
4.1.3
Wildlife Act, 1976 and Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000 .............................................. 16
4.1.4
Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 16
4.2 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 17
4.2.1
National........................................................................................................................... 17
4.2.2
Regional........................................................................................................................... 18
4.2.3
Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 19
4.3 SITE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................. 20
4.3.1
Afforestation Grant and Premium Scheme ..................................................................... 20
4.3.2
Rural Environment Protection Scheme .......................................................................... 23
4.3.3
Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 24
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
i
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 26
4.4.1
Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 26
4.4.2
Guidelines ....................................................................................................................... 26
4.4.3
Preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement ..................................................... 28
4.4.4
Assessment of the Environmental Impact Statement ..................................................... 31
4.4.5
Evaluation of system effectiveness .................................................................................. 31
5
EXISTING PRACTICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM ...................................................... 33
5.1 LEGISLATION ......................................................................................................................... 33
5.2 STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 33
5.2.1
Indicative Forestry Strategies ......................................................................................... 33
5.2.2
Local Forestry Frameworks ............................................................................................. 35
5.2.3
Other Examples ............................................................................................................... 36
5.2.4
Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 36
5.3 SITE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................. 37
5.3.1
Woodland Grant Scheme................................................................................................. 37
5.3.2
Other Examples ............................................................................................................... 38
5.3.3
Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 39
5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 39
5.4.1
Procedure ........................................................................................................................ 40
5.4.2
Guidelines ....................................................................................................................... 40
5.4.3
Preparation of the Environmental Statement ................................................................. 43
5.4.4
Assessment by Forestry Commission.............................................................................. 46
5.4.5
Evaluation of system effectiveness .................................................................................. 46
5.4.6
Examples of Best Practice ............................................................................................... 48
5.5 EFFECTIVENESS OF UK PRACTICE ........................................................................................ 49
6
EXISTING PRACTICE OVERSEAS ...................................................................................... 51
6.1 LEGISLATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................. 51
6.1.1
Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 51
6.2 BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT METHODS ................................................................................ 51
6.3 EVALUATION ......................................................................................................................... 52
7
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 53
7.1 IRISH PRACTICE ..................................................................................................................... 53
7.1.1
Legislation ....................................................................................................................... 53
7.1.2
Strategic Assessment ...................................................................................................... 53
7.1.3
Site Assessment ............................................................................................................... 53
7.1.4
Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................................ 53
7.1.5
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 54
7.2 UNITED KINGDOM PRACTICE ............................................................................................... 54
7.2.1
Legislation ....................................................................................................................... 54
7.2.2
Strategic Assessment ...................................................................................................... 54
7.2.3
Site Assessment ............................................................................................................... 54
7.2.4
Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................................ 54
7.2.5
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 55
7.3 OVERSEAS PRACTICE ............................................................................................................. 55
7.3.1
Strategic Assessment ...................................................................................................... 55
7.3.2
Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................................ 55
7.4 IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE BEST PRACTICE FOR IRELAND..................................... 55
7.4.1
Context ............................................................................................................................ 55
7.4.2
Legislation ....................................................................................................................... 56
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
ii
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
7.4.3
Strategic Assessment ...................................................................................................... 56
7.4.4
Non–EIA Site Assessment .............................................................................................. 57
7.4.5
Environmental Impact Assessment ................................................................................ 58
7.4.6
An Alternative to EIA .................................................................................................... 60
7.5 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 60
7.5.1
Specific Recommendations .............................................................................................. 60
7.5.2
Broader Objectives .......................................................................................................... 62
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX 1
SCIENTIFIC NAMES .......................................................................................... 71
APPENDIX 2
GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................... 72
APPENDIX 3
ORGANISATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED ......................... 75
A3.1
A3.2
A3.3
IRELAND ............................................................................................................................. 75
UNITED KINGDOM ............................................................................................................. 75
OTHER COUNTRIES ............................................................................................................ 77
APPENDIX 4
A4.1
A4.2
A4.3
A4.4
A4.5
A4.6
GENERAL ............................................................................................................................ 80
VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................... 83
INVERTEBRATES ................................................................................................................. 85
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES ............................................................................................. 86
BIRDS .................................................................................................................................. 87
MAMMALS.......................................................................................................................... 88
APPENDIX 5
A5.1
A5.2
A5.3
A5.4
A5.5
A5.6
REVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENTS IN IRISH EISs................. 79
REVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENTS IN SCOTTISH ESs......... 89
GENERAL ............................................................................................................................ 90
VEGETATION ...................................................................................................................... 93
INVERTEBRATES ................................................................................................................. 96
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES ............................................................................................. 98
BIRDS ................................................................................................................................ 100
MAMMALS........................................................................................................................ 102
APPENDIX 6
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FROM OVERSEAS CONTACTS ............. 103
A6.1
QUESTIONS ASKED .......................................................................................................... 103
A6.2
AUSTRIA ........................................................................................................................... 103
A6.2.1
Response to Question 6 and 7 ................................................................................... 103
A6.3
CZECH REPUBLIC ............................................................................................................. 103
A6.3.1
Response to Questions 2, 4 and 5 .............................................................................. 103
A6.4
DENMARK ........................................................................................................................ 104
A6.4.1
Response to Questions 1, 2 and 5 .............................................................................. 104
A6.4.2
Response to Questions 3 and 4 .................................................................................. 104
A6.5
FINLAND........................................................................................................................... 105
A6.5.1
Response to Questions 1, 2, 4 and 5 .......................................................................... 105
A6.6
FRANCE ............................................................................................................................ 105
A6.6.1
Response to Questions 1, 3 and 4 .............................................................................. 105
A6.6.2
Response to Question 1 ............................................................................................. 106
A6.6.3
Response to Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 .......................................................................... 108
A6.7
GERMANY......................................................................................................................... 108
A6.7.1
Response to Question 4 ............................................................................................. 108
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
iii
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
A6.8
GREECE ............................................................................................................................. 108
A6.8.1
Response to Question 6 ............................................................................................. 109
A6.9
THE NETHERLANDS ......................................................................................................... 109
A6.9.1
Response to Questions 1 and 2 .................................................................................. 109
A6.10 NEW ZEALAND ................................................................................................................ 109
A6.10.1 Response to Question 1 ............................................................................................. 109
7.6 PORTUGAL ........................................................................................................................... 110
A6.10.2 Response to Questions 1, 3 and 6. ............................................................................. 110
A6.11 SWEDEN ............................................................................................................................ 110
A6.11.1 Response to Questions 1, 2 and 4 .............................................................................. 110
A6.12 SWITZERLAND .................................................................................................................. 111
A6.12.1 Response to Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4. ......................................................................... 111
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
iv
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to review different pre-planting habitat biodiversity
assessment methods used overseas and highlight those that would be most suitable for
integrating into the methodologies used in Ireland.
1.2
1.2.1
SCOPE
Biodiversity Assessment
For the purposes of this review, biodiversity assessment has been defined as comprising the
description and evaluation of the existing biodiversity of an area:
 Description can include describing habitat and vegetation types, species composition,
species abundances and assemblages.
 Evaluation is restricted to evaluation of importance for biodiversity conservation.
Biodiversity evaluation for other purposes (e.g. suitability for establishment of particular
types of woodland) is not included in the scope of the review.
The assessment of the impact of changes caused by afforestation to existing biodiversity is
not included in the scope of this review. The focus of this review is on the assessment of
terrestrial and wetland biodiversity (i.e. largely excluding aquatic biodiversity).
Afforestation impacts to aquatic systems arise mainly from secondary impacts (e.g. water
quality impacts, changes in light regime, etc.) rather than as a result of direct habitat
removal, and there is already a substantial body of work on afforestation and aquatic
systems in Ireland (e.g. Kelly-Quinn et al., 1997; Giller et al., 1997).
1.2.2
Geographical Scope
The geographical scope of biodiversity assessment included in the review comprises two
levels:
 Strategic assessments, where assessments are carried out of large geographical regions
such as administrative regions, in order to identify areas suitable for afforestation.
 Site assessments, where assessments are carried out of individual sites for which
afforestation is proposed.
The assessment of the impacts of policies and plans (such as national afforestation policies)
on biodiversity is outside the scope of this review.
1.3
STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
Section 2 reviews the context in which this study has been carried out: the principles of
Sustainable Forest Management which underpin Irish forestry policy (Forest Service, 2000e),
the current trends in afforestation which will result in widespread afforestation over the
next few decades and the science of biodiversity assessment. Section 3 describes the
rationale and methods used in this study. Section 4 provides a review of existing practice in
Ireland divided into the legislative requirements for biodiversity assessment, strategic
assessment, non-EIA site assessments, and Environmental Impact Assessments. In each case,
descriptions of existing practice are followed by evaluation to identify any deficiencies.
Section 5 provides a review of existing practice in the United Kingdom following a similar
structure to Section 4, but the evaluations are focused on identifying examples of best
practice. Section 6 provides a review of existing practice in other overseas countries. Little
relevant information was obtained; thus this section is necessarily brief. Section 7 provides a
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
1
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
synopsis of the evaluations of deficiencies in Irish practice and best UK practice contained in
Sections 4 and 5, identifies appropriate best practice which could be integrated into Irish
practice and identifies specific recommendations for action.
1.4
PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT
The research for this report was carried out between March and December 2001, following
which a draft report was submitted to the BIOFOREST project steering group and the Forest
Service for review. The final report was prepared in October 2004. During preparation of the
final report, we updated information on existing practice in Ireland. However, we have not
updated information on best practice overseas
1.5
1.5.1
TERMINOLOGY
Environmental Impact Assessment
It is important to appreciate the distinction between the terms Environmental (Impact)
Assessment and Environmental (Impact) Statement. An Environmental (Impact) Statement
is a report prepared by a developer describing the likely significant environmental effects of
a proposed development. Environmental (Impact) Assessment is a process that includes
submission of the Environmental (Impact) Statement to the competent authority, statutory
public consultation, review of the EIS and any submissions made by the competent
authority, and issuing of a decision by the competent authority. Ireland and the UK use
different terminology:
 In Ireland the process is called Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the report is
called an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
 In the UK the process is called Environmental Assessment (EA) and the report is called
an Environmental Statement (ES). This terminology is used in this report when
references are made to the UK.
1.5.2
Scientific Names
Scientific names of plants and animals mentioned in the text are listed in Appendix 1.
1.5.3
Abbreviations
Abbreviations used in the text are defined on their first occurrence, and in the glossary in
Appendix 2.
1.5.4
Glossary
Definitions of abbreviations and terminology used in the text are provided in Appendix 2
1.6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance of all those who responded to our information requests and queries is
gratefully acknowledged. A full list of all these respondents is included in Appendix 3.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
2
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
2
2.1
2.1.1
CONTEXT
SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT
Background to Policy Development
Following the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in
1992 and the acceptance of the Forest Principles, the concept of Sustainable Forest
Management (SFM) was developed as part of the Helsinki Pan-European Process in 1993 for
the protection of Europe’s forests. The aim was to ensure that Europe’s forests were
managed in accordance with best forest practices under relevant legislation and regulations.
The full range of forest functions were addressed, that is, economic, environmental,
ecological and social functions, to an acceptable standard on a worldwide basis. SFM is
defined as:
“The stewardship and use of 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.”
The principles developed during the Helsinki Process were formally adopted at the Third
Ministerial Conference of Forests in Lisbon in 1998 with the aid of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Forests (IPF), which was set up in 1995, to ensure that the goal of SFM was
implemented successfully on a global basis.
2.1.2
Adoption of Sustainable Forest Management
There are currently thirty-nine countries including the EU member states, which are signed
up to the principles of SFM and have adopted the various criteria and indicators into their
own strategic forestry development goals and policies (Forest Service, 2000e). In Ireland, the
SFM principles are being implemented in the development of both public and private-sector
forestry through the adherence to various guidelines and regulations controlled by the
Forest Service (FS) of the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, which take
account of the Irish National Forest Standard, Code of Best Forest Practice and Forestry
Guidelines (Forest Service, 2000b, c, e).
The Pan European Forest Certification Programme (PEFCP) (1999) indicates the intention to
increase SFM practices across Europe. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is one of the
approved authorities responsible for the certification of forestry to ensure SFM is
implemented successfully, and Coillte has been awarded FSC certification. It should be
noted that the FSC certification of small private forestry developers is not necessarily an
attractive option for the private developers due to the expenses incurred to undergo the
process.
In order to implement SFM successfully, six criteria for sustainable management and twenty
policy indicators were developed to aid in the formation of policy development in this
regard. The European Sustainable Forest Management Criteria are defined in Table 1 below.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
3
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Table 1.
European Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Criteria. Adapted from the Irish
National Forest Standard (Forest Service, 2000e).
Criterion 1: Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of forest resources and their contribution to
the global carbon cycles.
Criterion 2: Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and vitality.
Criterion 3: Maintenance and encouragement of productive functions of forests
Criterion 4: Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biological diversity in forest
ecosystems.
Criterion 5: Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of protective functions in forest management
Criterion 6: Maintenance of other socio-economic and cultural functions and conditions
2.2
TRENDS IN IRISH FORESTRY
The total area of land under forest cover in Ireland has increased over six-fold from
100,000ha in 1900 to 649,812ha in 2000 (Forest Service, 2001d). Figure 1 illustrates the total
forest cover in Ireland and also the breakdown of conifer and broadleaf dominated sectors of
the forest estate. At present, forestry covers 9.6% of Ireland and this is expected to rise to
17% by the year 2035 (Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry, 1996). The state
forestry programme began in 1903. Before that, all forestry was privately owned. Today,
61% of forestry in Ireland is public (state-owned) and is managed by Coillte (Forest Service,
2001a) (see Figure 2). The species composition in Ireland’s forests has changed over the last
century. In 1900, 65% of the woodland estate was broadleaf. By 2000, broadleaves comprised
12% of the forest estate and conifers dominated 78% of plantations (see Figure 3). The ratio
of broadleaf to conifer planting for Europe as a whole was 60% broadleaf (including mixed
plantations) and 40% conifer-dominated plantation (Commission of the European
Communities, 1999). These figures are summarised in Table 2.
The most important trends in Irish forestry are:
 The introduction of improved grant-aid in the form of afforestation grants and forestry
premiums in the late 1980s (Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry, 1996).
 The predominant forestry activities in the public sector are 2nd or 3rd generation
reforestation developments whereas the private sector is concentrating on 1st generation
afforestation. Coillte is currently reforesting approximately 5,000-6,000 ha/year. The FSs
target rate of afforestation from the year 2000-2030 is 20,000 ha/year, most of which is
likely to be on marginal agricultural land.
 A recent study sponsored by COFORD suggests that in the North West of Ireland, the
Forest Grant schemes are primarily taken up by full-time farmers, planting on peatland
or on land previously used for rough grazing (Kearney, 2001).
 The projected age structure for the future forest estate suggests that at any one time
12.5% of the forest will be clear-felled, 12.5% under establishment and 75% as closed
canopy (Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry, 1996; Environmental Resources
Management, 1998).
 Afforestation significantly increases the forested area of Ireland. Forests in the
afforestation phase account for 16% of total forest cover in Ireland, compared with about
2% each in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal. This must be seen
in light of the fact that, in 2000, Ireland had the lowest forest cover in Europe of the then
15 member nations. The average for the European Union was 44% in 2000 (then 15
nations) (European Commission, 2002).
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
4
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation

Forest felling rates in Ireland will change dramatically according to the proposed
strategy to meet market demands (Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry, 1996).
At present it has a total allowable cut of 2.7 million m3. This is set to rise to 10 million m3
by 2035 (McAree, 2001).
The target rate for afforestation over the next 30 years is 20,000 ha per year. While areas
subject to nature conservation designations will be largely excluded from commercial
afforestation, some of the areas that have been afforested in the past include habitats of
nature conservation value (Hickie et al., 1993). It is predicted that 66% of all new
afforestation will take place through private grant applications. The target species
composition of new forests comprises 30% broadleaf, 20% diverse conifer and 50% Sitka
spruce. In light of this vast increase in afforestation, as well as the SFM principles, the
importance of site assessment before afforestation takes on a new significance.
Table 2.
Area
See Figure 1
Public vs.
private
Ownership
See Figure 2
Composition
See Figure 3
Public vs.
private
rate of
afforestation
Summary of trends in Irish Forestry (Sources: Kearney, 2001; Forest Service, 2001)
Past (1900)
1950
Present (2000)
Future (2035)
100,000 ha
132,935 ha
649,812 ha
1,175,000 ha
1.4% land cover Approx. 2% land
9.6% land cover
17% land cover
cover
0% public
40% public
61% public
No data
100% private
60% private
39% private
(State
afforestation
began 1906)
65% broadleaf
28%broadleaf
12% broadleaf
30% broadleaf
3% conifer
39% conifer
78% conifer
20% diverse
30% other
29% other
6% other
conifer
2% mixed
4% mixed
4% mixed
50% Sitka
spruce
100% private
<2% private
10% public
33% public
afforestation
90% private
66% private
(total of 15,695 ha
afforested in 2000)
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
5
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
700,000
600,000
hectares
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1900
1920
Predominantly Coniferous
1950
1970
Predominantly Broadleaved
1980
Mixed Forest
1990
2000
Other Wooded Land
Figure 1. Total Forest Cover in Ireland between 1900-2000. Source: Forestry Statistics, Department
of Marine and Natural Resources, (Forest Service, 2001a).
700,000
600,000
hectares
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1900
1920
Public Wooded Land
1950
1970
1980
1990
2000
Private wooded land
Figure 2. Comparison of public and private sector forest cover from 1900-2000. Source: Forestry
Statistics, Department of Marine and Natural Resources (Forest Service, 2001a).
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
6
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
1900
1950
3%
29%
30%
39%
4%
2%
65%
28%
2000
4%
6%
Predominantly Coniferous
12%
Predominantly Broadleaved
Mixed Forest
Other Wooded Land
78%
Figure 3. Breakdown of Forest Cover in 1900, 1950 and 2000. Source: Forestry Statistics,
Department of Marine and Natural Resources, (Forest Service, 2001a).
2.3
2.3.1
BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT
Definitions of Biodiversity
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was originally adopted by 154 countries
following the Earth Summit in 1992. The four main themes of this convention are:
 Conservation of biodiversity
 Sustainable development
 Education and research
 Mutual sharing of the benefits of genetic resources
Biodiversity is defined as: “The variability among living organisms from all sources…and
the ecological complexes of which they are a part, this includes diversity within species,
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
7
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
between species and of ecosystems” (UNEP, 1992). Therefore, biodiversity may be
considered at three different levels: species, genetic and ecosystem levels and the assessment
of biodiversity should pertain to these levels to obtain a representative and holistic account
of the biodiversity within a site.
2.3.2
Methodologies
No single standardised protocol for the assessment of biodiversity in afforestation sites
exists. The following sections outline various methods used either alone or together, for the
assessment of biodiversity. These methods may be broadly categorised, according to the
level of assessment required, as follows (Burley & Gauld, 1994):
 Species biodiversity: Traditional inventory and biota analysis.
 Genetic biodiversity: Molecular methods.
 Landscape biodiversity: Remote sensing & Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
Species-level assessments require traditional methods of inventory and analysis and this
may be extended to the genetic-level using molecular methods, which remain limited in
application, often prohibitively expensive, and in their infancy at present. In order to assess
biodiversity at an ecosystem and landscape level, remote sensing and geographic
information systems can be used which may be extended to a global level and these
methods are gaining in popularity.
2.3.2.1
Species Biodiversity Assessment Using Traditional Inventory and Biota Analysis
Data obtained from inventories of biota are important in the estimation of species diversity,
population densities and geographical distribution, and to provide baselines as an aid in the
prediction of changes in biodiversity as an integral part of monitoring programmes.
Inventories help to develop strategies for the management and conservation of species and
habitats (Stork & Samways, 1995).
Methods of inventory and biodiversity analysis vary on a global scale. There is no single
protocol for the standardisation of assessment techniques in relation to afforestation sites.
However, each assessment should use the minimum amount of proven collecting methods
for each taxon and allow variation to be estimated and analysed (Coddington et al., 1991).
Ideally, surveys of biodiversity should be carried out on different occasions at different
times of the year (Harris & Harris, 1997) in order to obtain representative data.
Species richness is used, together with diversity indices, as a measure of the species diversity
and the evenness of spread in ecosystems (Myers et al., 1994). Two of the most common
indices of diversity in vegetation surveys are the Simpson index and the Shannon-Weiner
index. Indices are regularly used to provide quantitative estimates of biodiversity using
figures for species diversity and relative abundance but many of the indices do not value
rarity and thus may have less significance for conservation (Burley & Gauld, 1994).
Additionally, when the absolute abundance of a species is changed, without changing the
relative abundance, indices may not show this change (Myers et al., 1994). It has been
suggested that the use of species diversity measures such as the Williams index (Williams,
1964) should be used instead of the Shannon index for species diversity measurement, to
improve biodiversity assessments for the purposes of conservation (Cousins, 1995). Indices
of biodiversity are frequently used for different purposes. In Denmark indices are used to
determine areas of species endemism, whereas the National Heritage Program of the United
States Nature Conservancy identifies areas of vulnerable species to conserve on an
International scale (Burley & Gauld, 1994). The general advantages and disadvantages
associated with different indices are discussed at length by Magurran (Magurran, 1988). In
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
8
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
order to assess independently complimentary levels of biodiversity, methods for monitoring
management impacts should be developed (Cousins, 1995).
2.3.2.2
Genetic Biodiversity Assessment Using Molecular Methods
Molecular methods of biodiversity assessment are expensive to use and in general would
not be considered as viable methods for use in afforestation sites for the purposes of
biodiversity evaluation. The methods available for the assessment of biodiversity are also
limited and in the early stages of development. Some developments in molecular ecology in
relation to vegetation include germ-plasm and chloroplast DNA assessment to establish
diversity and the use of microsatellites to determine population genetic diversity and
dispersal of plants (Douglas, 1999; Dumolin-Lapegue et al., 1997; Kelleher & Hodkinson, in
press; Martin et al., 1999; Ouborg et al., 1999; Streiff et al., 1998). Much research has been
carried out into conservation of endangered species and molecular methods for assessment
of gene pool diversity are used in captive breeding programmes in zoos around the world.
For example the Arabian Oryx has been reintroduced into the wild using these captive
breeding programmes by manipulating a small gene pool to maximise population diversity.
2.3.2.3
Landscape Biodiversity Assessment Using Remote Sensing & Geographic
Information Systems
The use of GIS facilitates the examination of landscape-scale biodiversity and gives an
insight into pattern and process. It can aid in the assessment and mapping of biodiversity in
different habitats and the identification of areas of high conservation status. In forestry
terms, GIS may yield results about the best patterns of clearfelling and afforestation, in
terms of patch size and location.
Remote sensing, either with the aid of aerial photography or satellite imagery and
accompanied by ground-truthing, is a useful tool in the assessment of habitat types and
broad vegetation classifications. The Corine land cover project (O'Sullivan, 1994) is one such
example. Its accuracy in identifying habitat types has been criticised and therefore its use in
conjunction with other methodologies is recommended for more accurate results. The FS
uses the Forest Inventory Planning System (FIPS), a database with a GIS component,
developed by layering information from various sources including remote sensing data
from the Landsat TM satellite and aerial photography. This system is used in forest
inventory and planning and will permit more sustainable forest development in the future
by providing key environmental information (Forest Service, 2000e) (see Section 4.2.1).
Other countries also use databases with a GIS component to aid forest planning and
management. The US Nature Conservancy has developed the Biological and Conservation
Database (BCD) which has all the habitats and biota of high conservation value mapped out
(Burley & Gauld, 1994). The “Froggie” is used in Ghana to identify the location of different
species present and has been found to be very useful to forest managers (Burley & Gauld,
1994). Part of the forest strategy for European Union includes the development of a
European Forest Information and Communication System (EFICS). This will gather and
analyse information on the development of the EU forest sector in relation to policies and
programmes for forestry development in the EU member states and, using GIS, will improve
the quality of national forest inventories to help monitor the implementation of SFM in the
EU (Forestry Authority & Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, 1998).
2.3.2.4
Vegetation Classification Systems
Methodologies used in vegetation classification are broad, though the most commonly used
system in Ireland and Germany is the Montpellier/Braun-Blanquet phytosociological
designation (Braun-Blanquet & Tüxen, 1952; Kent & Coker, 1992; Reif, 2001; White & Doyle,
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
9
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
1982). This system uses associations as the working unit of phytosociological grouping,
which are grouped together, to form alliances, orders and classes in a hierarchical system.
This differs from the UK National Vegetation Classification (NVC) which defines
communities as the working units and terms communities using the two or three most
dominant species present in a non-hierarchical system (Rodwell, 1991a, b, 1992, 1995, 2000).
The NVC used in the UK is very useful in aiding the identification of various
phytosociological communities and software packages including TABLEFIT (Hill, 1993)
and MATCH (Malloch, 1991) may be used to assign NVC communities to species lists.
However, the application of the NVC to Irish conditions is questionable for several reasons
including geographic and climatic variation between the countries and also due to
differences in phytosociological classifications and a lack of Irish data. There are also
problems in determining which NVC community is applicable in transitional and disturbed
habitats (Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1995).
The Heritage Council recently published A Guide to Habitats in Ireland (Fossitt, 2000) which
should be used in the future on a national basis to aid in the classification of habitats as it is
the first overview of Irish habitat diversity. There is no biological records centre in Ireland
but the SAC/NHA database in National Parks and Wildlife Service is a useful source of
information on Irish habitats and biodiversity and would be important in the formation of
native species records.
2.3.3
The Use of Indicators
Indicators of biodiversity provide quantitative values, which aid in the prediction of the
impacts of changing management practices and ecological trends in the future (Ferris &
Humphrey, 1999; Keddy & Drummond, 1996). Indicators of biodiversity may be divided
into three hierarchical categories for the purposes of SFM: compositional; structural and
functional (Schulze & Mooney, 1994), and these may be used at different levels to ensure
that SFM criteria are met. Compositional indicators are related to species at an ecosystem
level or allelic diversity at a genetic level for example. Structural indicators are related to
spatial distribution (Hansson, 2000). Functional indicators relate to processes in ecosystems
(Hansson, 2000). A suite of indicators has been developed by the Ministerial Conference on
the Protection of Forests in Europe for the assessment of forest biodiversity at a regional
scale (The Third Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, 1998).
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
10
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
3
METHODS
3.1
RATIONALE
In order to fulfil the objectives of this review, it was necessary to:
1. Establish the existing practice in Ireland and identify any deficiencies in this practice;
2. Obtain information on existing practice overseas from as many countries as possible, and
evaluate this information to identify examples of best practice;
3. Compare existing practice in Ireland with the examples of best practice overseas, and
identify elements of the best practice overseas, which could be practicably integrated
with existing practice in Ireland.
3.2
3.2.1
EXISTING PRACTICE IN IRELAND
Information Sources
Published documents reviewed included C.A.A.S. (Environmental Services) Ltd. (2002;
2003), Cork County Council (1997), Department of Agriculture (1996), Department of
Agriculture and Food (2004), Department of Agriculture Food and Rural Development
(2000; 2001), Department of Arts Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands (2002), Department of
the Environment (1997), Environmental Protection Agency (1995a; 1995b), Environmental
Resources Management (1998), Forest Service (2000a; 2000b; 2000c; 2000d; 2000e; 2001a;
2001b; 2001c; 2001d; 2002a; 2002b; 2003a; 2003b; 2003c; 2004), Iremonger (1999), Meath
County Council (2001), Sligo County Council (2000), Waterford County Council (1999), and
Wicklow County Council (2002). In addition, personnel in the FS, National Parks and
Wildlife Service (NPWS) and various local authorities were consulted (see Appendix A3.1).
We reviewed all EISs submitted in relation to afforestation projects held in the ENFO library.
We requested information from the relevant planning authorities about the assessment of
these EISs.
3.2.2
Environmental Impact Statement Review
Copies of all EISs submitted to planning authorities are filed in the ENFO library in Dublin.
A total of nine EISs held in this library refer to afforestation projects. As EISs are often not
forwarded to this library until completion of the assessment process, it is possible that there
are very recent EISs relating to afforestation which were not available for review.
We reviewed all of the above nine EISs in the ENFO library, using separate review forms
(see Appendix 4) for general information about the EIS, vegetation, invertebrates,
amphibians and reptiles, birds and mammals. We selected the categories on the review form
(see Table 3) to cover the components which would be expected to be included in a
comprehensive biodiversity assessment carried out for an Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA), based upon best practice guidelines (Institute of Environmental
Assessment, 1995) and the professional consultancy experience of one (TG) of the present
authors. Under each category we summarised the extent of information included in the EIS
and, where appropriate, the methods used to collect the information. Note that standard EIS
review methodologies (e.g. Lee et al., 1999) were not used because they focus more on
assessing the quality of the EIS, whereas the focus of this review was to establish what
information was contained in the EIS, and how was it collected.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
11
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Table 3.
Categories used for EIS review.
General
General Methods
Vegetation
Information
EIA title;
Assessment of
Literature Review;
Size;
designated sites;
Field survey-habitat
Competent
Consultations;
inventory;
Authority;
Habitat map;
Field survey -species
Year;
Scoping;
inventory1;
Organisation;
Taxonomic groups Field survey –
Outcome;
covered;
methodology;
Date resolved.
Contents and
Phytosociological
sources of
assessment;
information.
Evaluation of
conservation
significance.
Invertebrates
Vertebrates
Taxa covered;
Literature
Review;
Field survey species
inventory1;
Field survey species
abundance;
Evaluation of
conservation
significance.
Literature
Review;
Field survey species
inventory1;
Field survey species
abundance;
Evaluation of
conservation
significance.
the completeness of the species inventory was broadly assessed based upon the number and identity
of species recorded and the habitat types present.
1
3.3
EXISTING PRACTICE OVERSEAS
3.3.1
3.3.1.1
Information Sources
Initial Approach
We carried out an initial literature review by keyword searches of the Web of Science
(http://wos.heanet.ie/). We only found one paper relating to biodiversity assessment of
afforestation in a temperate country (Gray & Edwards-Jones, 1999) and another three in a
sub-tropical country (Armstrong & van Hensbergen, 1997a; Armstrong & van Hensbergen,
1997b; Armstrong & van Hensbergen, 1999). Therefore, we had to focus on contacting
individuals and institutions that might have relevant information.
We identified contacts from a variety of sources including information provided by national
embassies, web searches, lists of participants in forest biodiversity research projects, and
personal contacts. Contacts included the state agencies responsible for afforestation and
nature conservation, forest research institutes, non-governmental nature conservation
bodies and individual academics. A full list of these contacts is included in Appendix 3,
Section A3.3.
As an initial approach, we sent a standard letter to as many potential contacts as could be
identified, requesting information on the following topics:
1. The legislative requirements (if any) for the consideration of biodiversity impacts in the
selection of sites for afforestation
2. The role that (the statutory Nature Conservation Agency in your country) plays in the
assessment of biodiversity of sites to be afforested.
3. The methods used to assess biodiversity in the strategic assessment of areas for
afforestation at the national or regional level
4. The methods used for biodiversity assessment of individual sites to be afforested
5. The use (if any) of biological indicators in biodiversity assessment of afforestation sites
As a follow-up approach, we sent a second letter requesting information on procedures for
EIA in relation to afforestation projects. This letter was sent to contacts listed as being the
Ministries responsible for EIA legislation identified on the website:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/eia/contacts3.htm,
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
12
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
and requested the following information:
1. What is the procedure adopted in your country for applying Article 4 of the EIA
Directive (97/11/EC) to Annex II, 1d projects (Initial afforestation and deforestation for
the purposes of conversion to another type of land use)?
2. How many EIAs have been prepared in your country for Annex II, 1d projects?
Letters to French and German language contacts were sent in their native language. All
other letters were sent in English. We made additional efforts to locate relevant information
by web searches, focusing on websites of the relevant national agencies in each country, and
websites of forest research organisations. We also reviewed information contained in Impact
of Current Policy on Aspects of Ireland’s Heritage (Environmental Resources Management, 1998)
and Code of Best Forest Practice – Ireland (Forest Service, 2000b).
3.3.1.2
United Kingdom
From a preliminary review of responses, the United Kingdom was the only country where
we found evidence that a significant body of relevant information existed:
 Information received indicated that Environmental Assessment (EA) is routinely
required for new afforestation projects and 86 EAs for afforestation projects had been
completed by 1996 in Scotland (Gray & Edwards-Jones, 1999).
 In the European Union, the countries with the highest rates of grant-aided (under the
Common Agricultural Policy; CAP) afforestation between 1992 and 1997 were Spain,
Ireland, Portugal and the United Kingdom (European Commission, 1997). No
information was available for Spain, but in Portugal only 15 EIAs have been carried out
for afforestation projects.
 Local authorities routinely prepare Indicative Forestry Strategies (IFS).
Therefore, a more detailed information search was focused on the United Kingdom. This
involved four principal efforts:
1. Consultations with a number of FC personnel.
2. Review of a sample of Environmental Statements (ESs) submitted for afforestation
projects in Scotland.
3. Sending information requests to 121 members of the Institute of Ecology and
Environmental Management (IEEM). The IEEM is the professional accreditation body for
UK ecologists. The members contacted were selected mainly as those which listed
experience in either EIA or Forestry in the IEEM Members Handbook (Institute of
Ecology and Environmental Management, 2001). Initial responses resulted in follow-up
contacts.
4. Web searches for information on IFSs and Local Forestry Frameworks (LFFs), and
follow-up information requests to listed contacts.
In total, we contacted over 200 individuals and organizations. A list of contacts from which
responses were received is included in Appendix 3, Section A3.2. In addition, we reviewed
relevant general publications (Department of the Environment, 1995; Department of the
Environment & Welsh Office, 1992; Environmental Resources Management, 1998; Forestry
Authority, 1997; Forestry Authority & Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, 1998;
Forestry Commission, 1990, undated-a, b; Gray, 1996; Gray & Edwards-Jones, 1999; Institute
of Environmental Assessment, 1995; Lowden, 2000; Scottish Executive, 1999; Sidway &
Turbull Jeffrey Partnership Landscape Architects, 1997; The Scottish Office, 1998).
We obtained evidence on the actual effectiveness of UK practice in preventing damage to
sites of high biodiversity importance from published reports (Avery et al., 2001; Review
Steering Group Secretariat Scottish Executive, 2002) and by contacting the following non-
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
13
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
governmental nature conservation organisations: Butterfly Conservation, Friends of the
Earth, Plantlife, the RSPB, the Scottish Wildlife Trust , the Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK.
3.3.2
UK Environmental Statements Review
There is no central repository for UK afforestation ESs. Instead the ESs are held in the
Conservancy offices which administer the area in which the proposed projects are located.
As the Highland Region office in Scotland holds the most (44%), we visited this office over a
two day period in order to review the ESs held there. On arrival, we consulted copies of the
records submitted by Highland Conservancy to FC Scottish HQ in Edinburgh in order to
identify recent proposals for which an ES had been submitted, and to find out where these
ESs were filed. With the assistance of the FC staff, we selected 17 ESs for review on the basis
of quality and accessibility. We then reviewed the ecological content of these statements,
extracting the same information from each ES as was extracted for the review of Irish EISs
(see Table 3).
We also reviewed two ESs submitted for afforestation projects in Northern Ireland. These
generally contained similar methodologies to the Irish EISs, and did not contain significant
examples of best practice. The results of this review are, therefore, not presented in this
report.
