Forestry Now

speaker-0 (00:01.784)
Welcome to Forestry Now, where we explore the forces impacting profitable and sustainable management of commercial forests and natural woodlands. I'm Dermot McNally. Today I'm joined by Marina Conway, head of Woodlands at Home Tree, and one of Ireland's most recognizable and respected forestry professionals. We speak about the afforestation screening process and the type of habitats and landscape features they protect. We hone in on water quality and the treatment of

applications on PT soils and from in hairier areas. Then we also talk about modern operational techniques that are used during planting to protect water and biodiversity. During the conversation we look at how things were done in the past and Marina flags problems we're still dealing with. And then we look forward. Marina makes interesting recommendations to increase afforestation and broad stakeholder engagement. So lots in it. But firstly I started off by welcoming Marina

And asking her to introduce herself.

speaker-1 (01:04.108)
Marina Conway is my name. I'm a forester, a professional forester of some 30 years. I did both my degree and master's in forestry in UCD. I am currently the head of woodlands at Home Tree, a nature restoration charity with a focus on temperate native woodlands. So I've worked in a lot of different areas of forestry throughout my career. I have

worked in the private sector, I've worked in government, public sector, I've run my own company, and now I'm working for a charity. So kind of have a good a good breadth of the how the the different organizations and that work. But I guess my I've spent the majority of my career in farm forestry because I really believe that our landowners, our farmers and our communities are the people that are at the center and should be at the centre for our national forest policy. And any kind of woodland expansion, any kind of woodland management

I like to see it being done with the people and I want to see it being kept with the people. And that was something I was very close to my heart when I I spent over twenty years working in Western Forestry Co op. Now it's still very close to my heart in Home Tree because community and engagement is a really important part. Like if if we are to do any kind of native woodland restoration or nature restoration at scale, we're doing it with the landowners and we're doing with the people. And that whole c culture is a is a huge part of what we do as well. So

speaker-0 (02:23.552)
Now, if it's okay with you, perhaps we'll break aspects of the afforestation licensing and planting system down under a couple of broad headings. the first one we'll tackle maybe is screening for suitability prior to permission to plant itself. Maybe you can explain a bit to listeners how the general application and screening process happens nowadays before permission is even granted to plant trees.

speaker-1 (02:46.846)
Probably the best way to do this and I always find is that if it was like I'll just talk as if if you come to me with 20 acres, you have 20 acres and you're considering forestry, what does that mean for you and and what work does that undertake? So before we would ever any forester I guess would would even go and look at a piece of land, you might come and and chat to us, you're thinking of plantain, is that we would go on to the department's INET system. It's it's a special forestry system that we have for doing kind of an online assessment and screening as such.

And we would look at that 20 acres and we go through various different assessment layers, everything from water to biodiversity, soils, habitat, heritage, all that. And we assess it, and that then will will flag up for us where there are sensitivities on that piece of land. So before we would even the next stage with them would be going a a site visit, but armed with this information for for what we need to be taken into consideration on the site. And also it really

helps us too. I think it's really important for a forester to set the expectations of the forest owner because often people, you know, like farmers or anyone and and I hate this phrase bad land, but they often think like, this land isn't it, we're not not really using it for anything. So it must be suitable for growing trees. But that's not always the case. So I think it's it's really important at the outset to kind of set your expectation. Before I get into what what the different layers mean, I I any site when when we look through it and we have to prepare

A quite detailed environmental and silvicultural assessment, along with a lot of maps and supporting maps around habitats and biodiversity and fencing and operations and location and lots of different information around that. It goes through what's called appropriate assessment screening. So because every license application is deemed a project under the Habitats Directive, each one of them must be screened for its its potential impact on any of our new tourist sites in Ireland.

And so what that means is that again, we look at that field that you're coming to us with Dermit, and a 15 kilometer buffer is automatically put around that piece of land. And so any interaction, any overlap or proximity or interaction with any of our natura sites has to be has to be considered. So our natura sites, just for the audience, we have three types of natura sites. So natura sites are sensitive areas that were designated under the Habitats Directive. They call the Natura 2000 Network.

speaker-1 (05:10.508)
And they are made up of our special areas of conservation, which mainly relate to rivers and habitat. We have our special protection areas, which is birds, main mainly relates to protected areas for the hen harrier or other, you know, ducks or wigeons or whatever protected species of birds. And then we have our national heritage areas, which often extend to our large mountain area complexes. So

When the screening process then goes and that screening process is is done by DAFAM internally themselves and they look at any connectivity with that afforestation site and that natura site. And then basically an opinion has to be made if there is any effect of of the forestry operation which you're proposing. So if you're proposing whether it's to plant two acres of native woodland or whether it's to plant seventy acres of Sitka spruce, this all goes through the exact same screening process. So

All of our forest types, be it commercial conifers and broadleaves, be it agroforestry, emergent woodlands, native woodlands, forest for water, everything goes through the exact same screening process. And then based on that screening, a lot of the time some of the the habit the nature sites might be you know, for it might be too far away to have any impact, you know, for for the the forestry operation to have any impact on it. So they're screened out.

But a lot of the time the the ones that are probably mostly screened in is any of those that would have a hydrological connection with a Natura site. and distance, I suppose, comes into scope here as well. and then those sites would would be what's called screened in. And once it's screened in for appropriate assessment, which the majority of sites are, then it goes through you know, an environmental assessment.

speaker-0 (06:50.55)
Okay, well let's pick out one or two of those things. So Marina, you mentioned hydrology and water. Who looks at the the information if a site is connected to an important hydrological feature?

speaker-1 (07:04.664)
So the whole country is mapped for acid sensitivity. So this is areas where our waters are already sensitive to any kind of change in acidic conditions and conifers by their very nature, I suppose they're an acid loving species.

