Coillte & Certification
Irish Timber & Forestry Magazine
Jan/Feb 2005 Edition – Vol. 14 No. 1.
In the past I don¹t ever recall the need to defend Coillte. In fact, the state company has been severely criticised on a number of occasions in the pages of IT&F - and with good reason! However, considering a recent petition we received that is seeking to have Coillte¹s certificate for managing its forests sustainably, taken away, I feel it is important that those within the industry be aware of what¹s happening, and make our position known on the subject. As the document we received (via email) is quite long, I will reproduce some sections from same here and will make further comments at the end of the piece. Before I go to the email, I should add that I replied to the sender, Ciaran Hughes, with several questions which are also included below - together with his answers. My thanks to Ciaran for his co-operation.
Dear All,
I am writing to you from Ireland, where we are having serious issues with forestry, and unsustainable foreign-exotic monoculture planting of forests. Ireland is currently the worst country in the EU regarding how much of it's forestry is foreign exotic (and therefore non-native). Currently, over 90% of our planting is foreign exotic (mainly Sitka Spruce, which is native to North America, not Europe). The next worst achiever in the EU is France, who plant a rate of 49% foreign exotics. The EU average is 27% foreign exotics.
Most of the problems in Irish Forestry are down to a single Irish forestry company, Coillte. Coillte own 438,000ha of certified forests (about 6% of the landmass of Ireland). In the 1970s, the forests of Ireland were given to the people of Ireland. In 1989, this changed when Coillte were formed. Coillte took over what was public land, without ever asking the public. The massive rate of foreign exotic monoculture planting leaves the forests vulnerable to disease and insect attacks (e.g. there have been several outbreaks of Pine Weevil, which were previously unheard of in Ireland). To combat this, Coillte use pesticides which are known to be dangerous. Coillte's methods of planting and mechanical clearfelling destroys heritage sites that would be in forestry.
These plantations...
..have contributed to pollution of water due to acidification, siltation and contamination by phosphate fertilisers.
..kill native flora due to the enormous decrease in light reaching the ground.
..create a higher risk of insect infestation and disease (e.g. pine weevil outbreaks, which were previously unknown in Ireland, have now taken place).
..require a higher rate of pesticide usage than native broadleaf forests, due to their susceptibility to insect infestation and disease. This leads to all the pollution and health problems associated with the dangerous chemicals that are pesticides.
..are highly susceptible to fire due to the resin content of non-native species. This risk is increased on peatland.
..contribute to physical damage due to drainage, planting, road-making and felling.
..contribute to depopulation and decline of rural villages. Ireland's current type of forestry uses highly mechanised processes, and leads to minimal labour input.
..destroys native bio-diversity. There is a growing awareness that native bio-diversity - be it native Irish oak woodland or a tropical rainforest - is crucial to our continued existence on this planet. Despite all this, Coillte have managed to obtain FSC certification, to a National Standard that is far weaker to the FSC principles, developed by a company called IFCI.
To combat these actions, the Woodland League in Ireland has started a petition, online at http://www.petitiononline.com/rfpii. This petition will be directed at Coillte (the main culprit), FSC International, The Soil Association (the people who certify Coillte) and IFCI (the people that designed the standard that Coillte are certfied to).
Please, help us to change our forest policy to a much more sustainable policy by signing the petition, and hopefully I can help highlight problems in other countries to people in Ireland.
Regards,
Ciarán Hughes,
The Woodland League
To: Coillte Teo., FSC International, IFCI Ltd. and The Soil
Association/Woodmark
We the undersigned ..
..object to Coillte Teoranta's certification to a substandard that is far inferior to the FSC principles and criteria.
..have no confidence in the Irish Forestry Certification Initiative and its support for the continuation of Coillte's massive exotic coniferisation of Ireland, for Coillte's continued use of pesticides, and for Coillte's continued sale of land for the development of landfills, and wind-farms, amongst other developments.
..want a reform of forest policy, and want to attempt to revert to the more environmentally, socially, spiritually and ultimately economically beneficial forestry of the past.
Regards,
The undersigned
-
WHY THE WOODLAND LEAGUE OBJECT TO THE F.S.C. CERTIFICATION OF COILLTE
"If a man walks in the woods for love of them half of each day, he is in danger of being regarded as a loafer. But if he spends his days as a speculator, shearing off those woods and making the earth bald before her time, he is deemed an industrious and enterprising citizen."