3.4
EVALUATION
We used the criterion of the effectiveness of the existing practices in protecting sites of high
biodiversity importance from damage resulting from afforestation, to evaluate existing
practices. We defined best practice as that which was most likely to identify these sites,
thereby having greatest potential for prevention of damage to the site biodiversity. It should
be noted that the best practices identified are the best practices of the examples reviewed,
not necessarily the best conceivable practices.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
14
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
4
EXISTING PRACTICE IN IRELAND
This section reviews existing practice in Ireland in relation to biodiversity assessment of
afforestation sites.
4.1
LEGISLATION
The provisions in Irish legislation that relate to biodiversity assessment of afforestation are
described below.
4.1.1
4.1.1.1
European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment)
Regulations, 2001 (S.I. No. 538 of 2001)
Consent Procedures
All initial afforestation (excluding planting of trees within the curtilage of a house) requires
the approval of the Minister for Agriculture and Food (referred to as “the Minister” in the
remainder of this section. Where the Minister considers that the proposed planting might
have significant effects in relation to specific environmental issues, the Minister will send
notice of the application to certain prescribed bodies. In the case of nature conservation, the
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is the prescribed body. In
these circumstances, the Minister will publish notice of the application in a local newspaper,
and the application and site map will be available for inspection and purchase by the public.
Prescribed bodies will have four weeks to make submissions, or observations while the
public will have three weeks.
The Minister is responsible for deciding whether or not to grant approval and, if approval is
granted, whether to make this approval subject to any conditions. In making this decision,
the Minister will take into consideration the application and any additional information
furnished by the applicant, any submissions or observations made by third parties in
compliance with these regulations, the Irish National Forestry Standard (Forest Service, 2000e),
the Code of Best Forest Practice – Ireland (Forest Service, 2000b), any environmental guidelines
issued by the minister (including the Forest Biodiversity Guidelines (Forest Service, 2000c)),
any standards and procedures manuals issued by the Minister, Government policy, and any
other relevant provision. The decision will be notified to the applicant and any third party
that made a submission or observation (subject to certain restrictions).
4.1.1.2
Environmental Impact Assessment
An EIA1 is required to be carried out for any initial afforestation project, which would
involve an area of 50 hectares or more. The Minister may also require EIA in the case of subthreshold (i.e. less than 50 hectares) applications, where he or she considers that the
proposed afforestation would be likely to have significant effects on the environment. All
applications located in a NHA (formally notified or designated), SAC, SPA, Nature Reserve,
and Refuge for Fauna or Refuge for Flora will be subject to screening for sub-threshold EIA.
In determining whether sub-threshold EIA is required, the Minister will have regard to the
criteria specified in Article 27 of the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment)
(Amendment) Regulations, 1999 (S.I. No. 93 of 1999); these criteria are summarised in Table 4.
As part of the EIA process, the developer is required to submit an EIS. The EIS is required to
contain “a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by
the proposed development, including in particular…fauna and flora…”.
See Section 1.5.1 for an explanation of the distinction between the terms Environmental Impact
Statement and Environmental Impact Assessment.
1
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
15
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Table 4.
Screening criteria for sub-threshold EIA
Issue
Specific criteria
Characteristics of development
Size, use of natural resources, production of waste, pollution and
nuisances, risk of accidents
Location of development
Existing land use
Abundance, quality and regenerative capacity of the natural
resources
Absorption capacity of the natural environment, in particular:
wetlands, coastal zones, mountain and forest areas, SPAs and
SACs, areas in which environmental quality standards have been
exceeded, densely populated areas, significant landscapes
Characteristics of impacts
Extent, transfrontier nature, magnitude and complexity,
probability, duration, frequency and reversibility
These provisions require that a biodiversity assessment be carried out for any proposed
afforestation that requires an EIA.
4.1.2
European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 (S.I. No. 94 of 1997)
These regulations implement the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), and also contain
provisions relating to the protection of sites designated under the Birds Directive
(79/409/EEC). The regulations require that any proposed development that may have a
significant adverse impact on a Special Protection Area (SPA) or Special Area of
Conservation (SAC) should be subject to an “appropriate assessment of the implications for
the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives”. An EIA is considered to be an
“appropriate assessment”.
This provision would require a biodiversity assessment to be carried out for any proposed
afforestation that might adversely affect the integrity of a SAC or SPA.
4.1.3
Wildlife Act, 1976 and Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000
These acts prohibit actions which “wilfully alter, damage, destroy or interfere with the
habitat or environment” of any protected plant species. Protected plant species are
scheduled by ministerial order. Under the most recent order (S.I. No. 94 of 1999), 68 vascular
plants, 14 mosses, 4 liverworts, 1 lichen and 2 stonewort species are protected.
The Wildlife (Amendment) Act, 2000 requires that any potentially damaging works which
might affect a designated Natural Heritage Area (NHA) can only be carried out with the
consent of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, and define statutory
procedures for notification, consultation and approval, or otherwise of such works. In sites
where the intention to designate a NHA has been formally notified to the landowner,
potentially damaging works can only be carried out after a three month notification period,
but there are no requirements to obtain consent.
These provisions do not explicitly require that biodiversity assessments be carried out.
However, the process by which NPWS identified sites as NHAs or as holding protected
plant species constitutes a form of biodiversity assessment which can be taken into account
in the approval process for afforestation projects.
4.1.4
Evaluation
The recent introduction of statutory consent procedures for all afforestation, and new
procedures for EIA of afforestation has addressed the major deficiencies that previously
existed in the legislative control of afforestation in Ireland. In particular:
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
16
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation




statutory consent is now required for all afforestation (not just grant-aided afforestation
and afforestation of sites greater than 70 ha, as was previously the case);
biodiversity considerations (in the form of the Forest Biodiversity Guidelines) must be
taken into account in the consent procedure;
public consultation will include availability of full details about applications; and
procedures for sub-threshold EIA have been introduced.
The screening procedures for sub-threshold EIA are, with the exception of criteria relating to
designated sites, not very specific, but this mirrors the procedures in other Irish EIA
legislation. This means that, to ensure that screening for sub-threshold EIA provides an
effective mechanism for control of small-scale afforestation of ecologically important sites, it
will be necessary for the FS to develop specific criteria for implementing the screening
procedures. For example, the new regulations have removed the thresholds relating to
cumulative afforestation. This is, presumably, on the basis that cumulative afforestation can
be dealt with by the screening procedures for sub-threshold EIA. However, in the absence of
legislative requirements the FS will need to develop specific screening criteria for
cumulative afforestation.
The new regulations have lowered the threshold for EIA for afforestation from 70 ha to 50
ha. Between 1997 and 2000, there were 62 afforestation plantings of 50-100 ha (Forest
Service, 2001a), which were presumably all between 50 and 70 ha (as none of them were
subject to EIA). However, previous experience does not necessarily indicate that lowering
the EIA threshold will increase the number of afforestation projects requiring EIA. The
threshold for requiring EIA for afforestation was lowered from 200 ha to 70 ha in 1996. At
that time, it was anticipated that EIA would be required for up to 20 new projects per year
accounting for 12% of all afforestation (Department of the Environment, 1997). In fact, only
one EIA appears to have been completed since 1997. A review of FIPS data (Forest Service,
2001d) shows that between 1990 and 1996, grant aid was paid for 36 new afforestation
plantings of greater than 100 ha. After the reduction of the EIA threshold, there was a sharp
reduction in the numbers of large plantings with grant aid paid for only two plantings of
greater than 100 ha between 1997 and 2000.
4.2
4.2.1
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT
National
Growing for the Future: A Strategic Plan for the Development of the Forestry Sector in Ireland
(Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry, 1996) includes, as a specific policy, “to
develop a comprehensive inventory and planning system to provide forest resource,
geographical and environmental data for management, control and planning purposes”. The
FS through the development of the Forest Inventory and Planning System (FIPS) database is
implementing this policy. One of the uses of the FIPS database will be to aid in the formation
of IFSs which will guide forest development by identifying the optimum areas for future
planting so that economic, social and environmental benefits can be optimised . An IFS is
defined by the FS as being:
…a planning tool used to assess opportunities for new forest planting in a given area.
The objective of an IFS is to identify the potential that future afforestation can make
towards the establishment of high quality forests serving a variety of purposes
including timber production, forest industry development, off-farm incomes,
tourism, amenity and the enhancement of the environment. (Forest Service, 2004b).
The FIPS database includes details of NHAs, SACs and SPAs that can be used to provide a
minimal level of biodiversity information in the planning of new afforestation. Other
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
17
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
datasets included in the database (aerial photography, soils, geology, landcover, etc.) could
also provide information relevant to biodiversity assessment but would require expert
interpretation to be of use. The landcover information in the FIPS database is being
produced by the Irish Forest Soils project (Loftus et al., 2002) from satellite imagery
(resolution 1-5 ha) of Ireland, using broad habitat categories which are related to the habitat
classification system of Fossitt (2000). Additional data is being collected from sample areas,
by interpretation of aerial photography and from field surveys, for validation of the
classification of the satellite imagery. Use of FIPS for the “conservation and enhancement of
forest biodiversity” and development of an “Indicative Forestry Strategy approach…to
match the ‘right tree in the right place’” are specific actions identified by the National
Biodiversity Plan (Department of Arts Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands, 2002).
4.2.2
Regional
The Department of the Environment has produced guidelines for planning authorities
(Department of the Environment, 1997), which include guidance on their role in the strategic
assessment of afforestation. These state that:
1. All planning authorities should produce a map showing “areas sensitive to
afforestation”.
2. Planning authorities should consider preparing an IFS.
The only type of biodiversity assessment that these guidelines recommend is the
identification of NHAs, SACs and SPAs.
The Forest Service introduced new management and environmental procedures in relation
to forestry in October 2001, following agreement with the European Commission and the
Department of the Environment. These new procedures provide for the development of
plans on a meaningful geographic basis. The Forest Service is, therefore, in the process of
developing IFS for each county, in partnership with the local authorities. The first of these
has been published in draft status (Forest Service, 2003c) and discussion papers have been
published to aid in the preparation of IFSs for Cos. Limerick, Monaghan, Waterford and
Wexford (Forest Service, 2002a, 2003a, b, 2004a).
Examples of strategic assessments by various planning authorities are discussed below.
4.2.2.1
County Clare
A pilot study was carried out in Co. Clare in 1996 to test the appropriateness of GIS as a
platform for doing an IFS. It involved the accumulation of individual datasets with little
integration or evaluation. The only biodiversity information incorporated was details of
NHAs (Bulfin, 2001; Coggins, 2001).
4.2.2.2
County Cork
Cork County Council produced a map showing areas sensitive to afforestation in November
1997 (Cork County Council, 1997). Natural heritage designations (NHAs, SACs and SPAs)
are the only biodiversity factors that the report explicitly mentions as being taken into
account in the preparation of the map. The map identifies 16 broad areas, but does not
identify any natural heritage designations outside these broad areas. One of these areas (the
Bride River valley) is described as “requiring protection from a scenic and ecological
perspective”, even though it had not been previously designated; the criteria used to
determine this requirement for protection are not stated.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
18
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
4.2.2.3
County Mayo
A draft IFS has been prepared for Co. Mayo (Forest Service, 2003c). This IFS maps land into
three categories that indicate the potential for forestry: Preferred Areas, Potential Areas and
Sensitive Areas. Potential Areas include “REPS Areas”, and Sensitive Areas include NHAs,
SACs, SPAs and National Parks.
4.2.2.4
County Meath
Meath County Council includes in its Development Plan (Meath County Council, 2001) a
section entitled “An Indicative Forestry Strategy for Meath”. This recommends that the
Landscape Classification of the county, also included in the Development Plan, should be
consulted for “guidance on areas which contain opportunities for the creation of new
woodland and areas which might be sensitive to new forestry proposals”. The Landscape
Classification divides the rural areas of County Meath into eleven Visual Quality Groups.
Based on the information in the Development Plan, the Landscape Classification refers primarily
to visual quality, with some references also to cultural heritage, but no explicit references to
biodiversity considerations.
4.2.2.5
County Sligo
Sligo County Council states in its Development Plan (Sligo County Council, 2000) that “it is
considered generally that future forestry development may not be sustainable in proposed
Natural Heritage Areas…”.
4.2.2.6
Co. Wicklow
Wicklow County Council has recently prepared a IFS (Wicklow County Council, 2002). This
IFS includes a map showing areas sensitive to afforestation. The map was based upon a
landscape character assessment, and also included, among other things, natural heritage
designations (NHAs, SACs and SPAs) and 10 m buffer zones along rivers. One of the
recommendations for future revisions of the IFS is that a detailed habitat survey should be
carried out (Murphy, 2001; O'Neill, 2001).
4.2.3
Evaluation
The strategic assessments that have been carried out in Ireland appear to generally contain
more detailed considerations of landscape character than of biodiversity. Notably, the Co.
Meath IFS refers solely to landscape character. Where biodiversity is considered, the
emphasis is on identifying natural heritage designations. There has been little attempt to
take account of potential biodiversity constraints outside designated areas, although the
potential significance of non-designated sites of biodiversity importance is acknowledged in
the Wicklow IFS and in the Monaghan, Wexford and Waterford discussion papers. While
information on such constraints is not as readily available, it is possible to obtain and there
are potential models available in the form of the Ecological Constraints studies which are
carried out as a matter of course for all new major road projects (National Roads Authority,
2003). In addition, the Irish Forest Soils project (Loftus et al., 2002) will produce a large
amount of landcover information, at various levels of resolution, which, with interpretation,
could provide valuable information on potential biodiversity constraints.
It is widely acknowledged that the existing nature conservation designations do not include
all sites of national importance (e.g. Irish Peatland Conservation Council, 2001) and are not,
in any case, intended to cover sites of regional or local importance. Therefore, if strategic
assessment is based on designated sites, then comprehensive methods for biodiversity
assessment at the site assessment stage are required. If site assessments do not adequately
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
19
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
take account of biodiversity, they may fail to safeguard sites of high biodiversity importance
from negative impacts of afforestation.
4.3
SITE ASSESSMENT
Most afforestation in Ireland is grant-aided through the Afforestation Grant and Premium
Scheme. The agri-environmental support scheme (REPS) also has implications for approval
of afforestation. The requirements for biodiversity assessment under these two schemes are
discussed below. The special case of afforestation where EIA is required is discussed in
Section 4.4 below. Non grant-aided afforestation requires consent from the Minister for the
Agriculture and Food (see Section 4.1.1 above) and, if it is likely to affect a SAC or SPA, from
the Minister for the Environment Heritage and Local Government (see Section 4.1.2 above).
In addition, afforestation of proposed NHAs that have been notified to landowners and
designated NHAs will require consent procedures (see Section 4.1.3), but many NHAs have
not been notified.
Another newly launched scheme, the Native Woodland Scheme (Forest Service, 2001c), may
play a significant role in grant-aiding of afforestation in the future, although current levels of
afforestation under this scheme are very low. The NWS is designed primarily to enhance
native woodland biodiversity and includes the preparation of a detailed ecological survey
and management plan (Forest Service, 2002b).
4.3.1
Afforestation Grant and Premium Scheme
This section describes the standard procedures for assessment of applications for
afforestation grants, identifies the stages within this procedure where there is provision for
biodiversity assessment to be carried out and reviews the available information about the
methods used for these biodiversity assessments.
4.3.1.1
General Procedure
The FS procedure for assessing applications for afforestation grants is described in
Afforestation grant and premium schemes (Forest Service, 2000a).. This procedure involves the
applicant submitting details of their application using a standard form (Form 1). A
Competent Forester (a forester approved by the Forest Service) is required to complete
pages 3-5 of this form. Following receipt of the completed form, an FS Inspector will then
assess the application, inspect the site and complete a Certification Form. Under certain
circumstances, consultation with various bodies will be carried out (see Section 4.3.1.5). All
applications for afforestation grants must comply with the Code of Best Forest Practice –
Ireland (Forest Service, 2000b) and the Forest Biodiversity Guidelines (Forest Service, 2000c).
The Forest Biodiversity Guidelines (referred to as Guidelines from here except where this is
ambiguous) have introduced new requirements for biodiversity assessment.
4.3.1.2
Forest Biodiversity Guidelines
The recently-published Guidelines were prepared by the FS from a commissioned report
(Iremonger, 1999). Although many points raised in the latter report were brought into the
published Guidelines, many were also lost, such as the importance of microbiota to forest
biodiversity. The Guidelines require that biodiversity considerations be incorporated into the
initial site development plan that is included with the grant application and assessed by the
FS Inspector. The biodiversity considerations must include:
1. Identification of SACs, SPAs or pNHAs in or adjoining the site;
2. Identification of important woodland and non-woodland habitats present on the site,
including non-designated habitats of local significance. These habitats can include:
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
20
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
“hedgerows, areas of scrub, pockets of native broadleaf cover and individual old trees;
aquatic zones (rivers, streams and lakes shown on an Ordnance Survey 6 inch map) and
wetlands such as ponds, old drainage ditches, reedbeds, swamps, marshes, turloughs,
and peaty hollows; woodland glades, unimproved grassland and wildflower meadows;
caves and rocky outcrops; and features such as old quarries, sand pits and old stone
walls”.
3. Identification of fauna of particular interest, such as: “birds of prey (buzzard, eagle,
falcon, harrier, hawk, kite, osprey and owl), and important mammals such as badger, bat
species, red deer, hare, hedgehog, otter, pine marten and red squirrel” and “ “location of
features such as badger setts and heronries”.
4.3.1.3
Application Form
The application form includes a section on “Environmental Considerations”. This contains a
list of questions, of which the following relate to biodiversity:
Is the area within a pNHA, SAC, SPA or National Park?
Is the area within 3 km upstream of a pNHA, SAC, SPA or National Park?
Does the area contain a current REPS plan habitat?
Other Environmental Considerations
The application form allows a Yes or No box to be ticked for each of these questions with a
third box to be ticked if a separate report is attached. Therefore, the application form allows
for the possibility of a biodiversity assessment report being submitted. However, such
reports are rarely, if ever, submitted (Foley, 2001).
4.3.1.4
Site Development Plan
The FS (Foley, 2001) has provided the following information about the requirements for
biodiversity assessment by the Competent Forester, in preparing the Site Development Plan:
1. Identify important woodland and non-woodland habitats and fauna present on site.
Examples of such habitats and fauna are listed in the Guidelines (referred to from here as
Guidelines Habitats). They are not expected to evaluate the quality of any of the habitats
in the list that are encountered. There is no guidance given to help them identify these
habitats.
2. Map the 15% of the site identified as the Area for Biodiversity Enhancement (ABE) and
maybe the broad habitat type. The site development plan is also required to map areas of
Guidelines habitats outside the ABE.
3. The Competent Forester is not normally expected to submit information on flora or
fauna.
It should be noted, however, that the Information Note: Forest Biodiversity Guidelines and
Afforestation Grant Aid and Premium Payment (Forest Service, 2001b) issued by the FS does not
state any requirement to identify Guidelines habitats outside the ABE.
4.3.1.5
Consultations
All grant applications for sites greater than 25 ha, or within areas identified by the local
authorities as sensitive to forestry are referred to the local authorities for comment
(Department of the Environment, 1997). For all grant applications for sites greater than 2.5
ha notices of the County, District Electoral Division and Townland are published in a locally
circulated provincial newspaper and posted on the FS website. All grant applications for
sites in NHAs and sites adjoining or within 3 km upstream of NHAs, SACs and SPAs are
referred to NPWS for comment (Foley, 2001). These procedures provide the opportunity for
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
21
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
local authorities, the public and NPWS to raise biodiversity considerations. NPWS did not
respond to our requests for information on this subject, but according to the FS (Foley, 2001),
they would normally object to applications for grants in NHAs unless they coincide with
conservation objectives (e.g. planting of woodland to reinforce existing woodland). The
official guidelines for planning authorities (Department of the Environment, 1997) state, in
relation to consultation about grant applications, the planning authority should not “concern
itself with…nature conservation issues” unless requested to do so by NPWS. In general,
local authorities have not had in-house technical expertise available. However, the
appointments of Heritage Officers on a rolling programme over the past few years have
begun to remedy this deficiency. In December 2001, Heritage Officers with ecological
experience had been appointed to eleven local authorities, of which seven provided
information for this study. By February, the number of Heritage Officers with ecological
experience had increased to thirteen.
In one case (Cork County Council), the local authority has not commented in the past on
biodiversity issues, due to lack of relevant expertise, but may do so in the future following
the appointment of a Heritage Officer with ecological expertise (Casey, 2001; Kelleher, 2001).
In Cos. Carlow and Westmeath, no applications have been forwarded to the local authority
for comment in recent years (Clabby, 2002; Scott, 2002). In the case of Co. Carlow, if any
were received, the Heritage Officer would review them in relation to biodiversity issues.
In Co. Clare, the Heritage Officer frequently submits comments on biodiversity issues
relating to non-designated sites (McGuire, 2001). The officer assesses the biodiversity
importance of sites using existing knowledge of the site, information that can be gleaned
from maps, and, in some cases, site visits. The number of site visits is restricted by time
availability. The evaluation of biodiversity importance is not based upon any formal criteria,
but uses the officer’s professional judgement as an ecologist.
In Co. Limerick, the Heritage Officer visits all sites and evaluates their biodiversity
importance using phase 1 habitat survey (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 1993)
methods, the Heritage Council habitat classification (Fossitt, 2000) and Department of
Agriculture Northern Ireland indicator species for unimproved grasslands (O'Neill, 2001).
From this evaluation, the officer specifies particular features that should be included in the
ABE.
In Co. Leitrim, the Heritage Officer does not have any involvement in assessment of
afforestation grant applications (Guest, 2001).
In Co. Roscommon, most of the applications dealt with are for felling and replanting rather
than for new forestry. Biodiversity considerations are limited to agreeing a percentage of
native hardwoods and planting or retention of a native boundary to the site (McKeon, 2001).
4.3.1.6
Assessment by Forest Service Inspector
The assessment by the FS Inspector includes a site inspection, review of the documentation
submitted by the applicant and review of any consultations carried out. In the past, FS
Inspectors would have had no formal training in ecological assessment, although, recently, a
proportion have begun a training course, run by University College Cork, in basic ecological
assessment. The FS (Foley, 2001) provided the following information in relation to the
biodiversity assessment carried out by the Inspector.
1. Approximately 70% of applications are by Self-assessment Companies; all of these are
desk checked by the FS Inspectors and a minimum of 20% of these are inspected by FS
Inspectors. FS Inspectors inspect all the remaining 30%.
2. The Inspector will check if the ABE has been correctly designated.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
22
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
3. If additional areas of Guidelines habitats (i.e. exceeding the ABE) have been mapped, then
the site would be inspected by the FS Inspector. Following this inspection, if the
Guidelines habitats were found to exceed the 15% ABE, if the applicant wished to proceed
with afforestation in that part of the site, and if deemed necessary by the Inspector, the
application would be referred to the FS ecologist for appraisal. The issue to be resolved is
as follows: Approximately 15% of the site can receive grant aid and premium payment
as an unplanted ABE. Any area of Guidelines habitats in addition to that c. 15% does not
receive those payments. A decision must then be made whether to approve the
additional area of Guidelines habitats for afforestation or to exclude it from the scheme.
4. If the inspector feels that a site is of high biodiversity importance and should not be
afforested, even if it is not a designated site, the application will be referred to NPWS for
comment. This happens very rarely. There are no formal guidelines for the Inspector to
help decide when to do this.
5. Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) habitats (habitats identified on a REPS
plan of a farm) will not be considered for afforestation grant aid unless they are cleared
by a qualified ecologist.
The Certification form allows the inspector to take account of biodiversity considerations by:
1. excluding a section of the site from the proposed plantation; or
2. issuing conditions for approval of the application; or
3. rejecting the application.
Decisions on grant applications in SACs, SPAs and NHAs and sites adjoining or within 3 km
upstream of NHAs, SACs and SPAs are made on the basis of advice from NPWS (see Section
4.3.1.5).
4.3.2
Rural Environment Protection Scheme
REPS is an agri-environmental measure included in the CAP Rural Development Plan. One
of the objectives of REPS is: “to protect wildlife habitats and endangered species of flora and
fauna”. Applicants for REPS have to submit an agri-environmental plan prepared by an
approved REPS planner. Over 70% of REPS planners have a background in agricultural
science rather than ecology (Heritage Council, 1999), and the training course that REPS
planners have to complete does not include any specific training in habitat survey and
assessment. The specifications for REPS (Department of Agriculture and Food, 2004) include
guidance on the integration of forestry and REPS. These require planners to:
“identify areas of the farm appropriate for afforestation based on environmental,
agricultural, forestry and socio-economic grounds. Any afforestation of land should be
designed to provide additional environmental benefits, to offer greater habitat area overall,
and to enhance biodiversity.”
One of the listed criteria for identifying such areas is “existing habitats”.
As part of Measure 4 of REPS, planners are required to map the habitats to be retained on
the REPS plan. These habitats are specifically excluded from afforestation. These habitats
include: “callows; turloughs and other seasonally flooded areas; marshes and swamps;
peatlands (including raised bog, cut-over bog, blanket bog, or moors and fens); sand-dunes,
foreshore and sea shore; machairs; eskers; natural or semi-natural vegetation; woodlands
and groves of trees; scrubland; lakes, ponds, rivers, streams and watercourses; field
boundaries/margins, hedgerows and stonewalls; old buildings inhabited by protected
species such as barn owls and bats; disused quarries and such workings that have become
habitats; and commonages and habitats designated as SPAs, SACs, NHAs, subject to the
conditions of Measure A”. The REPS planner is required to “consider” the “quality of these
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
23
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
habitats”, but no guidance is given as to how these habitats are defined, or how to evaluate
the quality of any habitats encountered.
4.3.3
Evaluation
Current procedures appear to provide an adequate framework for preventing afforestation
damage to designated sites. However, there are clear deficiencies in the provisions for
biodiversity assessment of non-designated sites within these procedures, and these are
discussed below.
Information on assessment procedures by NPWS was not made available for review and the
adequacy of these procedures cannot, therefore, be evaluated.
4.3.3.1
Non Grant-aided Afforestation
The new consent procedures for afforestation (see Section 4.1.1), require that all afforestation
comply with the Guidelines. Therefore, assessment of non grant-aided afforestation is likely
to be similar to assessment of grant-aided afforestation, and subject to similar deficiencies, as
discussed in Section 4.3.3.2. In theory, afforestation of sites with protected plant species also
requires separate consent from the Minister for the Envronment Heritage and Local
Government, but there are no mechanisms in place for monitoring compliance with this
requirement. Furthermore, it is not clear whether all landowners are aware of the presence
of a protected plant species on their land, as there is no legal requirement to notify
landowners of the presence of a protected plant species on their land.
4.3.3.2
4.3.3.2.1
Afforestation Grant and Premium Scheme
Assessment by Competent Forester
Under the Afforestation Grant and Premium Scheme, biodiversity assessment is carried out
by the Competent Forester through identification of important habitats and notable fauna on
the Site Development Plan. The only guidance provided as to what types of habitats and
species may qualify is the listing of habitat types and species of fauna in the Guidelines. As
the assessment will usually be carried out by foresters who do not have detailed ecological
training or expertise, it seems unreasonable to expect them to extrapolate from these lists to
identify additional non-listed habitats or species. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that
the listings of habitats and species in the Guidelines will be interpreted as a more or less
definitive list. The Guidelines habitats are not defined using any recognised habitat
classification scheme, and do not include some habitat types of high biodiversity importance
(e.g. blanket and raised bog, wet and dry heath). The list of notable fauna in the Guidelines
includes only birds of prey (some of which are only rare migrants in Ireland) and mammals.
There are notable omissions of fauna, such as breeding waders, which are often adversely
affected by afforestation, and there is no mention of invertebrates. Even if the habitats and
species listed in the Guidelines are only interpreted as indicative examples, the lack of clear
definitions of habitat types, and the eccentric selection of habitats and species, do not
provide a useful basis for guiding non-specialists in how to “identify habitats and species of
particular interest”. Competent Foresters would generally have no specific training or
expertise in ecological assessment. The requirement to identify habitats of biodiversity
importance on the Site Development Plan outside the 15% ABE is not clearly stated in any
guidance given to Competent Foresters. These deficiencies indicate that:
 Certain habitat types and biota of high biodiversity importance will be systematically
omitted from consideration in the approval of afforestation grants.
 Criteria used to identify the Guidelines habitats will vary from site to site.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
24
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation

Information on the full extent of habitats of biodiversity importance within a site will not
necessarily be recorded on the Site Development Plan.
Because over 50% of sites are not inspected by FS Inspectors, deficiencies in the biodiversity
assessment by Competent Foresters is likely to cause a significant risk of damage to sites of
biodiversity importance.
4.3.3.2.2
Assessment by Local Authorities
The local authorities only receive opportunities to comment on grant applications when they
are for sites greater than 25 ha or when they are in areas identified as sensitive (see Section
4.3.1.5). Deficiencies in strategic assessment by local authorities (see Section 4.2.3) will,
therefore, result in them not receiving applications for sites less than 25 ha in areas which
are sensitive, but which have not been identified as such.
The degree to which comments by local authorities include biodiversity considerations
depends upon the availability of in-house expertise in ecological assessment. The official
guidelines (Department of the Environment, 1997) discourage local authorities from making
any input along these lines. At present, only thirteen local authorities have Heritage Officers
with ecological expertise; other local authorities have Heritage Officers with experience in
other aspects of heritage such as archaeology and architecture. Because only a single
Heritage Officer is being appointed to each local authority, the Heritage Officer programme
will not be sufficient to result in provision of ecological expertise to every local authority. At
present, several local authorities where large amounts of afforestation is occurring (notably
Kerry, Donegal, and Mayo which account for 27% of private planting over the period 19952000), do not have Heritage Officers with ecological expertise. Even where local authorities
do have Heritage Officers with ecological expertise, assessment of afforestation grants is
only one potential aspect of a very wide-ranging role. In some cases (as appears to be the
case in Leitrim; see Section 4.3.1.5) local authorities may decide that the limited resource of
ecological expertise offered by the Heritage Officer is better focused elsewhere.
Where Heritage Officers with ecological expertise are involved in assessment of grant
applications, it is likely that they will be able to identify the majority of sites of high
biodiversity importance that they inspect. Nevertheless, there is no clear guidance for these
Heritage Officers in how to identify these sites.
4.3.3.2.3
Assessment by Forest Service Inspectors
Under the Afforestation Grant and Premium Scheme, the procedure for assessment by the
FS Inspectors is based largely on review of information submitted by the Competent
Forester with site inspections by the Inspector of slightly less than half of the sites. The
deficiencies identified above (Section 4.3.3.2.1), will, therefore, result in the Inspector
frequently receiving inadequate information on biodiversity importance. Furthermore,
Inspectors have no formal guidance on how to identify Guidelines habitats, or on how to
identify when a non-designated site is of sufficient biodiversity importance that it should be
referred to NPWS. At present, only a proportion of FS Inspectors has any formal training in
ecological assessment. Again, these deficiencies indicate a significant risk of sites of high
biodiversity importance being damaged, either as a result of inadequate self-assessment by
Competent Foresters, or because the Inspectors lack sufficient guidance and training.
4.3.3.2.4
Summary
The main personnel involved in biodiversity assessment of afforestation are Competent
Foresters and FS Inspectors. Their understandable lack of sufficient experience, training and
guidance in ecological assessment and evaluation, given the nature of their current role, is
likely to result in a significant risk of damage to sites of high biodiversity importance. In this
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
25
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
context it is interesting to note that the NWS requires site assessments by ecologists whereas
normal afforestation grants do not, despite the fact that NWS plantings are less likely to
result in adverse impacts to biodiversity.
Where Heritage Officers with ecological experience are involved in assessment of grant
applications, better identification of such sites is likely but this resource will not be available
in all local authorities, will be subject to competing demands where they are available, and,
in any case their assessment has no statutory role in decisions about grant applications.
4.3.3.3
Rural Environment Protection Scheme
Under REPS, biodiversity assessment is carried out by the REPS planner through
identification of habitats listed under Measure 4 of REPS. Again, these habitats are not
defined using any recognised habitat classification scheme, although the range of habitats
listed is more comprehensive than the Guidelines habitats. Furthermore many REPS planners
do not have adequate training or experience for ecological assessment (see Heritage Council,
1999).
4.4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This section describes the procedures for formal EIA of afforestation projects, and reviews
the biodiversity assessments contained in EISs submitted as part of this EIA process.
4.4.1
Procedure
Where an EIA is required for an afforestation project (see Section 4.1.1 above), the developer
is required to submit an EIS to the planning authority. In the past, the planning authority
was the relevant County Council, or other local authority. However, the new regulations
(see Section 4.1.1) have changed the relevant authority to the Minister for Agriculture and
Food (which, in practice, will presumably mean submission to the FS). The developer can
request advice on scoping requirements for the EIS from the planning authority, in which
case, the planning authority will consult with certain prescribed bodies, including NPWS.
Following submission of the EIS, there is a statutory period of at least one month during
which the EIS is available for public inspection and during which submissions can be made
to the planning authority. Copies of the EIS are also sent to various statutory consultees,
including NPWS and An Taisce. The planning authority will then make an assessment as to:
1. Does the EIS contain adequate information to determine the likely significant effects of
the proposal on the environment; and, if it does
2. Decide whether to grant permission, having “regard to the statement, any
supplementary information furnished relating to the statement and any submissions or
observations furnished concerning the effects on the environment of the proposed
development”.
4.4.2
Guidelines
The Forest Service will produce Guidelines for the preparation of EIS shortly. They were
subject of widespread consultation in their preparation, including consultation with
academic institutions.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published Guidelines on the Information to be
contained in Environmental Impact Statements (C.A.A.S. Environmental Services Ltd., 2002)
(referred to hereafter as the EPA Guidelines) and Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the
preparation of Environmental Impact Statements) (C.A.A.S. Environmental Services Ltd., 2003)
(referred to hereafter as the EPA Advice Notes). The EPA Guidelines provide advice on the
general principles and procedures involved in preparing an EIS, while the EPA Advice Notes
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
26
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
provide advice on each specified environmental topic which has to be covered in an EIS, and
on each specified project type for which EIA is required.
The EPA Guidelines emphasise that scoping is one of the most important parts of EIA. The
document makes three main points regarding the scoping process:
1. It is important that the range of participants (e.g. personnel and agents of the applicant,
competent authorities, other specialist agencies and members of the public), included in
the scoping process is sufficient to ensure that the EIA is focussed on the aspects of the
environment that are likely to be of most relevance to the proposed development.
2. The nature and detail of the EIA must be kept as tightly focussed as possible, in order to
minimise the time and expense that is spent in the ensuing stages of the process.
3. Where similar projects have been the subject of a satisfactory EIS, these may be used as
guide, on which the scoping of the EIA in hand can be based. The word “satisfactory” is
not defined, and so could equally be taken to refer to EISs for developments that were
subsequently approved, or to EISs for which the likely environmental impacts of the
development were adequately assessed and reported. This is an important point in the
context of EIAs for afforestation projects in Ireland. Of nine such projects that were
reviewed in this report (Section 4.4.3) six were approved, although the scoping of all
these was certainly insufficient to ensure adequate coverage of ecological impacts.
