Useful Data for Irish River Conservation / Water Quality

Expressions of interest sought for participation in a Leaders’ Forum on the development of the national Nature Restoration Plan | National Parks & Wildlife Service

Date Released: Friday, December 20, 2024

Stakeholder engagement programme for the Nature Restoration Plan will contain two key elements; a Leaders’ Forum and Community Conversations.
Expressions of interest now sought from stakeholders to participate in the Leaders’ Forum. 

Leaders’ Forum to be convened in the Spring of 2025.

The National Parks & Wildlife Service has been appointed by Government to coordinate the development of a national Nature Restoration Plan (NRP) arising from the Nature Restoration Regulation, to be submitted to the EU Commission by 1 September 2026.
Stakeholder Participation Programme for the National Restoration Plan

From the outset the Government has committed to an open and transparent engagement process to underpin the development of a National Restoration Plan that works for society and for nature. A fully accessible, inclusive multi-tiered model is proposed to ensure the views of all citizens, at all levels, are captured and reflected in the final NRP. The programme will contain two key elements; a Leaders’ Forum and Community Conversations.

The Leaders’ Forum will be a cross-sectoral dialogue at the most senior level, to discuss the overall trajectory of the NRP and identify key risks and opportunities. It will see senior leadership of all stakeholder groups invited to participate in exchanges of views and progress briefings. The Leaders Forum will be convened in the Spring of 2025 and discussions from the forum will feed directly to the Independent Advisory Committee. Further follow-up Leaders’ Forums will be held throughout 2025.

The Community Conversations will be a locally-led, participatory engagement model that aims to inform and hear the views of groups and individuals around the country. This will provide opportunities at all levels for genuine exploration and dialogue and to create a country-wide conversation about what EU Nature Restoration Law (NRL) means for all citizens.

Expressions of interest are now sought from stakeholders and other relevant bodies in participating in the Leaders’ Forum.
The Nature Restoration Regulation

The Nature Restoration Regulation (EU2024/1991) came into force in August 2024. The Regulation is the first continent-wide, comprehensive law of its kind, and sets binding targets to restore degraded ecosystems, in particular those with the most potential to capture and store carbon and to prevent and reduce the impact of natural disasters.

Preliminary work is already underway and an Independent Advisory Committee has been established to advise on the developments and the contents of the NRP. The Committee will be supported by technical thematic working groups and the Stakeholder Participation Programme.

The Leaders’ Forum will take place on Tuesday 25th March in the Aisling Hotel. Further details on registration will issue shortly

AIE request 002 2025

Overview of the DAFM-Forestry assessment process, and various proposed refinements to the referral procedure

Agenda

1. Introductions
2. An overview of DAFM-Forestry assessment process
3. Referral rules to consider if AA screening only is required or if an NIS/full AA is being carried
   out & consider what documents NPWS should be receiving
4. Proposed changes on DAFM’s side:
   a. Referral triggers
   b. Method of referral
   c. Referral period
5. Responses from NPWS
6. AOB

Issues that need to be addressed.

• The alignment of the referral process for NPWS with other state agencies, in terms of me
  taken and use of the Department’s Forestry Licence Viewer.
• Responses from NPWS can be quite varied, and lacking in site-specific info. /
  recommendations, which if it had these more oen could be used to beer aid DAFM in
  making a final decision.
• Possibly looking at the volume of referrals being made, with a view to focusing them on ones
  of particular interest to NPWS, e.g. the various special areas of conservation or pNHAs..
• A renewal of the matrix (along with possible information days on forestry licencing process)
  will aid both our organizations in understanding beer the requirements of our respective
  legislation and our resource capacities

Regarding topics you outlined below some issues from my perspective include:

Forestry Licence Viewer – redaction of documents, delay in uploading documents, documents
put up as ‘other’
FS to identify applications where a response is required e.g. Licence applications within
designated national or European sites
Stages referrals are sent to NPWS (This was mentioned at a previous meeting that NPWS were
consulted early as comments were fed into the AA process – reasons why this is the process and
possibility some training for staff on this and what type of information FS are looking from
NPWS)
Format for Forestry Matrix review could be discussed and start date etc

DAFM, Forest Service / NPWS Referral Procedures

The objective of this document is to set out current practices and procedures in relation referrals issued by Forest Service, DAFM to NPWS in respect of forestry developments.

Forest Service / NPWS Referral Matrix

Bilateral meeting between National Parks & Wildlife Service and Forestry Inspectorate regarding the referral process

Timing of consultation of NPWS
-We would like you consider the value of current two-stage timing for consultation of NPWS.
-NPWS staff often feel it is too early to be consulted before we know what the FS intend to do re AA screening outcome and proposed mitigation.
-It would be preferable for us to only be consulted during the second period of public consultation (post AA screening and NIS preparation but pre-AA determination).
-This assumes that your own FS ecologist would have already addressed most of the headline issues and that NPWS would be adding any site-specific knowledge and providing obs on the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures.
-Surely any ‘showstopper’ items such as FPO species, raptor nest sites, bat roosts etc would have been flagged up at the initial stages by the FS ecologists?
-Can you consider what the implications of such a change in procedure might be?

Use of FLV by NPWS staff
-The issue here is that NPWS staff do not have the capacity to monitor the hundreds of cases referred to them by the FS on an ongoing basis.
-In the case of planning applications, staff will be referred a case and they will make the obs based on the information provided. My experience is that this is done in one ‘session’, as opposed to dipping and out of the file over a longer period of me.
-In such planning cases, if additional information is provided after the NPWS makes submission then we are notified and offered another statutory consultation period to respond.
-Staff have dozens of cases on their ‘to do’ list at any one time and do not, generally, monitor individual cases in the background – they simply do not have time to do this.
– Therefore if NPWS are asked to comment on FS referrals, then their response will be informed by whatever documents they can consult at that time.

DAFM Forestry Application Process (affor.)

Sinead, Cliona,

This is the mitigation now being applied by FS for Hen Harrier in ‘Green Zones” (non Red Zone or HLNA).

For the example identified it is the only mitigation in the AA.

“In relation to Hen Harrier, the following mitigation is required, presented in the form of conditions to be attached to any licence issued: 1. The site of this project lies within a Special Protection Area where hen harriers are a qualifying interest. If hen harrier breeding activity is identified within 1.2km of the project area, the National Parks & Wildlife Service should be notified immediately. If this activity is confirmed the Department will be informed and the licence amended to reflect this new status.”

Any AA Determination based on this mitigation would have no chance of standing up in a court of law.
Who is going to identify any breeding activity? It does not rely on any monitoring or surveying to detect breeding birds.
It does not require the suspension of work pending confirmation of breeding activity – the complete opposite of the precautionary principle.
It does not exclude the possibility that birds could be nesting or seeking to nest in proximity to the site whilst works are ongoing. If birds are breeding, the mitigation permits disturbance.
In the event of breeding behaviour being reported it requires a process before the licence is amended. This period alone permits for the possibility of damage, destruction or disturbance.
It does not assess the restoration objective of the SPA in terms of re-stocking the site (which is with 90% Sitka Spruce).
You will be able to check for yourselves how close this project area is to a recorded nest site.
This is only scratching the surface of grounds that would be brought before the court. I could go on but I am sure that you can see the inherent inadequacy of this mitigation. It flies in the face of the findings of the BWI report commissioned by Coillte and commented upon extensively by the NPWS.
This mitigation would have been agreed by DAFM’s Mitigation Review Group – it is not the work of an errant ecologist. This is systemic and is a further breach of duty by DAFM of their responsibility under Section 27 of the BNHR’s.
This is not a one-off incident. This is now standard mitigation for Green Zones / Non Red Zone / Non HLNA within the Hen Harrier SPA network.
I am imploring the NPWS to appeal against a decision of the Forest Service to lay down a marker that this irresponsible attitude to the conservation of this species will not be tolerated.
What is the point in developing a MoU with Coillte when they are complicit in this process.

The mitigation in the Coillte NIS states;
” Using the best scientific data available to Coillte*, potential disturbance to breeding hen
harrier is not considered likely and potential disturbance operation(s) associated with this
project can take place during the hen harrier breeding season.”. “Not likely” does not
exclude the possibility and does not meet the strict test of Article 6(3).

• 2019 as far as I am aware, so about 5 years out of date – no competent ecologist would rely on such out of date information. No attempt by Coillte to seek input from NPWS or any of the specialist Raptor groups.
  Please note that Coillte’s NIS was not available to the NPWS staff member who produced the submission. By an agreement between DAFM and Coillte, NIS’s are not supplied by Coillte to DAFM until the consultation window has closed. NPWS were given an 8 week period from the 1st May to make a submission. The NIS was published on the licence viewer on the 5th July, days after the consultation window closed. The NPWS were intentionally deprived of an opportunity to view the NIS during the consultation period.
  Can you please confirm that the NPWS will act on this matter? I would appreciate a prompt response as I am trying to raise the funds to appeal against this licence.
  If you are not prepared to act then I will have to go directly to Europe.I think that I have brought enough material to you to demonstrate that the Forest Service is not compliant with their duty.
• 
  Yours sincerely, Neil Foulkes

CK11-FL0108

Felling licence LM12-FL0042
The project is in the Townland of Mullaun Glebe, Co. Leitrim.
The project area is in very close proximity to a recorded Hen Harrier nest site

Potential breach of licence conditions OY08-FL0050 & OY08-FL0052

Felling Licence CK26-FL0061

Hen Harrier Threat Response Plan

Quality Control KY03-FL0210, KY03-FL0211

The dates on which all forestry operations took place under felling licences OY08-FL0050 and OY08-
FL0052.

WW02-FL0106 FIR – breach of SI 293 of 2021