And it's only actually we only have to consider asset sensitivity if you were considering planting commercial forestry. It doesn't it's not applicable to broadleaves or agroforestry. It's only for commercial forestry. And you know, that basically means just say again your land came up in that asset sensitive area, we would have to go out and do water testing between in February, March, April, and May, over four months and

You're testing for the calcium carbonate levels in that water. And if they're below a certain level, it can be suitable for forestry. And if they're greater than a certain level, it's not. So that's that's one element of it. Also, there's a fishery-sensitive layer. So any sites, if they're fishery sensitive and over a certain area, I think it's five hectares, they'll be referred to the inland fisheries for their kind of any measures that they might want on the application. We also have what's called high-status objective water bodies, and they're designated by

And the EPA, we have the EPA hydrology layer as well. So we have setbacks from water when we're actually undertaking our operations. And if it occurs in a in a high status water body, so it's a sensitive water body area, then the setbacks might be increased in that area. And also you might be often you will be encouraged to maybe include more forest for water or more broadly forestry nearer to the setback of the or to the high status water body. So the

I suppose maybe just to go into the the setbacks that that we have for water. Do you want me to cover that now or Yeah, sure. So the the setbacks that we we have for water. So generally any any time that we would again, if the so how we designate the types of water bodies that are on a site, if it's on a a six-inch map, it's a stream. but if it's you could have you could have natural flow paths or drains on sites that have the ability to carry water.

speaker-1 (09:14.262)
or sediment, then they're called a relevant watercourse. And then we have what's called hot spots, which could be like little flush areas or little wetland habitats. And so, you know, there's there's different procedures then for how you manage the the aspect of water on a site. So and the whole thing about managing the water on the site is is managing any kind of disturbance that happens on any sediment or silt flow. You don't want any of that entering the stream. As a forester we

When we undertake the different operations, generally when a site has been prepared, we either will will mound it, which means you will be putting if it's a very wet site, because you don't need to mound every site, it's only if if the water table is high and you need to take down the water table, you will go in and mound it. And what mounding means, maybe for people listening on the call, is basically you're digging a small trench, maybe eight to twelve meters apart, and you're using the spoil from that trench.

To create what's called a mound, and it's into this mound that the trees are planted. So these mound drains have to be designed very carefully. That you know, again, that the you don't flow into any kind of a water setback area. So I mentioned the water setbacks when you have a stream, there's a minimum of 10 meters of a water setback from a stream, but that's very dependent on the slope and the soil type. So that can go from 20 to or from 10 to a max of 25 meters.

again, as I said, depending on slope and soil types. So these water setbacks are like kind of like overflow areas and you know where that the water can just naturally filtrate through from that into the stream. So there's no opening drains into the setbacks, and there's no opening drains into the water course. So so water is yeah, it's something it's it's you know managed very, very carefully on a site. The same with the relevant water course that these are mapped on your your

your operations map and that you would have sometimes you you know you'd need to keep back five meters either side of that relevant water course and the same with the hot spot that that's mapped on the site if it's a if it's a wetland area and you protect that and you might just halo plant some trees around it. So yeah that's the water element of it.

speaker-0 (11:20.8)
Okay. And can we talk about the peat layer? Because that often comes up in conversation, planting or on peats or not. What happens when it flags that this could be a peaty side?

speaker-1 (11:32.014)
So yeah, so we also obviously have to look at the the soils. So like I suppose I would always say as a forester, for us the most important thing ever going out into sight, the first thing to look at was the soil. But I there's been a lot of concern about planting peat soils and like our big legacy issue is is planting the the blanket bogs and the raised bogs around the country. And you know, even though that was was seen as the best op option at the time and hindsight now

We know that a lot of these sensitive environments weren't suitable for you know, virgin blanket bogs or virgin raised bogs weren't weren't suitable for for big swathes of commercial conifers. But so we have what's called an indicative peat map. And again, looking at your parcel of land, if it comes up on the indicative peat map, we must go out then and survey the site. And if it's less than 30 centimeters of so you would often have on the indicative peat map, it might come up as as a blanket bog.

But this land may have been farmed for 60, 70 years. It was, you know, it would have been encouraged to have been reclaimed back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and it's been farmed and it's growing grass. If if we what's only allowable under the scheme at the moment is less than 30 centimetres of a peat layer, and that's called an organomineral. And that is eligible for the scheme. But if it was a kind of a modified cutaway or a modified fen, then peat depth.

Isn't as much of a doesn't matter, and you can plant native woodland on it. But if it's greater than 30 centimeters of peat on it and it was blanket bog, then it's in ineligible for afforestation. And this is all because of the concerns around carbon balance in soils and with trees. And I think you know there's there's further research being done on it. I think this causes quite a bit of consternation in forestry and and with people, it's a one of these very sensitive topics and

Because, you know, this I think this frustration on the part of landowners and foresters that you can still actively farm that land, you can have animals on it, you can graze it, you can cook grass, you can fertilize it, you can spray it, and you can continue to drain it. But you cannot consider that that piece of land, if it's forty centimeters of peat, for under the current rules for even native woodlands. So that's a little bit that's that's something I think that possibly will be reviewed as we go forward. So just to

speaker-1 (13:51.832)
to to highlight at the outset that nobody is when we talk about peat soils, nobody is talking about going into these wet heats, dry heats, blanket bogs, you know, raised bogs. No one is talking about going into those environments anymore and trying to plant trees. That is not these are heavily modified areas that possibly aren't even, you know, it wouldn't even be suitable to try and rewet them because they have been modified and drained for so long. So, you know, in the whole carbon balance, I I don't know has the research been done looking at

farming this landscape versus actually, you know, going in and you're not going to drain it or mound it and put in native woodland in this landscape. So but that's that's the soils element of it. And yeah, we have to to very much check about the peat layer.

speaker-0 (14:34.126)
Brilliant. Okay. Can we pick one other sensitive habitat that you've come across that that flags something a little bit different, maybe on birds or something? That's

speaker-1 (14:44.278)
Yeah, so there's lots more layers. so we go we go through the the the Natura sites layers as well, which will tell us whether there's an SAC or an NHA or an SPA. So there's certain areas that are are completely ineligible for afforestation in Ireland. So SPAs at the moment are you afforestation is banned in our SPAs and also in our top eight SACs for the freshwater pearl mussel also forestation afforestation is not eligible.