The EPA Guidelines recommend that the description of the existing environment (including
flora and fauna) should:
 Describe the context (location and extent or magnitude) of the environmental feature;
 Indicate the character (the distinguishing aspects) of the environment under
consideration;
 Describe the significance (the quality value or designation) assigned to the aspect of the
environment under consideration;
 Describe the sensitivities (the changes which could significantly alter) the character of
this aspect of the environment; and
 Include references to recognised standards in order to facilitate evaluation of the EIS.
The EPA Guidelines recommend that the evaluation of the sufficiency of the data contained
in the EIS should use the following criteria:
 Is the information necessary for identification of the main effects available?
 Is the information necessary for assessment of the main effects available?
 Is the information focused on effects that are likely and significant?
The EPA Advice Notes recommend that the description of the existing flora should describe
the vegetation of the habitats and not just list the species present, should refer to any
published botanical information on the site and use data that are collected by standard and
reproducible methods. The report should include the following:
 A plan showing the context including existing plant communities (including those
outside but adjacent to the development site), locations of rare or sensitive species, and
significant natural features (e.g. rock outcrops).
 A description of the character, including types of plant community, and, if relevant,
stability/change, dependence on particular environmental features, and existing
management.
 An assessment of the significance of the existing flora including distribution at a local
and national level, occurrence of “significant” communities or species (the term
“significant” is not defined), use made of plants by “significant” fauna or people, and
existing/pending formal designations for species or habitats. The EPA Advice Notes state
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
27
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation

that “an evaluation scheme such as international, national, county and local may be
appropriate but should only be used for plant groups/habitats that are well known”.
A description of the sensitivity including aspects of the existing site on which the plant
communities depend and which could change.
The EPA Advice Notes recommend that the description of the existing fauna should normally
include birds, fish and mammals and reference “to invertebrates and the state of knowledge
of these groups”, with invertebrates being investigated in detail where habitat conditions
suggest that unusual invertebrate communities are likely. The fauna should be described by
reference to its habitat, any seasonal limitations in the survey should be explicitly
acknowledged, and all published zoological information on the site should be reviewed. The
report should include the following:
 A description and plan of the context including the principal habitats, locations of areas
used by fauna, survey/trapping sites, numbers of species using the site and seasonality,
and numbers of vertebrate species, and existing or proposed protected sites.
 A description of the character including species diversity, occurrence of rare species,
activities for which species use the site, and special requirements of the species present
such as territory size, habitat quality, current management, lack of disturbance.
 An assessment of the significance of the existing fauna including status at a national and
European level, existing/pending formal designations for species or habitats, native
status, population stability, and significance of fauna as prey for species which occur offsite, or game, or commercial assets, or tourism resources, or modifiers of vegetation. The
EPA Advice Notes state that “the use of rating systems to define the importance of some
groups may be useful but should be fully explained”.
 A description of the sensitivity including aspects of the existing site on which species
depend.
Finally, in Section 5, which deals with common problems encountered during the EIA
process, the EPA Advice Notes advises that ecological component of the report is often too
descriptive. The document warns that, in combination with a lack of analysis, an overemphasis on description can obscure the sensitivity and significance of the fauna and flora
on the site.
4.4.3
Preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement
This section presents the results of our review of Irish EISs. Full details of the survey
methods used and the analyses to determine the conservation significance of flora and fauna
are presented in Appendix 4.
4.4.3.1
General Details
There are currently nine Irish EISs concerning forestry developments available to the public
in ENFO, Ireland. Seven of these EISs were prepared in 1991-1992, one in 1995 and one in
1997. Therefore, only one or two of these EISs had the opportunity to take into account the
EPA Guidelines and EPA Advice Notes (the first versions of these were published in 1995), and
none could refer to the new publications from the FS (Forest Service, 2000b, 2000c, 2000e).
The EISs are mainly from counties along the western seaboard (Cork (2), Galway, Mayo,
Sligo (2) and Donegal (2)) with one from the midlands (Laois). The size of the sites ranged
from 220-809 ha. Six of the EISs were prepared by Coillte, one by an international
environmental consultancy, one by an agricultural co-operative and one by a private
individual (possibly an independent consultant). All the EISs were submitted for
commercial afforestation projects involving non-native conifers. For three of the EISs, the
competent authority requested further information. In each case, the revised EIS included an
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
28
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
aquatic survey comprising ecological information, including species diversity; these aquatic
surveys are not discussed below because they are outside the scope of this review (see
Section 1.2.1).
4.4.3.2
Scoping
None of the EISs reviewed included any information on scoping.
4.4.3.3
Consultations
Five of the nine EISs referred to consultations with groups or individuals other than the
author(s) of the EIS. Of these, three referred to consultation with the Office of Public Works,
which, at the time these EISs were prepared, included the statutory nature conservation and
archaeological agencies. Three referred to consultation with the relevant fisheries board.
4.4.3.4
Designations
Five of the EISs referred to either the presence of designated areas in or nearby the sites, or
their absence.
4.4.3.5
Habitat and Vegetation
Vegetation data for eight of the EISs were collected in the field; the remaining one appears to
be mainly a desktop study (see Appendix 4). One EIS used a standard relevé method.
Another five referred to the use of “plots” or “sample points” but without any details. The
number of relevé/plots/sample points per site varied from 5-12. Only one of the EISs
included a habitat map. This used broad habitat types, which were defined in the text, but
did not correspond to any recognised habitat classification. Another seven of the EISs
included maps showing some limited information on habitats (e.g. location of vegetation
plots, soil types, etc.). Three of the EISs classified the habitat/vegetation types present on the
site, although none used a recognised classification scheme. Another EIS included a good
ecological description of the vegetation of the site.
All the EISs, except for the presumed desk study, included species lists of vascular plants.
One EIS had the most comprehensive botanical survey: sedges, ferns and rushes, which are
more difficult to identify, were well covered, indicating an experienced botanist carried out
the survey. Two more EISs were less satisfactory but still seem reasonably complete. The
others were less well covered, but there is no indication if the sites were degraded through
turf-cutting or over-grazing, which would in some cases explain a species-poor habitat. The
species list for one EIS repeated species erroneously, that for another is particularly scanty
on vascular plants. Seven of the EISs included species lists of non-vascular plants. Again,
only one EIS had a complete and creditable moss list. Four Sphagnum taxa were identified to
species level, and this indicates an experienced botanist carried out the survey. All the other
EISs included only one or two moss species, and Sphagnum was left at genus level. One EIS
mentioned “bryophytes” but did not specify even genera. Liverworts (Hepaticae) were only
surveyed in one EIS, and these are always present in vegetation. Also, fungi are never
mentioned, let alone surveyed. Only one EIS included data on cover/abundance. Two EISs
made comments on the conservation importance (or lack of) of habitats/vegetation present
on the site but without referring to any explicit criteria used to assess this. From the
information presented in the EISs, six of the sites involved may have corresponded to
Habitats Directive Annex 1 habitat types. However, it should be noted that the EISs involved
were all published in 1991-1992, while the EU only adopted the Habitats Directive in 1992.
None of the EISs referred to specific criteria used to evaluate the conservation importance of
the plant species present. One EIS referred to the potential presence of three notable species,
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
29
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
which could not be confirmed due to survey work being carried out in winter. Another EIS
referred to the site not containing any “rare” species.
4.4.3.6
Invertebrates
Eight of the nine EISs contained information on invertebrates (Appendix 4). One EIS
contained a survey of lepidoptera. This is known to have been carried out by an expert,
although this is not stated in the EIS. The survey was carried out in winter and only three
species were recorded, but a broad assessment of the overall lepidopteran diversity was
assessed from the habitat quality. This EIS also reviewed distribution data on butterflies in
the region to indicate the possibility of two rare species occurring on the site. The EIS did not
refer to any explicit criteria used to assess the conservation importance of the site for
invertebrates.
Seven of the remaining eight EISs included species lists of invertebrates without any details
of survey methods. These were all rather arbitrary listings of species, mainly lepidoptera but
also including a variety of other groups. In fact, all the species listed are illustrated in a
popular field guide (Chinery, 1986) indicating that these surveys were carried out by nonspecialists. None of the EISs contain any evaluation of the conservation importance of the
site for invertebrates.
4.4.3.7
Reptiles and Amphibians
Seven of the nine EISs contained information on reptiles and amphibians (see Appendix 4).
In each case, this comprised lists of species recorded with no details of survey methods and
no evaluation of the conservation importance of the site for reptiles and amphibians.
4.4.3.8
Birds
All the EISs contained information on birds (see Appendix 4). In one EIS, the coverage of
birds is reasonably comprehensive. This EIS included a site survey (carried out in winter)
with data on abundances of species in each habitat type (but no details of methodology). In
addition, buildings and trees were examined for signs of roosting corvids, raptors or owls
and the potential occurrence of breeding species was assessed from habitat characteristics
and the known distribution of species. The potential for occurrence of Annex 1 species, and
"rare and conservationally important" (term not defined) species was discussed in this EIS.
Seven of the remaining eight EISs included species lists of birds without any details of
survey methods and little or no information on abundance and distribution within the site
and no evaluation of the conservation importance of the site for birds. The remaining EIS
included general comments on the birds of the local area without any site specific details.
4.4.3.9
Mammals
All the EISs included information on mammals (see Appendix 4). In one EIS, the coverage of
mammals was reasonably comprehensive. This EIS included a site survey (carried out in
winter) with information on the habitat association of species and the occurrence of Otter
sprainting sites and signs of Irish Hare and Red Fox listed (but no details of methodology).
The EIS also included estimates of population size based on habitat quality and literature
and an assessment of habitat quality to determine potential for occurrence of other species
(including bats). The conservation evaluation was limited to the protection status of species.
Seven of the remaining eight EISs included species lists of mammals without any details of
survey methods and little or no information on abundance and distribution within the site
and no evaluation of the conservation importance of the site for mammals. The remaining
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
30
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
EIS included general comments on the mammals of the local area without any site specific
details.
4.4.3.10 Biodiversity Indicators
None of the EISs make any reference to the use of structural, functional or compositional
biodiversity indicators.
4.4.4
Assessment of the Environmental Impact Statement
Specific information on the extent to which biodiversity considerations were taken into
account in the assessment of the EIS by the planning authority is not available. In the case of
the two EISs for County Cork, it is known that the planning authority did not have the
relevant in-house technical expertise to assess the adequacy of the biodiversity assessment
(Kelleher, 2001).
4.4.5
Evaluation of system effectiveness
In evaluating the adequacy of the EISs, it should be acknowledged that most of the relevant
EISs to date were submitted in 1991-1992, only two-three years after the introduction of EIA
procedures in Ireland, and before the publication of the EPA Advice Notes and EPA
Guidelines. It is likely that, if a more recent sample were available, a distinct improvement in
standards would be evident. In fact, the only EIS to be prepared after the EPA Advice Notes
and EPA Guidelines were published, did have a significantly better vegetation assessment
than the remainder.
4.4.5.1
Guidelines
The EPA Guidelines contain a reasonable summary of the general requirements for
description and evaluation of the existing environment in an EIS. The revised EPA Advice
Notes are intended to provide more specific guidance on the individual components of an
EIS. While the sections on flora and fauna provide reasonable guidance on the general
treatments of the attributes that should be covered (context, character, significance and
sensitivities), the specific guidance on issues such as scope, survey methods and evaluation
is limited. Particular deficiencies are:
1. No guidance on criteria to determine when more detailed surveys of specific groups are
required.
2. No recommendation that recognised habitat/vegetation classification systems should be
used.
3. Vague and ill-defined guidance on how to assess invertebrate fauna in a consistent
manner.
4. Poor guidance on evaluation of conservation significance, in particular, at the regional
and local level.
4.4.5.2
Preparation of the EIS
None of the EISs reviewed were considered to contain adequate overall biodiversity
assessments. One EIS contained a reasonably adequate vegetation assessment. Another EIS
contained a reasonably adequate assessment of fauna, given the seasonal constraints under
which it was carried out (but the constraints imposed, themselves, indicate deficiencies in
the EIA procedure). The principal deficiencies in the EISs were:
1. No evidence of adequate scoping procedures.
2. Generally poor survey effort, often carried out by non-specialists with lack of
standardised methodologies, and restricted seasonally.
3. Lack of a habitat map and no reference to recognised habitat/vegetation classifications.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
31
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
4. Incomplete species lists of vascular plants and very poor coverage of non-vascular plants
(also dubious identification in some cases). The poor coverage of non-vascular plants is
notable given that in a survey of Brackloon Wood, (Fox et al., 2001), lower plants made
up 79% of the 755 plant taxa recorded (although this example comes from semi-natural
woodland).
5. Arbitrary coverage of invertebrates.
6. Information on vertebrates comprised species lists with little or no information on
abundance or distribution within site.
7. Little or no evaluation of the conservation importance of the site.
None of the EISs could be considered to meet the requirements of the EPA’s Advice Notes
and EPA Guidelines. The deficiencies in these EISs mean that the planning authorities did not
have adequate information to evaluate the existing biodiversity importance of the sites.
4.4.5.3
Assessment of the EIS
Six of the nine afforestation projects, for which the EISs were submitted, were approved.
This indicates that, given the serious deficiencies in the description and evaluation of flora
and fauna contained within these EISs, the assessment by the planning authorities was
deficient. The principal deficiencies in the planning authorities assessments are likely to
arise from the lack of in-house technical expertise. The relevant local authority assessed the
EISs reviewed. However, under the new regulations (see Section 4.1.1), future EISs will be
assessed by the FS.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
32
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
5
EXISTING PRACTICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
5.1
LEGISLATION
Afforestation in the United Kingdom is controlled by the following legislation:
 The Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999
[SI 1999/2228];
 The Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) (Scotland) Regulations 1999 [SI
1999/43]; and
 The Environmental Impact Assessment (Forestry) Regulations (Northern Ireland) [SR
2000/84].
These three regulations each contain the same provisions.
The regulations require that anyone who wishes to carry out a “relevant” afforestation
project must obtain consent for the work from the competent authority (the FC in England,
Scotland and Wales or the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for Northern
Ireland in Northern Ireland). If consent for the work is required, the applicant must submit
an Environmental Statement 2(ES) in support of the application. A “relevant” afforestation
project is defined as a project which is likely to have significant effects on the environment,
and:
 the project exceeds specified thresholds of area and environmental sensitivity; or
 there are exceptional circumstances which, taking account of the characteristics of the
project, the location of the project and the characteristics of the potential impact mean
that the effects on the environment of the project may be unacceptable even though the
project does not exceed the specified thresholds.
The specified thresholds are exceeded where:
 any part of the land is in a Nature Reserve, Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), The
Broads, World Heritage Site (WHS), Scheduled Ancient Monument, designated or
identified cSAC, classified or proposed SPA, the New Forest Heritage Area.
 the area to be afforested is 2 ha or more, where any part of the land is in a National Park,
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or NSA (National Scenic Area).
 the area to be afforested is 5 ha or more, where no part of the land is any of the sensitive
areas defined above.
The ES is required to contain “a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be
significantly affected by the proposed development, including in particular…fauna and
flora…”
5.2
5.2.1
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT
Indicative Forestry Strategies
The government recommends that all regional planning authorities should prepare IFSs.
Guidance on the preparation of IFSs are provided jointly by the Department of the
Environment and the Welsh Office (1992) and also by the Scottish Executive (1999). The
main purposes of an IFS are:
 to provide a focus for local authority responses to consultations on grant scheme
proposals; and
In the UK, the terms “Environmental Statement” and “Environmental Assessment” replace the
terms “Environmental Impact Statement” and “Environmental Impact Assessment” (see Section
1.5.1).
2
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
33
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation

to inform forestry developers of possible sensitivities when considering options for
planting.
The principal elements of an IFS are a concise strategic policy statement, with reasoned
justification and an IFS diagram.
5.2.1.1
Guidance on Biodiversity Assessment in IFS
The Scottish National Planning Policy Guidelines. NPPG 14: Natural Heritage (The Scottish
Office, 1998) state that:
“Indicative forestry strategies assist in the identification of suitable areas for new forestry
planting, identify environmental sensitivities which may impose constraints on new
planting, and provide a framework for local authority responses to consultations on forestry
grant scheme proposals. Authorities should ensure that indicative forestry strategies seek to
safeguard and enhance landscape character; protect existing woodlands and other areas of
natural heritage value; and identify opportunities to extend native woodland cover,
particularly where this creates or reinforces links between wooded areas.”
The Scottish Circular 9/1999 Indicative Forestry Strategies (Scottish Executive, 1999) states that:
“Planning authorities should work closely with SNH [Scottish Natural Heritage] in
preparing an IFS. The effects of land use changes on the natural heritage are of major interest
to SNH. Its contribution will be of value on recreation and public access issues as well as
landscape and biodiversity. There will be many areas where further woodland expansion
will be of benefit for habitat creation or landscape enhancement. There will be other places,
however, where the existing habitat or landscape should remain as it is and only specialised,
restricted planting, if any, will be acceptable. Any forestry proposals that may affect Natura
2000 sites (SACs and SPAs) must be assessed very carefully under procedures set out in
SOAEFD Circular 6/1995 covering the Natural Habitats Regulations. The work SNH has
undertaken across Scotland on Landscape Character Assessment should be of great value in
preparing an IFS. In addition, both national and local Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) will
be important as well as initiatives arising from implementation of Article 10 of the Habitats
Directive for conservation of species and habitats of European importance in the wider
countryside.”
5.2.1.2
Examples
The Lancashire IFS (Lancashire County Council, 1994) included all statutory designated sites
(59 SSSIs, two NNRs and nine LNRs) as areas “unlikely to be available” for planting in its
IFS map. A “Phase 1” habitat survey which covers the entire county had previously been
completed and is being used to identify non-statutory wildlife sites worthy of special
protection (Biological Heritage Sites). The IFS states that it is intended that, while not
included on the IFS maps for technical reasons, maps identifying the Biological Heritage
Sites will be prepared and passed onto the Forestry Authority to provide further guidance
on grant applications. A landscape assessment was also prepared as part of the IFS. This
assessment made use of a “Phase 1” habitat survey that covers the entire county. The
assessment identified ten landscape character areas and general recommendations as to the
extent and type of planting appropriate for each character area are included in the IFS. The
IFS has now been largely superseded at a local level wherever more detailed mapping work
has been done, although it is still useful for large scale planting proposals (Brackley, 2001).
The Moray IFS (Moray Council, 2001) was prepared by Moray Council, FC, Forest Enterprise
and Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) with assistance from a number of other organisations
including the North East Local BAP Co-ordinator and North East Native Woodlands. The
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
34
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
IFS includes two maps, one showing sensitivity to afforestation, and the other showing
opportunities for woodland extension. All areas with natural heritage designations were
classified under one of the three categories which indicates sensitivity to afforestation. In
addition, areas of heather moorland, and raised and blanket bogs are classified in one of
these categories. The IFS also included a specific examination of the issue of maintaining an
adequate balance between forestry and heather moorland in the Moray Moorlands. A Local
BAP has also been prepared and its results are described as forming an important part of the
IFS. The map showing opportunities for woodland expansion was prepared using SNH’s
Native Woodland Model. This map does not take account of sensitivity to afforestation.
5.2.2
Local Forestry Frameworks
The Scottish Circular 9/1999 Indicative Forestry Strategies (Scottish Executive, 1999) identifies
LFFs as being appropriate for areas which the IFS process identifies as requiring a more
detailed forestry strategy. These may include areas known to be particularly sensitive,
where there is widespread local concern, or where the issues surrounding forestry are
complex.
5.2.2.1
Langholm/Lockerbie Local Forestry Frameworks
The Langholm/Lockerbie LFF (Environmental Resources Management, 2000) was agreed by
a partnership of the FC, SNH and Dumfries & Galloway Council following research work by
consultants. The methodology used to prepare the LFF involved the following stages:
 data collection;
 community workshops;
 categorisation of land into five categories based upon sensitivity to afforestation; and
 presentation of the data by division of the LFF into water catchments.
The data collection was based on existing information (i.e. no new surveys were carried out
for the LFF) and included the following aspects relevant to biodiversity assessment:
 nature conservation designations;
 ancient woodland sites;
 priority habitats and species defined in the Dumfries and Galloway Local BAP;
 relevant action plans included in the Dumfries and Galloway Local BAP.
The report refers to a GIS containing the mapped distribution of Local BAP habitats
although it is not clear from the report as to whether this GIS was used in the development
of the LFF.
The categorisation was based upon: existing land use; the number and relative significance
of sensitivities identified from analysis of the baseline data; and a review of public opinion.
The definitions of the categories only include one explicit reference to biodiversity
considerations; namely that areas with statutory nature conservation designations are
defined as Category A (Very high sensitivity). However, the guidance provided on the
actual categorisations make many references to biodiversity considerations, indicating that
evaluation of the biodiversity assessment data was an integral part of the categorisation
process at all levels.
5.2.2.2
Cairngorms Forest and Woodland Framework
The Cairngorms Forest and Woodland Framework (CFWF) (Towers, 2001; Towers et al., 2001)
was prepared on behalf of the Cairngorms Partnership, FC and SNH by consultants (MRCS
and The Ross Partnership). The Framework is focused on identifying opportunities for
expansion of native and non-native woodland, although the former is the main priority. The
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute (MLURI) Native Woodland Model was used to
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
35
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
identify the most appropriate woodland type for different sites, by linking site
characteristics (geology, terrain, land cover, etc.) to the biophysical requirements for
different types of woodland. The model output was then refined by taking account of
potential for natural regeneration (proximity to existing woodland, identification of linkages
between existing woodlands and consideration of site capability for non-native species) to
produce maps showing the maximum woodland potential of the area. The maps do not
include biodiversity constraints (areas of existing biodiversity importance that should not be
afforested). Instead the CFWF provides broad guidance on the relevant issues which should
be assessed in planning individual woodlands. This guidance is based mainly on
consideration of habitats and species that are listed in the UK BAP and the Local BAP for the
Cairngorms Partnership Area. The main points of the guidance can be summarised as
follows:
 Specific habitats are identified which should not and could not be planted under any
circumstances.
 Where other listed open ground habitats are present, the implications of any planting
should be considered in relation to the objectives of the relevant Action Plan.
 Guidelines are included for assessing minimum acceptable areas of open moorland,
produced by SNH, which synthesise the requirements of four open country bird species.
5.2.3
5.2.3.1
Other Examples
North Yorkshire Moors Upland Land Management Initiative
The North Yorkshire Moors Upland Land Management Initiative is a pilot project being
carried out by the North Yorkshire National Park Authority and the Countryside Agency to
identify Integrated Local Management Objectives (which can include woodland creation).
As part of this project, Land Use Consultants carried out an ecological character assessment
of the study area (Land Use Consultants, 2000b). This assessment was based upon the
following existing data: “Phase 1” habitat survey maps and target notes, phase 2 woodland
and moorland surveys, farm survey data, rare plant data, SSSI citations, Natural Area
profile, Local Environment Agency Plans, River Habitat Survey data, Freshwater Pearl
Mussel survey data, macro-invertebrate survey data. These data were used to identify broad
ecological-landscape zones where similar patterns of habitat occur (ecological character
types). These were then sub-divided into components broadly similar to Phase 1 habitat
types (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 1993) and UK BAP habitat types, and linked,
where possible, to NVC types. A short field survey was then carried out to confirm character
assessments and mapped boundaries. Each component habitat was mapped using GIS and
the conservation importance of component vegetation types and species classified as
International, National or Regional. The species selected are described as representative
examples which could be used as indicator species and comprise three mammal species,
eleven bird species, three fish species, three butterfly species, two aquatic invertebrates and
thirteen plants. Designated sites were also mapped. This study was then integrated with
studies of landscape character and historical landscape character to produce an Integrated
Character Assessment. An Environment Capital assessment was then carried out to develop
Integrated Environmental Management Objectives (Land Use Consultants, 2000a).
5.2.4
Evaluation
The strategic assessments reviewed were, in the main, prepared in the context of
encouraging expansion of native and amenity woodlands, as well as identifying constraints
to the expansion of commercial non-native afforestation. In one case, little detailed
assessment of existing biodiversity is included in the strategic mapping, with reliance on
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
36
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
site-based assessment. A common theme in these assessments is the use of a local
biodiversity action plan to provide a coherent method of identifying priority habitats and
species. Information on biodiversity constraints outside designated sites is incorporated to
varying degrees. The availability of phase 1 habitat surveys clearly provides a very valuable
resource, although, as the Lancashire IFS example shows, the survey results require
evaluation and interpretation before they can be integrated into a strategic assessment. The
North Yorkshire Moors Upland Land Management Initiative has the most detailed
biodiversity assessment with a wide range of data being collected, supplemented by
ground-truthing, and ecological character areas being identified.
5.3
SITE ASSESSMENT
This section describes the standard procedures for assessment of applications for
afforestation grants, identifies the stages within this procedure where there is provision for
biodiversity assessment to be carried out and reviews the available information about the
methods used for these biodiversity assessments. The special case of afforestation where EA
is required is discussed in Section 5.4 below.
5.3.1
Woodland Grant Scheme
The Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS) is one of the main mechanisms for grant-aiding of
afforestation in the UK. Applicants have to fill in a standard application form. Following
receipt of the application form, a Woodland Officer will visit the site to assess whether the
application meets the requirements of the WGS. Details of all applications will be placed in a
Public Register and for certain types of applications local authorities and other statutory
bodies are consulted. All applications must comply with Guidelines published by the FC.
5.3.1.1
Application Form
The only specific information required on the application form relating to biodiversity
assessment is whether any of the land is covered by a nature conservation designation,
including the following: National Nature Reserve (NNR), Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI), Proposed SSSI, Local Authority Conservation Area, Other Conservation Area, Tree
Preservation Order, Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland, Other Semi-Natural Woodland, and
Ancient Woodland Site.
Other information required on the application form which is of some relevance to
biodiversity assessment are:
 Under the section on objectives, one of the possible objectives listed is “Maintaining and
creating new wildlife habitats”.
 In the guidance notes for completing the description of the proposal, one of the items
that are listed for consideration is “safeguarding environmental features”.
The above would require some type of biodiversity assessment of the afforestation site to be
carried out to identify existing features of biodiversity importance.
5.3.1.2
Better Land Supplement (BLS)
Certain types of agricultural land are eligible for increased levels of grant aid. These include
arable land, other cropped land and improved grassland. The FC has developed a specific
methodology (Forestry Authority, 1997) to identify improved and unimproved grassland, in
order to determine whether land qualifies for this supplement. The methodology involves
two stages:
1. Ten points are chosen at random, and at each point the vegetation is examined in a circle
of 1m diameter for four species: rye-grass, timothy, cocksfoot and white clover. If six or
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
37
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
more of the test circles have 50% or greater coverage of one, or more, of these species
then the land will be classified as improved grassland and eligible for the BLS.
2. If stage 1 does not classify the land as improved grassland, then a test for unimproved
grassland will be carried out. This involves examining the test circles for species listed as
indicating unimproved grassland. If six or more of the test circles contain five or more of
the listed species then the land will be classified as unimproved grassland and ineligible
for the BLS. The listed species comprise eleven species of grasses, 31 species of herbs,
three species of dwarf shrubs and all sedges, wood-rushes and cottongrasses.
5.3.1.3
Guidelines
The FC has published Forest Nature Conservation Guidelines (Forestry Commission, 1990)
which all WGS applications must comply with. In addition, there is a booklet (Forestry
Commission, undated-a) which provides a synopsis of the relevant guidelines for WGS
applicants. The guidelines require that, when planning new planting, the area be surveyed
“carefully to establish the presence of communities or habitats of special conservation value
and retain those as open ground within the forest”.
5.3.1.4
Consultations
Summary details of all applications are placed in a Public Register which is located on the
FC website. These details include the site location (including location map), planting area,
planting type and a broad classification of the land (improved agricultural, unimproved
agricultural or non-farmland). The full application can be viewed at FC offices. The Public
Register is updated weekly and circulated to local authorities and environmental agencies.
In addition certain applications are sent to these organisations for specific comment.
5.3.1.5
Assessment by Woodland Officer
A Woodland Officer, who has received training in order to be able to identify semi-natural
habitats, will usually visit the site on which an afforestation project has been proposed. If the
Woodland Officer finds habitats that he or she considers to be semi-natural, the statutory
conservation body will usually be consulted. Depending on the public interest in the area
there may also be a community consultation. On the basis of these consultations, the
information collected on the site visit, and any relevant information that was given in the
WGS application form, the Woodland Officer will make an assessment as to whether an EA
is required.
5.3.2
5.3.2.1
Other Examples
JIGSAW Challenge
The JIGSAW (Joining & Increasing Grant Scheme for Ancient Woodlands) Challenge is a
grant scheme to help owners of land in selected areas of England with the costs of
establishing new woodland between or alongside existing semi-natural woodlands. In the
West Midlands area, the FC decided to pay ecologists to carry out site inspections prior to
approving applications. The ecologists used a standard three page survey form and a
standard species list. The survey form comprises one page of general site data, one page for
a photographic record and one page for site description and evaluation. The notes for the
site description and evaluation state:
 Describe the site, its landscape setting, its plant communities, floral and faunal interest,
management etc. List and map NVC types.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
38
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation

Summarise the conservation value of the site, how it compares with other sites within
the area. If there are marked differences within the site, note these and mark them on the
map.
The evaluation by the FC was based on the ecologist's recommendations and took account of
the species richness of existing flora (including fungi if appropriate - waxcaps were of
particular note in the area) in a local, regional or national context. The BLS guidance on what
constitutes improved grassland (Forestry Authority, 1997) was also taken into account
(Scott, 2001).
5.3.2.2
Tilhill Economic Forestry
Tilhill Economic Forestry is a private forestry company with a major role in new planting.
They employ a forest ecologist who has developed an in-house procedure for preliminary
biodiversity assessment where the sensitivity of the site may require a full EA (Gallacher,
2001b). This Initial Site Assessment (ISA) summarises the range of sensitivities on the site
and the predicted impacts of afforestation on the aspects of the site deemed to be most
sensitive. The report accompanies the formal WGS application. If an EA is required, then the
ISA can be expanded upon to form the basis of an Environmental Statement. An example of
an ISA for one particular project was supplied (Gallacher, 2001a). This included a NVC
survey of the site and review of records held by SNH and Fife Nature (the local biological
records centre).
5.3.2.3
The National Forest
The National Forest is intended to convert 200 square miles of the landscape in the counties
of Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire into a blend of wooded areas, open country,
farmland and settlements. Most planting is achieved via the WGS and the National Forest’s
own tender scheme. When applications are submitted, they are reviewed by a staff ecologist,
and there is also consultation with local authority ecological staff to identify any potential
biodiversity concerns (Evans, 2001).
5.3.2.4
East Lancashire Woodlands Project (Elwood)
Elwood is a proposal to create a new forest in part of East Lancashire. All new planting in
this project is subject to ecological assessment carried out by the Lancashire Wildlife Trust
(Brackley, 2001).
5.3.3
Evaluation
The low threshold for EA, and the provisions for sub-threshold EA, mean that the need for
an EA is routinely considered in the afforestation consent procedure. The wide availability
and accessibility of baseline ecological data for non-designated sites helps in determining
whether an EA is required. In practice, the request for an EA often results in the withdrawal
of an application, and acts as a default control of afforestation. Specific procedures for nonEA biodiversity assessment have also been developed for special grant schemes and private
forestry companies, and are carried out by ecologists. The assessment process for the BLS
includes a specific methodology to identify whether land should be categorised as improved
grassland or unimproved grassland, although this methodology was not developed
specifically for the purposes of biodiversity assessment.
5.4
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Between the implementation of the EIA Directive (97/11/EC) in the UK and October 2001, the
FC requested ESs for 273 afforestation proposals, of which ESs were submitted for 179 of
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
39
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
these proposals. The remainder include 39 that were withdrawn by the applicant, and in 12
cases the ES requirement was withdrawn by the FC following a scooping meeting and/or
modifications of the proposals. Most proposals for which ESs were requested are large: only
14 were below 50 ha (of which ESs were submitted for six), and 36 were between 50 and 100
ha (of which ESs were submitted for 19).
The ESs are held at the Conservancy offices that administer the area in which the proposed
projects are located. Table 5 shows the distribution of ESs between the different
Conservancies. The six Scottish offices hold nearly all of the statements for the UK, and the
Highland Conservancy in Dingwall, Inverness, holds 77 statements, which is far more than
any other.
Table 5.
The distribution of Environmental Statements completed and submitted for
afforestation projects between FC Conservancy offices in the UK (as of November 2001).
FC Conservancy
Number of ESs received
Highland
Grampian
Perth
Strathclyde
Lothian and Borders
SW Scotland
England & Wales
5.4.1
77
18
25
30
6
14
9
Procedure
Developers of afforestation projects that are above the relevant thresholds (see Section 5.1)
are required to provide a map showing the extent of the proposal, a description of the
proposed work and its possible significant effects on the environment and any other
relevant information to the FC. The FC will then make a determination as to whether an EA
is required. In making this determination, the FC will consider whether the proposals are
likely to have a significant effect on the environment, taking account advice from other
bodies, as well as the UK Forestry Standard, the UK BAP and published guidelines.
Where the project requires an EA, the developer will be required to submit an
Environmental Statement (ES) to the FC. The FC will then make an assessment as to:
1. whether the ES contain adequate information to determine the likely significant effects of
the proposal on the environment; and, if it does
2. whether to grant permission, taking into consideration the environmental information
supplied by the developer, any representations from third parties, and the FC’s own
assessment of the direct and indirect effects of the proposal on the specified
environmental factors.
5.4.2
5.4.2.1
Guidelines
General
The UK Department of the Environment has published generic guidance on good practice in
the preparation of ESs (Department of the Environment, 1995). These guidelines include a
section on ecological assessment. The main recommendations relating to biodiversity
assessment are:
 A habitat survey and review of existing information should be carried out as part of the
scoping exercise.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
40
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation







Botanical surveys should include all plant groups that form a significant part of the
vegetation, not just higher plants.
Some indication of the value of a site for fauna can be gained from the vegetation survey,
but where a full site assessment is required, a detailed survey is necessary. The Common
Bird Census is quoted as an example of a suitable survey methodology.
Seasonal timing of surveys is a critical factor and should be taken into account at an early
stage.
Consideration should be given to possible long-term population fluctuations.
The importance of habitats and species likely to be affected should be evaluated in a
local-regional-national context.
The evaluation should focus on those areas that have not already been accorded any
status by statutory bodies, and comparing them with those which have.
Common attributes included in evaluation criteria include size, species richness and
diversity, typicality and naturalness (or ancientness). Indicator species can be used to
identify ancient woodland.
5.4.2.2
Forestry Commission Guidelines
The FC has published specific guidelines on the preparation of ESs for afforestation projects
(Forestry Commission, undated-b). These guidelines include the following requirements
relevant to biodiversity assessment:
 The ES should include details of the methodology used in the surveys.
 Bird surveys should usually be done between March and May for breeding species and
between October and March for wintering species.
 Vegetation surveys should be carried out “in the growing season”.
 Most ESs will require special input for the flora and fauna assessments.
 The NVC should be used to describe vegetation.
 Local knowledge from countryside bodies, gamekeepers, farmers, foresters, local nature
clubs and wildlife trusts may be helpful in assessing the use of a site for foraging by
animals and birds.
 The status of each habitat type should be recorded by reference to national statutory
designations and national biodiversity action plans.
