Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
Illegal Bog-cutting, no enforcement.
Comments
-
-
pollagh prince wrote: »dont believe u. you are the first rural person i have met that has said this!
My heart is broken!
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
The legal problem with enforcement is that These are not SACs in the main, They are cSACS and the Candidature period (up to 7 years) has expired.
All the fault of the NPWS who spent their time drawing lines on maps and annoying people rather than finishing what they started.
A few of them are still inside their candidature periiod and therefore half designated but they will expire unless the NPWS completes the process inside the 7 years like they are supposed to.
But not to worry, crushties will come from afar ( Bellinaboy and Leitrim) to defend them against these outrages.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
My bog is near a SAC, one day I found that the NPWS had crayoned a map and added it to a SAC ( they crayoned another one out of the same SAC contemporaneously with that).
So I rang the Ranger ( nice oul divil) and said like WTF, explain.
Ranger referred me to big wig who refused to answer questions about crayoning on map, flat out refused. NPWS does not deal with public. So I did an FOI on the timeline of the crayoning, the NPWS could not 'find' ocuments to support the crayoning.
Now I have a bog in a SAC that is not a SAC
The Ranger avoids us like the plague because they know I know about the 'anomalies'.... bar doing a Red Book species survey (fauna) at our request when the machine is going on in April or so to do the stripes.
The thing that the NPWS flat out refused to answer is where is the management plan for the SAC which formalises the conservation objectives, there isn't one is the answer. There should have been one within 7 years of cSAC designation but the NPWS is happier to leave us in a limbo rather than publish one.
Consequently I looked at the Raised bog cluster of cSACs, most have no management plan either.
Absent a management plan and 7 years after the designation of a cSAC the situation is that NOTHING is ILLEGAL at ALL. Read Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive .
This is the absurd world of the NPWS, one of arbitrary action and no accountability. Of the c 400 cSACs in Ireland only around 50 have a management plan in place and are therefore a SAC not a cSAC. A cSAC may only exist for 7 years in law.
In order to get a quick and dirty enforcement regime in place the NPWS has been busy ( not writing management plans which require consultation) but co designating the lot of the SACS as SPAs too.
They can then enforce under the EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (BIRDS AND NATURAL HABITATS) REGULATIONS 2011 which allows them to:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2011/en.si.2011.0477.pdf
If a warrant is issued under Regulation 6 the Authorised officer (eg a Ranger) in an SPA ( not SAC) may.he or she may do all things
reasonably necessary for the purpose for which the entry is made and including,
but not limited to, any of the following—
Long list, snipped.(l) require that the lands, premises or vehicle or any part of the lands or
premises or anything in or on the lands or premises or vehicle shall
be left undisturbed for a specified period,
(p) remove and retain any object or plant or animal for such period as
may be reasonable for further examination or for use in proceedings,
or both, which the authorised officer, having regard to all the circumstances,
considers necessary for the purposes of exercising any of his
or her functions under these Regulations,
(q) as appropriate, take, remove or destroy specimens or populations of
plants or animals or vectors listed in the Third Schedule, and
(r) do anything that any of these Regulations provide that an authorised
officer shall do or may do, and do anything incidental to doing such
a thing or things.
(5) Any certificate or other evidence given, or to be given, in respect of any
test, examination or analysis of any sample under this Regulation shall, in
relation to that sample, be evidence, without further proof, of the result of the
test, examination or analysis unless the contrary is shown.
(6) A person shall not—
(a) subject to paragraph (2), refuse to allow an authorised officer to enter
any lands or premises or board any vehicle or to bring any person or
equipment with him or her in the exercise of his or her functions,
(b) obstruct or impede an authorised officer in the exercise of any of his
or her functions,
(c) give to an authorised officer information which is to his or her knowledge
false or misleading in a material respect, or
(d) without reasonable excuse, fail or refuse to comply with any requirement
or instruction of an authorised officer.
(7) (a) A person who fails to comply with subparagraph (6)(a) or (6)(d) shall
be guilty of an offence.
(b) A person who fails to comply with subparagraph (6)(b) or (6)(c) shall
be guilty of an offence.
So watch out if the NPWS try to make your local SAC into an SPA.0 -
-
Sponge Bob I'm very confused by your post so if you could clarify some things for me please.
Are you trying to imply that the Natura 2000 sites are not fully protected due to the lack of conservation management plans etc.?
Most are not, correct.A limited number, normally on state owned land, have completed the plan ...WHICH INCLUDES extensive consultation with Land Owners Civil Servants in that case. I would reckon no more than 50 out of 400.
They have 7 years to complete the planning process ( Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive ) after which their right to impose their interim management schemes EXPIRE.