We also then must check different layers. So a lot of the hen harriers are not nesting in in the SPAs, but they're actually nesting outside it. So what we have is is called high likelihood nesting areas. So if there's an identified high and high likelihood nesting area, that also is excluded from the application. and also then it goes further within the, I suppose, the breeding and foraging distance of the SPA, you would have to go out and do an assessment.

for suitable hen harrier breeding and foraging habitat and then there might be different there might be different recommendations how you deal with that parcel of land for afforestation. It's the same for curlew, any afforestation, so all the curlew nests in the country are mapped and that's not publicly available to anyone. That information is protected. But there's a 1.5 kil curlew buffer put around all those nests again where afforestation is not eligible.

And then the the last one on birds is Birdwatch Ireland to have a breeding wader hotspot map. So we will go online. And if the land is overlain with the the breeding wader hotspot map, then we look at the the five breeding waders that have been mapped for the country. So that's for I think it's Snipe, Dunlin, Lapwing, Redshank, and Golden Plover. And if your piece of land dermot then again came up on just say came up on the Snipe and the Lapwing layer.

Then we would have to go out and do a habitat survey and an ecology report for basically is that habitat suitable for breeding or foraging for the bird species, for the breeding waders that was highlighted. So it's it's quite a rigorous environmental assessment, like a huge and the the layers, the layers then prompt all the different field visits that have to be done. The other one that I must mention as well is high nature value farmland. That also is a layer.

speaker-1 (16:58.542)
That we must assess land for. If your land comes up on the high nature value farmland layer, an ecologist and a forester must go out and assess that land as well for high nature value farmland. So a field assessment is done, all these sample plots are taken, and they're looking for various types of what's called positive and negative indicators of high nature value farmland. And if it reaches a certain score, it won't be eligible. And if it's below it, then it will be eligible.

So yeah, that's again to to and it's the same as our semi-natural grasslands as well. And finally, as well, our annex habitats. So annex habitats don't just occur within our Natura sites, they can also occur on farmland as well. In that instance, if an annex habitat does occur, it has to be mapped out if it's a large area. It has to be excluded from the application. But if it's a small area, if you just had a small little bit of wet heath or something and it's less than point two of a hectare, you could include it in the application, but you must protect that area and

That is is mapped in in what these areas we called areas of biodiversity enhancement. So every application that comes to us for afforestation must have a minimum of 15% of what's called biodiversity areas within it. And that includes all your retained habitats, all your setbacks and within that application. So and I think maybe just to mention as well that there's no license can be granted in Ireland at the moment without as well a 20% broadleaf component.

So if you again were coming to me with your twenty acres dermit, straight away fifteen percent of that must be retained and protected for biodiversity, twenty percent made up of broadleaves and the other sixty five percent can continue to be broadleaves, native woodland, whatever you want, or maximum sixty five percent could be of a commercial crop.

speaker-0 (18:43.894)
Okay. No, there's there's a lot there and each one of them you could probably spend an hour talking about them, but it it gives us a flavor for what is being done at the minute. And can we contrast then that just a little bit how we did it in the past? if I was going to plant land thirty years ago, would these same layers or restrictions have been in place?

speaker-1 (19:04.626)
No, I mean not not not to the same if if how many years ago did you say, sorry?

speaker-0 (19:09.366)
I said thirty, but I mean we can we can go back

speaker-1 (19:11.768)
Further. Thirty. God, yeah, thirty, no. No, no, not thirty years ago. You know, and I suppose we didn't have the technology and we didn't have the knowledge and we didn't have the awareness. I would say maybe some people might say they did have the awareness, but in general, I think that that kind of concern about the environment wasn't as much there. I'm thirty years out working in forestry now, and I know when I came out, it was it was just seen as badland. It wasn't seen as habitat by by a lot of people. But

There was always landscape setbacks and and water quality setbacks. So as long as I can remember, I think they were originally brought brought in in ninety-two, that you would have always, at standard forestry practice, you would have always been ten meters back from a stream, you would have always been thirty to sixty meters back from a house, ESB buffers would have had to be put in, you would have been ten meters back from a public road, and you would have also

had to and one thing I didn't mention as well is is our our sites and monuments national records. So if anything, any site of archaeological significance is identified in the new system and it's even 30 years ago, you have to put a minimum of a 20 meter buffer around that access to it and you must protect that site and provide access to it and you must manage manage that site for protection within it. But I mean I guess some of the legacy issues when people get frustrated in the past and you might see posts on it about

you know, a a fort being completely closed in fifty years ago. No, people, the foresters of the time were planting right up to to streams and right up to roads and right up to houses because the the mantra was all about, you know, maximizing the productive area. It was about timber production. It was very much in a in a productivity mode and and you know that they were they were sent out and this was this was the instruction to maximize timber production. So it has there was always a certain amount of it there in 30 years ago.

But it's and and I guess the the the grant schemes that came in from the private sector because they were being done by private individuals and farmers and communities, then this kind of brought in more of a stronger debate about how we how we designed our forests. And but I guess where we were thirty years ago and where we are now is is vastly, vastly different.

speaker-0 (21:20.224)
Okay. No, very good. Well, so we made mistakes in the past and and let's pick out one of them there. Say the deep peats. What what effect has that really had? I mean, people will talk about it. You mentioned carbon, that there's strong evidence, especially on very deep blanket bogs, that we we're releasing more carbon than we're capturing. But what other effects did it have in reality and and and I suppose what lingers on to this day?

speaker-1 (21:45.994)
Well, I suppose plank planting of the the the blanket bogs and the peaklands and I guess, you know, as well, just to to caveat that the foresters of the time, they weren't handed mineral soils and good land to plant. It was very much national and government and and social policy that forests were to be kept on the tops of the mountains and on the bogs. Basically anything that at any any ounce of agricultural value was not to be suitable for forestry and this was dictated from

From the minister. So they were handed kind of a difficult situation in how do we how do we plant these infertile, pretty inhospitable environments, and how do we grow timber on them? And a lot of research was done into that. But we're a lot wiser now, and we know that, you know, fair enough. And and we're we're not only wiser, we're a lot wealthier, Dermot. We're a really wealthy country. Back then, you know, as well, forestry.