 The regional and local importance of habitats should also be described, with reference to
local biodiversity action plans, local views and designations, as appropriate.
 The importance of species identified should also be described. The guidelines give an
example of a suitable approach for birds which uses the abundance of the species at
local, regional and national level, its status (protected, Birds Directive listing, Red Data
listing) and significance (High – not defined; Medium – project may need to take
presence of species into account; and Low – unlikely to need further consideration).
 Where habitats are considered to be of importance, the ES should include information on
the surrounding habitats, such as amounts within radii of 5, 10 and 15 km from the site).
5.4.2.3
Ecological Assessment Guidelines
The Institute of Environmental Assessment has published Guidelines for Baseline Ecological
Assessment (Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1995) (referred to from here as IEA
Guidelines). The Department of the Environment and the FC guidelines (Department of the
Environment, 1995; Forestry Commission, undated-b) include this publication in their
reference lists, but do not specifically recommend its use. The IEA Guidelines provide
guidance on the general procedure for carrying out a baseline ecological assessment, and
specific guidance on the requirements for surveys of particular groups. These guidelines
contain detailed information relating to biodiversity assessment and only a short summary
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
41
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
of the key points is presented below. Note that where publications referred to in the
guidelines have been superseded by more recent editions, the most recent edition is
referenced here.
The general procedure recommended is as follows:
Stage 1: consultation and data collection to gather all relevant existing ecological information
for the affected site and its surrounds.
Stage 2: a site visit and preparation of a Phase 1 habitat map (Joint Nature Conservation
Committee, 1993) identifying any areas of ecological importance (in some
circumstances other habitat survey methods are required).
Stage 3: identification of potential ecological impacts.
Stage 4: production of scope for the ecological assessment identifying the requirements for
further collection of ecological baseline data.
Stage 5: carrying out more detailed (Phase 2) surveys of particular groups as determined by
the scoping exercise in Stage 4.
Stage 6: preparation of Baseline Ecological Report.
The specific guidance on survey requirements for particular groups describe:
 Criteria to determine when more detailed (Phase 2) surveys are required. These criteria
are largely specific criteria, such as the occurrence of Red Data or protected species, but,
for most groups, also include a more loosely defined criterion such as the occurrence of
“vegetation types of potential, regional or local importance”.
 Appropriate survey methods. The principal methods specified are:
- NVC survey methods (including taking quadrats) for vascular plants.
- For scarce breeding birds, appropriate survey methods should be used based on
guidance given by Bibby et al. (2000). For locally or regionally important
assemblages of breeding birds, breeding behaviour should be identified by walking
the site, following methodology described by Gibbons et al. (1994). Territory
mapping methods are only required where the location of territories within the site is
important.
- For wintering waterbirds, existing data on the peak usage of impacted areas over the
past five years should be used, where available. Where this is not available, then
monthly count data should be collected for the seasons of importance for birds in the
impacted areas.
- For invertebrates, target groups should be selected which are characteristic of the site
and for which good ecological information and identification keys are available.
Surveys should normally be carried out between May and September with,
optimally, three sampling periods in early, mid and late season. Appropriate survey
methods should be selected based on guidance given by Southwood (2000) and
Brooks (1993).
 Factors to be considered in the evaluation of baseline data, including:
- Assessing the size/status of impacted populations in relation to size/status at local,
regional and national scales.
- Applying criteria specified by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) to
determine whether the site is of SSSI quality; the JNCC have published very detailed
Guidelines for Selection of Biological SSSIs (Joint Nature Conservation Committee,
1995).
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
42
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
-
5.4.3
Assessing the conservation importance of habitats by reference to published data on
the distribution and rarity of vegetation types (Joint Nature Conservation
Committee, 1995; Rodwell, 1991a, b, 1992, 1995, 2000).
Preparation of the Environmental Statement
This section presents the results of our review of Scottish ESs. Full details of the survey
methods used and the analyses to determine the conservation significance of flora and fauna
are presented in Appendix 5.
5.4.3.1
General Details
The publication dates of the selected ESs ranged from 1994 to 2000 (median date was 1998).
The scale of the proposed afforestation projects which the ESs were assessing ranged from
80ha to over 4000ha (mean size was 937ha). Sixteen of the 17 proposals were for projects on
privately owned land. The ESs for these proposals were prepared by the forest contractor in
5 cases, by a professionally accredited private consultant in 10 cases, and in one case by the
owner of the site. The remaining proposal was for a project on FC land. The ES for this
proposal was prepared by CEH (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology), the state body for
ecological research.
All bar two of the ESs were for the development of non-commercial native woodland, by
planting, natural regeneration, or by a mixture of these two strategies. For all such schemes
the proposers requested grant aid as well as permission for the scheme to go ahead. Of the
remaining two ESs, one was for a grant-aided proposal to plant approximately half of the
proposal site with native species and to afforest the rest with exotic trees to be harvested for
timber. The other dealt with a small-scale (80ha) scheme to grow lodgepole pines as
Christmas trees, and was to be financed entirely by the owner.
5.4.3.2
Scoping
None of the eight ESs prepared prior to 1998 made reference to a scoping process. In
contrast, seven of the nine ESs produced subsequent to this time either described a formal
meeting with consultees at which the scope of the EA was decided, or else referred to
informal discussions which determined the focus of the EA. For six of these projects an
outline of the main concerns raised during the scoping process was included in the ES. In all
but one case these concerns extended to the impact of the project on aspects of the site’s
ecology. However, the detail in which the relevant ecological issues were described varied
greatly. At one end of the spectrum was an ES which made a general statement of concern
about the ecology, nature conservation, flora and fauna of the site. The other ESs highlighted
the potential of the project to impact on a specific habitat, and voiced concerns that the
project might compromise certain species that occurred on the site. Whenever individual
species were mentioned these always included birds, with one mention each being given to
reptiles, mammals and invertebrates.
5.4.3.3
Consultations
Conservation-related consultation with groups or individuals other than the authors of the
ES was described in 14 of the 17 ESs examined. Of these 14 ESs, nine referred to a
consultation with the statutory conservation body (SNH), and seven to a consultation with a
conservation NGO (in all EAs for which one or more conservation NGOs was a consulted,
these included the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Other consulted NGOs were the
Game Conservancy, Wildlife Link, and Wester Ross Fisheries Trust). Of the two other ESs
which made reference to a consultation process, only one identified the consultees. As the
most frequently consulted conservation organisations, SNH and the Royal Society for the
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
43
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Protection of Birds (RSPB) contributed data from previous surveys on the proposals sites,
the local knowledge of their staff (which sometimes identified conservation interests that the
surveys had missed) and advice on ways in which to minimise the negative impacts on the
site’s fauna and flora.
5.4.3.4
Designations
All ESs drew attention to any confirmed or proposed conservation designations that applied
to the proposed site of afforestation or sites which the proposal might be expected to affect
(such designations applied in 11 of the 17 cases). Relevant designations included national
designations such as ESAs (Environmentally Sensitive Areas), NNRs, National Parks and
SSSIs; European designations such as SPAs, SACs, and Ramsar sites; and the global
designation of WHSs. In addition, six of the proposals mentioned the status of the site
according to Highland Regional Council’s IFS (1993). In four cases the sites are located in the
IFS “sensitive” zone, and of the remaining two sites, one is classified as “suitable”, the other
as “preferred”.
5.4.3.5
Habitat and Vegetation
Vegetation data for seven of the ESs were collected in the field, surveying within quadrats in
three cases, and compiling simple species lists in the remaining four (see Appendix 5). Data
for the ten other ESs were gathered from existing reports based on previous surveys on the
site of the proposed scheme. All but two ESs included a habitat map (in most cases 1:10,000),
and the vegetation communities occurring on the site were well defined in fifteen ESs (one
of which was unmapped). Twelve of these used NVC classifications to distinguish between
the different communities. Another ES used an older classification system specific to the
Scottish Highlands (McVean & Ratcliffe, 1962), and the other two used a purely descriptive
classification. Only four ESs omitted to name any of the plant species that occurred on the
site of the proposal, but the quality of species inventories among the other 13 ESs was very
variable. Eleven of these proposals included non-vascular plant species among those
described as occurring on site. Six proposals named only those species that were notable
either due to their abundance within a particular vegetation community, or because of their
rarity. The remaining seven all included species lists, but only in three of these did the lists
seem reasonably complete. For the three ESs that presented data collected from quadrats,
cover/abundance of the plant species detected was expressed using the Domin scale in two
cases, and simple percentage cover and frequency of occurrence within quadrats in the
other. Habitat conservation value was explicitly considered in fourteen of the ESs. Only two
of these mentioned the occurrence of national or international designations, many drawing
attention to the importance of the habitat found within the site on a local scale. In nine cases
alterations to the scheme were proposed to ameliorate its impact on habitats of conservation
interest. The conservation value of individual plant species was dealt with in only four ESs,
all of which found plants of sufficient conservation importance to warrant protection within
the framework of the proposal. One ES identified a provisional Red Data Book (RDB) lichen
and several other plants (mostly bryophytes and lichens) which it described as being
indicators of ancient woodland. The other three merely described certain species as being
“noteworthy” or “unusual”.
5.4.3.6
Invertebrates
Ten of the ESs made reference to the invertebrate fauna of the site (see Appendix 5). In no
case were the data supporting this reference collected by systematic survey during the EA
process. Eight of the statements used data taken from existing reports or related to the
authors as a personal communication. In the remaining two, only the presence of those
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
44
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
invertebrates that were recorded during the surveys of other taxa was noted. Two ESs
reported the results of quite detailed insect surveys which had been conducted on the site of
the proposal, one of which had found over 400 species of beetle on the site, the other of
which mentioned only the 15 most unusual species found during a survey of Lepidoptera.
Typically, however, fewer than 10 invertebrate species from 1-3 insect orders were
mentioned, the orders most frequently included being Lepidoptera, Odonata and
Coleoptera, in that order. Only two ESs referred explicitly to a non-insect invertebrate, in
both cases this was the Freshwater Pearl Mussel. The selection of invertebrates included in
the report appeared to consist entirely of species which could be easily found and identified
by the authors, or which had been found on the site by previous studies. In no instance was
the population size of an invertebrate species discussed. In five ESs the conservation
importance of the invertebrate fauna found on the site is discussed, and in all five cases it is
found to be important, with the occurrence of RDB invertebrate species on the site. The ES
which cited the most thorough survey of invertebrates, which identified more than 400
species of beetles in the area, also noted that fifteen of these were grade 1 indicators of
ancient woodland.
5.4.3.7
Reptiles and Amphibians
The occurrence of between one and five reptile and amphibian species on the site was
mentioned in seven ESs (see Appendix 5). The presence of these species was in no instance
detected by the authors of the ES assessment process, but was inferred from literature and
anecdotal evidence. In no instance was the density or population size of a reptile or
amphibian species estimated. One ES mentioned that it was illegal to harm or disturb
adders, but beyond this statement, no consideration was given to the conservation
importance of reptiles or amphibians found on the site.
5.4.3.8
Birds
Although only six ESs presented bird data that had been collected by the authors in the field,
coverage of birds was generally to a high standard (see Appendix 5). Most of the field
surveys were carried out according to standard transect method such as described by Bibby
et al. (2000); or else using the modified transect method described by Brown and Shepherd
(1993). All but two of the ESs included information on birds which had been gathered from
non-field sources, and only one ES omitted to make any reference to the birds on the
proposal site. Six ESs (all of which lacked any field data) mentioned only the most notable
species present on the site. The remainder presented species inventories which, for the most
part, seemed to be fairly complete (apart from one ES from which the species inventory was
referred to in the text, but appeared to be missing from the relevant appendix). The status of
bird species within the site was considered by only six ESs. Three of these reported the exact
numbers of each species; for all birds detected in the survey in the case of two ESs, and for
the two rarest species in the other. One ES defined the likelihood that each species detected
was breeding on the site. The remaining two took abundance estimates from existing
reports. The conservation value of the avifauna was taken into account by all but two of the
ESs. Ten of the ESs mentioned birds protected by national and international conservation
legislation, though only five of these identified the designated status of the relevant species
(and only one ES referred to the RDB status of birds present on the site). Ten ESs proposed
alterations to the scheme in order to ameliorate the impact of the project on bird species of
conservation interest, and the other five concluded that there would be little or no negative
impact of the project on the local avifauna.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
45
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
5.4.3.9
Mammals
Every ES bar one made reference to the occurrence of mammals on the proposal site (see
Appendix 5). In most cases, the greatest emphasis was given to deer populations, to the
impact which these were likely to have on the success of the proposal, and to the measures
which would have to be taken (either fencing or culling) to mitigate this impact. Four of the
five ESs that estimated mammal densities on the proposal site did so only for deer (the fifth
included an estimate of the size of herd of feral goats present on the estate). The number of
non-deer mammal species mentioned in the ESs ranged from one or none (in eight ESs) to
sixteen. In all cases, mammal information was entirely from people with previous
knowledge of the estate and from the literature. No ES considered the conservation value of
the mammal species it might affect.
5.4.4
Assessment by Forestry Commission
After an ES is received by the FC, the author of the ES must publish a notice in at least two
newspapers the identity of which has been agreed with the FC. This notice must state:
 that an application for planting consent has been made;
 a location and time at which copies of the application (including the ES) may be
inspected, and give an address from which copies may be obtained (with details of any
charges made for the cost of supplying these copies);
 that comments pertaining to the application must be made to the relevant FC
Conservator within 28 days of the date of notice.
The application and ES are also reviewed by an appropriate countryside body (in cases
where there is perceived to be a significant conservation interest, this will usually be the
statutory conservation body) and the relevant local authority. Any comments from either of
these two organisations must be made within 28 days from the date on which they receive
these details. After the period for public and statutory consultation has expired, the FC
determine whether or not to consent to the proposal, on the basis of the information in the
environmental statement, and any representations which were made during the consultation
period.
In the event that consent is sought but not granted, the applicant may submit an appeal
against this decision to the Ministers of the appropriate national parliament (in Scotland and
Wales) or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (in England). This appeal must be
made within 28 days of the applicant being notified about the FC’s decision.
5.4.5
Evaluation of system effectiveness
There did not appear to be any consistent differences in quality between ESs produced by
forestry contractors and those produced by independent consultants. There was a difference
in the relevant land area, however, as the four ESs compiled by forest contractors applied to
an area between 150ha and 400ha, whereas eight of the nine ESs written by independent
consultants were for schemes ranging between 500ha and 4200ha. Only one ES was
prepared by an individual on whose land the proposed scheme was to take place. This ES
was considerably less detailed than the others, and although this might, to some extent, be
excused by the relatively narrow scope which had been defined for the project, many of the
conclusions regarding the ecological impacts of the project were not well supported by data.
Existing knowledge, whether it is taken from designations, previous survey work or
consultation, can be used to ensure that important elements of a site’s ecology are not overlooked during the scoping process. However, there is a danger that attention focused on
well-known taxa or habitats may be at the expense of aspects of a site about which the
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
46
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
authors of the ES are relatively ignorant, but which are nevertheless of conservation value.
The scoping process should therefore be used to highlight those areas about which too little
is known to make an accurate assessment of the likely ecological impacts. When the ecology
of the site in question is well-known by the staff of conservation organisations or even
amateur ecologists, their involvement in the EA process can be of great value in directing
investigations towards areas which it is in danger of neglecting. After the information has
been gathered, they may also be able to fill in any important gaps in the findings of the EA,
and give advice on which aspects of the site’s biota are of greatest conservation importance,
and how to avoid impacting negatively on them. In most cases, all parties from which such
advice was sought were listed at the outset of the ES, and were also referenced wherever the
information they had provided was presented or cited. Such explicit identification of
consultees makes it much easier to assess both the completeness and the quality of
information on which the EA has been based.
Concerning the provision of useful information about the biodiversity of a site proposed for
afforestation, some taxa proved to be less informative than others. Although many of the ESs
referred to the mammals or herpetofauna of the proposal site, in no case was the impact of
the project on these taxa considered to be of ecological significance. This is due to a
combination of the absence of any particularly rare species that could be considered
vulnerable to forestry from the proposed sites, and the fact that these groups are relatively
species poor (and so are not well-suited to providing information on biodiversity).
Moreover, these taxa are sufficiently well studied that in areas likely to hold a mammal,
reptile or amphibian of conservation interest, the importance of this species could be
highlighted during the scoping process. Attention could then be focused on the assessment
of one or two species, rather than on a general review of these groups.
The use of standard surveying methodologies and classification systems greatly facilitates
the interpretation of an EA’s findings. Nearly all ESs made use of the NVC classification
system when identifying habitats. Among the advantages of this system are that it can be
used to accurately describe habitats anywhere in the UK, and NVC classifications can be
cross-referenced with several other older systems in order to compare the results of recent
surveys with pre-NVC habitat studies. At least as important as the application of adequate
survey methodologies is that the methods are described in sufficient detail for the surveys to
be replicated. For instance, surprisingly few reports quantified the effort that had gone into
collecting data. Only when a species list is accompanied by such details is it possible to
distinguish between a thorough inventory of an area with few plant species and a hasty
survey of a botanically rich area.
None of the ESs made reference to invertebrate abundances. This might be seen as a deficit
of the surveys and reviews that generated the invertebrate data, but it did not greatly affect
the quality of the conclusions that could be drawn from these data. If an invertebrate species
is detected in an area of suitable habitat, this is, generally speaking, enough information to
infer that the species has a population in the area. Moreover, it takes considerably more time
and effort to collect abundance data for these species than it does to detect the presence of
that species. This means that for a given amount of invertebrate survey work, more
complete species lists can be compiled if abundance data are not recorded than if they are.
As regards vegetation, those ESs which include abundance data collected using quadrat
sampling recorded less species than those that did not. No ES used non-quadrat abundance
estimates for plants, although these are quick and easy to make, and very much enhance a
species list (e.g., the DAFOR system: D=dominant, A=abundant, F=frequent, O=occasional,
R=rare). The three surveys that used relevés found 141, 73 and 32 vascular and non-vascular
species in 400, 30 and 16 quadrats respectively. By contrast, the two most thorough studies
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
47
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
in which quadrat data were not collected both generated species lists of well over 200
species. A third ES reports that 135 plant species were found in just 6 hours of non-quadrat
survey work. Exact plant abundance data, collected using relevé methods, can be useful if it
is necessary to define vegetation communities very precisely: however, a more subjective
general estimate would suffice for most purposes. Payments received under the WGS on
improved grassland sites can depend on the percentage of certain species present within the
sward (Forestry Authority, 1997). However, when identifying habitats in an EA, most
vegetation communities can be identified precisely enough by a trained ecologist using less
rigorous abundance estimates, without the need for time-intensive quadrat work.
5.4.6
5.4.6.1
Examples of Best Practice
Dunrobin Glen (661ha) – best practice in vegetation assessment
Bell Ingram Rural, property consultants (1995). Outcome: approved in 1996.
No conservation designations apply to the proposal site, which is located in Highland IFS’
“preferred zone” for forestry. No scoping process was mentioned, but RSPB gave advice on
the area’s bird interest.
Vegetation was surveyed in August 1994, with all plant species within 400 relevés (1.5m ×
1.5m) identified and given percentage cover scores. One hundred and forty one species of
vascular and non-vascular plants were recorded, and abundance measures (average
percentage cover and frequency of occurrence within quadrats) calculated for the species
found in each vegetation community. Communities were identified by eye and classified
according to NVC. There was no formal evaluation of plant conservation significance,
though the proposal stated that vulnerable species and habitats would be taken into account.
No bird survey was done for project, but data from a NCC survey carried out in 1986 were
used to identify six Annex 1 species, as well as several others of local conservation interest,
that used the site. Advice given by RSPB was to be followed in order to ensure minimal
disturbance to breeding waders and raptors. Coverage of invertebrates was poor. Although
the ES did refer to some insect species that were encountered during botanical survey work,
no effort was made to collect systematic data on invertebrate populations, or to evaluate
their conservation significance.
5.4.6.2
Inveroykel (834ha) – best practice for vegetation and birds
FPD Savills, property consultants (1999). Outcome: approved in 1999.
Although the estate was not statutorily designated, it did contain areas of priority habitat
under the EC habitats directive. The scope of the EA was decided at a meeting, but the
parties attending this meeting were not identified in the ES. Expert advice was sought from
three individuals on plants, birds and fish.
An extensive vegetation survey was conducted over 23 days in September 1997 and July
1998. Two hundred and fifty kilometres were walked and 179 vascular plants and 92 nonvascular plants were recorded. Although abundances were not estimated for plant species,
the percentage cover of each habitat type was estimated. Seventeen natural and semi-natural
communities were described according to NVC classifications. Although the conservation
importance of the estate’s vegetation was not well defined (e.g. by reference to conservation
legislation, RDB status etc.), areas with interesting plant species and habitats were
highlighted for protection.
The bird survey was conducted over four person-days in late June and early July 1998.
Forty-four species (or evidence of their presence) were recorded, and knowledge of the area
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
48
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
was used to identify a further 25 probable and 20 possible species that may have used the
site. For those species detected, the number of pairs, single birds and broods recorded
during the survey were noted. Again, conservation status of the species on the site was not
well defined, but the bird report concluded that so long as certain open areas were
safeguarded from planting, the project had the potential to be beneficial to the birds of the
area. A few notable invertebrate species observed during the bird and plant surveys were
mentioned, but no consideration was given to their conservation significance.
5.4.6.3
Phones (542ha) – best practice for invertebrates
Finlayson Hughes, rural property consultants (1996). Outcome: approved in 1996.
The designations that applied to the site included ESA and SSSI; although the whole area
was designated by Highland IFS as suitable for "significant commercial afforestation". No
consultations or scoping were mentioned.
A list of the notable species (numbering 15) of Lepidoptera associated with bearberry was
taken from a survey conducted between 1950 and 1978 (no methodological details were
given). Of these, three were RDB species and one was a candidate RDB species, while the
rest were restricted to bearberry heath, which is a very localised habitat in the UK. The local
conservation importance of several of the species was also considered. Seven NVC
vegetation communities were identified though the vegetation survey methodology was not
specified. Only those plant species that were considered to be important components of
these communities were identified. The only consideration given to plant conservation was
directed at the bearberry habitat, which the ES recommended be safeguarded because of the
rare insects it supported.
The status within the site of the most interesting bird species that occur in the area was
considered, on the basis of data taken mostly from RSPB reports and consultation. While the
conservation significance of individual species was not well defined, the impact of
afforestation on almost twenty species was briefly considered. It was concluded that in no
case was the impact of forestry likely to be important.
5.5
EFFECTIVENESS OF UK PRACTICE
In the past, afforestation in the UK was widely acknowledged to have caused significant
adverse impacts on biodiversity. Primary among these was the impact of forestry on
peatland areas of high conservation importance during the 1970s and 80s (reviewed in
Avery and Leslie, 1990). Developments in machinery and planting techniques allowed the
establishment of forests on areas of peatland that had previously been considered unsuitable
for forestry. The conservation importance of these areas was yet to achieve widespread
recognition, and the profit that could be generated through alternative activities such as
grazing was often negligible. Tens of thousands of hectares of conifer plantations were
planted on peatlands of international conservation importance during this period. An
intense campaign by organisations such as the RSPB and NCC brought the destruction of
peatland habitats by forestry to the attention of the government and the public (Stroud et al.,
1987), with the result that the afforestation of such habitats ceased during the late 1980s.
Recent work has shown that existing forests are still having an adverse impact on the
biodiversity of some UK upland areas, both through the continued maturation of stands
(e.g. Whitfield et al., 2001) and the operation of “edge effects” on open habitats situated in
close proximity to plantations (e.g. Lavers and Haines-Young 1997).
Partly as a result of the campaigns to safeguard peatland from conifer planting, and partly in
response to directives from the EU, the last decade or so has seen major changes to consent
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
49
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
procedures for forestry. The FC believes (Johnston, 2002) that, with the various procedures
now in place, current afforestation in the UK is not harming biodiversity. We have not been
able to find any recent studies explicitly examining the current effect of afforestation on
biodiversity in the UK. None of the five major non-governmental nature conservation
organisations that responded to our queries (see Section 3.3.1.2) expressed any explicit
concerns about impacts of afforestation on biodiversity. Their responses were either to the
effect that afforestation was not an issue that they were campaigning about, or provision of
general policy statements that were focused on opportunities for biodiversity enhancement,
such as planting new native woods. There are, however, some indications that problems still
exist.
 A review of progress in implementation of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP)
identified afforestation as a threat to 13 habitats and 28 species covered by action plans
within the UKBAP (Avery et al., 2001). However, these figures were obtained by simply
tabulating threats identified in individual action plans, and these latter documents do
not contain any supporting data.
 A review of the WGS/FWPS schemes in Scotland, refers to “some evidence” of
afforestation causing damage to designated nature conservation sites (Review Steering
Group Secretariat Scottish Executive, 2002).
 The opinion of an independent consultant is that “there are still localised problems with
forestry”, including planting of species rich grasslands (Everett, 2002).
Overall the available evidence is limited, but does not indicate that current afforestation is a
major cause for concern in relation to biodiversity conservation in the UK. Indeed, given the
amount of documentation relating to biodiversity conservation in the UK, the lack of
information is an indication that afforestation is not perceived to be a significant issue.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
50
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
6
EXISTING PRACTICE OVERSEAS
This section reviews the information obtained on biodiversity assessment for afforestation
from other countries, excluding the United Kingdom. A full summary of all responses
received is included in Appendix 6.
6.1
LEGISLATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
In none of the twelve countries that responded to our questionnaire is there a legal
requirement for assessment of the biodiversity of all afforestation sites. However, in several
countries, if planned planting exceeds a certain area threshold, there is a requirement for a
closer examination of the site or possibly an EIA. For example, in Portugal, where largescale afforestation with eucalyptus is currently occurring, if the area to be planted exceeds
350ha in non-sensitive areas (including areas already planted within 1km of the site), or as
little as 30ha in sensitive areas, an EIA must be undertaken. The effectiveness of such EIAs
are ensured by an Assessment Committee: i.e. a group of scientists representing the public
EIA authority. In Sweden, landowners planning large-scale afforestation are required to
liase with the regional nature conservation authority, whose responsibility is to ensure
protection of important habitats. Other northern European countries have strong habitat
protection laws; in Denmark the only habitats that may be afforested are ‘agricultural lands
under plough’. In Finland, nowadays most planting is reforestation and for the rare cases of
initial afforestation, EIAs are recommended on a case-by-case basis. Similarly, in the
Netherlands, most on-going afforestation is on abandoned farmland and afforestation of
better quality habitats (for biodiversity) is prohibited.
In some other parts of Europe, the only sites requiring careful examination prior to
afforestation are those already protected. In Austria, only projects over 15ha in area, in a
protected area must undergo an examination by a competent authority, which may decide
that an EIA is necessary. To date, no EIAs of afforestation projects have been undertaken.
In Switzerland, theoretically only protected areas are excluded from afforestation. However,
since in practice the only planting occurring is reforestation and small-scale private planting
on previously agricultural land, there is no perceived need for legislation. In France, local
authorities (prefectures) may prohibit or regulate new plantings in special protected areas,
but there is no legal basis to the regulations. French governmental grant aid for forestry
should not be given to projects threatening valuable habitats like wetland and dry grassland
and it is categorically forbidden to allocate state funding to afforestation projects on peat
bogs. In the Czech Republic afforestation projects on protected sites are forbidden by the
nature conservation authority, which must approve each new forest plan.
6.1.1
Evaluation
In most of the countries for which information was obtained, afforestation does not appear
to be perceived as a significant threat to biodiversity, although there are often still regulatory
procedures for the rare cases where there may be a conflict. In Portugal, a procedure has
been established (an EIA Assessment Committee) which allows quality control of
biodiversity assessments.
6.2
BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT METHODS
The methods used for assessing biodiversity in the countries consulted are usually not
specific to the practical assessment of pre-afforestation sites but are general ecological
sampling methods, often requiring specialist ecological knowledge. Respondents from
Switzerland, Finland and France pointed out that little afforestation is happening in their
countries and that as such research into biodiversity of pre-afforestation sites is not a current
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
51
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
priority. In South Africa, the situation is rather different, because conversion of ecologically
important montane grassland into commercial pine forestry is an on-going process. There
has therefore been a recent development of methods for assessing biodiversity of this habitat
in order to measure the impact of afforestation. Though the ecological system studied could
not be further removed from Irish pre-afforestation habitats, the biodiversity assessment
approach taken is of interest and relevance. Three taxa were chosen as potential indicators
of overall biodiversity: grasshoppers, butterflies and birds. Survey methods (ten minute
counts for butterflies and birds and two minute counts for grasshoppers) were designed for
rapid assessment. The taxa chosen all conformed to the following criteria:
1. Relatively high species richness and percentage endemism
2. Importance in grassland ecosystem functioning
3. Occurrence in most or all habitats
4. Wide range of spatial requirements
5. Amenability to simple sampling methods
6. Taxonomically well-known and easy to identify
(Armstrong & van Hensbergen, 1997b)
Ten land types, defined in terms of geology, altitude and rainfall were sampled for the
above groups. It was found that by preserving areas of each of five land types, all endemic
species of the groups sampled would be able to persist, while if a sixth type is included,
93.8% of all the taxa considered would be able to persist (Armstrong & van Hensbergen,
1999). The research culminated in the design of a protocol for wildlife conservation planning
at a regional level (Armstrong & van Hensbergen, 1997a).
6.3
EVALUATION
The protocol developed for strategic assessment of afforestation in South Africa is based
upon habitat stratified sampling of taxa selected as indicators of biodiversity. The
stratification of sampling by clearly defined habitat classes allows the results to be used as
predictors of biodiversity in those habitat classes. However, the indicator taxa appear to
have been selected a priori and partly on the basis of ease of sampling. Therefore, the
representativeness of the selected indicator taxa for the biodiversity of other taxa has not
been established.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
52
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
7
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1
IRISH PRACTICE
The key deficiencies in current Irish practice identified during this study are briefly
summarised below. These are discussed in more detail in Sections 4.1.4, 4.2.3, 4.3.3 and 4.4.5.
7.1.1
Legislation
The recent introduction of statutory consent procedures for all afforestation, and new
procedures for EIA of afforestation has addressed the major deficiencies that previously
existed in the legislative control of afforestation in Ireland. The legislative procedures for
screening for sub-threshold EIA are, with the exception of criteria relating to designated
sites, not very specific. This means that, to ensure that screening for sub-threshold EIA
provides an effective mechanism for control of small-scale afforestation of ecologically
important sites, it will be necessary for the FS to develop specific criteria for implementing
the screening procedures.
7.1.2
Strategic Assessment
Strategic assessments have made little attempt to take account of potential biodiversity
constraints outside designated areas.
7.1.3
Site Assessment
The main personnel involved in biodiversity assessment of afforestation are Competent
Foresters and FS Inspectors who generally do not have specific expertise in ecological
assessment and evaluation. The recent employment of an ecologist by the FS is a welcome
development although the FS have recently employed an ecologist. The guidance in the
Forest Biodiversity Guidelines (Forest Service, 2000c) on identifying habitats, fauna and flora of
biodiversity importance is poor, although the supporting technical document (Iremonger,
1999) does give some details. There was no accessible list of Irish habitats until 2000 (Fossitt,
2000), and the UK system (NVC, Rodwell, 1991a, b, 1992, 1995, 2000) is not applicable in all
cases because of the differences in UK and Irish flora. As the assessment will usually be
carried out by foresters who do not have detailed ecological training or expertise, it seems
unreasonable to expect them to extrapolate from these lists to identify additional non-listed
habitats or species. Most local authorities do not have in-house technical expertise to
comment on biodiversity issues when consulted about grant applications, while NPWS are
only consulted about grant applications in, or adjacent to, or within 3 km upstream of
designated sites.
7.1.4
Environmental Impact Assessment
The specific guidance in the EPA Advice Notes on issues such as scope, survey methods and
evaluation is limited. None of the EISs reviewed were considered to contain adequate
overall biodiversity assessments. The main deficiencies were failure to use recognised
habitat/vegetation classifications, reliance on incomplete lists of species with little or no
information on abundance or distribution within the site, and little or no evaluation of the
conservation importance of the site. There is no evidence of adequate scoping procedures.
Approval was granted to six of the nine afforestation projects for which an EIS was
submitted, despite serious deficiencies in the description and evaluation of flora and fauna
contained within these EISs. This indicates that the assessment by the planning authorities
was deficient. The principal deficiencies in the planning authorities’ assessments are likely to
arise from the lack of in-house technical expertise.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
53
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
7.1.5
Conclusion
Adequate implementation of screening procedures for sub-threshold EIA requires sufficient
knowledge of the biodiversity importance of a potential afforestation site to determine
whether EIA is necessary. This requirement, and the deficiencies in strategic assessments,
means that effective biodiversity assessment would have to be carried out as part of the
normal (non-EIA) consent process for afforestation, in order to avoid damage to sites of high
biodiversity importance. However, the current methods and procedures for biodiversity
assessment in the normal consent process for afforestation have serious deficiencies.
Therefore there is a significant risk of damage to sites of high biodiversity importance. The
previous EIAs that were conducted for afforestation projects in Ireland did not include
adequate assessments of biodiversity, although standards of biodiversity assessment may be
expected to improve subsequent to the recent revision of the EPA Guidelines and the FS
publications (Forest Service, 2000b, 2000c, 2000e).
7.2
7.2.1
UNITED KINGDOM PRACTICE
Legislation
The low thresholds for EA of afforestation projects (see Section 5.4.1) and the provisions for
sub-threshold EA provide a legislative framework that results in a relatively large number of
EAs being carried out for afforestation projects. However, the majority of these EAs are for
large projects (see Section 5.4.3.1).
7.2.2
Strategic Assessment
Local biodiversity action plans are used to provide a coherent method of identifying priority
habitats and species. Strategic assessments often include information on biodiversity
constraints outside designated sites, with county-wide “Phase 1” habitat surveys providing
a valuable resource. The North Yorkshire Moors Upland Land Management Initiative is an
example of best practice with a wide range of data being collected, supplemented by
ground-truthing, and ecological character areas being identified.
7.2.3
Site Assessment
The low threshold for EA, and the provisions for sub-threshold EA, mean that the need for
an EA is routinely considered in the afforestation consent procedure. Specific procedures for
non-EA biodiversity assessment have also been developed for special grant schemes and
private forestry companies, and are carried out by ecologists and include a specific
methodology for classifying land as improved or unimproved grassland.
7.2.4
Environmental Impact Assessment
The FC requires all forestry proposals that are either grant-aided or greater than 5ha (with
lower thresholds applying in designated areas) to carry out an EA if it is thought that they
might involve a significant impact on the environment. The scope of the EA is guided by
findings of initial surveys or consultation with statutory and non-statutory conservation
bodies. More detailed information is then gathered on those aspects of the site’s ecology that
were targeted for further investigation. Habitats are most frequently mapped and identified
in the field using NVC classifications. Standard survey methodologies are used to collect
data on plant and bird species, and the survey effort and methods used are clearly stated in
the ES. Data are also taken from previous surveys, and in consultation with local experts
(these include the staff of statutory and non-statutory conservation organisations, amateur
ecologists, and people who live or work within the proposal site). When particular species or
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
54
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
habitats of conservation importance are known to occur on the site, research efforts are
directed towards providing information on these. The findings of the EA are then made
available to the public and to an appropriate countryside body for a period of two weeks.