Land Owners cannot be subject to arbitrary and capricious conconctions in lieu of a management plan for a SAC such as the one page "conservation objectives" issued last summer by the NPWS for most of the Raised Bogs. !!!!!
Why do you think that Reg 6 only relates to Birds Directive and not Habitats Directive?
It does, accept i, note the Bird Regulations 2011 are a Statutory INSTRUMENT which gives draconian powers to Authorised Officers and which was not enacted in the Dáil. It is open to challenge on that basis.
Because they are fraconian the NPWS ran around like blue arse flies double designating SACs as SPAs last year in the hope they would not have to prepare managemnt plans like they were supposed to years ago.
Read Article 6 of the Habitats directive. It describes a process and that process is incomplete in most SACs.Where are you getting the idea that the reason they designate SPAs is to imply some weakness in SAC designation?SPAs & SACs have different qualifying interests and therefore will often be designated as both SAC & SPA.
Correct, SPA protects birds while SAC could protect birds (mainly) but usually protects an ecosystem.Boundaries do change on SACs for a variety of reasons, it may have been felt that "your" bog formed part of a larger complex that were hydrologically of otherwise linked and therfore formed a much larger site than originally designated.
While that statement is correct I am entitled to a rational opinion and a considered answer as to the reason why. Instead I have a one pager from the FoI officer saying they can find not a shred of paper anywhere to explain the designation. That'll do me so.
NPWS do talk to people and it is nonsense to say otherwise but like everything the higher you go the more political interference so the more reluctant to commit to anything.
I find the Rangers are absoluetely grand, at a regional and higher management levels they are dreadfully arrogant and refuse to answer simple questions. People are NOT an NPWS priority as I found out.The problem is not NPWS but the corrupt political system and parish pump gombeen politics. Furthermore it is incorrect and unfair to say NPWS crayoned in the boundary, even if GIS was initially used the district staff will be consulted and the scientific staff will visit all sites several times.
All of which explains the incredible straightness of the line A nearby NHA with suspiciously straight lines was self admittedly a "desktop" designation by the NPWS when the anomaly was pointed out by landowners inside the line.. They refused to correct the anomaly because all they had to do was get Dick Roche to sign off on it so the landowners could simply feck off.There has also been regular monitoring and many of the reporting on the sites goes back to the 70's when Eanna Ní Lamhna was working with An Foras Forbatha. The reports are available on www.npws.ie. There was site monitoring carried out last year and the invitation to tender was up on etenders recently to carry out site monitoring this year.
50+ SACs , most small, are designated in the raised bog package. Did Éanna study all of them???? At least one raised bog I know of ( it is TINY) is not designated at all as one farmer owns all the land around it and simply likes the look of that mountain of turf over in one of his fields. It is a perfect candidate for designation but it never was. The only way onto it is with a helicopter or a cherrypicker.So where in Article 6.1 does it say that it is not illegal to damage a Natura 2000 site/SAC because the country in question has not yet completed the designation process? Article 6(2), 6(3) & 6(4) apply once the sites have been listed as proposed SCI so I don't really get what your point.
Section 6(1) (...I see you read it. ) describes a PROCESS. Why was the process not followed. ??
We have a right to own land, it is in the constitution.
We have a right to due process, it is in the constitution.
Most SACs were designated 1997-2001 so the 7 year period is up.
Attempts to enforce cSac rules after 7 years are capricious an arbitrary and this lack of a managemnt plan explains why they are still cSACs not real SACs.If you wish give me details of your site and I will happily do some further investigation for you and try to get you some background info if you are having trouble accessing it. Disclaimer: I do not work for NPWS and am not in any way affiliated with them.
I don't need to, I just ask for "The Management Plan" when a new ranger appears and they never bother me again. The NPWS knows where their weak spot is.
If they ever interfere with Blanket Bogs I will dredge up my 'dossier' to show how arbitrary and arrogant the NPWS are. For now it can wait.0 -
-
Hey Sponge Bob,
I'm too tired to respond at length so apologies for not addressing everything.The Natura 2000 sites are designated and fully protected from listing, Article 6(1) applies when only when the SCIs are designated SACs but everything else in Article 6 applies immediately upon listing. Article 6(1) refers to conservation management plans as a method of demonstrating the requirements of Article 6 will be adequately met. Nowhere does it say management plans cannot be implemented after 7 years, however it is correct to say the process is supposed to be completed fully within 7 years.
Ah, yes, SCIs.I was HOPING you woun mention that. A cSAC IS an SCI , it is just that it is not a Full DESIGNATED SAC
Funnily this is how the EU Describes things.