of the 50s, 60s, 70s was very much a social, a social forestry policy. It was all about creating jobs and stopping the flow of immigration out of the West of Ireland. It was because it was very labor intensive and it provided a lot of employment. So it was also trying to grow a timber resource as well as provide employment. Now we know with hindsight we can look back and see that the big thing about planting the bogs is you had to drain them. I mean, the drains had to go really deep. I mean, they might have nearly had to go.

a meter deep in places. So you would have lost an awful lot of of sediment and and silt into our waters. Then also because they were quite infertile, phosphorus was very much the limiting nutrient in bogs. And we had to put on a lot of fertilizer. Back then, I mean I think up to 500 kgs per hectare of ground rock phosphate was applied. And that was only at initial establishment to get the trees growing. It would have been commonplace that subsequent fertilizations would have been necessary

definitely of of phosphorus and nitrogen and in some of the kind of the midland bogs the cutover bogs potassium often was was required as well. So then phosphorus again are sorry, blanket bogs by their very nature don't have a lot of mineral mineral matter and phosphorus needs to combine to it needs to combine with either

speaker-1 (24:04.192)
aluminium or iron in the soil to be retained in the soil and available to be released to the plants. And those minerals don't exist in our bogs. So basically a lot of that phosphorus fertilizer then was washed away into our receiving waters or fresh waters. So phosphorus is also in in these these blanket bog areas, there are a lot of our our protected you know our nature sites for what's called oligotrophic waters, which is very low nutrient waters. So these are very sensitive areas.

And phosphorus was often the limiting nutrient in these streams and lakes. So it often went to lakes and streams. So when the phosphorus was was released from the bogs into the streams, you would have big algae blooms. And then the algae blooms would would not only, I suppose, you know, provide physical barriers for fish movement, but then it also, as the the bacteria, as the the bacteria had to break down the algae, it used up a lot of the dissolved oxygen that was in the water. And then that also choked the fish. So

So that that's from a water quality perspective. Then you also had the habitat. So a lot of the blanket bogs or the heats that would have been planted would have occurred in what it might have been a hen harrier area. So I think the in the hen harrier SPAs, a a fair amount of them were planted with commercial forestry. I I I often I often mention this in talks at the Great Forest of Oktie that once existed our wonderful Brian Brew oak and our wonderful, beautiful oak forests that exist there now.

And that was cleared over hundreds of years, is now a special protection area. And it's a special protection area because a lot of it has been planted with commercial conifers. So there isn't as much habitat left for the hen harrier. But because of that now, because of, I suppose, the quantity of conifer in that area, we cannot get in there to reestablish the great forest of Okti either with our oak forests. So, you know, it's it's a a conversation that probably needs to happen about where there is low.

low yielding or low yield class spruce and pine growing on these areas is a forest to bog conversion better in that sense. And when I'm saying less than a yield class of of ten or, you know, like really low yielding that's going to require additional fertilizer inputs. It that economically doesn't make sense. We should consider forest to bog restoration in these areas and and then maybe on foot of that, where there is mineral soils, it wouldn't it be lovely to start to re-establish some of the great forest of Okti. So

speaker-1 (26:24.098)
That's one ex you know, so you had the habitat and you had the water and was probably the biggest impacts of of planting the book.

speaker-0 (26:30.446)
Can I ask just on that, am I right in saying that very few of the fertilizers and the improvements that were put on soil are are used nowadays?

speaker-1 (26:41.198)
Absolutely. I haven't I I don't I haven't used fertilizer in years and and most people don't because it's it's a lot more fertile ground that that comes for forestry. So we also have land classification guidance for forestry in Ireland. So again, when a forester goes out, we have to look at the vegetation indicators and we a lot of us will know by looking now whether it's in or it's out, but they have to meet what's called an R and N score of six. So this is basically a site fertility rating.

and anything that's below that site fertility rating would require fertilizer input. so therefore, those areas don't even qualify for forestation now. So the only time anybody probably is putting on fertilizer is it there's sometimes you can have some of these minor. you might have a little bit of a potassium deficiency. Sometimes it was really rare ones of of I think maybe boron or something like that. but generally no fertilizer is not used. And

Spraying is is is rarely used as well. That's the beauty of mounding. So even though mounding with the drains is another form of mounding that's used a lot in native woodlands and in in commercial forestry conifer woodlands as well, invert mounding. And that's literally where you just go in and you just turn over the sod. You you pull out the sod with the bucket and you just turn it back on top of itself. So you're literally just turning over the grass. And this gives this disturbs the it breaks up.

the soil and the vegetation a bit and it gives the tree a great elevated planting position. And then also it provides that first year without having to spray because the the soil is completely bare around the tree. So you know I I that's one of the great facets of invert mounding is that it it gives the tree a great chance to get away and therefore you don't need to use chemical. You rarely would you ever use chemical in in commercial in conifer forestry in commercial forestry because the trees are just really hardy and will get above the vegetation layer quickly.

It was really in in my experience that it was used more in broadleaves because they were planted in more fertile sites sites with an awful lot more vegetation competition. And but the invert mounding in that instance gives it a gives it a great start. And just to further say that our native woodlands you know, cultivate drainage is is prohibited in native woodlands, it's invert mounding only, and fertilizer is also prohibited in in native woodlands, because it's a it's a completely different type of woodland that you're creating really for

speaker-1 (29:01.528)
for biodiversity with the tertiary timber production. But you know, these they're yeah, you're creating you're trying to reestablish our native woodland resource.

speaker-0 (29:09.39)
This podcast is kindly supported by the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. If you're thinking of planting a new forest or keen to access information on financial and technical supports to manage your existing forest, then go to gov.ie forward slash forestry for you. I'll include that link and other critical details about the guest and this topic in the show notes. Now, back to the chat.

The next one maybe you could touch briefly on is is just the hen harrier where the there were a lot of of conifer plantations in hen harrier. There is a bit of research that shows that somehow the hen harrier may have adapted to that change in their landscape. Well tell tell me a little bit about that.

speaker-1 (29:55.192)
So so hen harrier habitat, they favor upland habitats, they favor moorland, they favor heat, they favor peat, kind of rough grassland. And unfortunately, forestry favored that land too, because that was seen, as I said, as bad land. And it wasn't seen as having any agr you know, very little agricultural value. So it was the main target for trees. But what the hen harrier evolved to an and a

Good bit research, I think, has been done on this in Scotland and in in in Northern Ireland, but and also in Ireland, they realise that this this does occur that henharriers quite favour they nest and they forage they nest anyways in young spruce forestry. So when when it's when it's called, it's called pre-thicket, so it's before the canopy closes. So it's still open. So if you can imagine, I suppose they liked heathery and rough areas, so they like to have some cover. And actually, young spruce provides them with that.

perfect cover. So they have evolved to quite favor these areas. But the the difficulty I guess in in an SPA or in the landscape in general, because remember hen harriers don't, they don't live within an SPA. An SPA is is is a you know a kind of environmental protection designation that we've put on the area to try and protect protect it. But the hen harrier is like like any facet of nature is dynamic and is going to is going to move and evolve with the landscape as it evolves. So it favors quite strongly as as far as I'm aware.

nesting in these young spruce forests. But you would have to, if you imagine again like the Oktie SPA down in Galway and Clare, you know, I don't I think I think maybe, maybe 50%, let's say 50-60% of that is planted in in conifer forestry. How do you manage that you have sufficient thicket or or young spruce in in that landscape, in that area, so that hen, the hen harriers will always have area to nest?

And when you're dealing, I think maybe in in other countries where they have kind of much larger landowners. In Ireland, when you're dealing with individual you know, Quilchia it's different. I guess Quilchia will be able to manage that because they have a large estate. But when you're you know, there could be there could be eighty different private forest owners in the Great Forest of Okti and planted at different times. So yeah, it's it would be great to try and come up with a way

speaker-1 (32:12.376)
to manage the habitat for the hen harrier and then again that would allow you know more forestry where suitable in these areas.

speaker-0 (32:20.94)
Okay. Okay. So you mentioned there that obviously things we're doing now will avoid these future problems. But in the past the the rules were established, people planted where they planted. And at Clearfell now they're obliged to replant. But what way do we get out of some of these historic problems then if we're obliged to replant? Are there mechanisms there? Does the restocking obligation change that or

Have the government any schemes that might help someone to put in a new forestry system that's maybe a little bit more nature friendly?

speaker-1 (32:58.328)
Does all of the above to that, Dermot? Because you're dealing with you have the state and then you have the private forestry sector. And it's it's actually only I think this year the private forest ownership in Ireland has overtaken state ownership. So it's now about 49% state and 51% private ownership. But anyways, all forests in Ireland are come fall under the Forestry Act. And to manage these sites you must get a fenning license. And within that fenning licence, you must also then propose

what your reforestation or your replanting plan is. So just for for just to talk maybe about the standard forestry feding license, there is work. So any feding license that comes in again, you could have you could have forestry that was planted in 1985, say Dermot, and you yeah Clearfeld it last year, and you want to go back in and plant the you know, plant your commercial woodland. But you will be prescribed now to to retrofit those setbacks that weren't there at the start. So any setbacks from streams or houses or

Public roads or that must be retrofitted. And then also you will be required to put in a certain percentage of broadleaves. Some sometimes it might be between 10, 15, 20 percent. Sometimes it's more, depending on the sensitivity. I've seen a site recently that was harvested alongside the Shannon, a very sensitive area, and the whole area was deemed was only eligible for replanting as native woodland. So in that instance.

the there is the department did launch a scheme in this forestry program called the Climate Resilient Reforestation. So basically it allows landowners who want to replant with native woodland that they can, or if you wanted to plant with more diverse species under a continuous cover forestry system, that you can also opt for that. And continuous cover forestry means that you're going in with a maximum of of of

55% of spruce, you're putting in other diverse conifers and diverse broadleaves, but you're managing it under a completely different silvicultural system. You're managing a continuous canopy in place all the time. So you're still absolutely managing for timber production, but you're selecting and managing those trees for timber production. And then you're actually allowing the forest to self-regenerate and you're helping to manage that regeneration. And then the native woodland option. So in that instance, that site would have qualified for the

speaker-1 (35:12.386)
replanting with the native woodland grant. So there is a grant there for a landowner to do it. And there's also a seven year premium. So and it depends, it's it's lower for the continuous cover forestry element, I presume, because there's still a commercial element to it. So it's 150 euro hectare for seven years, but it can be up to six fifty a hectare for the native woodland in in sensitive areas per hectare per year for seven years as well.

But then also you might decide that, you know, I'm I'm not interested in any of these schemes. I just want to go back in with my sick of spruce. And what's happening a little bit to the frustration of landowners that yes, I agree that when when we, you know, replant these areas, if there is sensitivities on the sites like streams or like houses or like roads, and and we want to encourage a little bit more diversity into it, that the landowner should be supported to do that. That you shouldn't necessarily have to go f through a scheme, let's say, to put your whole land in.

Because there's areas where we have we have high deer numbers in the country. So we're asking landowners to retrofit then the next rotation of forestry with broadleaves, but no support to manage to protect those broadleaves. So at a minimum, maybe a you know a deer fencing grant or deer tree shoes should come as an automatic approval with their felling license. So if us as the state want a public good,

from that private forest owner to put in broadleaves and to you know to put in a bit more diversity. I think we should really should support landowners to do that. And then then the third facet is is the state. So I think everybody's quite quite familiar with the nature restoration regulation that came into first in August 2024. So as part of that, the there's a whole lot of it's all about restoring existing habitats we have and re-establishing lost ones as well as managing our existing

forest ecosystems and agricultural ecosystems and wetlands and all that. But from our forest ecosystems perspective, any there was a lot of you know a lot of concern at the time about rewetting of organic soils. There will be areas where forest to bog conversion, you know, so you're rewetting, you're removing the forest and you're returning it to peat because as I mentioned earlier, if if it's a y low yield class site anyways.

speaker-1 (37:14.956)
you know, in that instance, it makes it makes economic, environmental and social sense, in my opinion, to be putting that back into bog. And actually I see was it last year or so the Welsh government brought in guidance for landowners. So it's not guidance, actually it's mandatory with their felling licence and you must prepare this plan. But they gave very good guidance to the sector of what they expect. So if it's less than a year class ten, it's a forest to bog conversion. If it's year class maybe ten to fourteen, these rules apply. And if it's a year class greater than fourteen, then these other rules apply. And just to

For the for the audience, a year class is a measure of productivity of the amount of volume per hectare per year that a forest can grow. So so that's so it's it's low-yielding sites. It doesn't make sense. And the government also under the nature restoration law was very clear that these commitments first, the big these huge targets and commitments that we have to meet as a nation will be met first on forest land or sorry, on public lands. So in that instance, I believe that

The forest to bog conversion definitely, I'm sure Quilcha are going through their their forest estate to see where that is suitable. But I also believe that there should be some kind of a scheme and support available for private landowners as well who have sites in these areas that they can't manage. This is the other side of it. You know, you it's it can be very difficult to get a feding license for commercial conifers in blanket bog beside a sensitive lake or watercourses because it's very difficult.

to screen out the impact on that watercourse, especially if it's in a tour site. So again, I think we kind of have to have a bit of a grown up conversation about how we manage these areas. You know, if the wisdom now is that okay, we, you know, that shouldn't have been planted in forestry, it's low yielding and the inputs required to make it commercial is not in the best interests of the surrounding environment and habitats, then we need to consider some kind of a support for a landowner to do a forest to bog conversion in that case on low yielding sites.

speaker-0 (39:10.274)
Yeah, no, it it's it the the the state encouraged the landowner and the gold posts have moved. But as you say, we we we do need to recognize that the landowner planted in good faith, whether it was a sound ecological decision or not. Marina, it will we talked a lot about operational measures that are done nowadays to protect water. But I wonder, could you give me a few examples of what counts as biodiversity?

on a new afforestation site. You mentioned one in particular, which was maybe a wet area that might be in a in my twenty acre field. But what is biodiversity areas and and we have fifteen percent of new sites, but can you list a few examples of what that means in reality?

speaker-1 (39:56.856)
So if you hedgerows on your land protecting your hedgerows, if you have a little area of scrub protecting that and putting a buffer around it, staying five meters back from your hedgerows. If you have a stra a water course, a couple of streams going through your site, you will be keeping back from that stream and you will be leaving an un you know an unplanted buffer zone, that 10 meters that is completely allowed to rewild basically and re-vegetate. So and you will be you'll be managing that as a rewilded.

And biodiversity area, you don't go in and and you know and put in a few sheep or or anything like that. Like this is part this is an integral part of of what's called open space and areas of biodiversity enhancement within the woodland. so that that's two examples as well. If you had any kind of your archaeology sites as well. So if you had a a rat or a fort or any kind of remnants that you would have a

You would leave an access path into it and you leave a 20-meter buffer around that. And again, you allow that buffer to rewild and just to to re-vegetate. If there was a a wetland, if there was like a little, a little area of marsh or a reedbed or a swamp, you would leave that area. And if there was a small pocket of annex habitat, like a little bit of wet heath, you would also leave that area if it was small when I mentioned it has to be less than point two of a hectare, but you would

You would manage those areas so that they're not interfered with and leave a, you know, a little buffer around it. yeah, if there if there was old trees, really old important trees, you leave all those trees, you don't touch them. they also become part of your woodland. Like it's very much about working within, you know, when when we go in, when you do an assessment of the land, it's what's here on the land. How do we protect what's here? And then how can we manage trees in this environment? Where is the best place to put trees within this area?

speaker-0 (41:43.114)
Okay, d there's something I want to ask you about. You mentioned an owner a little while back who had a forest cleared close to the Shannon and he was told to go back in with a native woodland and and close to the to the river there. It that's effectively a riparian border. But it occurs to me sometimes, and this is in the context of the setbacks you mentioned from waterways that are going through our forests, that we don't as a normal thing

plant those buffer zones with native woodlands. this the requirement is to stay back and plant nothing. But on other sites we're being advised or the best ecological advice is to plant riparian borders. So what can you say about that and are there actual schemes to encourage riparian borders where they're necessary?

speaker-1 (42:36.66)
It there's been a good bit of a change in this area and I think it's great. It's really important because I think these really artificial ten meter linear or fifteen or twenty meter linear setbacks is is actually not not natural. I I it was brought in because of commercial conifer forestry, but in a in a native woodland or a natural woodland situation, trees are an important part of our riparian habitats and they're important part of bank stabilization and they also provide shade.

Especially the hot summer that we've had, they're really important for fish, for providing shade and just for cooling the temperature of the river as well. When floods are happening, it's it's it's always at the impact at the town when the water has already come down. But I mean, you know, our our uplands, there's huge opportunity in our uplands to start re-establishing our our native woodlands, especially our old sesile oak woodland, which it's it's the climax habitat for old sessile oak woodland is in our rocky uplands. And research has shown that

When you have there's research done in the UK that water flow, like after storm events, is sixty percent less in forested catchments as opposed to open pasture streams. So, you know, it it really has an amazing ability to slow down water. The water will still make its way through, but it can it can, you know, really manage it and and control the water.

speaker-0 (43:54.264)
Well, you've given me a good walk through the screening and the protection for biodiversity and water. And we talked about all the setbacks which will protect important features and as well as protect some of the local community. But let's stick with the social side of this and the people in the community. Do you think that with all the improvements you've mentioned, take into account nature and

in in ways we're more cognizant of the local community. Is there is there as much support as there was when there was huge employment in forestry, or have we lost the public in those areas where forestry is most common? What do you think, Marina?

speaker-1 (44:37.154)
I think we still have a bit of, you know, we still have I I call it a bit of a conifer hangover. There's there's really still a lot of sensitivity around and fear. There's a lot of sensitivity and fear about when anybody thinks of when you talk about forestry, most people I think just think of sick of spruce on the side of a mountain. I think that's the vision. You know, when we talk about forestry or reforestation, I think it's the assumption is often

The default is to big swathes of conifers, commercial conifers on the side of a hill. But I mean, our f like our forests are like are so diverse and and unfortunately only one narrative often makes it into the the the public for or so, you know, lots of people then believe. In my experience, when when the farmer non-farmer rated premium was got rid of in 2015, this land forestry land was around 3,000 an acre and it went up over a thousand acre overnight just when that was gone and it continued.

to go and for me that was then really when you put forestry on an unleavened playing field with the farmer because an investor from London or Austria or Germany or Ireland wherever was able to access the same level of grant and premium as a farmer. And I you know I think that it really had an impact because then forest land really started to climb in price. so

But also as well, I think planting up close to to houses and planting around old houses and all that as well. people felt a lot of the culture and that was gone. So that definitely has changed. you know, it's it's I guess I cut my teeth in the initial years in Western Forestry Co-op and and the co-op was all about, you know, working with landowners and farmers and it used to to try and encourage, you know, farmers to even do swaps of land and fields and

you know, lots of things can be done when you have a really good buy-in, really good engagement from the community. And I often think that, you know, forestry it's become foresters have become so, so busy, so overwhelmed with the the level of kind of assessment and work and paperwork and that must go into and operations and making sure that like when you get a license that every element of mitigation that has been put in there is followed to the letter of the law because otherwise it comes with huge penalties.

speaker-1 (46:53.378)
So they're quite I think if the sector quite quite overburdened with a huge amount of work and quite overwhelmed.

speaker-0 (46:59.118)
Marina, you're at an interesting point in your career. You've seen a lot at this point, and you're very engaged in some of the government bodies that are trying to develop and enhance the forestry program. So you have a foot in the active side and you're also speaking the people who who manage some of these programs and put them together. Could you maybe pick out two or three recommendations or things that you'd like to see changed or improved that would help us plant more forestry ultimately or make the system better for all stakeholders?

speaker-1 (47:28.544)
One of the things that I definitely would like to see is a whole kind of a new scheme or a new vehicle, as I've been calling it, to deliver more native woodlands in our uplands. The current forestation grant scheme that that we have, it's it's delivering commercial forestry, it's delivering commercial broadleaves, it's delivering native woodlands. but it's very much done through the lens of a productivity model where where trees have to be planted at a certain stocking at a certain standard and reach a certain height by a certain year.

So they have to grow at a certain level of productivity. And I completely understand why that is. It's it's taxpayers' money in you know that is going to try and also produce a resource. So in in a productivity context, it's it's completely appropriate for that reason. But I think we need a whole new upland native woodland scheme or an annex woodland scheme or a woodlands for nature scheme that takes away this productivity metric and allows trees to establish in their own time, naturally, as they want to.

in their own messy way in the uplands. And this is when when I say going into the uplands, I'm not talking about plant and wet eat or, you I'm not talking about plantinic habitat. If it's degraded, if it's degraded habitat and the trees want to naturally conalize there, then I I think that I I don't I personally don't have a problem with that. But what I what I'm saying is that you have a lot of mineral soil in our uplands. You have a lot of bracken, these brackeny areas, these mineral areas where we could we could just start to establish and re-establish. So I mentioned earlier about our

Our alluvial woodland targets, we've an even bigger one, 40,000 hectares of Old Cecile Oak Woodland, our annex woodland, needs to be re reestablished. So new 40,000 hectares of new old sessile oak woodland between now and 2050 is our legal obligation under the nature restoration law for Ireland as a country. And I do do not think believe that that's achievable without having some way to allow these forests to establish into the upland. And

Kirps Petraea, Petraea means rocky. So its natural habitat is these rocky uplands. And I remember somebody talking last week about some forests that were planted and how well they're done. And they're all called Carrig, Carig, Carrig. They're all upland woodlands. So it's, you know, it's either the Carig, the Rocky, or the Petra from Latin. So it's it's and these areas, so you wouldn't be going into these areas with standard, you know, with two by two stocking in that.

speaker-1 (49:46.582)
It's like you we we need to recreate a mosaic of woodland habitats across these landscapes. Like if you look at the side of Killery Floor Fjord, and if you go into Lanan and you look at either side of those mountains, you'll see lazy beds, you know, the old potato drills up and down, you'll see loads of bracken. you'll see tiny, tiny little fragments of native woodland existing in a gully where basically they can't be grazed, you know, where the nibblers can't get to them, and that's the only reason they exist.

So I believe we need to put buffers around those existing pockets and let them expand out naturally. I was even talking to someone last week when they were saying that, you know, 50 meters, because, you know, trees can naturally, where you have a seed source in place, can naturally expand out 50 meters from the seed source. We need to in the lower slopes and even up the slopes where we can create woodlands. Absolutely, let's go with our native woodland. Let's go with our

Our native woodland framework, our scenario one, two, or three with our sessile oak woodland into these landscapes that are two by two meter stocking, because they're also our pioneer birch woodland as well. They're really important in these environments. because you know, trees growing together do form community a lot easier as well. So I am all for closer stockings as well. But then you'll have big outcrops of rock, and behind that you might have a small areas of mineral soil. We could do little bits of you know, just

protected tree areas in in tree shelters or we could do small exclosures and create little seed stands ourselves. So it's all about how do we how do we look at the landscape as a whole and how do we allow because a lot of the time these are are owned by you know individual owners. So like they're big swathes of land owned. It's not like these are small farm fields. These are bigger open landscapes. And even for common age landowners, you know, is there an opportunity here within the future agri-environment schemes as well to to encourage and incentivize

commonade shareholders to get together and to create these our OSS outlook woodlands into the uplands. So that for me is a big passion to allow that to happen. And I think as well with doing that, I think we need sometimes, you know, in in this current forestry program, we have a lot of areas that are ineligible for forestry. And a lot of that ineligibility is all around concerns around commercial forestry, going into sensitive environments and areas. But because of that, it's also had an impact on our existing

speaker-1 (52:00.456)
annex woodlands. So for example, down in the Gira that I mentioned and we're down in Cork there is an SPA on the Gira and within the Gira there would be land within that SPA, sorry, there would be farmed fields that that aren't habitat for the conservation objectives of the SPA, but they would be absolutely suitable to allow you could just add a let the then the woodland

Expand out naturally or you know, assist it with fencing and sub some some supplementary planting using the genetic material and stock from the gira those woodlands. But that currently is prohibited from being allowed to happen because of all SPAs being ineligible for afforestation. So I think we need a more we need, you know, a kind of more nuanced ecological approach to re-establish, especially with our annex woodlands. Anywhere these are

these annex woodlands or native woodlands or or ancient woodlands exist, we should be allowed to put buffers around them and allow them to expand because then we have such a tiny amount of them. And and they they need to be allowed to connect up in the landscape as well. These these are these woodlands have all been isolated into tiny little pockets. And they're they're so much stronger when they're allowed to to expand into the landscape. So and that's not talking about, you know, I'm not talking about infringing here on any other habitat of of really high ecological significance.

But it's it's just having a more nuanced ecological approach to allowing where these are, you know, because often these areas were mapped maybe what is it, 34 years ago. And you know, conditions have changed. Nature is dynamic, it's ever changing and moving, and even I suppose our our systems of land use management are changing. So I would like, I think that that for me, there needs to be ecological flexibility with regard to the expansion.

of our annex and native woodlands in these areas. Fine, you know, if commercial forestry is not appropriate. But I I I don't believe that that excluding all our native woodlands from these areas is the correct approach either. So that's definitely one thing that that I would say. And again, that's d it's it's I I suppose I've tried to outline and explain through this talk, Dermot, and I think it a really important one to have I I don't think people realize

speaker-1 (54:14.068)
amount of environmental assessment that goes into any piece of land that you consider for afforestation. And I whether that is two acres or that is 60 acres, it is the exact same process. Whether that is for oak or for native woodland or agroforestry or for sick spruce, it is the exact same assessment that goes into it. So it's a really thorough assessment that is done by foresters and ecologists. It also often has to bring in additional professionals if those

You know, you might need a hydrologist, you might need a landscape architect, you might need an ornithologist, you might need an ecologist who has has a particular speciality for bats or for you know for some other area, depending on what environmental sensitivity was raised when you did the screening. So a huge amount of assessment goes into it. So in that instance, I feel we've got to a stage where, you know, I often describe it a little bit like this. When we talked about forestry of of the 50s, 60s, 70s, that was again done for very different reasons.

The pendulum was over here, you know, at maybe nine o'clock, let's say on the clock. And and no, you know, but now the pendulum has swung over pretty much to three o'clock, where it's there's such a fear. I think that, you know, forestry has become so risky versus such a fear of doing anything wrong that there's a little bit of paralysis there. And I think we need to bring back a little bit more trust, trust, and a bit more flexibility. Cause

Every you know, it's it's everything can be seen, what's being done. There's nothing being hidden. I don't believe any land use goes through the level of public scrutiny and consultation that forestry does. So I really I would hope that people would understand that, you know, that there's a a lot of good work going out there to try and create the best woodlands that we can, but you know, that that we need to have, you know, a really good kind of ecological approach in these sensitive areas.

to allowing woodlands to expand.

speaker-0 (56:05.57)
Marina, one last specific point on maybe broadening the net for where we can plant. There's an argument there, and I think we we may have briefly mentioned it, these improved peaty soils that are being actively farmed. And at the minute there's a limit of thirty centimeters. Should we be considering now considering doesn't mean we allow them, but should we be considering deeper peats if we feel there's no gonna be no adverse

effect on the carbon balance.

speaker-1 (56:36.398)
Absolutely, because it's carbon reasons that the thirty centimeter came in. And it's a little bit arbitrary. I mean, I don't know how much, you know, I think there is research going on now to to look into that a little bit more because it's it's forty centimeters in England, it's fifty centimeters in Scotland. you know, so it it's very variable. But again, it's it's back to what I said earlier, you know, like, you know, should we be looking at a carbon balance? One of the things that that owes

Frustrates me a little bit about the appropriate assessment screening process and that is required under the Habitats Directive is that it doesn't take any cognizance of existing land use. So like that land use could already be. I remember like we can go in and do a two-year study on converting 40 acres into a native woodland. And I'm not joking, applications can take two or three years to be done. Yet the existing landowner can continue to farm that land, to spray rushes.

To put on fertilizer, to dose their sheep, to you know, drain it. Maybe I I don't know, like, and this isn't bashing anybody, but what I'm saying is that, you know, we're a little bit in the such a state of fear of paralysis, of risk adverse, that anything wrong is going to be done in forestry. When actually, if you look at and and I suppose I'm I'm talking about a site I worked on in particular, like you're putting into native woodland, you're doing no drainage, you're doing no fertilizer.

You're putting a big deer fence around that site, you're using Irish genetic provenance in it to plant native trees, you're leaving all those open areas, biodiversity areas to rewild, you're creating a wonderful habitat in its own, and yet it must go through through a two-year study to see, you know, what what the impact is. And I just think that, yeah, like I I feel like when when there's very less intensive measures required for creating certain types of woodlands.

That, you know, that maybe there should be a little bit more flexibility there in the approach. That does not mean you take away from looking at all the sensitivities I I said at the outset. Of course, if it's already a breeding wading habit habitat, you don't consider it. If it's high nature value farmland, you don't consider it. If it's, you know, it's it's yeah, of course, you have to do that screening. so it's it's it's where it's ecologically appropriate to do it.

speaker-0 (58:46.636)
No, perfect. Marina, any final words before we finish?

speaker-1 (58:50.508)
I think we need a very holistic approach to land management in Ireland and all this ambition in all these different reports and how do we put it together into something that works holistically for a landowner. And I think we've a really good opportunity coming because in January 2028 we have the convergence of the new forestry program, we'll have the convergence of the new CAP, and we'll have the convergence of the Nature Restoration Plan. And so we have a really big opportunity here as a country and as a nation to

kind of you know, manage our land for farming, for forestry, for nature, all under the one plan, rather than in these little silos. That'd be my future ambition when I'd love to see.

speaker-0 (59:29.55)
Perfect, Marina. Thanks for joining me. Thank you. Thanks again to Marina Conway from Home Tree for her time and effort. I hope you get a feel for the behind-the-scenes checks and balances that go into every new forestry license application in Ireland. If you're considering planting a new forest or want more information on all the schemes, just look in the show notes below for details and links. I hope you enjoyed the podcast. Any feedback or comments, do feel free to email me at forestynowpodcast at gmail.com. Until the next time, take care.