- Henry David Thoreau
Coillte's past and present standards of operation are far below the international FSC standards for sustainable plantations and natural forests. Certification of Coillte may jeopardise the reputation and integrity of the FSC Ecolabel in Ireland and abroad. It may also undermine our efforts to encourage Irish consumers to demand FSC certified local wood products and FSC certified hardwood imports. We need to be in a position to convince and guarantee consumers that FSC does represent true sustainability - economically, socially and environmentally. If Coillte is certified at current standards, changing consumer patterns will become an onerous task. There has been no commitment by Coillte for a holistic review of company policy with regard to broadening their primary mandate, which is economic return. Coillte continues to have a policy of clearfelling and a policy of minimum broadleaf planting on public land and on farms in the Coillte Farm Partnership Scheme.
Coillte incorrectly claimed that they were a private enterprise so that they could retain EU grants that the EU courts ruled that they must return (A public body is not entitled to EU funding). The clawback of EU grants draws into question Coillte's economic strategy and the availability of additional monies that will be needed to achieve and maintain FSC forest standards. Coillte also misused taxpayer’s money in prolonging the weak legal arguments
in the EU courts.
Coillte continues to act in a manner similar to private companies despite a consultants report to the Minister stating that privatisation was contra-indicated. Coillte appears to have an unofficial policy of creeping privatisation. The sale and long-term leasing of publicly owned forests without local or national public consultation continues to increase. Coillte has failed to address communities concerns and has failed to implement measures to demonstrate transparency and accountability in all transactions. Our forests continue to be ear-marked for the development of private recreational facilities, high cost luxury tourist and residential accommodation, land-fill sites, power stations, wind-farms, phone-masts, commercial and industrial sites, etc. Local communities are not consulted in advance regarding proposed change of ownership and use. Communities, fearful that their local forest may be privatised without notice, must constantly monitor planning applications to ensure that their forests remain in public ownership for long-term public use. Some communities that have been effected by Coillte's developments include Monivea, Dartry Wood, Derrybrien, Balrath, Monivea, Murroe, Camolin, Bottlehill, Portumna, Sites in Cork and Waterford, Dunstown Wood, Lough Eske, Balrath, Borlin Valley, Sliabh Luachra, Shipool, Motepark, Glending and others.
Coillte continues to pay lipservice to the process of public consultation at local level. The strategies to engage communities in the public consultation process for new forest management unit (FMU) plans have been inadequate. Notifications of meetings are sometimes sent at very short notice and efforts to inform interested parties are inadequate. For example, due to Coillte's poor publicity efforts for a public meeting in Co. Wexford, there was an extremely low attendance - approximately 20 people with the majority being Coillte employees. Recently in Murroe, Co. Limerick, Coillte refused to attend a public meeting of the community. Where community boards have been established, Coillte has retained the power to select the community's representative(s) from the community nominations. Communities are being forced to engage in a process where procedures are flawed from the beginning.
Coillte's management of the Woodlands of Ireland Millennium Woodlands Project has failed to include and fund environmental groups and their membership as equal working partners in this publicly funded project. The programme has also been criticised for promotional and technical weaknesses. For example, the boundaries of the proposed landfill site in Camolin Wood, Co. Wexford, overlaps with the Camolin Millennium Woodland. Coillte's planting of over 90% near-monoculture foreign exotic species, along with the problems listed above, is in breach of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the Helsinki Agreement on Forestry, the Rio Agreement on Biodiversity, the Ministerial Conferences on the Protection of Forests in Europe at Strasbourg and Lisbon.. The Helsinki Conference definition for sustainable forest management is "The stewardship and use of forest and forest land 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, economical and social functions, at local, national and global levels and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems." This is not a description of Coillte forestry. The next worst achiever in the EU in this regard is France, who plant 48% foreign exotics. The EU average is 27% conifer planting.