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment/nature_and_biodiversity/l28076_en.htmSpecial areas of conservation are designated in three stages. Following the criteria set out in the annexes, each Member State must draw up a list of sites hosting natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. On the basis of the national lists and by agreement with the Member States, the Commission will then adopt a list of sites of Community importance for each of the nine EU biogeographical regions (the Alpine region, the Atlantic region, the Black Sea region, the Boreal region, the Continental region, the Macronesian region, the Mediterranean region, the Pannonian region and the Steppic region). No later than six years after the selection of a site of Community importance, the Member State concerned must designate it as a special area of conservation.
But to make it a SAC not a cSAC. (We wrongly call SCI's cSACs) they must prepare a MANAGEMENT PLAN as required by Article 6(1) . It cannot in fact become a SAC without being an SCI and then going through PLANNING AND CONSULTATION with all landowners etc. This never happened in Ireland and that is the fault of the NPWS who refused to do it. They wanted their eco mates to get some nice consultancy gigs off Bertie but Bertie would not hire these eco consultants en masse and the NPWS were told to to do some work themselves first ...even if only to prouce tempates.
It Took the NPWS 10 whole years to write the first one and the country was skint by then. No money to pay for the other 399 or so.
So why did the NPWS tell the EU They would prepare Management Plans for these SACs if there was no need to back in the day then.....as you imply. ???Turf cutting doesn't come under site management as it is not necessary for conservation of the site, the opposite in fact is true which is why there is a ban.
Yes it is possible to ban turf cutting in a management plan ONCE you consult with all stakeholders and PUBLISH the PLAN. This lack of process and plan is what has not happened. Absent the process turf cutting is not illegal.
Turf cutters are entitled to due procedure. NPWS never followed due procedure by preparing a plan. End of argument.
So in fact the conservation management plan only applies to activities which should be implemented for the conservation of the site. Turf cutting comes under activities which cannot occur on a site of this type
Where are these plans for the 53 SACs so, there are 53 one pager 'objectives' which is a rehash of what was sent to Brussels in 1997/8 in the main. But lists of objectives are not PLANS like article 6(1) requires.
They are one pager arse covering exercises by some dim bureaucrat. Why were these conservation objective one pagers published ( in a mad hurry) last summer save to give the impression of their being "management plans" as per the requirements of 6(1)and (turf cutting) is subject to Article 6(2), (3) & (4) anyway and believe me there is no way you can prove it will have no impact on the site etc. It is illegal to cut turf on these sites under the Birds and Habitats Regs 2011 which replaced the 1997 regs which transposed the EU Habitats Directive into law in the first place. The 2011 regs apply to both the birds and habitats directives and Part 2 of this regulation also applies to SAC sites and not just SPA. The Regs are an SI themselves, the SPAs have a different designation process and are designated by the publication of an SI. Again tired so may be slightly more complex than that but can' remember right now.
Yes, an SPA designation is administratively lighter.I can't remember where you will find this in the Directive but no public consultation is required to designate merely notification and it is suffcient to advertise the designation in the newspapers or on the radio. There is a period of 3 months to appeal and there is a grant available to allow you to hire a specialist to assist with the appeal on scientific grounds.
"no public consultation is required to designate" an SCI, getting it to SAC level is different. There was a formal appeals body under Michael Mills ( ex Ombudsman) to whom one could appeal and SCI designation some years ago.
Now, back to the process please, thanx.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sponge Bob wrote: »
It Took the NPWS 10 whole years to write the first one and the country was skint by then. No money to pay for the other 399 or so.
Turf cutters are entitled to due procedure. NPWS never followed due procedure by preparing a plan. End of argument.
Where are these plans for the 53 SACs so, there are 53 one pager 'objectives' which is a rehash of what was sent to Brussels in 1997/8 in the main. But lists of objectives are not PLANS like article 6(1) requires.
I don't know the details of the designation process but I don’t think your being at all realistic with the NPWS capabilities. Just bear in mind this body is responsible for 14% of the Irish landmass. Without any cuts they are being strained on all sides. For example the European Commission in 2008 found that 46% of Ireland’s habitats examined were in an inadequate state and 47% were actually bad, (7% good). Whats more the body has seen a massive 56% budget cutback 2010. it is well known that even before the crisis it was grossly understaffed.Rangers – whose specialised roles can not easily be found through transfers – are missing in many areas of the country.
There are increasing gaps in line management with some Rangers now confined to desk duties instead of patrolling their beats. Although the number of Rangers is less than ever, their workload continues to increase as further areas are designated and new Protocols to protect the Hen harrier and the fresh water pearl mussel now legally require consultation and inspection to prevent further decline. The disbandment by Martin Cullen in 2002 of Duchas, the Heritage Service, and its incorporation into the Department began a demoralisation of the Parks and Wildlife Service that, in spite of NGO representations, a Green Minister did nothing to address.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement