National Parks Ireland

greenvox8

Why is it that Ireland has a lot less, and a lot smaller, national parks than Britain?
Our island is less densely populated, and at least as beautiful.

Just compare the number and size of the green spots on this map, each of them representing a national park:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=53.501117,-4.943848&spn=4.53609,11.634521&t=m&z=7

We could promote tourism and nature conservation with more / bigger national parks. I'd argue as well we should have more forests. :rolleyes:

Just a thought...

thehairyone

Ireland has a different National Park system to that of the UK. Irelands national parks system is based on IUCN Category II guidelines, which are basically areas that are ecologically important but without any people living in them, we use the same system as the USA. The protection afforded to national parks in Ireland is primarily down to State ownership of the lands and not to any specific legislation.

The UK uses IUCN Category V guidelines, which encompasses people and nature, so national parks can include towns, villages, private property, state owned lands etc. This allows them to be much bigger but also means that the national parks have to deal with a lot of politics such as angry landowners, planning issues etc.

There are pros and cons to each system.

At the moment the only way for Irish national parks to expand is to buy more land or even just buy a share in a commonage. With the way this country is, the UK system would not go down well here at all. Although the Burren would be a perfect area for the UK system to be used.

Link to IUCN Categories:
http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/pa/pa_products/wcpa_categories/

Judgement Day

Why do we have a lot less of everything - because it's Ireland. Pay lip service to everything - environment, heritage etc.etc. but do damn all about it.

Mickeroo

thehairyone wrote: »

Ireland has a different National Park system to that of the UK. Irelands national parks system is based on IUCN Category II guidelines, which are basically areas that are ecologically important but without any people living in them, we use the same system as the USA. The protection afforded to national parks in Ireland is primarily down to State ownership of the lands and not to any specific legislation.

The UK uses IUCN Category V guidelines, which encompasses people and nature, so national parks can include towns, villages, private property, state owned lands etc. This allows them to be much bigger but also means that the national parks have to deal with a lot of politics such as angry landowners, planning issues etc.

There are pros and cons to each system.

At the moment the only way for Irish national parks to expand is to buy more land or even just buy a share in a commonage. With the way this country is, the UK system would not go down well here at all. Although the Burren would be a perfect area for the UK system to be used.

Link to IUCN Categories:
http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/pa/pa_products/wcpa_categories/

I actually did my thesis on the Burren NP's classification. I very much agree it would be perfect for a Category V designation. I'm of the opinion all our parks would be better off that way considering all our landscapes are very humanised ones anyway, cultural landscapes rather than natural ones.

You're right though, it wouldn't go down well, would need a lot of raising awareness about the categories and that before it could be implemented.

Birdnuts

The Shannon Callows are crying out for NP status

Judgement Day

Birdnuts wrote: »

The Shannon Callows are crying out for NP status

Not to mention huge areas of Wicklow such the coastal plain between Greystones and Wicklow but it won't happen.

E39MSport

a record, 09:42 and depresed already

greenvox8

Thank you for all your answers to my 1st post
Useful info hairyone, agree with you mickeroo, more should be done!

Half-cocked

greenvox8 wrote: »

...more should be done!

Like a lot of things, we missed the oppertunity when the country was awash with money during the so called celtic tiger period.

magicbastarder

Judgement Day wrote: »

Why do we have a lot less of everything - because it's Ireland. Pay lip service to everything - environment, heritage etc.etc. but do damn all about it.

how much of it is to do with population patterns? ireland has a much lower overall population density than the UK, but it's less nucleated, i would expect.
plus, as alluded to above, it's a lot to do with the irish attitude to owning land.

robp

There has been talk before of creating a park in the midlands. Its being recommended by an EPA report (Boglands). It’s a strong candidate as there is a lot of land becoming available from Bord na Mona work. Much will be snatched by windfarms etc. Yet, The a lake studded wetland with white tailed eagles and overwinter wildfowl is an appealing thought. Considering this is the land of the easker roadways and the togher bog roads, tourists trails here could have a high of authenticity value.

Birdnuts

robp wrote: »

There has been talk before of creating a park in the midlands. Its being recommended by an EPA report (Boglands). It’s a strong candidate as there is a lot of land becoming available from Bord na Mona work. Much will be snatched by windfarms etc. Yet, The a lake studded wetland with white tailed eagles and overwinter wildfowl is an appealing thought. Considering this is the land of the easker roadways and the togher bog roads, tourists trails here could have a high of authenticity value.

Its a no-brainer really - I wouldn't have thought wind energy would make much sense in the midlands(its bad enough that every second hill in the country will soon have a windfarm irrespective of its effect on the local environment, wildlife etc.!!:(). I too see huge potential for much of Bord Na Mona's land holdings in the midlands to be converted into a wetland wilderness that would have huge ecological and economic benefits for the country - it would also surely herald the return of iconic birds like Cranes, Bitterns etc.:cool:

greenfingers89

greenvox8 wrote: »

We could promote tourism and nature conservation with more / bigger national parks. I'd argue as well we should have more forests. :rolleyes:

just to offer a different perspective as a forester...

i agree that there is potential to expand national parks and create a few more. the way i see it irelands answer to conservation is to run around classifying vast areas as SAC, SPA and NHA's as well as pSAC, pSPA and pNHA. this is important of course but i firmly believe some of these classifications are made without a great deal of thought or logic.

anyway getting back to the forestry...

from a forestry point of view it is becoming increasingly difficult to plant areas within or adjoining these designated areas. before i get huge abuse, im not talking about exotic conifer species. the problems are cropping up with hardwood proposed sites all over the country. quite often the idea of more trees isnt the main problem. its the cultivation, scenic impact or practices such as fertiliser application or spraying that feck things up.

the reason trees cannot be just shoved in and allowed to do their own natural thing is down to mainly financial reasoning. without boring you (even more), the grants that aid the establishment of forestry in this country require certain standards to be kept in terms of initial growth, quality and survival of trees. this is where we need to carry out our operations like drainage etc.

so if a decision is made to allow a forest establishment on the condition that drainage be severely impared or no fertiliser application or no spraying or no vermin control or including a higher percentage of unsuitable species or whatever else, then in most cases the planting is not viable in terms of getting adequate establishment to satisfy the grant aid.

there needs to be a huge shift in policy if forestry is to thrive in ireland in a more environmentally friendly manner. nowadays sitka spruce is being put into some sites that are suitable for broadleaves or scots pine simply because they can be far more profitable (that may sound like pointing out the blatently obvious). the reason more profit is so important on these sites is because they are covering losses on other restricted sites with costly conditions on them. the funding is higher for broadleaves but this is not as attractive as it used to be because costs are eaten up on these sites due to deer damage or extra costs for deer fencing (neither is a great result). the expectations of the forest service are far higher in terms of pruning broadleaves and adequate growth in the first 4 years than they used to be. so its a big decision to plant broadleaves on any sites because they could really ruin you financially. the forestry industry learned a hard lesson over the last 15 years from broadleaves.

at risk of being ridiculed.... i believe where vast areas of sitka spruce exist outside the designated areas there should be far more sitka planted (where the ground is suitable). inside or adjoining the designated areas there should be more broadleaves/scots pine allowed but with less restrictions and/or expectations

to sum up, the restrictive nature of grant funding for forestry and little lee-way given by the forest service and npws in particular are huge barriers blocking more forestry being established in ireland

robp

Birdnuts wrote: »

Its a no-brainer really - I wouldn't have thought wind energy would make much sense in the midlands(its bad enough that every second hill in the country will soon have a windfarm irrespective of its effect on the local environment, wildlife etc.!!:(). I too see huge potential for much of Bord Na Mona's land holdings in the midlands to be converted into a wetland wilderness that would have huge ecological and economic benefits for the country - it would also surely herald the return of iconic birds like Cranes, Bitterns etc.:cool:

There are plenty of online reports out there by Bord na Mona so I wonder do they explain this topic. Its said 60% will return to wetland but does that exclude windfarms. One thing I can say is sometimes even when a windfarm is built the land between is rehabilitated essentially as wilderness. See Mount Lucas.
http://www.bordnamona.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MarkMcCorry-Presentation.pdf

I am not sure if that scenario is compatible with wildfowl but it certainly is with rare wetland flora.

Birdnuts

robp wrote: »

There are plenty of online reports out there by Bord na Mona so I wonder do they explain this topic. Its said 60% will return to wetland but does that exclude windfarms. One thing I can say is sometimes even when a windfarm is built the land between is rehabilitated essentially as wilderness. See Mount Lucas.
http://www.bordnamona.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MarkMcCorry-Presentation.pdf

I am not sure if that scenario is compatible with wildfowl but it certainly is with rare wetland flora.

Rob - get your hands on the latest copy of the publication Irish Birds. There is a paper in it on the study of birds on 20,000 acres of Bord Na Mona's worked out holdings in the Bangor Erris/Bellacorick area of North Mayo that have been given over to natural recolonization since 2002. The study related to the perioud 2002-08 I think!! - the findings in that time have been very impressive in terms of the number and variety of breeding birds that have estaiblished themselves on this area of cut-away blanket bog. These species include, Snipe, Teal and Ringed Plover etc.