There are many other social, environmental and heritage issues with Coillte that the Woodland League are aware of, including farm animals being impounded by Coillte; Turbury, Fishing and Sporting Rights being ignored; Flooding (e.g. at Burncourt); landfill sites being placed in Coillte land (or in land that was taken by Coillte from communities); effects on water quality; effects of acid sensitive soils; workers not being told what chemicals they are using; inadequate firebelts; pesticide usage; inadequate fencing around the forestry, Phosphate pollution in many rivers and lakes in Clare, Galway and Mayo; flooding; water quality; soil erosion (e.g. at Moycullen, Derrybrien); pesticides usage; siltation of rivers (e.g. at Loobagh river); blocked streams; eutrophication in many lakes (e.g. Lough Corrib); lack of biodiversity in forestry (i.e. monoculture foreign exotic planting), ring forts, burial grounds and many other heritage sites being destroyed by Coillte's methods of planting, and their sale of land for development.
-
Questions Answered
Irish Timber & Forestry questions and The Woodland League answers
Who is/are the founding member(s) and what was the motivation that led to the setting-up of the association?
C.H. The Woodland League owes a massive dept to three great women, Dr. Ann Behan, Freda Rowntree and Jacinta French (the first two are now sadly deceased). Without these three women, the Woodland League would never have been possible, and it was on these peoples ideas and support that the Woodland League was founded. The main founder of the Woodland League would be Andrew St. Ledger. Andrew St. Ledger is an Artist, Wood sculptor, Heritage specialist (subject: Traditional woodcrafts and Native trees), Chair of Craft woodworkers of Ireland and a director in the Irish Hardwood Council (Promoting use of native hardwoods). Andrew is the PRO of the Woodland League (unfortunately, he is out of the country until the new year, so I am acting PRO until his return).
Also involved from the beginning was Teddy Cook and Brendan Kelly. Teddy Cook is a Native Woodland specialist (and is actively planting and propagating native trees), Heritage specialist (subject: Native trees), Wildlife lecturer, broadcaster and writer. He is involved in cross community work in Northern Ireland. Ted acts as an Environmental and Technical Advisor, and is a stakeholder in FSC process. He remains an active contributor to a number of Draft Heritage Plans at invitation of a number of Local Authorities. Teddy is also a director of the Macroom District Environmental Group.
Brendan Kelly is an organic farmer, and acts as Liaison Officer for the Woodland League. He is also the founding member (with his wife, Helen) of People Against Pesticides, the only Pesticides awareness group in Ireland. Brendan Kelly was a director of IFCI until last year, when he realised (in his own words) that IFCI could never provide a valid certification process for Ireland.
The Woodland League was founded early this year. I became secretary in June (specifically for our meeting in Derrybrien with the Soil Association (certifiers of Coillte)). The Woodland league aims to restore the relationship between people
(communities) and their native woodlands, via Agenda 21 and networking with like minds, establishing native nurseries, sharing information on a central database, woodland walks and generally raising awareness of the importance of local trees for local conditions in conjunction with the international biological treaties Ireland has signed up for on behalf of the Irish people.
The UN framework convention on climate change embraces the principles of Agenda 21 and recognises the important role of Native forestry with regard to biological diversity, increased habitats and benefits socially and
economically for local communities.
The most important aspect of Agenda 21 is public consultation. The Woodland league is a focus group that has been quietly consulting communities and individuals affected by the FSC certification process.
Are there not enough such organisations in existence who are anti-coillte / plantation forestry?
C.H. Who are they?
There are many organisations that you would think would oppose Coillte's methods of foreign exotic plantations, their extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers, their sale of land for the development of, for example, landfills, quarries, private luxury housing, etc. [remember, in the 1970s, all the forests of the land were given to the people of the land. The Land Commission was left in charge to maintain the land for the people. In 1989, Coillte were formed on the same day that the land commission was dissolved, and all land under the land commission was given to Coillte. No public person was ever asked if they would agree to this]. I don't want to attack another NGO, but I will tell you one fact. An Taisce produced a booklet stating that Coillte plantations had massive biodiversity. This is despite the fact that numerous international organisations and scientists state that monoculture plantations are destructive of biodiversity, that pesticides are destructive of biodiversity, that removal of deadwood is destructive of biodiversity, etc.