The FC decide whether or not to approve the proposal on the basis of the information
contained in the ES, and in conjunction with any representations made during the
consultation period.
7.2.5
Conclusion
The ecological information which is available through strategic assessments, conservation
designations and consultation with both statutory and non-statutory conservation
organisations means that, for most forestry proposals, the FC appears to be able to make
well-informed decisions about whether an EA is necessary and what its scope should be.
Where best practice is achieved, EAs are successful in identifying much of the biodiversity
held by a site, either through field surveys or through reviews of existing knowledge. Two
areas in which assessments could be improved are in the selection of taxa (especially
invertebrate fauna) to be included in the EA, and in the description of research methods and
effort in the ES. Generally, however, assessment procedures are such that the risk of
afforestation resulting in significant damage to conservation interests in the UK is low.
7.3
7.3.1
OVERSEAS PRACTICE
Strategic Assessment
A protocol involving habitat-stratified sampling of selected taxa has been developed for
strategic assessment in South Africa. This protocol is relevant to a situation where there are
large areas of semi-natural habitats with little known about the biodiversity of these habitats
and relies on the use of selected taxa as indicators of overall biodiversity. These two factors
distinguish the protocol from biodiversity assessment methods normally used in western
Europe, as the latter tend to focus on specific assessments of individual sites (usually islands
of semi-natural habitats) and are carried out in a framework where the conservation
importance of various habitat types and taxa being assessed have already been evaluated.
Therefore, in an Irish context, the protocol might be superfluous for relatively well studied
taxa such as plants and birds. However, this type of biodiversity assessment protocol would
significantly improve the currently poor state of knowledge of Ireland’s invertebrate fauna,
and might assist in identifying suitable indicator taxa for particular habitats. Nevertheless, it
is difficult to see how such a protocol could be integrated with established regulatory and
procedural requirements for biodiversity assessment in Ireland.
7.3.2
Environmental Impact Assessment
In Portugal, the adequacy of EIAs carried out for afforestation projects are evaluated by an
Assessment Committee: i.e. a group of scientists representing the public EIA authority.
7.4
7.4.1
IDENTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE BEST PRACTICE FOR IRELAND
Context
There are four major differences between Ireland and the UK in the context in which
biodiversity assessment for afforestation takes place:
1. The current trend of afforestation in Ireland (planting of non-native conifers) is more
likely to result in adverse impacts on biodiversity than the current trend in the UK
(planting/regeneration of native woodlands).
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
55
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
2. In the UK the background information on biodiversity is very comprehensive (e.g.
county-wide phase 1 habitat surveys, biological records centres, biodiversity action
plans) so that, for most sites with semi-natural habitat (whether or not they are formslly
designated), some evaluation of their biodiversity importance will be possible from
existing data. By contrast in Ireland, there are virtually no accessible data available for
evaluation of biodiversity importance outside of designated sites.
3. Although there is little difference in the average size of afforestation projects between
Ireland and the UK (European Commission, 1997), there appears to be a greater
frequency of large afforestation projects in the UK.
4. In Ireland, the maximum size of afforestation projects closely tracks the changes in the
EIA threshold, suggesting that the requirement to carry out an EIA amounts to a de facto
refusal of consent because of implications for the economic viability of the project. While
the same may be true in certain cases in the UK, the large number of afforestation EAs
carried out indicates a difference in the socio-economic context. This suggests that, in the
UK, an EA requirement appears to have a less serious effect on the economic viability of
afforestation proposals.
7.4.2
Legislation
The legislative thresholds for EA/EIA of afforestation are much lower in the UK than in
Ireland. However, the UK thresholds are screening thresholds (i.e., all projects exceeding the
threshold require screening for EA) while the Irish thresholds are EIA thresholds (i.e., all
projects exceeding the thresholds require mandatory EIA). The new Irish regulations make
provision for screening of any afforestation project, but do not provide specific criteria, save
for designated sites. Further legislation may not be necessary, but clear screening criteria are
required to ensure that every afforestation project which would involve planting seminatural habitat should be subject to a screening process to determine whether an EIA is
required (Recommendation 1).
7.4.3
Strategic Assessment
The availability of much more detailed background information on biodiversity in the UK
compared to Ireland allows more comprehensive identification of biodiversity constraints in
strategic assessments. The type of information that appears to be most widely used are
“Phase 1” habitat surveys and local BAPs (the latter is a specific action identified by the
National Biodiversity Plan; Department of Arts Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands, 2002 ).
Therefore, completion of habitat surveys and BAPs in Ireland should be a long-term
objective, and would have far wider benefits than just the specific context considered here
(Objective 1). A pilot habitat survey of County Carlow is currently being carried out by
Carlow County Council and the Heritage Council (Hickey, 2002). The National Biodiversity
Plan, provides a general strategic approach for the protection of biodiversity, but does not
identify specific priorities, in terms of species and habitats. To ensure that local BAPs
provide an effective framework for the protection of biodiversity in Ireland would require
the establishment of an effective biological recording system; this too is a specific objective of
the National Biodiversity Plan.
The lack of detailed knowledge of Ireland’s invertebrate fauna will limit the extent to which
BAPs can adequately assess conservation priorities for Irish invertebrates. A systematic
habitat-stratified invertebrate survey methodology of the type developed in South Africa
(see Section 6.2) would greatly assist in this context, and might also help in identifying
suitable indicator taxa for particular habitats (Objective 2). However, the rapid assessment
methodology used in South Africa would only be feasible for invertebrate taxa that are
generally well studied and species poor (e.g. butterflies, dragonflies, damselflies and
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
56
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
grasshoppers) and, therefore, not particularly relevant to the objectives discussed above.
Instead, more intensive surveys of species-rich taxa would be required.
In the short term, there is a need to prepare IFSs using the best available information.
Designated sites are already adequately covered by consultation procedures (see Section
4.3.1.5). This means that if, as is the case at present, biodiversity considerations in strategic
assessments are restricted to designated sites, strategic assessments will not add anything to
the existing level of control of afforestation impact on biodiversity. Instead strategic
assessments need to make a greater effort to source dispersed information on biodiversity
constraints (Recommendation 2). Examples could include: records of rare and scarce plants
held by NPWS, records of scarce butterflies, damselflies and dragonflies from atlas projects
(Asher et al., 2001; Thompson, 2000) and bird records from the Countryside Bird Survey
(Coombes et al., 2001). In addition, interpretation of land cover data collected by the Irish
Forest soils project (Loftus et al., 2002) could provide an important additional source of
information. An appropriate model for this type of data collection would be the
Environmental Constraints studies that are carried out as a matter of course for all new road
projects (although the quality of these studies varies considerably). Compilation of this type
of study would probably require commissioning specialist consultants: these data are kept
in a variety of formats, and integration and interpretation would require specialist
knowledge.
7.4.4
Non–EIA Site Assessment
In the UK, the combination of low EA thresholds and provision for sub-threshold EA mean
that most non-native afforestation of semi-natural habitat will be subject to EA. It appears
that it is usually possible for the FC to identify afforestation projects that might impact sites
of biodiversity importance, from existing information, due to the availability of
comprehensive background information on biodiversity. In Ireland, the current practice
relies almost exclusively on non-EIA site assessment. Implementation of the
recommendation in Section 7.4.2 would reduce this reliance. However, due to the general
absence of background information on biodiversity, it would still be necessary to improve
the non-EIA site assessment procedures so that adequate information is available to allow
determination as to whether an EIA is required. Due to the differences discussed above,
analysis of non-EA site assessment procedures in the UK is of limited use in identifying best
practices relevant to Ireland. Therefore, the following recommendations are based upon
general principles of best practice in ecological assessment (Institute of Environmental
Assessment, 1995), as well as analysis of UK practice.
The principal deficiency in existing practice in Ireland is that the quality of the information
submitted to the FS is likely to be poor, due to
a. deficiencies in the specified requirements in the Forest Biodiversity Guidelines (Forest
Service, 2000c); and
b. the lack of training/experience of the Competent Foresters who collect this information.
Additionally, the FS inspectors who evaluate it are not likely to have ecological expertise.
The recent employment of an ecologist by the FS is a welcome development, although more
ecologists may be needed to adequately cover the whole country (Recommendation 3). The
Forest Biodiversity Guidelines should be revised to require mapping of the whole sites (not just
the 15% Area for Biodiversity Enhancement) using the habitat classification defined by
Fossitt (2000) (Recommendation 4). The latter should be elaborated to include provision for
differentiating species-poor/semi-improved from species rich/unimproved grasslands; the
methodology developed for the BLS grants in the UK (Forestry Authority, 1997) might
provide a useful model. Habitats of conservation importance should be highlighted and the
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
57
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
ABE clearly marked. The Guidelines should also contain more precise definitions of fauna
that should be recorded. The Competent Foresters should be required to complete training
courses in basic ecological assessment, or employ qualified ecologists to carry out the
assessment (Recommendation 5). The FS ecologist should inspect a sample of applications
from each self-assessment company to monitor the adequacy of their ecological assessments
(Recommendation 6).
The above recommendations would result in a substantial improvement in
a. the quality of biodiversity information submitted to the FS, and
b. the ability of the FS to assess this.
Nevertheless, there may be biodiversity features that are not easily detected by that level of
assessment, such as the occurrence of rare plants or invertebrates. Furthermore, the current
situation whereby NPWS are usually only consulted on applications in, or near designated
sites, while the official guidance to local authorities (Department of the Environment, 1997)
recommends that they do not comment on nature conservation issues, means that there is a
consultation gap in relation to non-designated sites. Therefore, improved consultation
procedures are also required to ensure that where information is available, it is taken into
account by the FS in its determinations (Recommendation 7). The UK procedures provide a
good model (see Section 5.3.1.4) and similar procedures should be implemented in Ireland.
The official guidance to local authorities (Department of the Environment, 1997) should be
revised to encourage comment on nature conservation issues (Recommendation 8). A
broader issue is the availability of ecological expertise within planning authorities. The
Heritage Officers programme is addressing this situation to a limited extent, but a long term
objective should be the establishment of ecological units within each planning authority (as
is standard practice in the UK) (Objective 3). The designation of Natural Heritage Officers in
each local authority is a specific objective of the National Biodiversity Plan (Department of
Arts Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands, 2002).
The current assessment procedures by the FS are based upon using the criterion that if the
extent of Guidelines habitats in a site exceed 15%, further consideration of biodiversity issues
may be required. This decision is left to the discretion of the individual Inspectors who have
varying levels of ecological training. These procedures are rather vague and are likely to
result in differences in standards between Inspectors, but do form a basis which can be
formalised and strengthened. Therefore, it is recommended that the 15% criterion should be
used as a formal mechanism, so that any application which exceeded this should be referred
to the FS ecologist for assessment as to whether EIA is required (Recommendation 9). In
addition, any applications for which consultations raise potential issues of biodiversity
concern should also be referred to the ecologist for assessment. It may be necessary to draw
up guidelines for Inspectors so that they can identify spurious objections that are designed
to hold up applications.
7.4.5
Environmental Impact Assessment
EIS review need to be developed to require that the biodiversity assessment contained in
EISs submitted for afforestation projects contains adequate information for the Minister to
make an informed decision, taking into account the likely biodiversity impact
(Recommendation 10 and Objective 5).
It is important that EIAs are thoroughly scoped in order that all likely ecological impacts are
investigated. The scoping process should also be thoroughly described in the EIS as this will
allow an assessment of whether the EIA has covered all appropriate avenues of research.
Care must be taken that the scoping process does not bias the EIS towards areas which are
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
58
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
well known at the expense of aspects of a site’s ecology about which the scoping parties are
relatively ignorant but which may nevertheless be important.
More use should be made of non-statutory consultees. The extent to which non-statutory
conservation organisations will be able to provide detailed advice about proposal sites is far
less than in the UK, where the RSPB alone has staff with local knowledge in most areas of
the country which are of high conservation importance. However, staff from National
Universities and members of organisations such as Birdwatch Ireland, Irish Peatland
Conservation Council, Botanical Society of the British Isles, etc. may be able to advise on the
ecological issues relevant to particular areas or habitats. It is also important that all
consultees are identified in the EIS, as this will allow an evaluation of whether the EIA has
covered all appropriate avenues of research.
The ecological sections of several of the Irish EISs were researched and written by persons
whose only stated qualification was a Bachelor’s degree. The lack of any external means of
reviewing and controlling the research of these apparently unqualified consultants resulted
in the quality of surveys being very variable but generally poor. A system of professional
accreditation for ecological consultants (such as that run by IEEM in the UK) should be
established in Ireland, as this would provide a means of distinguishing between qualified
and unqualified consultants. Moreover, once such a system was in place, EIA guidelines
should be changed to encourage the use of accredited consultants.
From the 17 UK ESs examined, it was apparent that mammals and herpetofauna were not
very useful for biodiversity assessment. This was partly because these taxa are relatively
species poor, and partly because most mammal, reptile and amphibian populations are not
particularly sensitive to habitat loss caused by afforestation. In Ireland several terrestrial
members of these taxa are listed in Annex 2 (Natterjack Toad, Otter and Lesser Horseshoe
Bat) or (as threatened) in the RDB (Whiskered Bat and Natterer’s Bat). Of these, direct
habitat loss to afforestation is only very relevant to the Natterjack, whose distribution in
Ireland is fairly well known. For proposals that are likely to impact on Natterjack Toads, an
assessment of this species can therefore be made a specific objective of the EIA. Otherwise, it
is better to focus the attention of the biodiversity assessment on vegetation, birds and
invertebrates.
At present, although the IEA Guidelines (Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1995)
provide advice on the factors that should be taken into account when selecting invertebrate
taxa for ecological surveys, there is no detailed guidance concerning the taxa that are
suitable for biodiversity assessment of particular habitats in Ireland (Objective 6). The
situation in the UK is no better, and there is a need for the development of a system by
which invertebrate taxa can be selected for EIA. Until such guidelines exist, as much
background information as possible should be taken into account when evaluating the
results of invertebrate surveys. Potential evaluation criteria include the diversity of habitat
specialists, expert advice, databases such as already exist for European syrphids and
gastropods (Falkner et al., 2001; Speight, 2000), and cautious reference to UK RDBs.
During surveys aimed at providing data for EIAs time should not be spent collecting
abundance data for invertebrates. For plants a subjective approximate abundance for each
species is worth the very little extra time required, but detailed quadrat sampling may not
be worth the extra effort.
The use of a standard system for vegetation classification would enable much easier
interpretation of the habitat analysis provided by Irish EISs. The classification system
produced by the Heritage Council does not identify plant communities to a high level of
resolution, but does have the advantage of being the system that is likely to become the
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
59
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
standard used for ecological assessment in Ireland. This should be used until more detailed
classifications are synthesised to produce a system more similar to the UK’s NVC (Objective
7).
Surveys for EIA should be conducted in accordance with standard ecological assessment
methodologies, as these will allow the findings of the survey to be compared with existing
information to arrive at a better appreciation of the conservation significance of a site’s biota.
Equally important is that all EISs include a description of the methods and effort involved in
survey work, and references all sources of information used during their compilation. If
these criteria are not strictly adhered to, the results of the most rigorous survey or
comprehensive literature review are impossible to evaluate, and therefore much less
meaningful.
The assessment of the EIS by the planning authority is an important component of the EIA
process, as this allows the adequacy of the information in the EIS to be evaluated. If this step
is not carried out properly then the adequacy of the entire EIA process is compromised. In
the UK, ESs are reviewed by the statutory conservation body where there is a significant
conservation interest, while local authorities, who also have in-house ecological expertise,
review all ESs. In Portugal, adequacy of EIAs carried out for afforestation projects are
evaluated by an Assessment Committee: i.e. a group of scientists representing the public
EIA authority. In Ireland, NPWS rarely comment on an EIS unless a designated site is
involved and the public EIA authority (the EPA) does not play a significant role in ecological
assessment. Future EISs for afforestation projects will be reviewed by the FS. The
biodiversity component of such EISs should be reviewed by the FS ecologist(s). If the FS
ecologist is not available, then consultants should be commissioned to carry out this review
(Recommendation 11). In the latter case, it would be important to implement a system of
professional accreditation for ecological consultants, in order to ensure that the consultants
used were sufficiently well qualified (Objective 4).
7.4.6
An Alternative to EIA
Where biodiversity is the only issue of environmental concern, then there is a case for
considering whether the full EIA process is required. Instead, an Ecological Assessment
report could be required (i.e. a report which just contains the flora, fauna and habitat
component of an EIS). This would have advantages in reducing costs, and allowing the
developer and the assessing authority to focus on the key issue. However, there are no
statutory procedures specifying the quality requirements for Ecological Assessment reports,
and this is a serious weakness of this approach compared to the EIA process: in the event of
a sub-standard Ecological Assessment report being approved there would be no
opportunity for legal redress. Therefore, in this report, our recommendations are based
upon using the EIA process wherever there are significant biodiversity issues involved.
However, we do recognise that EA reports might provide an acceptable alternative in
certain cases, as long as adequate procedures were in place to guarantee quality. For
example, the FS could specify that Ecological Assessment reports be required to satisfy the
same review criteria as that which we propose should apply to the biodiversity components
of EISs (see Section 7.4.5).
7.5
7.5.1
RECOMMENDATIONS
Specific Recommendations
This section presents a list of specific recommendations. These are all derived from the
analysis and discussion presented above in Sections 7.1, Error! Reference source not found.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
60
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
and 7.3. The bodies responsible for action to implement these recommendations are
identified, using the following abbreviations:
DEHLG
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government
FS
Forest Service
Recommendation 1. Detailed screening criteria should be developed to ensure that every
afforestation project which would involve planting of semi-natural habitat is subject to a
screening process to determine whether an EIA is required. (Action: FS).
Recommendation 2. As part of the preparation of IFSs, specialist reports identifying
biodiversity constraints (outside of designated sites) should be compiled. (Action: FS).
Recommendation 3. The requirements for additional FS ecologists should be considered in
the light of Recommendation 6, Recommendation 9 and Recommendation 11. (Action:
FS).
Recommendation 4. The Forest Biodiversity Guidelines should be revised to contain precise
definitions (based upon the Heritage Council classification; Fossit, 2000) of the habitats
which are required to be mapped, the fauna and flora which should be recorded and to
explicitly specify that the total extent of these habitats within a site should be mapped,
not just the 15% Area for Biodiversity Enhancement. (Action: FS).
Recommendation 5. The Competent Foresters should be required to complete accredited
training courses in basic ecological assessment, or employ qualified ecologists to carry
out the assessment. (Action: FS).
Recommendation 6. The FS ecologist should inspect a sample of applications from each
self-assessment company to monitor the adequacy of their ecological assessments.
(Action: FS).
Recommendation 7. The consultation procedures for all grant applications should be
amended to include posting of fuller details of applications on the FS website, circulation
of weekly lists of applications to local authorities, NPWS and any other bodies on
request, and availability of full details of all applications for inspection in the local FS
office or other suitable venue (Action: FS).
Recommendation 8. The official guidance to local authorities (Department of the
Environment, 1997) should be revised to encourage comment on nature conservation
issues. (Action: DEHLG).
Recommendation 9. Any application which contains more than 15% Guidelines habitats
should be referred to the FS ecologist for assessment as to whether EIA is required. In
addition, any applications for which consultations raise potential issues of biodiversity
concern should also be referred to the ecologist for assessment. (Action: FS).
Recommendation 10. EIS review criteria should be developed to require that the
biodiversity assessment contained in EISs submitted for afforestation projects conforms
to the following standards. EISs that do not conform to these standards should be
considered inadequate. (Action: FS).
 EIAs should be thoroughly scoped, and a description of the scoping process
(consulted bodies and decisions of scoping meeting) included in the EIS.
 Background ecological information should be sought wherever possible. In
particular, advice from a broad range of consultees (e.g. non-statutory conservation
organisations, locally-based professional/academic and amateur ecologists) should
be sought during the scoping process, and a wide variety of information sources (e.g.
published databases, expert advice, UK and Irish Red Data Books) consulted in the
interpretation of species survey results.
 EIAs should place greater emphasis on vascularplants and bryophytes, birds and
invertebrates than on mammals or herpetofauna, except in areas where one or more
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
61
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
members of these taxa are of conservation interest AND might be compromised by
the project.
 During surveys aimed at providing data for EIAs, the trade-off between
completeness of species list and abundance data should be considered before
deciding to collect abundance data for invertebrates or plants.
 For habitat recording in EISs, vegetation communities should be classified according
to the Heritage Council classification (Fossitt, 2000), until such time as a more
thorough classification of vegetation communities, along the same lines as the NVC,
is drawn up for Ireland.
 All EISs should include a description of the methods and effort involved in survey
work, and should reference all sources (published and grey literature, as well as
personal communications) from which information is taken or conclusions are
derived.
Recommendation 11. The biodiversity assessment contained in EISs should be reviewed by
either the FS ecologist, or by an accredited (see Objective 4) external ecologist. (Action:
FS).
7.5.2
Broader Objectives
The following are a list of broad objectives which would have significant benefits to
biodiversity assessment of afforestation, but which relate to issues that are not specific to
forestry. These are all derived from the analysis and discussion presented above in Sections
7.1, Error! Reference source not found. and 7.3. Objective 1 and Objective 3 contain specific
actions identified by the National Biodiversity Plan (Department of Arts Heritage Gaeltacht
and the Islands, 2002).
Objective 1. Completion of county-wide habitat surveys, biodiversity action plans and
establishment of a biological records centre.
Objective 2. Habitat-stratified sampling of invertebrate biodiversity in the major seminatural habitats of conservation importance.
Objective 3.
Establishment of ecological advisory units in each local authority.
Objective 4. Establishment of a system of professional accreditation for ecological
consultants in Ireland with the ecological components of all EIAs carried out only by
professionally accredited consultants.
Objective 5. Revision of the EIA Advice Notes to incorporate the requirements for
biodiversity assessment contained in Recommendation 10.
Objective 6. Development of guidelines for the choice of invertebrate taxa suitable for
EIAs.
Objective 7. Development of a more thorough classification of vegetation communities,
along the same lines as the NVC, for Ireland.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
62
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
REFERENCES
Armstrong, A.J. & van Hensbergen, H.J. (1997a) Evaluation of afforestable montane
grasslands for wildlife conservation in the north-eastern Cape, South Africa. Biological
Conservation, 81, 179-190.
Armstrong, A.J. & van Hensbergen, H.J. (1997b) A protocol for wildlife conservation
planning in an afforestable montane grassland region. Southern African Forestry Journal,
179, 29-34.
Armstrong, A.J. & van Hensbergen, H.J. (1999) Identification of priority regions for animal
conservation in afforestable montane grasslands of the northern Eastern Cape Province,
South Africa. Biological Conservation, 87, 93-103.
Asher, J., Warren, M., Fox, R., Harding, P., Jeffcoate, G., & Jeffcoate, S. (2001) The
Millennium Atlas of Butterflies in Britain and Ireland. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Avery, M., Bourn, N., Davis, R., Everitt, J., Halahan, R., Harper, M., Parsons, M., Phillips, M.,
Sands, T., Williams, G., & Wynde, R. (2001) Biodiversity Counts: delivering a better quality
of life. Biodiversity Challenge: Butterfly Conservation, Friends of the Earth, Plantlife, The
RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK.
Avery, M. & Leslie, R. (1990) Birds and Forestry. T. & A.D.Poyser, London.
Bibby, C., Hill, D., Burgess, N.D., & Mustoe, S. (2000) Bird Census Techniques. Poyser.
Brackley, D. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Lancashire County Council.
Braun-Blanquet, J. & Tüxen, R. (1952) Irische Pflanzengesellschaften. Veroff geobot, 25, 224415.
Brooks, S.J. (1993) Joint Committee for the Conservation of British Invertebrates: Guidelines
for invertebrate site surveys. British Wildlife, 4, 283-286.
Brown, A.F. & Shepherd, K.B. (1993) A method for censusing upland breeding waders. Bird
Study, 40, 189-195.
Buckley, P. (2000) National Action Plan for Biodiversity, Ireland. Presentation to the ESAI
conference: Biodiversity - a natural national resource. Dublin.
Bulfin, M. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Teagasc, Dublin.
Burley, J. & Gauld, I. (1994). Measuring and monitoring forest biodiversity. In Measuring
and Monitoring Biodiversity in Tropical and Temperate Forests (eds T.J.B. Boyle & B.
Bootawee). CIFOR, IUFRO, Indonesia.
C.A.A.S. Environmental Services Ltd. (2002) Guidelines on the Information to be contained
in Environmental Impact Statements. The Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.
C.A.A.S. Environmental Services Ltd. (2003) Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the
preparation of Environmental Impact Statements). The Environmental Protection Agency,
Wexford.
Casey, S. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Cork County Council, Cork.
Chinery, M. (1986) Collins Guide to the Insects of Britain and Western Europe. Wm Collins
Sons & Co. Ltd., London.
Clabby, G. (2002) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Westmeath County Council,
Mullingar.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
63
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Coddington, J.A., Griswold, C.E., Silva, D., Penaranda, E., & Larcher, S.F. (1991). Designing
and testing sampling protocols to estimate biodiversity in tropical ecosystems. In The Unity
of Evolutionary Biology: Proceedings of the fourth International Congress of Systematic and
Evolutionary Biology (ed E.C. Dudley), pp. 44-60. Dioscorides Press, Portland, Oregon.
Coggins, K. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Forest Service, Wexford.
Coillte (2001) Environmental Impact Appraisal, Protection & Enhancement: A training
course manual for the appraisal of environmental impacts on forestry operations sites.
Coillte.
Commission of the European Communities (1999). Agriculture, Environment, Rural
Development: Facts and figures: a challenge for agriculture. Commission of the European
Communities, Luxembourg.
Coombes, D., O'Halloran, J., O'Sullivan, O., Lysaght, L., & Wilson, J. (2001) 2001 Countryside
Bird Survey: First report and analysis. Bird Watch Ireland, Dublin.
Cork County Council (1997) Draft Areas Sensitive to Forestry Map. Planning Department,
Cork County Council, Cork.
Cousins, S. (1995). Biodiversity measurement. In Managing Forests for Biodiversity (ed R.
Ferris-Kaan), Edinburgh.
Department of Agriculture and Food (2004) The Rural Environment Protection Scheme
(REPS): Specification for REPS Planners in the Preparation of REPS 3 Plans. Department of
Agriculture and Food, Dublin.
Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry (1996) Growing For the Future: A strategic
plan for the development of the forestry sector in Ireland. The Stationery Office, Dublin.
Department of Agriculture Food and Rural Development (2000) Agri-Environmental
Specifications for REPS 2000. Department of Agriculture Food and Rural Development,
Dublin.
Department of Agriculture Food and Rural Development (2001) Circular to REPS planners
dated 24/8/01. Department of Agriculture Food and Rural Development, Dublin.
Department of Arts Heritage Gaeltacht and the Islands (2002) National Biodiversity Plan.
Government of Ireland, Dublin.
Department of the Environment (1995) Preparation of Environmental Statements for
Planning Projects That Require Environmental Assessment: A good practice guide. The
Stationery Office, London.
Department of the Environment (1997) Forestry Development: Consultation draft of
guidelines for planning authorities. Department of the Environment, Dublin.
Department of the Environment & Welsh Office (1992) Indicative Forestry Strategies. (Joint
Circular from the Department of the Environment (1992/29) and the Welsh Office
(1992/61)). HMSO, London.
Douglas, G.C., ed. (1999) Strategies for Improvement of Forest Trees, Dublin.
Dumolin-Lapegue, S., Demesure, B., Fineschi, S., Le Corre, V., & Petit, R.J. (1997)
Phylogeographic structure of white oaks throughout the european continent. Genetics, 146,
1475-1487.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
64
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Environmental Protection Agency (1995a) Advice Notes on Current Practice (in the
preparation of Environmental Impact Statements). The Environmental Protection Agency,
Wexford.
Environmental Protection Agency (1995b) Guidelines on the Information to be contained in
Environmental Impact Statements. The Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.
Environmental Resources Management (1998). Impact of Current Forestry Policy on Aspects
of Ireland's Heritage. The Heritage Council, Kilkenny.
Environmental Resources Management (2000) Langholm/Lockerbie Local Forestry
Frameworks. Environmental Resources Management, Edinburgh.
European Commission (1997) Report to Parliament and the Council on the Application of
Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 Instituting a Community Aid Scheme for Forestry Measures
in Agriculture. European Commission.
European Commission (2002) Agriculture in the European Union - Statistical and economic
information 2001. European Commission.
Evans, S. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). The National Forest Company.
Everett, S. (2002) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings), Thatcham.
Falkner, G., Obrdlik, P., Castella, E., & Speight, M.C.D. (2001) Shelled Gastropoda of
Western Europe. Friedrich Held Gesellschaft, Munchen.
Ferris, R. & Humphrey, J.W. (1999) A review of potential biodiversity indicators for
application in British forests. Forestry, 72, 313-328.
Foley, N. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Forest Service, Letterkenny.
Forest Service (2000a) Afforestation Grant and Premium Schemes. Forest Service,
Department of the Marine and Natural Resources.
Forest Service (2000b) Code of Best Forest Practice - Ireland. Forest Service, Department of
the Marine and Natural Resources, Dublin.
Forest Service (2000c) Forest Biodiversity Guidelines. Forest Service, Department of the
Marine and Natural Resources, Dublin.
Forest Service (2000d) Forestry Schemes: Procedures and standards manual. The Stationery
Office, Dublin.
Forest Service (2000e). The Irish National Forestry Standard. Forest Service, Department of
the Marine and Natural Resources, Dublin.
Forest Service (2001a). Forestry Statistics. Department of the Marine and Natural Resources,
Dublin.
Forest Service (2001b) Information Note: Forest biodiversity guidelines and afforestation
grant aid and premium payment (Draft). Forest Service, Department of the Marine and
Natural Resources, Dublin.
Forest Service (2001c) Native Woodland Scheme. Forest Service, Department of the Marine
and Natural Resources, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford.
Forest Service (2001d) www.marine.gov.ie/
http://193.120.211.94/display.asp?action=sitetext&id=473,
Department of Marine and Natural Resources, Ireland.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
Vol.
2001.
Forest
Service,
65
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Forest Service (2002a) County Waterford Discussion Paper to aid in the preparation of an
Indicative Forest Strategy (IFS). Forest Service, Dublin.
Forest Service (2002b) Native Woodland Manual: Procedures, standards and decision
support for the Native Woodland Scheme. Forest Service, Dublin.
Forest Service (2003a) County Monaghan Draft Discussion Paper to aid in the preparation of
an Indicative Forest Strategy (IFS). Forest Service, Dublin.
Forest Service (2003b) County Wexford Discussion Paper to aid in the preparation of an
Indicative Forest Strategy (IFS). Forest Service, Dublin.
Forest Service (2003c) Draft Indicative Forest Strategy for County Mayo. Forest Service,
Dublin.
Forest Service (2004a) Draft Discussion Paper to aid in the preparation of an Indicative
Forestry Strategy for County Limerick. Forest Service, Dublin.
Forest Service (2004b).
http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/index.jsp?file=forestry/pages/indicative_forest_strategy.x
ml. Accessed November 2004.
Forestry Authority (1997) Land Eligible for the Better Land Supplement. Forestry
Commission.
Forestry Authority & Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland (1998). The UK Forest
Standard: The UK Government's approach to sustainable forestry. DANI Forest Service,
Belfast.
Forestry Commission (1990) Forest Nature Conservation Guidelines. HMSO, London.
Forestry Commission (undated-a) The Forest Environment: a brief guide to conserving and
improving the forest environment. Forestry Commission.
Forestry Commission (undated-b) Undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment in
Forestry and Preparing an Environmental Statement. Forestry Commission.
Fossitt, J.A. (2000) A Guide to Habitats in Ireland. The Heritage Council, Kilkenny.
Fox, H., Cullen, M., Little, D.J., Ciaurriz, P., Ryan, D., Dwyer, R., & Boyle, G.M. (2001)
Vegetation monitoring and botanical survey of Brackloon Wood, Westport, County Mayo.
Forest Ecosystem Research Group Report number 31. Department of Environmental
Resource Management, University College, Dublin, Dublin.
Gallacher, J. (2001a) Glenduckie Proposed Woodland Grant Scheme: Initial site assessment.
Tilhill Economic Forestry.
Gallacher, J. (2001b) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Tilhill Economic Forestry.
Gibbons, D.W., Reid, J.B., & Chapman, R.A. (1994) The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in
Britain and Ireland: 1988-1991. Poyser.
Giller, P., O'Halloran, J., Kiely, G., Evans, J., Clenaghan, C., Hernan, R., Roche, N., & Morris,
P. (1997) A Study of the Effects of Stream Hydrology and Water Quality in Forested
Catchments on Fish and Invertebrates. An evaluation of the effects of forestry on surface
water quality and ecology in Munster. AQUAFOR Report 2. University College, Cork.
Gray, I.M. (1996) Environmnetal Impact Assessment in the UK Forestry Sector. MSc,
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
66
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Gray, I.M. & Edwards-Jones, G. (1999) A review of the quality of environmental impact
assessments in the Scottish forest sector. Forestry, 72, 1-10.
Guest, B. (2001) Personal communication (ed A.-M. McKee). Leitrim County Council.
Hansson, L. (2000). Indicators of Biodiversity: recent approaches and some general
suggestions, Rep. No. 1. BEAR.
Harris, E. & Harris, J. (1997) Guidelines for Wildlife Conservation Within Productive
Woodlands. Research Studies Press Ltd., Somerset.
Heritage Council (1999) Impact of Agriculture Schemes and Payments on Aspects of
Ireland's Heritage. Heritage Council, Kilkenny.
Hickie, D., Turner, R., Mellon, C. And Coveney, J. (1993) Ireland's Forested Future: A Plan
for Forestry and the Environment. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, An Taisce and
the Irish Wildbird Conservancy.
Hickey, B. (2002) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Carlow County Council, Carlow.
Hill, M.O. (1993). TABLEFIT Version 0.0 - For identification of vegetation types. Institute of
Terrestrial Ecology, Huntingdon, UK.
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (2001) Directory of Ecologists and
Environmental Managers: The IEEM membership directory 2000-2001. Institute of Ecology
and Environmental Management, Winchester.
Institute of Environmental Assessment (1995) Guidelines for Baseline Ecological
Assessment. E & FN Spon, London.
Iremonger, S. (1999) Guidelines for Forestry and Biodiversity. Forest Service, Department of
the Marine and Natural Resources, Dublin.
Irish Peatland Conservation Council (2001) Bogs & Fens of Ireland Conservation Plan 2005.
Irish Peatland Conservation Council, Dublin.
Johnston, P. (2002) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Forestry Commission.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1993) Handbook for Phase 1 Habitat Survey: a
technique for environmental audit. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (1995) Guidelines for Selection of Biological SSSI's.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Kearney, B. (2001) A Review of Relevant Studies Concerning Farm Forestry Trends and
Farmer's Attitudes to Forestry. COFORD, Dublin.
Keddy, P.A. & Drummond, C.G. (1996) Ecological properties for the evaluation,
management and restoration of temperate deciduous forest ecosystems. Ecological
Applications, 6, 748-762.
Kelleher, B. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Cork County Council, Cork.
Kelleher, C.T. & Hodkinson, T.R. (in press) Chloroplast haplotypes reveal the genetic
structure and post glacial colonisation routes of oak in Ireland. Molecular Ecology.
Kelly-Quinn, M., Tierney, D., Coyle, S., & Bracken, J.J. (1997) A Study of the Effects of Stream
Hydrology and Water Quality in Forested Catchments on Fish and Invertebrates. Stream
chemistry, hydrology and biota, Wicklow region. AQUAFOR Report 3. COFORD, Dublin.
Kent, M. & Coker, P. (1992) Vegetation Description and Analysis - A practical approach.
John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
67
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Lancashire County Council (1994) An Indicative Forestry Strategy for Lancashire.
Lancashire County Council.
Land Use Consultants (2000a) North Yorkshire Moors Upland Land Management Initiative.
Integrated characterisation and environmental capital assessment. Land Use Consultants.
Land Use Consultants (2000b) North Yorkshire Moors Upland Land Management Initiative.
Study 3: Ecological character assessment. Land Use Consultants.
Lavers, C.P. & Haines-Young, R.H. (1997) Displacement of dunlin Calidris alpina schinzii by
forestry in the flow country and an estimate of the value of moorland adjacent to
plantations. Biological Conservation, 79, 87-90.
Lee, N., Colley, R., Bonde, J., & Simpson, J. (1999). Reviewing the Quality of Environmental
Statements and Environmental Appraisals (Occasional Paper No. 55). School of Planning &
Landscape, University of Manchester, Manchester.
Loftus, M., Bulfin, M., Farrelly, N., Fealy, R., Green, S., Meehan, R., & Radford, T. (2002) The
Irish forest soils project and its potential contribution to the assessment of biodiversity.
Biology and Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, in press.
Lowden, F. (2000) An Evaluation of the Changing Approach to Environmental Impact
Assessment in the UK Forestry Sector, With Particular Regard to Ecological Issues. MA, The
University of Manchester, Manchester.
Magurran, A.E. (1988) Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Chapman and Hall,
London.
Malloch, A.J.C. (1991). MATCH Version1.3 - A computer program to aid the assignment of
vegetation data to the communities and sub-communities of the National Vegetation
Classification. University of Lancaster, Lancaster.
Martin, J., Douglas, G., Hodkinson, T.R., Kelleher, C., & Kelly, D.L. (1999) Investigating Irish
oaks by chloroplast DNA analysis. In Proceedings of Applications of Biotechnology to Forest
Genetics.
McAree, D. (2001) Presentation to stakeholders on Coillte's progress towards FSC
certification. In Proceedings of the conference, Managing Biodiversity of Forests and Forest
Water Ecosystems: The Irish approach, Sigtuna.
McGuire, C. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Clare County Council, Ennis.
McKeon, N. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Roscommon County Council,
Roscommon.
McVean, D.N. & Ratcliffe, D.A. (1962) Plant Communities of the Scottish Highlands. HMSO,
London.
Meath County Council (2001) County Development Plan 2001. Volume One: Objectives for
the County at Large. Meath County Council, Navan.
Moray Council (2001) Moray Indicative Forestry Strategy. Moray Council, Elgin.
Murphy, M. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings), Enniscorthy.
Myers, W.L., Patil, G.P., & Taillie, C. (1994). Comparative paradigms for biodiversity
assessment. In Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity in Tropical and Temperate Forests
(eds T.J.B. Boyle & B. Bootawee), pp. 67-87. CIFOR, IUFRO, Indonesia.
National Roads Authority (2003) Guidelines for Assessment of Ecological Impacts of
National Road Schemes. National Roads Authority, Dublin.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
68
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
O'Neill, T. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Limerick County Council,
Limerick.
O'Sullivan, G., ed. (1994) Final Report, CORINE Land Cover Project (Ireland). Ordnance
Survey of Ireland, Dublin.
Ouborg, N.J., Piquot, Y., & Van Groenendael, J.M. (1999) Population genetics, molecular
markers and the study of dispersal in plants. Ecology, 87, 551-568.
Reif, A. (2001) Personal communication. Germany.
Review Steering Group Secretariat Scottish Executive (2002) WGS/FWPS Review: Report of
the Review Steering Group. Scottish Executive.
Rodwell, J.S., ed. (1991a) British Plant Communities. Volume 1. Woodlands and scrub.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell, J.S., ed. (1991b) British Plant Communities. Volume 2. Mires and heaths.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell, J.S., ed. (1992) British Plant Communities. Volume 3. Grasslands and montane
communities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell, J.S., ed. (1995) British Plant Communities. Volume 4. Aquatic communities,
swamps and tall-herb fens. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodwell, J.S., ed. (2000) British Plant Communities. Volume 5. Maritime communities and
vegetation of open habitats. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Schulze, E.D. & Mooney, H.A. (1994). Ecosystem function of biodiversity: a summary. In
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function (eds E.D. Schulze & H.A. Mooney), pp. 497-510.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Scott, L. (2002) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Carlow County Council, Carlow.
Scott, S. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). Forestry Commission, Brandon.
Scottish Executive (1999) Circular 9/1999 Indicative Forestry Strategies. Scottish Executive,
Edinburgh.
Sidway, R. & Turbull Jeffrey Partnership Landscape Architects (1997) Evaluation of
Indicative Forestry Strategies in Scotland. The Scottish Office Central Research Unit,
Edinburgh.
Sligo County Council (2000) Sligo County Development Plan 1999-2000. Sligo County
Council, Sligo.
Southwood, T.R.E. (2000) Ecological Methods with Particular Reference to the Study of
Insect Populations. Blackwell Science.
Speight, M.C.D. (2000). Syrph the Net: a database of biological information about European
Syrphidae (Diptera) and its use in relation to the conservation of biodiversity. In
Biodiversity: the Irish dimension (ed B.S. Rushton), pp. 156-171. Royal Irish Academy,
Dublin.
Stork, N.E. & Samways, M., eds. (1995) Inventorying and Monitoring of Biodiversity.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Streiff, R., Labbe, T., Bacilieri, R., Steinkellner, H., Glossl, J., & Kremer, A. (1998) Withinpopulation genetic structure in Quercus robur L. and Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. assessed
with isozymes and microsatellites. Molecular Ecology, 7, 317-328.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
69
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Stroud, D.A., Reed, T.M., Pienkowski, M.W., & Lindsay, R.A. (1987). Birds, bogs and
forestry: the peatlands of Caithness and Sutherland. Nature Conservancy Council,
Peterborough.
The Scottish Office (1998) National Planning Policy Guidelines. NPPG 14: Natural Heritage.
The Scottish Office.
The Third Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (1998) Resolution
L2. Pan-European Criteria, Indicators and Operational Level Guidelines for Sustainable
Forest Management. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Vienna.
Thompson, R. (2000) Dragonflies: Ireland. British Wildlife, 12, 131-132.
Towers, W. (2001) Personal communication (ed T. Gittings). The Macaulay Institute,
Aberdeen.
Towers, W., Malcolm, A., Hester, A., Ross, I., & Baird, E. (2001) Cairngorm Forest and
Woodland Framework. Forestry Commission.
UNEP (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations Environmental
Programme, Nairobi.
Waterford County Council (1999) 1999 Waterford County Development Plan. Waterford
County Council, Dungarvan.
White, J. & Doyle, G.J. (1982) The vegetation of Ireland: A catalogue raisonné. Journal of Life
Sciences, Royal Dublin Society, 3, 289-368.
Whitfield, D.P., Mcleod, D.R.A., Fielding, A.H., Broad, R.A., Evans, R.J., & Haworth, P.F.
(2001) The effects of forestry on golden eagles on the island of Mull, western Scotland.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 38, 1208-1220.
Wicklow County Council (2002) Wicklow Indicative Forestry Strategy. Wicklow County
Council, Wicklow.
Williams, C.B. (1964) Patterns in the Balance of Nature. Academic Press, London.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
70
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
APPENDIX 1 SCIENTIFIC NAMES
Plants
Common Name
bearberry
cock’s-foot
cottongrass
rye-grass
sedge
timothy
white clover
wood-rush
lodgepole pine
Scientific Name
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi
Dactylis glomerata
Eriophorum sp.
Lolium sp.
Carex sp.
Phleum pratense
Trifolium repens
Luzula sp.
Pinus contorta
Fungi
Common Name
waxcap
Scientific Name
Hygrophoracae
Animals
Common Name
Barn Owl
Freshwater Pearl Mussel
Irish Hare
Lesser Horseshoe Bat
Natterer’s Bat
Natterjack Toad
Red Fox
Whiskered Bat
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
Scientific Name
Tyto alba
Margaritifera margaritifera
Lepus timidus
Rhinolophus hipposideros
Myotis natteri
Bufo calamita
Vulpes vulpes
Myotis mystacinus
71
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
APPENDIX 2 GLOSSARY
Definitions of abbreviations and terminology used in the text are provided below. Where
relevant, the geographical scope of the term is indicated in parentheses.
ABE
Area for Biodiversity Enhancement (Ireland): The 15% of the forest area which must
be managed for biodiversity in order to comply with the requirements for grant aid
(Forest Service, 2000c).
Annex 1 species (European Union): Bird species listed on Annex 1 of the Birds Directive
(79/409/EEC).
ASI
Area of Scientific Interest (Ireland): A former system for designating sites of nature
conservation and geological heritage importance, now superseded by the NHA
designation.
BAP
Biodiversity Action Plan (Ireland and the UK): Action Plans that set priorities for
nationally important and locally important habitats and wildlife. Three types of plans
have been developed in the UK - Species Action Plans, Habitat Action Plans and Local
Biodiversity Action Plans (see http://www.ukbap.org.uk/Plans/index.htm). Ireland is
currently preparing a national Biodiversity Action Plan (Buckley, 2000).
BLS
Better Land Supplement (UK): A grant supplement to the WGS which provides higher
rates of payment for afforestation of arable land, other cropped land and improved
grassland (Forestry Authority, 1997).
Biodiversity Features (Ireland): A classification of habitats and species developed by Coillte as part
of its site assessment procedures (Coillte, 2001).
CAP
Common Agricultural Policy (European Union): The Treaty of Rome creating the
European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957 contained provision for a "common
agricultural policy" (the CAP). This policy sought to increase the productivity of
European agriculture, ensure reasonable living standards for farmers, stabilise farm
produce markets and guarantee a stable food supply at fair prices for consumers (see
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/agriculture/hist_en.htm).
CEH
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: Part of the UK Natural Environment Research
Council and responsible for research into all aspects of the terrestrial environment and
its resources (see http://www.ceh.ac.uk/).
CFWF
Cairngorms Forest and Woodland Framework (Scotland): See Section 5.2.2.2.
Coillte (Ireland): Coillte Teoranta was established under the Forestry Act 1988 to manage State
owned forests commercially (see http://www.coillte.ie/).
Competent Forester (Ireland): A forester approved by the Forest Service.
NPWS
National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of the Environment, Heritage and
Local Government (Ireland): The statutory agency responsible for the conservation of
Ireland’s natural heritage.
EA
Environmental Assessment (UK): See Section 1.5.1.
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment (Ireland): See Section 1.5.1.
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement (Ireland): See Section 1.5.1.
Environmental Constraints studies (Ireland): Studies prepared to identify significant environmental
constraints as part of the first stage of planning a new road development project.
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency (Ireland): the statutory agency responsible for
promotion and implementation of the highest practicable standards of environmental
protection and management that embrace the principles of sustainable and balanced
development (see http://www.epa.ie/). The EPA has no regulatory role in relation to
afforestation, but is responsible for the preparation of guidelines for EIA.
ES
Environmental Statement (UK): See Section 1.5.1.
ESA
Environmentally Sensitive Area (UK): Areas designated to conserve areas of high
landscape, wildlife or historic values through voluntary participation by farmers in
special grant schemes.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
72
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
FC
Forestry Commission (England, Scotland and Wales): The government’s forestry
department responsible for promoting sustainable forest management, the
administration
of
incentives
and
the
regulation
of
forestry
(see
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/).
FIPS
Forest Inventory and Planning System (Ireland): A GIS being developed by the Forest
Service provide forest inventory data and to assist in forest planning and the
administration of forestry grants and premiums (see:
http://193.120.211.94/display.asp?action=sitetext&id=473).
FS Inspector Forest Service Inspector (Ireland): The officers of the FS responsible for certification of
grant applications.
FS
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture and Food (Ireland): The statutory agency
responsible for responsible for ensuring the development of forestry within Ireland in a
manner and to a scale that maximises its contribution to national socio-economic wellbeing on a sustainable basis that is compatible with the protection of the environment.
GIS
Geographical Information System: A multi-layer computer-based system for efficient
input, storage and retrieval of geographic and land attribute data.
Guidelines habitats: Forest Biodiversity Guidelines habitats (Ireland): Habitats listed in the box on
page 3 of the Forest Biodiversity Guidelines (Forest Service, 2000c).
IEEM
Institute for Ecology and Environmental Management (UK): The professional
accreditation body for ecologists in the UK (see http://www.ieem.org.uk/).
IFS
Indicative Forestry Strategies (Ireland and the UK): A strategy produced by local
authorities following government guidance (Department of the Environment, 1997;
Department of the Environment & Welsh Office, 1992; Scottish Executive, 1999), as
frameworks within which new forestry proposals can be considered, and as a guide to
potential forestry developers.
ISA
Initial Site Assessment (UK): See Section 5.3.2.2.
JNCC
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (UK): The UK Government's wildlife adviser,
undertaking national and international conservation work on behalf of the three
country nature conservation agencies English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage and
the Countryside Council for Wales (see http://www.jncc.gov.uk/).
LFF
Local Forestry Framework (UK): A more detailed forestry strategy (compared to an
IFS) for areas known to be particularly sensitive, where there is widespread local
concern, or where the issues surrounding forestry are complex.
LNR
Local Nature Reserve (UK): Nature reserves designated by a regional or local planning
authority.
MLURI
Macaulay Land Use Research Institute (Scotland): Now the Macaulay Institute (see
http://www.mluri.sari.ac.uk/index.html).
NHA
Natural Heritage Area (Ireland): A site statutorily designated by NPWS, under the
Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 as being of national nature conservation importance.
As of yet, no NHAs have been designated. Sites that have been identified as proposed
NHAs are referred to as pNHAs.
NNR
National Nature Reserve (UK): Statutory nature reserves designated under the
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
NSA
National Scenic Area (Scotland): Areas of national scenic importance in Scotland,
defined by the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1980 under the statutory basis of the
Town and County Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.
NVC
National Vegetation Classification (England, Scotland and Wales): A systematic and
comprehensive classification of the vegetation types of all natural, semi-natural and
major artificial habitats of Great Britain. The published descriptions (Rodwell, 1991a, b,
1992, 1995, 2000) include detailed information on the ecological characteristics and
distribution of each vegetation community.
NWS
Native Woodland Scheme (Ireland): A scheme to provide grant-aid for the planting
and management of native woodlands (Forest Service, 2001c).
PBA
Potential Biodiversity Area (Ireland): A classification developed by Coillte to identify
parts of the Coillte estate that are of potential importance for biodiversity (Coillte,
2001).
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
73
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Ramsar site (International): Wetland sites of nature conservation importance statutorily designated
under the Ramsar Convention.
Qualified Ecologist (Ireland): An ecologist approved by the FS for the purposes of preparing an
application for a NWS grant.
RDB
Red Data Book (International): A listing of species that are rare or threatened or of
international importance. RDBs exist at a range of geographical scales including global,
continental, national and regional.
RSPB
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (UK): The largest UK nature conservation
NGO, and is involved in conservation, management, research and campaigning (see
http://www.rspb.co.uk/).
REPS
Rural Environment Protection Scheme (Ireland): An agri-environment scheme,
funded under the CAP, designed to encourage sustainable farming practices, protect
wildlife habitats and endangered species, and produce quality food in an extensive and
environmentally friendly manner (Department of Agriculture Food and Rural
Development, 2000).
SAC
Special Area of Conservation (European Union): Areas of nature conservation
importance designated under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). A candidate Special
Area of Conservation (cSAC) is a site which has been notified to the European
Commission, but has not yet been designated.
Self-assessment Company (Ireland): A forestry company which is approved by the FS to carry out
certification of grant applications.
SFM
Sustainable Forest Management (International): The stewardship and use of 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.
Shannon-Weiner Index: An index of species diversity.
Simpson Index: An index of species diversity.
SNH
Scottish Natural Heritage (Scotland): The statutory agency with responsibility for the
care of Scotland’s natural heritage.
SOAEFD
Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department (Scotland)
SPA
Special Protection Area (European Union): Areas of bird conservation importance
designated under the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC).
SSSI
Site of Special Scientific Interest (UK): A site statutorily designated by English
Nature, the Countryside Council for Wales, SNH or the Environment and Heritage
Service as being of national importance for wildlife, under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act.
WGS
Woodland Grant Scheme (UK): A scheme, administered by the FC, for grant-aiding
the creation of new woodlands and the management of existing woodlands, according
to environmental guidelines.
WHS
World Heritage Site (International)
Williams Index: An index of species diversity S =  log e (1 + N/).
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
74
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
APPENDIX 3 ORGANISATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED
A3.1 IRELAND
All individuals and organisations contacted are listed. Respondents are shown in bold type.
Organisation
Carlow County Council
Clare County Council
Coillte
Cork County Council
Department of Agriculture,
Food and Rural
Development
Donegal County Council
National Parks and Wildlife
Service
Forest Service
Galway County Council
Heritage Council
Independent Consultant
Laois County Council
Leitrim County Council
Limerick County Council
Mayo County Council
Roscommon County Council
Sligo County Council
Teagasc
Tipperary N.R. County
Council
Westmeath County Council
Wicklow County Council
Contacts
Lorcan Scott (Heritage Officer), Betsy Hickey (Botanist)
Congella McGuire (Heritage Officer)
Kevin Donnellan; Aileen O’Sullivan
Sharon Casey (Heritage Officer); Brendan Kelleher (Chief Planning
Officer), Patricia Power
REPS Section, Agricultural Structures Division II
Planning Section
Philip Buckley; John Cross; Neil Lockhart; Michael Wyse-Jackson
Gerry Cody, Karl Coggins, Kevin Collins, Eamonn Cunningham,
Noel Foley
Planning Section, Marie Mannion (Heritage Officer)
Liam Scott
Ute Bohnsack
Planning Section
Bernadette Guest (Heritage Officer)
Tom O’Neill (Heritage Officer)
Planning Section
Nollaig McKeon (Heritage Officer)
Siobhán Ryan (Heritage Officer)
Michael Bulfin (Head, Forestry Research)
Siobhan Geraghty (Heritage Officer)
Gerry Clabby (Heritage Officer)
Moira Murphy (ex- Acting Heritage Officer), Deidre Burns (Heritage
Officer)
A3.2 UNITED KINGDOM
Over 200 individuals and organisations were contacted. Only those which responded with
information are listed
Organisation
Aberdeenshire Council
ADAS Boxworth
ADAS Consulting Ltd.
Capreolus Wildlife
Consultancy
Cardiff University,
Llysdinam Field Centre
Community Forestry
Partnership
Countryside Council for
Wales
Cumbria County Council
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
Contacts
Emma Parkes
Rossy McLaren (Senior Consultant Ecologist)
Chris Britt (Senior Research Scientist),
Peter Reynolds (Principal)
Fred Slater (Director)
Valerie Denly (Secretariat)
Jim Latham
Edward Mills (Project Manager – Cumbria Broadleaves)
75
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Ecoscope Applied Ecologists
ENTEC
Environment Agency Wales
Environmental Resources
Management
Forest of Avon
Forestry Commission
Forest Service (Northern
Ireland)
Friends of the Earth
Green Environmental
Consultants
Independent Consultant
Institute of Ecology and
Environmental Management
Joint Nature Conservation
Committee
Lancashire County Council
Land Use Consultants
Loch Lomond and the
Trossachs Interim
Committee
Lockhart Garrat Ltd.
Maculay Institute
National Museum of Wales
Natural Environment
Consultants
Nature Bureau
Northern Ecological Services
Plantlife
RLE
RSK Environment Ltd.
RSPB
Scottish Natural Heritage
Terence O’Rourke plc
Thames Water Utilities Ltd.
The Countryside Agency
The Forest of Avon
The National Forest
Company
The Natural Resource
Consultancy
The Ross Partnership
The Wildlife Trusts
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
Deborah Patterson (Consultant Ecologist)
Richard Knightbridge (Principal)
Jon Gulson (Cardiff Bay Project Team Co-ordinator)
Guy Duke (Technical Director & Practice Leader – London office)
Mark Durk (Director)
Bob Dunsmore (Highland Region Conservator), Ian Collier
(Highland Biodiversity Officer), Dinah Beattie (Highland Region
Conservancy), Alistair Hendry (Dumfries and Galloway
Conservator), Steve Scott (East England Conservator), Nicholas
Shepherd (Landscape Architect – National Office for Scotland),
Alistair Jones (Scottish National Office), Ruth Jenkins (Welsh
National Office), Fred Currie (English National Office), Gordon
Patterson (Head of Policy and Practice), Maureen Edwards, Gordon
Inglis, Alex Dale (UK National Office) and Paul Johnston
(Operations Manager)
John Griffin
Stuart Croft
Jacqui Green (Principal)
Penny Cresswell Lewns
Jim Thompson
Marcus Yeo (Advisor – Habitat)
David Brackley (Specialist Advisor – Forestry), Richard Thompson
(Ecologist)
Robert Edmonds (Land Use Consultants)
David Harrison
Graham Garrett (Director)
Ann Malcolm (GIS and Data Services), Willie Towers (Soil Quality
and Protection)
Tim Rich
Karl Partridge (Principal)
Sue Everett
Katherine Dale (Senior Ecological Consultant)
Sara Ames (Conservation Administrator)
Micheal Hall (Ecology Manager)
Anne Pritchard (Senior Consultant – Ecology)
Sacha Cleminson, Ian Peters (Wildlife Advisor)
Dominic Sargent, Catriona Gall
Andrew Mahon (Technical Director – Environment)
Darren Tower (Senior Conservation and Heritage Scientist)
Rob Green (Enterprise, Land Management & Tourism Branch)
Mark Durk (Director)
Simon Evans
Carol Crawford (Principal)
Irvine Ross
John Everitt (Director of Conservation)
76
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
The Woodland Trust
Tilhill Economic Forestry
University of Newcastle
Worldwide Fund for Nature
- UK
Nick Collinson (Conservation Policy Advisor), Jeremy Langford
(Operations Director)
John Gallacher
John Benson (Centre for Research in Environmental Appraisal &
Management, School of Architecture, Planning & Landscape)
Hannah Marshall (Supporter Care Coordinator)
A3.3 OTHER COUNTRIES
All individuals and organisations contacted are listed. Respondents are shown in bold type.
Country
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Estonia
E.U.
Germany
Contacts
Austrian Nematode Biodiversity Research; Department Of Animal Ecology, Justus
Liebig University, Giessen; Institute of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Vienna;
Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management
Christian Laurent, DNF–DGRNE, Wallonie; KBIN – Royal Belgian Institute of
Sciences; Mr Marc de Win, Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Social Affairs, Public
Health and Environment; Dr Machtald Gryseels, Brussels Institute for the
management of the environment; Dr ir Koen De Smet, Environment, Land and Water
Management, Nature Division (Flemish region); Jacques Stein, DGRNE; D.Devuyst,
EIA Centre, Brussels University; D. Van Straaten, Institute of Nature Conservation;
Michel Delcorps, Institut bruxellois pour la gestion de l’environnement; Ministry of
Flemish Community; Alain Bozet, Ministère de la Région wallonne; Belgian
Biodiversity Platform
Canadian Forest Service
Faculty of Forestry, Czech University of Agriculture; Forestry and Game
Management Research Institute; Ministry of Agriculture; Forestry Development
Department; State Institute of Forest Management
The Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute; National Environmental
Research Institute; The Danish Forest and Nature Agency; Gert Johansen
Finnish Forest Research Institute; Finnish Society of Forest Science; Society of
Forestry in Finland; Finnish Forest & Park Service; Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry,
University of Helsinki, Department of Ecology & Systematics; Biodiversity Research
Programme, Academy of Finland; Finnish Biodiversity Research Programme
(FIBRE); Dr. Alex Komarov
Jean Poiret, Département Santé des Forets; Daniel Vallauri, WWF; Francois LeTacon,
INRA; Frédéric Gosselin, Unité Ecosystèmes et Paysages, CEMAGREF; Robin
Rolland, Monique Turlin and Georges Guignabel, Ministry for the Environment;
Colette Carichiopulo, LPO; P. Lequenne, Ecole Supérieure d’Agriculture, Angers;
French Institute of Biodiversity; Department of Forest Health; Nicolas Drapier,
Office National des Forets – Direction technique – Département aménagement,
sylvicultures, espaces naturels; Pierre Touzac, Project Officer for the ‘Forest
Network’, France Nature Environnement
Estonian Centre for Forest Protection & Silviculture; Estonian Forest Department;
Estonian Institute of Forestry & Nature Conservation
DG Environment; DG Research; European Environment Agency; DG Agriculture
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation; Universitat Freiburg, Forstwissenschaftliche
Fakultat Waldbau-Institut, Standorts und Vegetationskunde; University of Göttingen;
German Council of Environmental Advisors (SRU), Ministry for Environment, Nature
Conservation, and Nuclear Safety; Federal Research Centre for Forestry and Forest
Products (BFH), Institute for Forest Ecology and Forest Assessment
Klaus Halbritter; Prof. Dr. Hermann Ellenberg, University of Hamburg; Prof. Dr.
Albert Reif, University of Freiburg; Richard Fischer, PCC of ICP Forests, Institute
for World Forestry
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
77
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Greece
Hungary
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Netherlands
New
Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Russia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
USA
BirdLife (HOS); Angelica PSAILA, Ministry of Environment, Planning and Public
Works; Professor Costas Cassios, National Technical University of Athens
Forest Management Planning Service; Department of Landscape Protection, Forestry
and Management of Protected Areas, Ministry for Environment; Department of
Forestry, ministry of Agriculture; National Authority for Nature Conservation
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forest Resources, National Forest Service; Italian
Ministry for the Environment
State Forest Service; Latvian Forest Research Institute
Institute of Ecology
ALTERRA; National Reference Centre for Nature management (ECLNV)
Netherlands Embassy Dublin; Gijs van Tol; g.van.tol@ikcn.agro.nl; G.M.J. (Frits)
Mohren, frits.mohren@btbo.bosb.wav.nl; Rienk-Jan Bijlsma; r.j.biljsma@alterra.wagur.nl; Dr. Ir. Jan den Ouden, Silviculture and Forest Ecology Group, Wageningen
University; Matthias Schoutens; Jan Jaap De Boer, Ministry of Housing, Spatial
Planning and the Environment; M. Odijk, Commission for EIA; Ministerie van
Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserj; B. Tencate, Natuurplanbureau
New Zealand Forest Service; New Zealand Forest Research Institute, Ministry of
Forestry
Norwegian Forest Research Institute; Forestry Department, Ministry of Agriculture;
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA NIKU)
Hanna Rachwald, Birdlife (OTOP); Generalna Dyrekcja Lasow Panstwowych; Andrezj
Bobiec; Dept. Of Forestry, Nature, Conservation and Landscape @mos.gov.pl; The
Commission for Environmental Impact Assessment, Warsawa; Forest Research
Institute, Department of Forest Management Planning and Monitoring, Warsaw
Julieta Macedo, Direcçáo-Geral do Ambiente; L. Canelas, Portuguese EIA Centre;
P.Pinho, Secçao de Planeamento do Territorio e Ambiente Faculdade de Engenharia,
Universidade do Porto; Maria Rosario Partidario, CEPGA-Centro de Estudos de
Planeamento e Gestão do Ambiente, Centro de Excelência p/o Ambiente, Quinta da
Torre Monte da Caparica; Jan Jansen, Experimental Plant Ecology, University of
Nijmegen; Henrique Pereira dos Santos and Gustavo Vicente, Instituto de
Conservação da Natureza.
Institute of Mathematical Problems of Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Department of Ecology, Slovak Agricultural University; Institute of Landscape
Ecology
Birdlife (SEO); Emilio Herranz, Ministerio del Medio Ambiente; SG Alonso Spanish
EIA Centre; Ministry of Environment, Government of Catalonia
National Board of Forestry; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department
of Silviculture; National Board of Forestry, Swedish Scientific Board of Biological
Diversity; Swedish Biodiversity Centre
Swiss embassy, Dublin; Peter Brang, Schweizerische Forstverein, Zurich; Dr.
Christoph Scheidegger, Swiss Federal Institute for Forest,
Snow and Landscape Research, Birmensdorf;
Forest Health Monitoring Programme, Forest Sciences Laboratory, NC; Harvard
Forest Group; Department of Forestry, VA; USDA Forest Service, Washington DC;
USDA Forest Service, Atlanta GA; Texas Forest Service, US Forest Service, CO; US
Department of Agriculture-Forest Service, MD; US Forest Service, Washington DC;
Jim Jeffords, Congressional Representative, State of Vermont
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
78
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
APPENDIX 4 REVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENTS IN IRISH EISs
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
79
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
A4.1 GENERAL
Assessment of
designated sites
Consultations
Habitat map
Scoping
Taxonomic groups covered contents and sources of information
Outcome3
1991 Coilllte
none evident
none evident
none
none
reported
vascular plants;limited
bryophytes;limited lichens;
invertebrates; amphibians;
birds; mammals
The EIS states that information for the
EIS was gathered from the applicant,
Coillte Teo, Statutory bodies and third
parties. The impacts and mitigation
measures in the following areas were
covered: flora; fauna; soils; water; air;
landscape; archaeology. Surveys were
carried out in August 1990 with a bird
survey in January 1991.
s
Ummerantarry,
368.2ha Mayo
Crossmolina Forest,
County
Co. Mayo
Council
1991 Coillte
ASI on adjacent
river, outside of
propsed
afforestation site
none evident
map showing location of ASI and none
map showing location of different reported
vegetation plots. No habitat
classification used
vascular plants;limited
bryophytes;limited lichens;
invertebrates; amphibians;
birds; mammals
The EIS states that information for the
s
EIS was gathered from the applicant,
Coillte Teo, Statutory bodies and third
parties. The impacts and mitigation
measures in the following areas were
covered: flora; fauna; soils; water; air;
landscape; archaeology; climate. Surveys
were carried out in August 1990 with a
bird survey in January 1991.
Gweebarra Estuary, 426ha
Co. Donegal
Donegal
County
Council
1991 RPS Group,
Ltd.
no designated
areas present
yes with Donegal County
Council
very good map provided
none
showing mammal habitat, field reported
surveys and ecology maps and 5
major habitats distinguishable
Fidaunderry, Lough
Talt, Co. Sligo
Sligo County 19924 Coillte
Council
site is adjacent to
ASI of regional
importance
yes, consultations held with the map showing location of different
O.P.W.; Central Fisheries
vegetation plots using no
Board
vegetation/habitat classification.
There is also a map of soils
present and a description of the
vegetation associated with
different soil types
vascular plants; invertebrates; The impacts and mitigation measures in s
birds; mammals
the following areas were covered: flora;
fauna; water; landscape; traffic and
roads. Survey period December to
January 1991 - 1992
vascular plants; limited
The EIS states that information for the
r
bryophytes; limited lichens;
EIS was gathered from the applicant,
invertebrates; amphibians;
Coillte Teo, Statutory bodies and third
birds; mammals
parties. The impacts and mitigation
measures in the following areas were
covered: flora; fauna; soils; water; air;
landscape; archaeology. Surveys were
carried out in August 1990 with a bird
survey in January 1991.
EIA
size
Lough Atorick &
Derrygoolin,
Woodford, Co.
Galway
809 ha Galway
County
Council
445ha
Competent Year Organisation
Authority
o=ongoing, s=successful, approved after initial objection (following is objecting body(ies), r=rejected, w=withdrawn
The Fiddandarry EIS was originally submitted in September 1991 and consisted of 35 pages. The competent authority requested further information and this was received in the form of a substantially expanded EIS in
July 1992, consisting of 74 pages, including a biological survey of the Gowlan River by W.S.T. Champ on behalf of the Central Fisheries Board.
3
4
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
80
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
EIA
size
Competent Year Organisation
Authority
Assessment of
designated sites
Consultations
Meentygrennagh,
337ha
Meeniroy Forest,
Fintown, Co. Donegal
Donegal
County
Council
no designated
areas present
yes, consultations held with the map showing the location of
none
applicant; Coillte Teo; Donegal different vegetation plots though reported
County Council; Northern
no vegetation/habitat
Republic Fisheries Board;
classification presented
Foyle Fisheries Commission;
Curator of the County Museum,
Letterkenny
Crowagh &
401ha
Tawnadremira,
Lough Talt, Co. Sligo
Sligo County 19925 Coillte
Council
ASI present but of yes with the O.P.W.
no value due to
cultivation by
previous landowner
Coomacheo,
Ballyvourney , Co.
Cork
Cork County 19926 Coillte
Council
none evident
278ha
1992 Coillte
none evident
Habitat map
Scoping
Taxonomic groups covered contents and sources of information
Outcome3
vascular plants; limited
bryophytes; limited lichens;
invertebrates; amphibians;
birds; mammals
information for the EIS was gathered
r
from the applicant, Coillte Teo, Statutory
bodies and third parties. The impacts and
mitigation measures in the following
areas were covered: flora; fauna; soils;
water; air; landscape; archaeology;
climate. Surveys were carried out in
August 1991 with a bird survey in
January 1992.
map showing the location of
none
different vegetation/habitat plots reported
though no vegetation
classification presented
vascular plants; limited
bryophytes;limited lichens;
invertebrates; amphibians;
birds; mammals
The EIS states that information for the
s
EIS was gathered from the applicant,
Coillte Teo, Statutory bodies and third
parties. The impacts and mitigation
measures in the following areas were
covered: flora; fauna; soils; water; air;
landscape; archaeology; climate. Surveys
were carried out in August 1990 with a
bird survey in January 1991.
map showing location of plots
sampled and soils described
with associated flora
vascular plants; limited
bryophytes; limited lichens;
invertebrates; amphibians;
birds; mammals
The EIS states that information for the
a
EIS was gathered from the applicant,
Coillte Teo, Statutory bodies and third
parties. The impacts and mitigation
measures in the following areas were
covered: flora; fauna; soils; water; air;
landscape; archaeology; climate. Surveys
carried out August 1990 and winter bird
count 1991
none
reported
The Crowagh and Tawnadremira EIS was originally submitted in September 1991 and consists of a total of 25 pages. The competent authority requested further information and this was received in the form of a
substantially expanded EIS in July 1992. This revised EIS consists of a total of 77 pages and includes an aquatic survey of Lough Talt, Co. Sligo, researched and written by W.S.T. Champ on behalf of the Central Fisheries
Board.
6 The Coomacheo EIS was originally submitted in June 1991 and consists of a total of 41 pages. The competent authority requested further information and this was received in the form of a substantially expanded EIS in
May 1992. This revised EIS consists of 77 pages and includes a biological survey of part of the Clydagh River carried out by UCC
5
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
81
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
EIA
size
Competent Year Organisation
Authority
Tinnahinch Mountain, 280ha
Clonaslee, Co. Laois
Laois
County
Council
Curraglass &
Cappaboy Beg,
Kealkil, Co. Cork
Cork County 1997 Southwestern
Council
Services,
Bandon, Ltd.