There are many communities that are opposed to Coillte, because they have been severely affected by Coillte's plantations. We are in constant contact with them, and we try to facilitate communication between each other. We recently attended a meeting in Oughterard regarding the eutrophication of Lough Corrib (which is largely due to Coillte's plantations in the area). We are in regular contact with the Monivea Demesne Preservation Society [in 1939, Lady Kathleen French gave Monivea Wood to the people of Monivea. Coillte are now selling parts of the wood for developments, such as Rugby Clubs and retirement homes]. We are involved in Derrybrien, Motepark, Shippool, Camolin, Balrath and many others.
However, these are not organisations, they are communities.
Could you tell us how many members the 'Woodland League' has and how new members are recruited?
C.H. The Woodland League is not, as yet, a membership based organisation. We are regarded as a support based umbrella organisation. We have support from several NGOs, including, but not limited to, Derrybrien Residents Association, Carra Mask Corrib Protection Group, Monivea Demesne Preservation Society, Tara Hill Development Association, Lough Muckno Action Committee, Keep Ireland Open, GM Free Ireland, Balrath Woodlands Preservation Society, Galway Environmental Alliance, and many more. We are also in contact with many small growers and farmers (including those from Limerick, Galway, Wexford, Wicklow, etc.).
We don't recruit members. We meet with groups and people, and let them decide whether we should represent them in the FSC process in Ireland. For credibility, all we ask is for a signed letter stating this fact. There is no fee involved.
Have you any positive comments about Coillte or forestry generally?
C.H. I have a list a mile long of positive comments about sustainable native forestry. This list does not apply to Coillte. It is important to note that the Woodland League are not anti-Coillte, it is just that Coillte are the company that are in breach of the FSC principles the most. We support the FSC principles (which were developed from local Agenda 21). But Coillte have wrongfully obtained FSC certification, and it is that, above all else, that we oppose.
There are a few native species that have adapted well, and are thriving in Sitka plantations (e.g. Woodpecker). However, these are few and far between, and they would thrive just as well in native forests.
Which do you see as benefiting the environment most (and why): unused marginal land or marginal land planted with Sitka?
C.H. Unused marginal land, for several reasons. There is no need for poisonous pesticides on unused marginal land.
Unused marginal land has the chance to naturally regenerate into native forest, or other native habitat, such as peatland (a recent report stated that 88% of plantations are on peatland). Unused marginal land is a natural Irish habitat. Sitka plantations are not. Unused marginal land has the chance to be developed into something (e.g. a park) that is beneficial to the local community. Unused marginal land does not require heavy machinery, and thus does not
require the surrounding roads to be destroyed. Unused marginal land does not require phosphate fertilizers, which cause
eutrophication of our waterways.
Basically, at worst, unused marginal land is ecologically, socially and economically neutral. Sitka plantations are ecologically and socially detrimental, and only economically beneficial in the short term.
Is mise le meas,
Ciarán Hughes,
Secretary,
The Woodland League
-
The Final Say
As I said at the beginning of this piece, I don¹t usually fell the need to defend Coillte. While I do believe there are many areas where Coillte¹s practices can be fairly questioned, I think that organising a petition to have the SFM cert taken away is somewhat over-the-top. As someone who worked in forests until relatively recently, I am fully aware of many areas where Coillte¹s practices have greatly improved with regard to environment protection. Many of these changes were perhaps motivated from the business need to have its product labelled as coming from sustainably managed forests. However, this does not take away from the positive impact of those changes.
From all of the Coillte foresters I have come into contact with over the years, I believe the majority of those place the protection of the environment high on their list of priorities. Not to be able to find anything positive to say about Coillte is, I believe, being very un-generous.
Moving on to another point, I¹m not sure if Freda Rountree would be part of such a petition considering the positive changes in Coillte¹s forest management prictices. I will seek Catherine¹s (Rountree) opinion when she returns from Italy after Christmas. Personally, I think there is something unethical about using the names of deceased persons in such a context. While The Woodland League is entitled to make its case against Coillte, it is important that those within the industry are aware of this anti-certification petition. Readers who disagree with The Woodland League¹s argument, which I suspect may be many, should make their position known. If The Woodland League¹s argument is allowed to go un-challeged, it could ultimately have negative consequences for those employed directly within the industry as well as those here with businesses that depend on Coillte¹s product and its SFM certificate.
Letters to the editor are welcome on this subject.