220ha
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
Assessment of
designated sites
1996 Andrew Dunne, this area is
MSc. Agr.
included in the
areas of
outstanding natural
landscape, though
it's not an NHA
none evident
Consultations
Habitat map
yes with Laois County Council; There is a map showing
Slieve Bloom Association, local drainage, scub woodland and
development group; Western quarries but not specifically
Fisheries Board; Shannon
habitats and no
Regional Fisheries Board; SE vegetation/habitat classification
Regional Fisheries Board;
used
O.P.W.; Woodland Contracts
Ltd.
none evident
Outcome3
Scoping
Taxonomic groups covered contents and sources of information
yes, with
matrix
showing
scoping
results in
appendix.
vascular plants;limited
The impacts and mitigation measures in r
bryophytes; limited lichens;
the following areas were covered: flora;
invertebrates; birds; mammals fauna; soils; ; geology; water; air; noise;
visual and landscape; material assets.
Alternatives were also presented
map showing sample points with none
description of habitat types at
reported
those points only usng broad
habitat classification
vascular
plants;comprehensive
bryophyte coverage including
Sphagna sp.;lichens;
invertebrates; amphibians;
birds; mammals
The impacts and mitigation measures in s
the following areas were covered: flora;
fauna; soils; water; air; landscape and
visual; archaeological and cultural
heritage; noise; traffic and roads. Flora
and fauna surveys were carried out in
July 1997. Alternatives were also
presented
82
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
A4.2 VEGETATION
EIA
Year
Organisation
Literature Review
Field survey-habitat inventory
Field survey -species
inventory
Lough Atorick &
Derrygoolin,
Woodford, Co.
Galway
1991
Coilllte
none reported
No habitats identifed
Species list of 29 vascular 11 plots used, no abundance none reported
species with 1 bryophyte and measure given, no plot size
1 lichen sp recorded to
given and no details of
genus level
survey timing. Not clear if
standard relevé method was
used.
None reported
Ummerantarry,
1991
Crossmolina Forest,
Co. Mayo
Coillte
none reported
Seven vegetation types mentioned but
not named. Six are very similar
variations of bog/wet heath vegetation
with Erica tetralix. Two have identical
species lists, so there may be a
grazing differential here but this is not
alluded to.
Field survey carried out,
species lists given of 32 sp.,
including 2 identified
bryophytes, unidentified
bryophytes and 1 lichen sp.
recorded
A table with a schematic
view of the vegetation types
is presented in the appendix
and species lists for each
are provided. No
phytosociological
assessment provided
None reported. However, it must be noted that "Northern Atlantic wet heath with Erica
tetralix" is listed in Annex 1 of EU Habitats directive (Natura code 4010). Wet heath
with Erica tetralix, is mentioned in this site survey, but no mention is made of the site
integrity or whether site is of conservation importance.
Gweebarra Estuary, 1991
Co. Donegal
RPS Group, Ltd. none reported
Five major habitats are distinguished
and described. One habitat contains
wet heath with "Erica tetralix"
Species list of 25 vascular sp Not clear if standard relevé
provided excluding
method was used, survey
bryophytes and lichens.
carried out in winter
Three notable species of
local rarity were expected
and searched for but not
found
none reported
This report mentions the potential occurrence of 3 notable plant species within the
proposed site. The presence of these species was not confirmed in this report.The
survey was carried out in winter. Also, the dominant habitat is moorland which includes
wet heath with Erica tetralix. It should be noted that "Northern Atlantic wet heath with
Erica tetralix" is listed in Annex 1 of EU Habitats directive (Natura code 4010).
Fidaunderry, Lough 1992
Talt, Co. Sligo
Coillte
none reported
One broad habitat type (blanket bog)
with four sub-habitats based on soil
type are described with % area
ascribed to each. Dominant species
and pH values are given for each soil
type.
45 species mentioned
including 2 moss species
and 1 lichen.
10 plots used, no
none reported
abundance measure given.It
is not clear if standard relevé
method was used.
Vegetation survey carried
out in August 1990.
None stated.This report should have said that the presence of Vaccinium oxycoccus is
notable on western blanket bog.
Meentygrennagh,
Meeniroy Forest,
Co. Donegal
1992
Coillte
none reported
No habitat inventory undertaken. No List of 30 species including 3 12 plots used, no
habitat map produced. The document mosses and 2 lichens from abundance measure given,
refers to the site as moorland.
12 moorland plots. Additional no plot size given and no
species lists provided
details of survey effort or
for"near house ruin" (8
timing
species) and "along river"
(13 species) and "remainder
of site" (7 species)
none reported
None reported. It is interesting that the Impacts on flora (section 4.2) is almost wordfor-word identical to Potential impacts on Environment section 5.5 of Bishop's Road
EIS in Northern Ireland (see EIS number 11). Also, species of wet heath and blanket
bog vegetation vegetation are described in the list of flora. These are notable habitats
of conservation importance. "Northern Atlantic wet heath with Erica tetralix" is listed in
Annex 1 of EU Habitats directive (Natura code 4010). "Active blanket bog" is a priority
habitat listed in Annex 1 of EU Habitats Directive. However, there is no indication of
whether this site is degraded or intact.
Crowagh &
Tawnadremira,
Lough Talt, Co.
Sligo
1992
Coillte
none reported
No habitats identified
none
None reported, but from the presence of Huperzia selago, the vegetation is upland
blanket bog with pool systems (indicated by presence of Lobelia dortmanna). Upland
blanket bog is a habitat of conservation importance, but in this report, there is no
indication of whether this site is of conservation importance or is degraded.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
Field survey - methodology
Although species are listed,
no methodology, plot size or
survey effort is described.
Not clear if standard relevé
method was used.
List of 33 species including 2 5 sampling points, no
mosses and 1 lichen
abundance measure given,
(identified to genus level)
no plot size given and no
from 5 plots
details of survey effort or
timing
Phytosociological
assessment
Evaluation of conservation significance
83
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
EIA
Year
Organisation
Literature Review
Field survey-habitat inventory
Coomacheo,
Ballyvourney, Co.
Cork
1992
Coillte
none reported
No habitats identified in report but map List of 33 species including 1 7 sample points, no
none reported
is included showing soils and
species of moss. 27 of these methodologies given and no
associated vegetation.
species are found in only
details of survey effort or
one sample. Two samples timing
comprise only three species
and three samples comprise
four species.
Tinnahinch
Mountain,
Clonaslee, Co.
Laois
1996
Andrew Dunne,
MSc. Agr.
information on regional flora Moorland, woodland and aquatic
provided from other sources habitats identified. Map included
shows drainage, scrub woodland and
quarries but not specifically habitats.
This report is possibly a
desktop study with major
characteristic species
mentioned for each habitat
Methodology of survey not none reported
clearly stated. Probably a
combination of desk survey
and author's own experience
but it is unclear whether
fieldwork was carried out for
this report. Cover/abundance
values not mentioned for
species.
In this report, oak woodland is described as "high quality habitat area" and "may be a
remnant of native woodland". Also a "quality aquatic habitat" exists on the site.
Curraglass &
Cappaboy Beg,
Kealkil, Co. Cork
1997
Southwestern
Services,
Bandon, Ltd.
none reported
Comprehensive species lists
provided, 61 vascular
species identified, also 16
mosses identified to species
level (including 4 species of
Sphagnum) . Species
outside sample plots also
noted.
Standard relevé method
none reported
used for ten quadrats of
5x5m. Cover/abundance of
species measured using the
Domin scale. Survey carried
out in summer
It was reported that no rare species were recorded and no endangered habitats occur.
It was noted that the vegetation has already been modified by human activities such as
peat cutting, burning, reclamation and grazing.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
Vegetation is described from 9 areas.
Habitats are not specifically identified
but good ecological descriptions are
given of each area in relation to
vegetation, drainage, past and present
management.
Field survey -species
inventory
Field survey - methodology
Phytosociological
assessment
Evaluation of conservation significance
none reported
84
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
A4.3 INVERTEBRATES
EIA
Year
Organisation
Taxa covered
Literature Review
Field survey -species inventory
Lough Atorick & Derrygoolin,
Woodford, Co. Galway
1991
Coilllte
Lepidoptera
None reported
List given of 4 taxa recorded; arbitrary selection None reported
of taxa; no details of survey effort or timing
None reported
Ummerantarry, Crossmolina
Forest, Co. Mayo
1991
Coillte
Lepidoptera
None reported
List given of 5 taxa recorded; arbitrary selection None reported
of taxa; no details of survey effort or timing
None reported
Gweebarra Estuary, Co. Donegal 1991
RPS Group, Ltd.
Lepidoptera
Recent distribution maps reviewed
Annotated list given of 3 species recorded;
overall lepidopteran diversity assessed from
habitat quality; survey carried out in winter; no
other details given of survey effort or timing
Potential occurrence of 2 "scarce and declining,
local Irish species" noted
Fidaunderry, Lough Talt, Co.
Sligo
1992
Coillte
Miscellaneous
None reported
List given of 3 taxa recorded; arbitrary selection None reported
of taxa; no details of survey effort or timing
None reported
Meentygrennagh, Meeniroy
Forest, Co. Donegal
1992
Coillte
Miscellaneous
None reported
List given of 5 taxa recorded; arbitrary selection None reported
of taxa; no details of survey effort or timing
None reported
Crowagh & Tawnadremira, Lough 1992
Talt, Co. Sligo
Coillte
Miscellaneous
None reported
List given of 2 taxa recorded; arbitrary selection None reported
of taxa; no details of survey effort or timing
None reported
Coomacheo, Ballyvourney, Co.
Cork
Coillte
Odonata
None reported
One species listed; arbitrary selection of taxa;
no details of survey effort or timing
None reported
None reported
Tinnahinch Mountain, Clonaslee, 1996
Co. Laois
Andrew Dunne, MSc. Agr.
Miscellaneous
General comment on invertebrate fauna
None reported
None reported
None reported
Curraglass & Cappaboy Beg,
Kealkil, Co. Cork
Southwestern Services,
Bandon, Ltd.
Miscellaneous
None reported
List given of 7 taxa recorded (1 probably
None reported
erroneous); arbitrary selection of taxa; no details
of survey effort or timing
None reported
1992
1997
Field survey -species abundance
None reported
Evaluation of conservation significance
Note: the above review does not include surveys of aquatic invertebrates (see Section 1.2.1).
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
85
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
A4.4 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
EIA
Year
Organisation
Literature Review
Field survey -species inventory
Field survey -species abundance
Evaluation of conservation
significance
Lough Atorick &
1991
Derrygoolin, Woodford,
Co. Galway
Coilllte
None reported
List given of 1 species recorded; no None reported
details of survey effort or timing
None reported
Ummerantarry,
1991
Crossmolina Forest, Co.
Mayo
Coillte
None reported
List given of 1 species recorded; no None reported
details of survey effort or timing
None reported
Gweebarra Estuary, Co. 1991
Donegal
RPS Group, Ltd.
Amphibians not covered
Fidaunderry, Lough Talt, 1992
Co. Sligo
Coillte
None reported
List given of 1 species recorded; no None reported
details of survey effort or timing
None reported
Meentygrennagh,
Meeniroy Forest, Co.
Donegal
1992
Coillte
None reported
List given of 1 species recorded; no None reported
details of survey effort or timing
None reported
Crowagh &
Tawnadremira, Lough
Talt, Co. Sligo
1992
Coillte
None reported
List given of 2 species recorded; no None reported
details of survey effort or timing
None reported
Coomacheo,
1992
Ballyvourney, Co. Cork
Coillte
None reported
List given of 1 species recorded; no None reported
details of survey effort or timing
None reported
Tinnahinch Mountain,
Clonaslee, Co. Laois
Andrew Dunne,
MSc. Agr.
1996
Amphibians not covered
Curraglass & Cappaboy 1997
Beg, Kealkil, Co. Cork
Southwestern
Services, Bandon,
Ltd.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
None reported
List given of 2 species recorded; no None reported
details of survey effort or timing
None reported
86
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
A4.5 BIRDS
EIA
Year Organisation
Literature Review
Field survey -species inventory
Lough Atorick &
1991 Coilllte
Derrygoolin, Woodford,
Co. Galway
None
List of 3 species recorded (in summer?) and 1 species None
in winter; no details of survey effort or timing
Ummerantarry,
1991 Coillte
Crossmolina Forest, Co.
Mayo
None
10 species recorded (in summer?) and none in winter;
table listing species omitted in error?; no details of
survey effort or timing
Number of pairs of Skylarks
None
and Meadow Pipits given; no
details of methodology used to
assess abundance
Gweebarra Estuary, Co. 1991 RPS Group, Ltd. Standard sources for
Donegal
bird distribution data
referenced
5 species recorded in winter plus signs of 2 or 3 more,
during 3 day survey; buildings and trees examined for
signs of roosting corvids, raptors or owls; dates of
survey not given; potential occurrence of breeding
species assessed from habitat characteristics and
known distribution of species
Numbers given of each of the 5
species recorded in each of the
major habitat types; no details
of methodology used to assess
abundance
Fidaunderry, Lough Talt, 1992 Coillte
Co. Sligo
None
List given of 10 species recorded in August. No birds
recorded on the site in January. No details of survey
effort.
Statement that “density of bird None
life was low”; no other details.
Meentygrennagh,
Meeniroy Forest, Co.
Donegal
1992 Coillte
None
Lists given of 7 species recorded in August (with notes None
on breeding for 2 species) and 9 species recorded in
January; no details given of survey effort
None
Crowagh &
Tawnadremira, Lough
Talt, Co. Sligo
1992 Coillte
None
List given of 10 species recorded (in summer?) and
None
statement that no species were recorded in January; no
details given of survey effort
None
1996 Andrew Dunne,
MSc. Agr.
Curraglass & Cappaboy 1997 Southwestern
Beg, Kealkil, Co. Cork
Services,
Bandon, Ltd.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
Evaluation of conservation
significance
None
Potential for occurrence of
Annex 1 species, and "rare and
conservationally important"
(term not defined) species
discussed
List given of 8 species recorded (in summer?). No birds Statement that “density of bird None
recorded on the site in January. No details of survey
life was low”; no other details.
effort.
Coomacheo,
1992 Coillte
Ballyvourney, Co. Cork
Tinnahinch Mountain,
Clonaslee, Co. Laois
Field survey -species
abundance
One source referred to None?
None
Statement that "grouse
numbers on the mountain are
low"
List given of 9 species recorded; brief comments on
None
occurrence within site; potential occurrence of 3 other
species mentioned; no details of survey effort or timing
Three species listed as "more
important" (term not defined)
None
87
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
A4.6 MAMMALS
EIA
Year
Organisation
Literature Review
Field survey -species inventory
Lough Atorick &
1991
Derrygoolin, Woodford,
Co. Galway
Coilllte
None reported
List given of 2 species recorded; None reported
no details or survey effort or timing
None reported
Ummerantarry,
Crossmolina Forest,
Co. Mayo
Coillte
None reported
List given of 4 species recorded; None reported
no details or survey effort or timing
None reported
Gweebarra Estuary, Co. 1991
Donegal
RPS Group, Ltd.
2 sources referred to in
assessment of habitat quality
Species recorded listed in text;
Number of Otter sprainting sites
assessment of habitat quality to
and spraints listed by watercourse
determine potential for occurrence and level of marking intensity
of other species (including bats); assessed; number of signs of Irish
no details of survey effort or timing Hare and Red Fox listed and
(but Otter survey results indicate population size estimated based
intensive effort)
on habitat quality and literature
Protection status of
species (under
Wildlife Act?) given;
no other evaluation
reported.
Fidaunderry, Lough
Talt, Co. Sligo
1992
Coillte
None reported
List given of 2 species recorded; None reported
no details or survey effort or timing
None reported
Meentygrennagh,
Meeniroy Forest, Co.
Donegal
1992
Coillte
None reported
List given of 2 species recorded; None reported
occurrence within site described;
no details or survey effort or timing
None reported
Crowagh &
Tawnadremira, Lough
Talt, Co. Sligo
1992
Coillte
None reported
List given of 3 species recorded; None reported
no details or survey effort or timing
None reported
Coomacheo,
1992
Ballyvourney, Co. Cork
Coillte
None reported
List given of 3 species recorded; None reported
no details or survey effort or timing
None reported
Tinnahinch Mountain,
Clonaslee, Co. Laois
Andrew Dunne,
MSc. Agr.
Discussion of species present in
general area and population
densities of hares
None reported
None reported
None reported
List given of 3 species recorded None reported
and 3 other species likely to occur
(2 erroneous); no details or survey
effort or timing
None reported
1991
1996
Curraglass & Cappaboy 1997
Beg, Kealkil, Co. Cork
Southwestern
None reported
Services, Bandon,
Ltd.
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
Field survey -species abundance Evaluation of
conservation
significance
88
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
APPENDIX 5 REVIEW OF BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENTS IN SCOTTISH ESs
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
89
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
A5.1 GENERAL
Taxonomic groups
covered
Outcome7
approx. 1:10,000; distinguishes veg
none mentioned
types even more thoroughly than NVC
types do (I think)
plants, birds,
mammals, reptiles,
invertebrates
o
FA called for EA because the
SNH, Game Conservancy, Red Deer
proposal lies within an SSSI, and Commission
ESA and the Sensitive zone of
the Highland Region's Indicative
Forestry Strategy
approx. 1:10,000; distinguishes veg
none mentioned
types according to NVC classifications
plants, birds,
mammals,
invertebrates
w
3 Dorback Estate, Braes of
302.3 (revised 1994 Finlayson Hughes,
Abernethy Woodland Grant to 280ha)
Inverness
Scheme - proposal is for
natural regen
SSSI (as native pinewood), SPA
and ESA. Also classed as
"sensitive" in Higland Region's
IFS, and lies within the area
identified by the Cairngorm
working party as being a priority
zone for expansion of the
Caledonian Forest
SNH, Highland Regional Coucil Planning
Department, RSPB, Red Deer Commission,
Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries
Department, Regional Archaeologist, Spey
District Fishery Board, North-East River
Purification Board
1:10,000; distinguishes habitats
none mentioned
according to broad types (e.g. valley
mire, swamp, wet dwarf shrub heath,
dry dwarf shrub heath etc.)
plants, mammals,
a (HRC and 1996
birds, reptiles,
SNH)
amphibians, fish and
invertebrates
4 Dunrobin Glen
1995 Bell Ingram rural
none present, Highland Region
IFS "preferred zone"
RSPB on bird interest on areas covered by
the proposal
approx. 1:10,000; distinguishes veg
none mentioned
types according to NVC classifications
5 Druim Dubh, Kinlochdamph 162.3
(originally
181.3)
1996 probably Scottish
Woodlands (for Strath
Discretionary Trust)
National Scenic Area, site is
close to Rassal SSSI
Highland Regional Coucil (Planning Dept and 1:10,000; distinguishes blanket bog
Dept of Libraries and Leisure), Red Deer
from rocky outcrops and "wet
Commission, SNH, Highland River
heath/acid grassland mosaic"
Purification Board, Kinloch Damph Ltd.,
Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries
Dept, FA and RSPB
plants, mammals,
s
birds, reptiles,
amphibians, fish and
invertebrates
plants, mammals,
o
birds, amphibians,
insects (coverage of
fauna takes approx. 2
sentences of whole
report)
6 Glen Uig, Moidart
1996 Baxter Cooper, MSc,
MIBiol, MIEEM
National Scenic Area, part of site SOAFD, Highland River Purification Board,
designated as an SSSI
Red Deer Commission, Regional
Archaeologist, SNH
Map shows location and NVC
classifications of mire patches of
habitat only
7 Phones and Etteridge Estate 542 (originally 1996 Finlayson Hughes, Perth
(Ordan Shuas)
602)
ESA, SSSI, Cairngorms
none mentioned
partnership area; but whole area
designated by Highland IFS as
suitable for "significant
commercial afforestation"
8 Couldoran Estate (Allt an tSidhean)
NSA
EIA
7
Size (ha)
Year Organisation
Assessment of designated sites Consultations
Habitat map
1 Glen Scaddle, Ardgour
Estate
319.2
(originally
644ha)
1995 Tilhill Economic Forestry
none present
2 The Biallaid
292.6
1995 David Hawker
Environmental
Consultancy
660.7
530
393.5
1997 Scottish Woodlands
(double as contractor)
none mentioned
SNH, RDC
Scoping
none mentioned
none mentioned
date
resolved
1996
plants, birds,
mammals, fish
o
1:11600; habitats classified as broad none mentioned
types (e.g. grassland, trees, wet heath
and mire, dry heath)
plants, mammals,
birds, fish,
invertebrates
s
1996
1:10,000 with communities described none mentioned
according to NVC
plants, birds,
mammals
s
2000
o=ongoing, s=successful, approved after initial objection (following is objecting body(ies), r=rejected, w=withdrawn
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
90
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
EIA
Size (ha)
9 Cul Dhoire Loch Mullardoch 235
Year Organisation
Assessment of designated sites Consultations
1998 Fountain Forestry (MIEA) SSSI, cSAC (due to morainic
SEPA, SNH, FC
hummocks, low-altitude montane
habitat and peatland vegetation)
Habitat map
Scoping
Taxonomic groups
covered
1:10,000 homogenous stands of
vegetation located and classified
according to NVC survey methods
decided at meeting with
plants, mammals
consultees in January 1998
Outcome7
date
resolved
w
2000
10 Inveroykel
834 (reduced
from 3033)
1999 FPD Savills, international no statutorily designated areas, on ecology side of things 3 separate experts 1:10,000 digitised maps incorporating decided at scoping meeting plants, insects fish
property consultants
though estate does hold areas of consulted on: plants & insects; birds; and fish target notes and NVC classifications (attendees not identified in and birds
priority habitat under EC habitats
ES)
directive
s
2000
11 Torridon Estate Woodland
Grant Scheme
328
1999 Scottish Woodlands
(double as contractor)
2000
12 Broubster Leans
80
13 Glen Coe Woodland Grant
Scheme (natural regen)
1:10,000 using NVC classification,
from field surveys in Nov 1998
meeting held after initial
surveys to determine likely
impacts and focus of ES
plants, birds,
mammals and
invertebrates
s
2000 CW Sutherland (individual site is within 500m of SPA, SSSI, SNH, FC
owner of croft)
RAMSAR site
none
decided at a meeting with
FC, at which information
provided by SEPA, RSPB
and SNH was considered
birds
o
881.5
2000 West Highland Estates
Office
NSA, SSSI, cSAC; NB// proposal RSPB (to develop survey method for birds),
put forward by NTS, owners of none others mentioned
site and charity for conservation
1:25,000 uses NVC classifications
not mentioned
plants, birds,
mammals
o
14 Glenfeshie Estate (natural
regen)
3500
2000 West Highland Estates
Office, Scott Wilson
Resource Consultants
NNR, Highland Regional Council FC, SNH, Deer Commission for Scotland,
IFS "Sensitive zone"
Cairngorms Partnership Board, Kincraig
Community Council, SEPA, Highland Council
Planning Dept. and Libraries and Leisure
Services Dept., Wildlife Link, Deer
Management Group, Adjoining neighbours,
RSPB
not included as part of statement, but
detailed vegetation maps produced by
NCC and defining vegetation blocks
according to NVC classification were
used in development of proposal
discussions held with
consultees to determinekey
issues to be addressed by
EA
plants, birds,
o
mammals,
invertebrates, retiles
and amphibians, fish
15 Glenmore
930
2000 CEH
World Heritage Site, pSPA,
obviously happened (see "Scoping" section), 1:10,000, vegetation classified to
pSAC, SSSI, proposed National but consulting bodies not identified
below NVC standard
Park, NSA, Highland Regional
Council IFS "Sensitive zone"
discussions held with
"interested parties and
organisations " to identify
issues and concerns
plants, mammals,
birds, reptiles, fish
and invertebrates
16 Kinlochleven
1778
2000 Bidwell Property
SSSI
Consultants, Fort William
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
cSAC, SSSI, NSA; NB// proposal RSPB on bird interest on areas covered by
put forward by NTS, owners of the proposal
site and charity for conservation
none mentioned
3 maps at 1:10,000 scale; 1 recording not mentioned
woodland communities, 1 classifying
all communities according to Highlandspecific McVean and Ratcliffe (1962);
1 giving v. broad (much coarser than
NVC) classifications
o
plants, mammals,
o
birds (insects, fungi)
91
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
EIA
17 Gairloch Estates (Coille
a’Bhaile Mhôir)
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
Size (ha)
Year Organisation
Assessment of designated sites Consultations
4164.6
2000 BOWLTS chartered
surveyors
SSSI, SAC, NSA
Habitat map
SEPA, Deer Commission for Scotland, SNH, 1:10,000 communities classified to
Highland Council (Planning and Archaeology NVC standard (2 days in January and
Depts), SOAEFD, RSPB, FC, North of
February)
Scotland Water Authority, Wester Ross
Fisheries Trust
Scoping
Taxonomic groups
covered
Outcome7
based on meeting with all
bar the last two of the
organisations consulted, to
raise areas of concern
plants, mammals,
invertebrates, fish,
birds
o
date
resolved
92
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
A5.2 VEGETATION
EIA
Year Organisation
Literature Review
Field survey -species inventory
1 Glen Scaddle, Ardgour
Estate
1995 Tilhill Economic Forestry
veg data taken from a previous
survey carried out by NCC
species lists given for whole area for bryophytes; survey method not given in EIA, but
for more or less homogenous areas of vegetation probably no relevés taken
for vascular plants
2 The Biallaid
1995 David Hawker Environmental
Consultancy
veg data taken from SSSI reports plant data taken from several reports which
probably none
and NCC surveys
mention notable (i.e. abundant or interesting)
species. No comprehensive species lists or details
of survey methodologies
different habitat types distinguished
according to NVC classification
3 Dorback Estate, Braes of
1994 Finlayson Hughes, Inverness
Abernethy Woodland Grant
Scheme - proposal is for
natural regen
veg data taken from NCC survey
done in 1986
dominant species in each assemblage are
mentioned. Survey details not given here
almost certainly none
plant assemblages mapped and
described according to NCC study in
1986 (predates NVC)
asserts that area is of
conservation significance, but
supports this statement with
designations pertaining to site
rather than with details of
vegetation
4 Dunrobin Glen
none
141 species of vascular and non-vascular plants
over 16 communities; listed by community
all plants within 1.5m by 1.5m
quadrats identified. At least 1 quadrat
was done per vegetation community.
Abundances recorded as percentage
cover in each community, and as a
frequency score (% quadrats it
occurred in? If so, 25 quadrats per
community, as lowest frequency score
is 4%)
communities identified by eye and
classified according to NVC.
Percentage land covered by each
community is estimated
no formal evaluation of
conservation significance. Claims
that vulnerable species and
habitats will be taken into account
in layout and management of
proposed forest, but no details
given
5 Druim Dubh, Kinlochdamph 1996 probably Scottish Woodlands (for Strath none
Discretionary Trust)
no species inventory
none
survey carried out "in accordance with none, though claims "the areas of
NCC phase 1 vegetation survey". The bog wil be left undisturbed"
results of this survey are summarised
on a map which distinguishes only
three habitat types, and includes just
one NVC code
6 Glen Uig, Moidart
notable spp mentioned in SSSI report which is
included in appendix, no inventory as such
none
seven "distinct zones" described
according to NVC classifications;
though area hasn't been mapped to
NVC standard
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
1995 Bell Ingram rural
1996 Baxter Cooper, MSc, MIBiol, MIEEM
none
Field survey - réléves
Phytosociological assessment
Evaluation of conservation
significance
different habitat types distinguished
according to NVC classification
not considered beyond statement
that plant communities not
"nationally important"; mitigation
measures include leaving old
woodland unplanted
several of the plant communities
and species present are of
conservation interest at local and
national levels. The proposal
states these will be protected or
enhanced
some areas on the site (especially
mires) were identified as holding
spp of which were decreasing
locally and were of high
conservation value
93
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
EIA
Year Organisation
Literature Review
Field survey -species inventory
7 Phones and Etteridge Estate 1996 Finlayson Hughes, Perth
(Ordan Shuas)
none
8 Couldoran Estate (Allt an t- 1997 Scottish Woodlands (double as
Sidhean)
contractor)
none
9 Cul Dhoire Loch Mullardoch 1998 Fountain Forestry (MIEA)
none
Field survey - réléves
Phytosociological assessment
Evaluation of conservation
significance
only spp considered to be important components none
of habitat are mentioned. Two references to nonvascular plants - Sphagnum species and Cladonia
arbuscula
seven NVC communities identified,
methodology not stated
a broad assessment is given of
how plant communities may be
expected to change subsequent to
affor, but no mitigation measures
beyond retaining areas of
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi dominated
habitat (deemed inmportant for
inverts)
area surveyed in April 1997; notable species
mentioned in text description of each community
(20-40 vascular and non-vascular species per
community); no systematic lists. Latin names
poorly written
35 vascular plants and 28 ferns, mosses and
lichens listed
communities classified according to
NVC, probably by eye
?
none
five 4×4m quadrats in each
survey information from relevés used proposes to leave blanket bog
homogenous stand surveyed for
to identify NVC communities
unplanted and replace heath with
species, cover-abundance measured
native pinewood
using Domin-scale
10 Inveroykel
1999 FPD Savills, international property
consultants
none
approximately 250 km walked over a total of 23
no measure of species abundance,
days. 179 spp vasc plants and 92 non-vasc plants though percentage cover of broad
recorded over the whole (almost 7000ha) estate habitat types is estimated
11 Torridon Estate Woodland
Grant Scheme
1999 Scottish Woodlands (double as
contractor)
none
NVC survey on open areas in 1998 to determine
extent of dry heath. Total for dry heath, 14
vascular and 18 non-vascular plants, total for wet
heath/bog 18 vascular and 21 non-vascular plants
sixteen 1.5×1.5 quadrats in five
communities and six subcommunities, cover-abundance of
species in each quadrat ranked
according to Domin scale
12 Broubster Leans
2000 CW Sutherland (individual owner of
croft)
none
none
none
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
seventeen natural and semi-natural
communities described according to
NVC, as well as the plants of a few
artificial habitats. These identified on
the ground
phase 1 vegetation survey carried out
in 1992
areas with interesting/ protected
spp and habitats are identified and
highlighted for protection in the
proposal
consultation with SNH identified a
locally rare fen/transition-mire in the
site, and stated that the close
proximity between this and the area of
peatland within the SSSI meant that
the habitat between the two was also
of ecological interest
the owner argues that the loss of
fen type habitat should be
weighed against the economic
advantages (no application for a
grant, only for planting permission)
and the fact that many less envfriendly land-uses do not require
prior consent
individual plant species not
considered. Value of dry heath
relative to habitat outside of
planting area is considered, effect
of proposal on dry heath in the
area is deemed to be insignificant
94
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
EIA
Year Organisation
Literature Review
13 Glen Coe Woodland Grant
Scheme (natural regen)
2000 West Highland Estates Office
14 Glenfeshie Estate (natural
regen)
Field survey - réléves
Phytosociological assessment
Evaluation of conservation
significance
four site-specific refs cited in
no species inventory (only a few plant species
description of habitats, most
mentioned, mostly tree species and a few
appear to be NCC or NTS reports dominant ground species)
none
phase 1 vegetation survey carried out,
some small patches of habitat missed
by this survey filled in using
information from previous surveys
four habitats are of primary
importance in European context
("qualifying" annex 1), five others
are of secondary importance
("occurring"). Where the proposal
might impact negatively on any of
these habitats, it is modified in
order to avoid such an impact
2000 West Highland Estates Office, Scott
Wilson Resource Consultants
most of vegetation descriptions
taken from previous studies; one
in '60s, the others in '80s/'90s
vegetation described by type, individual species
not really given mention
none
presence of five NVC vegetation types none
found by NCC survey (aerial photos
and fieldwork) is mentioned. Whole
estate described to level of broad
habitat blocks
15 Glenmore
2000 CEH
map compiled from two
vegetation described by type, individual species
references, an additional three
not really given mention
used to provide information for the
text
none
most habitat types not referred to by conservation importance of the
their NVC classifications (names taken heath habitats likely to become
from Phase 1 Habitat Survey, 1987) afforested is weighed up against
that of Caledonian Pine and
montane shrub heath. On balance,
the authors reason that the
positive impacts of the proposal
outweigh the negative
16 Kinlochleven
2000 Bidwell Property Consultants, Fort
William
vegetation data and maps taken
from four references (NCC and
SNH reports)
included in appendix are the results of a survey
none
which generated species lists only for the wooded
areas (135 spp recorded in six hours from 22.4ha
of the site). Only two species of conservation
interest singled out for mention in the open
habitats (Schoenus nigricans and Saxifraga
aizoides)
detailed NVC classification for patches in general, loss of open habitat
of woodland habitat, all other
considered to be compensated for
communities described according to by expansion of native woodland.
McVean and Ratcliffe (1962)
Sensitive plant spp and important
classification (from 1989 report) and habitats will be protected from
broader classification highlighting
planting
occurrence of two rare open habitat
spp)
17 Gairloch Estates (Coille
a’Bhaile Mhôir)
2000 BOWLTS chartered surveyors
none
interesting spp found during habitat survey
none
mentioned in target notes but no systematic list of
species. Noted that many flowering species would
have gone undetected in the present survey due
to timing (two days in Jan & Feb)
NVC communities determined in the
field
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
Field survey -species inventory
proposed that flora of high
botanical interest will be protected
with appropriate buffer zones.
Areas of mire excluded from
planting, and existing trees
retained with areas surrounding
them left to natural regeneration
95
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
A5.3 INVERTEBRATES
EIA
Year Organisation
Taxa covered
1 Glen Scaddle, Ardgour Estate 1995 Tilhill Economic Forestry Lepidoptera, Odonata,
Coleoptera
Literature Review
Field survey -species inventory
Field survey -species abundance
no specific literature sources quoted,
2 species of moth, 1 species of dragonfly, 1
no mention
though it is acknowledged that most data species of beetle and "spiders" noted as being
on fauna is derived from published sources present. No survey details
Evaluation of conservation significance
none
2 The Biallaid
1995 David Hawker
Environmental
Consultancy
Lepidoptera and Coleoptera coverage of invertebrates taken (at least in 3 species named, and "site is entomologically
part) from SSSI citation, not attributed
rich" with a wide variety of moths, butterflies
and beetles. No survey details
no mention
2 red data book moths, 5 other species with
restricted ranges. No mention is made
whether and in what way the proposal might
impact on these species.
3 Dorback Estate, Braes of
Abernethy Woodland Grant
Scheme - proposal is for
natural regen
1994 Finlayson Hughes,
Inverness
Coleoptera, Diptera,
coverage of invertebrates taken entirely
Arachnidae, Hymenoptera, from SSSI citation
Odonata and Lepidoptera
over 400 spp of beetle are present. 2 spp of
butterfly and 1 dragonfly are named. Other
groups covered in statement: "[the site]
supports rare spp of beetle, fly, spider, ant,
dragonfly and moth"
none
area has 3rd highest number of red data
spp for any Scottish site; 15 beetle spp
which are grade 1 indicators of ancient
woodland. No mention made of effect of
proposal on specific spp or groups
4 Dunrobin Glen
1995 Bell Ingram rural
Odonata, Hymenoptera,
Lepidoptera
none
5 Druim Dubh, Kinlochdamph
1996 probably Scottish
Woodlands (for Strath
Discretionary Trust)
Insects (mentioned as being none
present - dragonflies given
specific mention)
a few insect species mentioned in results of
none
vegetation survey, other mentions of
invertebrates groups (not species) is anecdotal
and sketchy
none
none
6 Glen Uig, Moidart
1996 Baxter Cooper, MSc,
MIBiol, MIEEM
none
none
none
7 Phones and Etteridge Estate
(Ordan Shuas)
1996 Finlayson Hughes, Perth Mollusca (fresh-water pearl refers to RDB
mussel) and Lepidoptera
an "assessment" of the Lepidoptera associated no data on abundance is given, though
several of the Lepidopterans are RDB status
with Bearberry (Arctostaphylos) was conducted several spp are described as being confined - their presence leads the consultant to
by Dr Martin Harper 1950-1978. A list of the
to Bearberry (so their range might be
recommend that substantial areas of
notable spp (numbering fifteen) is included in an deduced from the habitat map)
Bearberry habitat are left unplanted
appendix
8 Couldoran Estate (Allt an tSidhean)
1997 Scottish Woodlands
(double as contractor)
none
none
none
none
none
9 Cul Dhoire Loch Mullardoch
1998 Fountain Forestry (MIEA) none
none
none
none
none
10 Inveroykel
1999 FPD Savills, international Diptera, Lepidotera and
property consultants
Odontata
none
no survey, observations of a few notable spp
recorded
none
none
11 Torridon Estate Woodland
Grant Scheme
1999 Scottish Woodlands
(double as contractor)
none
none
none
none
12 Broubster Leans
2000 CW Sutherland
none
(individual owner of croft)
none
none
none
states: "to the applicant's knowledge there
are no insect or spider species within the
proposed WGS which are known to be
protected"
none
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
none
none
none
none
96
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
EIA
Year Organisation
Taxa covered
Literature Review
Field survey -species inventory
Field survey -species abundance
Evaluation of conservation significance
13 Glen Coe Woodland Grant
Scheme (natural regen)
2000 West Highland Estates
Office
none
none
none
none
none
14 Glenfeshie Estate (natural
regen)
2000 West Highland Estates
Office, Scott Wilson
Resource Consultants
Lepidoptera and Odonata
mentioned
several reports by NCC and SNH
from reports, 7 butterflies, 4 dragonflies and
none
mentioned, but their results are left largely perhaps 100 benthic macroinvert taxa recorded
unmentioned
from site, no survey done for project
none (states: "analysis of impacts is based
upon data contained in…". So far as I can
see, no such analysis follows)
15 Glenmore
2000 CEH
Hymenoptera
one reference (detailing habitat
requirements of a threatened spp)
no survey, woodland ant species present in the personal communication informs that there
area are identified by personal communication are about 500 nests of the most threatened
ant over the an large area including the
proposal site
as the only invertebrates considered are
wood ants, and these are of conservation
interest, effects of proposal on inverts are
predicted to be beneficial
16 Kinlochleven
2000 Bidwell Property
none
Consultants, Fort William
none
the presence of some insect groups and
species mentioned anecdotally in notes of
vegetation survey, included in the appendix
none
none
17 Gairloch Estates (Coille
a’Bhaile Mhôir)
2000 BOWLTS chartered
surveyors
none
SNH confirmed presence of pearl mussel
populations in the site, and two species of
butterfly mentioned. No survey done
none
pearl mussels (a BAP species) are the
reason for the SSSI designation; measures
to ensure protection of the mussels are
proposed
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
Mollusca (pearl mussels)
and Lepidoptera
97
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
A5.4 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
EIA
Field survey -species inventory
Field survey -species abundance
Evaluation of conservation significance
presence of adders in general area mentioned, apparently
no adders seen on site. Presence of frogs mentioned (as
otter prey). No surveys
none
none
speculation that north-facing aspect of site
is unlikely to provide good adder habitat
none
none
3 Dorback Estate, Braes of Abernethy Woodland
Grant Scheme - proposal is for natural regen
1995 Tilhill Economic Forestry none mentioned, data almost certainly
obtained from a previous (probably NCC)
survey
1995 David Hawker
none
Environmental
Consultancy
1994 Finlayson Hughes,
none
Inverness
"frog, toad, common lizzard(sic) and newts are believed to
be present in the area"
none
none
4 Dunrobin Glen
1995 Bell Ingram rural
none
occurrence of common frogs, palmate newts, common
lizards and adders is mentioned. No survey
lizards and adders are described as being states that it is illegal to intentionally kill or
common in some areas. No survey
disturb adders
mentioned
5 Druim Dubh, Kinlochdamph
1996 probably Scottish
Woodlands (for Strath
Discretionary Trust)
none
none (frogs mentioned as being present)
none
none
6 Glen Uig, Moidart
1996 Baxter Cooper, MSc,
MIBiol, MIEEM
none
none
none
none
7 Phones and Etteridge Estate (Ordan Shuas)
1996 Finlayson Hughes, Perth none
none
none
none
8 Couldoran Estate (Allt an t-Sidhean)
1997 Scottish Woodlands
(double as contractor)
none
none
none
none
9 Cul Dhoire Loch Mullardoch
1998 Fountain Forestry
none
(MIEA)
1999 FPD Savills, international none
property consultants
none
none
none
none
none
none
11 Torridon Estate Woodland Grant Scheme
1999 Scottish Woodlands
(double as contractor)
none
none
none
states: "to the applicant's knowledge there
are no reptile species within the proposed
WGS which are known to be protected"
12 Broubster Leans
2000 CW Sutherland
none
(individual owner of croft)
none
none
none
none
none
none
1 Glen Scaddle, Ardgour Estate
2 The Biallaid
10 Inveroykel
Year Organisation
Literature Review
13 Glen Coe Woodland Grant Scheme (natural regen) 2000 West Highland Estates
Office
none
14 Glenfeshie Estate (natural regen)
2000 West Highland Estates
Office, Scott Wilson
Resource Consultants
one published reference from which data is adder, common lizard, common frog, palmate newt. No
used
survey done for this project
none
none
15 Glenmore
2000 CEH
none
none
none
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
presence of adders and slow worms in general area
mentioned, no surveys
98
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
EIA
Year Organisation
Literature Review
Field survey -species inventory
Field survey -species abundance
Evaluation of conservation significance
16 Kinlochleven
2000 Bidwell Property
none
Consultants, Fort William
none
none
none
17 Gairloch Estates (Coille a’Bhaile Mhôir)
2000 BOWLTS chartered
surveyors
presence of amphibians mentioned in SNH survey, details
in appendix
none
none
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
none
99
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
A5.5 BIRDS
EIA
Year Organisation
Literature Review
1 Glen Scaddle, Ardgour Estate
1995 Tilhill Economic
Forestry
SNH data used but not referenced
2 The Biallaid
Field survey -species abundance
Evaluation of conservation significance
none
site supports three Annex 1 raptors, report concludes that effect of
afforestation is likely to be mixed. No coherent conclusion
1995 David Hawker
Environmental
Consultancy
information collected on site visits and from SNH data.
Details of survey not given, and data from survey
apparently missing from report!
information is provided by SNH, but states that information provided by SNH indicates an
not referenced
impressive range of breeding bird species. No mention
of survey methods or of systematic list
none
3 Dorback Estate, Braes of
Abernethy Woodland Grant
Scheme - proposal is for natural
regen
4 Dunrobin Glen
1994 Finlayson Hughes,
Inverness
ornithological data based on survey a few species mentioned by name, but no indication of
done by SNH in 1986
numbers of species present
none
six schedule 1 species, seven Annex 1 and Annex 2 species, and
four candidate RDB species. Measures proposed to mitigate effect
of fencing on black grouse populations, but effects on other species
only briefly considered
six Annex 1 species use the area, as well as other species of
interest. Considerable attention given to ameliorating the impact of
fencing on blackgame (capercaillie and blackcock)
1995 Bell Ingram rural
none mentioned
5 Druim Dubh, Kinlochdamph
1996 probably Scottish
none
Woodlands (for
Strath Discretionary
Trust)
1996 Baxter Cooper, MSc, none
MIBiol, MIEEM
6 Glen Uig, Moidart
7 Phones and Etteridge Estate
(Ordan Shuas)
1996 Finlayson Hughes,
Perth
8 Couldoran Estate (Allt an tSidhean)
1997 Scottish Woodlands none
(double as
contractor)
9 Cul Dhoire Loch Mullardoch
1998 Fountain Forestry
none
(MIEA)
1999 FPD Savills,
none
international property
consultants
10 Inveroykel
11 Torridon Estate Woodland Grant
Scheme
12 Broubster Leans
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
1999 Scottish Woodlands
(double as
contractor)
2000 CW Sutherland
(individual owner of
croft)
none mentioned
none
Field survey -species inventory
several spp mentioned (in association with different
none
habitats), based on guesswork, casual observation and
some expert advice
none
none
state that it is illegal to kill or disturb hen harriers and merlins. RSPB
appear to have guided conclusions on whether areas have high or
low bird conservation interest. Operations will minimise disturbance
to breeding waders and raptors
none explicitly, though statement that golden plover and greenshank
populations will be monitored in association with RSPB (esp. to see
what effectiveness of RSPB-suggested fence marking is)
apparently no systematic survey - information on
again information on abundance got from
species present got from RSPB and SNH (by
RSPB and SNH
consultation or through published reports) five species of
raptor present plus raven
RSPB Greenshank survey 1994-1995. Rest of data
no precise abundances, more like
based on observations of writer and reserve staff, and presence/absence
on other RSPB data
surveyed June 1996 by Roy Dennis, report based on
abundances given only for 2 spp - 2 pairs of
two person days plus existing knowledge. All notable
Greenshank and 1 pair of Whinchat
species present discussed, and possible importance for
species not found during survey discussed
none
none
two of the raptors present on the site are listed species in Annex 1,
Appendix III (of Berne convention) and Schedule 1 (Wildlife and
Countryside Act) and are of national importance. It is suggested that
negative impacts to these species will be acceptably small
concludes that there are unlikely to be any important impacts on
birds
four person days in late June, early July 1998. 44
species (or evidence of their presence) detected. From
knowledge of site and of surrounding area, a further 25
species postulated as probably occurring there, and a
further 20 as possibles
breeding bird survey in 1995 generated list of probable
breeding spp - approx 25
for species detected, exacted numbers of
singles, pairs and broods as well as their
locations recorded
ornithological report recommends that so long as certain open areas
(used by breeding waders and wintering wildfowl) are safe-guarded,
the proposal would result in a benefit for birds and biodiversity
none
proposal will incorporate RSPB's suggestions. Overall, RSPB
conclude impact of the proposal on birds will be positive
one reference dealing with effects of none - the only species considered are geese
afforestation on use of loch roosts by
greenland white-fronted geese
greenshank breeding areas to be avoided and bog-forest boundary
planted with willow/alder. Importance of some habitats deemed to
be low due to presence of better quality habitat outwith site
none
no numbers of geese are mentioned, though proposed forestry deemed not to have a negative effect on the
the SPA of which Broubster Leans is part holds geese, due to distance between the site and the area used by
a nationally important number of Greenlandgeese
white fronts (site is especially important for
maintaining UK range of this bird)
100
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
EIA
13 Glen Coe Woodland Grant
Scheme (natural regen)
Year Organisation
Literature Review
2000 West Highland
Estates Office
bird data taken from survey by NTS
in 1998 (seems to have been
conducted with a view to the
proposed scheme)
14 Glenfeshie Estate (natural regen) 2000 West Highland
all data taken from previous surveys;
Estates Office, Scott at least 3 surveys in the '90s as well
Wilson Resource
as some earlier surveys
Consultants
15 Glenmore
2000 CEH
2 references cited to provide data
on interesting bird species
16 Kinlochleven
2000 Bidwell Property
Consultants, Fort
William
7 references referred to in
interpretation of the results of the
bird survey
17 Gairloch Estates (Coille a’Bhaile
Mhôir)
2000 BOWLTS chartered
surveyors
none
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
Field survey -species inventory
Field survey -species abundance
Evaluation of conservation significance
31 species found on three sites within the proposal area. status of each species recorded as certainly,
A few species not recorded during survey but probably probably or possibly breeding, or merely
present in the area are discussed
present
only one "locally rare" sp (stonechat) is expected to be negatively
affected by extensive natural regeneration; mitigation measures for
this spp are discussed
list of species recorded on estate from previous surveys none
= 66 species. No survey for this project
some consideration of danger of bird strike on grouse populations
(but these are largely projected - is hoped they will colonise after
woodland has established)
the most interesting birds which either occur in, or could the following estimates taken from ITE report.
occur in the area are discussed (n=14); no survey
Densities in the general area estimated for
capercaillie and crossbill spp. Number of black
grouse leks estimated
two site visits in April and May-June made to each of
numbers and locations of each sp were
three sites over four working days, resulted in a list of 13 recorded.
species (five of these recorded on land adjacent to the
site)
consultation with RSPB identified two species of major none
conservation concern (black-throated divers and golden
eagles), along with a few others of lesser significance
(red-throated divers, merlin, greenshank and golden
plovers)
as for vegetation, positive impacts are predicted to outweigh
negatives
advises open ground where planting would impact negatively on
interesting birds (ring ouzel, whinchat and stonechat - latter locally
rare)
proposals will take into account the habitat requirements of both
divers and eagles, and minimise disturbance in the vicinity of their
breeding sites during the breeding season. Other species not
explicitly considered
101
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
A5.6 MAMMALS
EIA
1 Glen Scaddle, Ardgour
Estate
2 The Biallaid
3 Dorback Estate, Braes of
Abernethy Woodland
Grant Scheme - proposal
is for natural regen
4 Dunrobin Glen
5 Druim Dubh,
Kinlochdamph
6 Glen Uig, Moidart
7 Phones and Etteridge
Estate (Ordan Shuas)
Year Organisation
Literature Review
1995 Tilhill Economic Forestry none mentioned,
though implication
that data are
obtained from
published source
1995 David Hawker
none mentioned,
Environmental
though implication
Consultancy
that data are
obtained from
published source
1994 Finlayson Hughes,
none
Inverness
1995 Bell Ingram rural
none
1996 probably Scottish
Woodlands (for Strath
Discretionary Trust)
1996 Baxter Cooper, MSc,
MIBiol, MIEEM
none
none
1996 Finlayson Hughes, Perth none
Field survey -species inventory
red deer, roe deer, foxes, wildcats,
pine martens and otters present. No
survey
sika deer, roe deer, red deer, feral
goats, rabbits and domestic stock
present. No surveys done
no survey, mention that foxes, red
deer and roe deer are present, and
that wild cat, otter and pine marten
are believed to be present
fourteen species mentioned but no
survey done (observations of writer
and of estate staff)
none
none
9 Cul Dhoire Loch
Mullardoch
none
1999 FPD Savills,
international property
consultants
11 Torridon Estate Woodland 1999 Scottish Woodlands
Grant Scheme
(double as contractor)
none
none, the only species considered
are badgers, whose presence
seems to have been detected
anecdotally
only red deer discussed
none
only red deer discussed
12 Broubster Leans
2000 CW Sutherland
(individual owner of
croft)
13 Glen Coe Woodland Grant 2000 West Highland Estates
Scheme (natural regen)
Office
none
none
none
only red deer discussed
14 Glenfeshie Estate (natural 2000 West Highland Estates
regen)
Office, Scott Wilson
Resource Consultants
two published
from literature sixteen species
references referred recorded
to and a personal
communication
15 Glenmore
2000 CEH
none
16 Kinlochleven
2000 Bidwell Property
none
Consultants, Fort William
2000 BOWLTS chartered
none
surveyors
10 Inveroykel
17 Gairloch Estates (Coille
a’Bhaile Mhôir)
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
none
none
none
abundance is given
only for red deer, which
were last counted in
1994
none
impact on red deer population
considered to be small - no
other conservation
implications considered
changes in mammal
populations predicted by
conservation implications of
such changes not considered
April 1997 count by
consultation with SNH officer
RDC of red deer (gives who informed that area
numbers of stags, hinds probably not important for non
and calves)
red deer mammals
none
attention drawn to presence
of badger sett in site, no other
vertebrates mentioned save
for deer, which will be culled
state that after consultation
with Deer Commission for
Scotland cull will be needed
1996 Deer Commission none (consider only that
for Scotland quoted for planting may impact on deer
numbers of stags hinds population)
and calves. Winter
density also estimated
none
none
1996 Deer Commission
for Scotland quoted for
numbers of stags hinds
and calves. Winter
density also estimated
none
no survey, presence of five
none
mammals (red squirrel, pine marten,
mountain hare, otter and water vole)
mentioned
lists nine mammal species
none
likely mammals present are listed
Evaluation of conservation
significance
none (states that large
mammal populations will
probably increase and will
have to be controlled)
around 100 goats.
none. Need for culling of deer
Details of methodology mentioned, but has no
not provided
conservation implications
nine terrestrial mammals and "bats" none
are mentioned as being present in
the area. No survey methodology
given.
only mammals mentioned are field none
voles and red deer
only mammals mentioned are field none
voles, red deer and stock
8 Couldoran Estate (Allt an t- 1997 Scottish Woodlands
Sidhean)
(double as contractor)
1998 Fountain Forestry
(MIEA)
Field survey -species
abundance
none
DCS counts have
generated relible
numbers for red deer
need for a cull is discussed,
as well as movement of deer
herds between Glencoe and
neighbouring estates
a detailed deer management
plan is presented for
management purposes.
Nothing of conservation
significance mentioned
explicitly
deer will have to be
controlled, proposal will
broadly be of benefit to
mammal conservation
none
deer will be culled as
necessary
102
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
APPENDIX 6 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FROM OVERSEAS CONTACTS
A6.1 QUESTIONS ASKED
1. The legislative requirements (if any) for the consideration of biodiversity impacts in the
selection of sites for afforestation
2. The role that (the statutory Nature Conservation Agency in your country) plays in the
assessment of biodiversity of sites to be afforested.
3. The methods used to assess biodiversity in the strategic assessment of areas for
afforestation at the national or regional level
4. The methods used for biodiversity assessment of individual sites to be afforested
5. The use (if any) of biological indicators in biodiversity assessment of afforestation sites
6. What is the procedure adopted in your country for applying Article 4 of the EIA
Directive to projects corresponding to Annex II, 1d projects (Initial afforestation and
deforestation for the purposes of conversion to another type of land use)?
7. How many EIAs have been prepared in your country for Annex II, 1d projects?
A6.2 AUSTRIA
A6.2.1 Response to Question 6 and 7
Regional (province) level: initial afforestation requires a permit according to specific
province laws. Federal level: Every initial afforestation with tree species not suitable for the
site on an area of 15 ha or more in special protected areas (national parks, nature
conservation areas etc.) has to undergo a case to case examination. An Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) is required when the competent authority decides in this case to
case examination that the project is likely to have significant effects on the environment. To
date there have been no EIAs of afforestation projects.
Respondent: Susanna Eberhartinger, Div. I/1 U Pollution Prevention and Control of
Installations, Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water
Management,
Stubenbastei
5,
A-1010
Vienna,
Austria,
e-mail:
susanna.eberhartinger@bmu.gv.at.
A6.3 CZECH REPUBLIC
A6.3.1 Response to Questions 2, 4 and 5
The statutory nature conservation agency is involved in forest plan approval and prohibits
afforestation in any protected sites
Biodiversity assessment methods: Changes in population size are monitored for different
biota using sample plots or transects in large populations or total population counts in small
populations (not necessarily afforestation methods). Pitfall traps are used to sample carabid
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
103
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
beetles. Vegetation quadrats, line transect and frequency rectangles and micromapping (for
vegetation structure analysis) and monitoring of heavy metals in mosses are used to assess
vegetation (not necessarily afforestation methods).
Use of Indicator species: Carabid beetles are used (not necessarily afforestation methods)
Respondent: Vilém Podrázský, Faculty of Forestry, Czech University of Agriculture, Prague
Podrazsky@LF.CZU.CZ
Lubomir Salek & Lucie Jerabkova, State Institute of Forest Management, Kromeriz,
Salek@KM.UHUL.cz
Karel Vancura, Forestry Development Department, Kromeriz, vancura@mze.cz
A6.4 DENMARK
A6.4.1 Response to Questions 1, 2 and 5
The nature protection act covers the protection of any valuable habitats in relation to
afforestation developments such that the only habitats eligible for afforestation are
agricultural lands "under plough". Also Planning Acts are used to protect valuable areas by
zoning lands into protected habitats, lands eligible for afforestation and grant aid and other
areas where afforestation is possible but not eligible for grant aid. EIA is generally not used
but required in cases of afforestation on land defined as protected under regional planning
and greater than 30Ha and all other afforestation is taken on a case by case basis for EIA
screening. The statutory nature conservation agency must ensure the legislation to protect
valuable habitats and biodiversity is implemented. The Forest and Nature agency is
responsible for administering grant aid for afforestation. As it the grant-aid is
oversubscribed, a point system is used to assess applications which encourages nature
conservation. Ground beetles are used as indicator species to estimate how long it takes to
colonise new forests. Research is ongoing to develop indices of biodiversity.
Respondent: Anna Thormann, Danish Forests and Nature Agency, Department of Forestry
Policies, ANT@sns.dk
Karsten Rauland Rasmussen, The Danish Forest and Landscape Institute, krr@fsl.dk
Mikael Kirkebæk, The Danish Forest and Landscape Institute, MIK@sns.dk
Gert Johansen, GJ@MEM.DK
Vivian Kvist Johansen, Danish Center for Forest Landscape and Planning, VKJ@FSL.DK
A6.4.2 Response to Questions 3 and 4
Strategic assessment: Areas appointed for possible afforestation are selected on the basis of 3
main criteria: Protection of ground water; Increase in urban forests - for recreational
purposes; and Creation of natural corridors - (Natura 2000, Habitat directive).
Site assessment: No assessment is performed
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
104
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Respondent: Vivian Kvist Johannsen, Danish Center for Forest, Landscape and Planning,
Danish Forest and Landscape Research Institute, ABB@FSL.DK.
A6.5 FINLAND
A6.5.1 Response to Questions 1, 2, 4 and 5
General forestry legislation to ensure that forestry has as little impact on biodiversity as
possible and key habitats are protected within managed forests. Projects are screened case
by case to determine the need for EIA as Finland does not have Annex 2 and no afforestation
projects have yet warranted an EIA. In Finland, most planting is reforestation after harvest
and minimal afforestation takes place with no research into biodiversity in afforestation
sites. Therefore all information relates to reforestation
This agency must ensure the legislation to protect key habitats and biodiversity is
implemented.
Several methods used for biodiversity assessment in forests (not necessarily afforestation),
the Finnish Forest and Park Services use biodiversity variables include: amount and quality
of deadwood; area; key habitats; remote sensing data used in landscape ecological planning
and analysis to map valuable sites. Private owners and forest companies use different
methods.
Landscape ecological planning is probably the best method used but several methods exist.
Carabids are used as indicators in plantation forestry.
Respondent: Dr. Alex Komarov, Alex.komarov@sauna.efi.fi
Tuula Aarnio, Finnish Forest Research Institute, TuulaAarnio@metla.fi
Dr. Erkki Tomppo, Finnish National Forest Inventory, Finnish National Forest Research
Institute, Erkki.Tomppo@metla.fi
Mari Walls, Finnish Biodiversity Research Programme, Programme Director, FIBRE Project,
mari.walls@ntu.fi
Lauri Saaristo, Department of Ecology and Systematics, University of Helsinki,
lsaaristo@cc.helsinki.fi
Dr. Jari Niemelä, Steering Committee, Bioforest Project & Department of Ecology &
Systematics, University, Helsinki, jari.niemala@helsinki.fi
A6.6 FRANCE
A6.6.1 Response to Questions 1, 3 and 4
Unless I am mistaken, in France there is no obligation to undertake a biodiversity impact
assessment prior to afforestation. The prefecture (local authority) has the authority (under
the Code Rural – article 52-1) to prohibit or regulate new planting, for example in order to
protect species or habitats of interest (see circulars received from MATE – Robin Rolland).
This requires that the prefecture be informed of the natural value of the sites to be
afforested, as happens when the site has been designated as a ZNIEFF (French equivalent of
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
105
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
SSSI), as a protected area, or as a proposed SAC under the Habitats Directive (regarding the
latter, the French justice system has already had occasion to apply Article 6 of the Habitats
Directive, in order to prevent planned developments which would have damaged areas
which had been assessed during the course of applying the directive, without having yet
being proposed as SACs). It is worth recalling that Espaces Naturels de France recently took
action against state afforestation grants which were assisting afforestation projects in
important wetland habitats. Their suggestions have now been included in revamped
Regional Forest Planning Guidelines. I do not know of any specific methods for assessing
biodiversity in pre-afforestation sites (ONF - the French Coillte – are not undertaking very
much new planting). I therefore suggest that you should concentrate your research on
biodiversity assessment methods currently used in open habitats and on investigating the
impact of new plantings. In reality, I think that the surveys being carried out in the name of
the Habitats Directive currently constitute the main ‘alarm bell’ when afforestation projects
risk damaging habitats or species of special interest. But this safety net applies only to
proposed SACs and to habitats and species listed in the Directive.
Respondent: Nicolas Drapier, Office National des Forets – Direction technique –
Département aménagement, sylvicultures, espaces naturels, e-mail : stirne@wanadoo.fr, i.e.
the governmental organisation responsible for managing France’s forests.
A6.6.2 Response to Question 1
Two circular letters sent to local authorities (préfets) at departmental (i.e. county) and
regional levels to explain afforestation regulations. Translation of key paragraphs:
Circular : Regulations for afforestation projects : putting into practise new objectives
outlined by décret number 99-112 (18th February 1999)
Objective to protect natural habitats and landscapes of interest
Those objectives concern:
Damage caused by afforestation to the special quality of landscapes, especially those defined
by some type of classification, listing, protection or identification
Damage caused to natural or special habitats and to balanced water management, as defined
by article 2 of law 92.3 of January 1992
The types of site which should be the subject of possible limitations on afforestation are as
follows:listed or classed sites
zones de pre-emption des espaces naturels sensibles\
protected coastal heritage sites
biotope protection sites
national parks
national nature reserves
SPAs (Birds Directive)
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
106
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
SACs (Habitats Directive)
Natural regional parks
You (local authorities at ‘departement’ (county) and regional levels) should examine the
relevance of a prohibition or regulation of afforestation in such areas, taking into
consideration the aims of the established protection and should implement such
measures only in cases where the special character of the habitat or landscape is
incontestable.
Circular : Updating of the conditions for funding, by the general State budget, of
afforestation or reafforestation, conversion, improvement, equipment in commercial
forests and of management assistance tools.
18th August 2000
Conditions relating to Environmental Aspects
Biodiversity
protection of areas of great ecological interest
Afforestation in habitats which are ecologically rich and disappearing, such as wetlands and
dry grassland, should be the subject of a very close examination in order to ensure that no
project helped by public funding contributes to the damage of such habitat types.
You are reminded that afforestation in peat bogs cannot benefit from State funding.
maintenance of certain parts of the existing vegetation and of open spaces, creation of
patches or strips of diverse species.
A certain number of improvements (environmental), within the area to be forested may be
included : maintenance of open spaces, planting of diverse species (a list of which will be
established at regional level) in patches or borders. Also, use of existing vegetation such as
hedges and riparian vegetation (possible corridors) or of clumps of trees (landscape role or
old wood). In total, the maximum percentage of the area of the project given over to
maintaining diversity is fixed at 20%, on condition that these areas are well managed; their
maintenance is included in the 15-year agreement signed between the beneficiary and the
State.
Recommendations
Biodiversity
You are recommended
Not to systematically replant when natural disasters leave enough of the original plantation,
in terms of quality and quantity
To favour, wherever possible, the use or retention of species present during clearing work
(recommendations for each type of plantation and each forest region are to be established at
regional level)
To encourage, in plantations which are not too dense, the use and control of natural dead
wood
Otherwise to keep a few dying or dead trees as long as they do not pose any danger to
persons using paths and tracks
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
107
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
These recommendations should be adapted at regional level depending on the initial density
of a plantation, and the minimum yield required.
Respondent: Robin Rolland and Claire-Eliane Petit of the Direction de la Nature et des
Paysages, Sous-Direction des Espaces Naturels, Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire
et
de
l’Environnment,
20
avenue
de
Ségur,
75302
Paris,
e-mail :
robin.rolland@environnement.gouv.fr
A6.6.3 Response to Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4
According to French law, there is no obligation to assess the impact of afforestation on the
biodiversity of the habitat. Only a few recommendations exist, in particular where changes
are planned in wetland areas (bogs), special habitats and sites classified at prefectural level
(protect woodland areas), but these have no legal basis. The French Ministry for the
Environment plays no role in the development of specific regulations, legislation or methods
for assessing biodiversity on pre-afforestation sites, except for its contribution via European
LIFE projects or SSSI surveys. As far as we know, no specific methods exist for evaluating
biodiversity of pre-afforestation sites and the methods used must be “classic” biodiversity
assessment methods.
Respondent: Pierre Touzac, Project Officer for the ‘Forest Network’, France Nature
Environnement, e-mail fneforet@club-internet.fr (A national federation of non-governmental
nature conservation organisations).
A6.7 GERMANY
A6.7.1 Response to Question 4
Variable approaches used including plots and the Braun-Blanquet scale of vegetation
analysis (not necessarily afforestation methods).
Respondent: Prof. Dr. Hermann Ellenberg, University of Hamburg, ellenberg@holz.unihamburg.de
Prof. Dr. Albert Reif, University of Freiburg, areif@ruf.uni-freiburg.de
Richard Fischer, PCC of ICP Forests, Institute for World Forestry, fischer@holz.unihamburg.de
A6.8 GREECE
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
108
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
A6.8.1 Response to Question 6
As far as I know, the article 4 and the corresponding to annex II ,1d projects has not been
applied by the Greek Forest Service . I am interested to hear on your research, since I was
one among other experts in the EU -EIA committee during the revision time of the 337/85
directive to include reforestation projects into this revision. Reason for that was that in the
past 1967-1970 in Greece as a young Forest Engineer I remember that extensive
mountainous areas were reforested by introducing foreign species such as Eucalyptus, Pinus
Radiata .and other quick growing species for timber production ( it was an FAO program)
without prior investigation on the impact which such programs could have caused upon the
habitats.
Respondent: Professor Costas Cassios, National Technical University of Athens, e-mail
ccassios@central.xntua.gr.
A6.9 THE NETHERLANDS
A6.9.1 Response to Questions 1 and 2
All afforestation developments are subject to planning laws. Lands converted to forestry
must remain that way unless planning permission is sought to revert back to agriculture.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries provides guidelines,
training and advice on forest management. The only legislative restriction concerning
biodiversity on approval of an afforestation proposal would be if there were endangered
species growing or living on a site. In practice, however, these sites would never be
considered for afforestation. Afforestation in the Netherlands is mainly concentrated on
abandoned farm lands. Nature reserves (esp. heathlands and flower-rich meadows) are
actively managed as to prevent natural establishment of trees. In the cases where natural
reforestation is allowed, this is allowed to increase actual (local or regional) biodiversity.
Respondent: Dr. Ir. Jan den Ouden (jan.denouden@btbo.bosb.wau.nl), Silviculture and
Forest Ecology Group, Wageningen University
Dr. H. Siepel, ALTERRA, h.siepel@alterra.wag-ur.nl
A6.10 NEW ZEALAND
A6.10.1
Response to Question 1
Afforestation is subject to the Resource Management Act under which regional and district
plans are prepared to ensure sustainable development. The New Zealand Forest Accord was
signed by the conservation bodies and forest companies to ensure native forests are
protected.
Respondent: (Forest Service, 2000b).
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
109
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
7.6
PORTUGAL
A6.10.2
Response to Questions 1, 3 and 6.
According to the portuguese transposition of the EIA Directive 97/11/EC (Law-Decree
nº69/2000, 3th of May) Annex II, 1d projects must submit EIS when they apply to an area
greater than or equal to 350 ha. This threshold is reduced to 140 ha if, in conjunction with
other forested areas of the same kind within a 1Km radius, the total area forested exceeds
350 ha.. In areas deemed to be sensitive, these thresholds are reduced to 70ha and 30ha,
respectively. Since 1997, in areas which have been given Natura 2000 designations
(amounting to over 20% of the country), every project of changing land use above 5ha must
be granted conservation approval if it is to go ahead. This may require an EIA to be
conducted if significant negative impacts are expected.
Don't know the methods used to asses biodiversity, although at present, surveys for
establishing Natura 2000 are widely used in the approval of forest projects.
There isn't in Portugal any formal strategic environmental assessment of areas for
afforestation, although the government has published a Plan for the Sustainable
Development of the Portuguese Forest which defines the protection of biological diversity
and landscape as a strategic objective. Also, the Institute for the Conservation of Nature
(ICN), which is responsible for matters related to the assessment and protection of
biodiversity recently developed a Strategy for the Conservation of Nature and Biodiversity.
The strategy, adopted until 2010, aims to conserve nature and biological diversity; promote
the sustainable use of biological resources; and contribute to carrying out the objectives
defined by the international processes of cooperation in which Portugal is involved. Neither
of these publications make specific reference to biodiversity assessment for new
afforestation.
Respondents:
Henrique Pereira dos Santos (santoshp@icn.pt) and Gustavo Vicente (doaap@icn.pt), both of
ICN.
A6.11 SWEDEN
A6.11.1
Response to Questions 1, 2 and 4
New forestry policy came into effect in 1994. It encompasses habitat protection and nature
conservation and subsidies for habitat protection.
Afforestation in larger areas necessitates collaboration between the landowner and the
nature conservation authority. There are almost 100 local forestry districts throughout the
country and the Forestry Act, which covers valuable habitat protection is implemented
locally by the relevant district forest administration as the nature conservation authority is
only distributed on a regional basis.
The afforestation site is located on a map and compared with existing data and local
knowledge with a possible field visit. The national Board of Forestry and the Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency continuously evaluate the impact of forest policy on
biodiversity in the SMILE project
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
110
Project 3.1.1: WP1: Biodiversity assessment for afforestation
Respondent: Erik Sandström, National Board of Forestry, erik.sandstrom@svo.se
A6.12 SWITZERLAND
A6.12.1
Response to Questions 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The only cases where afforestation is currently occurring are - replacement for permanent
conversion of forests into other land uses (legal requirement: 100% replacement in the same
region) - afforestation of slopes for protection against natural hazards - afforestation on
private land, mostly on agricultural land. However, the area planted is negligible.
Conversely, there is a strong increase of forests by natural succession on former agricultural
land mostly in mountainous terrain. This situation explains why there are no particular
legislative requirements for the consideration of biodiversity impacts in the selection of sites
for afforestation. However, if such a site is protected by other legislation, e.g. designated as a
nature reserve, an afforestation is illegal.
The role of the statutory nature conservation agency in assessment of biodiversity of
afforestation sites: "None, to my knowledge. Moreover, there is such an organisation in
every Canton. This means that we have about 25 ways how the national legislation is put
into practice."
As far as methods for assessing biodiversity are concerned, these are not relevant in terms of
strategic assessment at the regional or national level. There are no specific protocols in place
for biodiversity assessment of individual sites to be forested, though methods have been
developed for national biodiversity assessments.
Respondent: Peter Brang (sfv-sfs@bhz.ch), Schweizerische Forstverein, Zurich
BIOFOREST PROJECT
D:\106737906.doc
Last saved on 16/2/16 5:06 PM
111