Acquisition of lands for national parks

Pat Mustard

In the "Nature in the News" thread, there is a link to the recent Irish Times article about the dramatic reduction in the bee population, linked to intensification of farming.

There was a suggestion about farmers taking certain measures. However, I wondered if there were significantly more National Parks (or whether the existing parks could also be expanded), whether this be problem could be alleviated and if other flora and fauna could be better protected, in future.

I wonder if plans should be considered now, for the future acquisition of lands for use as National Parks. I am wondering whether it could work to set about a planned acquisition of lands on a phased basis, whereby certain lands would be identified and marked for future compulsory acquisition, perhaps several decades into the future.

The issue of farmers' rights would feature greatly.

There is no hard and fast idea, so I am just 'thinking out loud' at the moment. What do people think?

OpenYourEyes

At the moment our National Parks aren't particularly well managed for biodiversity, and in general NPWS is very under-staffed even despite recent recruitment, so I can't see it happening. Acquiring land, especially in Ireland, is a huge headache, and thereafter you have the headache and cost of managing that land too.

One of the arguments for agri-environment schemes is that they can cover a lot more ground across the country and in theory create wildlife corridors for species to move all around the country. I think we need an overhaul of how we do agri-environment schemes here, and educate farmers as to how to get the most out of their farms in terms of biodiversity in a low effort/cost way. For many pollinators for example you can put in a small bit of effort and minimal cost and greatly increase the biodiversity in an area.

magicbastarder

one obvious source of land which is already in state ownership is coillte and bord na mona land.
if there was an appetite at government level to address the issues you mention, diverting land away from these organisations would be a lot cheaper than acquiring land from scratch.

Del.Monte

magicbastarder wrote: »

one obvious source of land which is already in state ownership is coillte and bord na mona land.
if there was an appetite at government level to address the issues you mention, diverting land away from these organisations would be a lot cheaper than acquiring land from scratch.

Perhaps, but it's not about acreage it's about acquiring the right land - a case in point would be the sloblands between Greystones and Wicklow which is marginal at best as farmland and needs urgent protection from further development. Even in my lifetime I have seen the sprawl of unsuitable industry northwards from Wicklow, the development of a private aerodrome and a number of new houses.

Birdnuts

magicbastarder wrote: »

one obvious source of land which is already in state ownership is coillte and bord na mona land.
if there was an appetite at government level to address the issues you mention, diverting land away from these organisations would be a lot cheaper than acquiring land from scratch.

Both of these semi-states continue to be a menace to our natural heritage - I would like to see local based conservation bodies take over their holdings in each county

magicbastarder

Del.Monte wrote: »

Perhaps, but it's not about acreage it's about acquiring the right land

i'd argue it's about both. but yes, you're right, there are very specific habitats we need to protect and no amount of upland acreage currently used for commercial forestry could be considered a 'swap' for wetlands or other habitats.

Keplar240B

Take lands from coillte. Like the recent acquisitions at Ballycroy park Mayo.

Much of coillte estate would be more valuable to tourism/amenity/nature , than as sikta spruce farms

They don't have to be huge , the burren the smallest is only 1500 hectares.

There are only 6 national parks

These could be expanded and 4 new mini parks could easily be created from coillte estate in areas with potential for tourism/amenitys

coillte own 7% of country , subsisted non-profitable sheep farms in poor farming hilly terrain could also be looked at.

Mickeroo

I think american style national parks are pointless in ireland, UK model makes much more sense where the entire locality and its people are part of the the park. Look at the area snowdonia national park covers compared to the burren national park.

Pixel Eater

I was thinking about this recently and rather than start a new tread I thought I'd resurrect this one.

Carrauntoohil is beside but not in Killarney National Park. I assume it's on no one's land and it's just 'commonage', so it should be easy enough to incorporate into the national park?

magicbastarder

AFAIK a lot of 'commonage' is land that's owned in common, not unowned land.
i.e. you might find the title to the land has been split 50 ways, allowing multiple people to use it.

Pixel Eater

Ah right. But since commonage has been there for centuries I wonder if anyone would still be on it? Does it pass on to descendants or was there a break post independence?


These points could all be moot: does anyone know if Carrauntoohil and the land surrounding it is in fact commonage?

hirondelle

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Ah right. But since commonage has been there for centuries I wonder if anyone would still be on it? Does it pass on to descendants or was there a break post independence?


These points could all be moot: does anyone know if Carrauntoohil and the land surrounding it is in fact commonage?

A good deal of commonage was only parcelled together by the Congested Districts Board/Land Commission, so it is very much held by the families involved (or bequeathed to others).

magicbastarder

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think american style national parks are pointless in ireland, UK model makes much more sense where the entire locality and its people are part of the the park. Look at the area snowdonia national park covers compared to the burren national park.

true, the sheer size of the US, and the way it was founded which allowed them to create the parks in the way they did - which probably is questionable, they simply decided no-one owned the land, whereas in ireland and the UK, the vast majority of land historically did have an owner.
that said, there are serious issues with the way lots of national parks are run in the UK too - the above model needs buy-in from the locals, i can't see a farmer being happy being told 'your land now falls within the boundary of the shannon callows national park, so you're now going to have to change the way you farm'.

Birdnuts

magicbastarder wrote: »

true, the sheer size of the US, and the way it was founded which allowed them to create the parks in the way they did - which probably is questionable, they simply decided no-one owned the land, whereas in ireland and the UK, the vast majority of land historically did have an owner.
that said, there are serious issues with the way lots of national parks are run in the UK too - the above model needs buy-in from the locals, i can't see a farmer being happy being told 'your land now falls within the boundary of the shannon callows national park, so you're now going to have to change the way you farm'.

The obvious answer to this is to commandeer the landholdings of Coillte and BNM who have proved over the years and continue to manage these areas in a very environmentally and social destructive way for the most part.

magicbastarder

Yep, I mentioned them as the most obvious choice earlier in the thread. BNM is losing its raison d'etre anyway.

Pixel Eater

magicbastarder wrote: »

true, the sheer size of the US, and the way it was founded which allowed them to create the parks in the way they did - which probably is questionable, they simply decided no-one owned the land, whereas in ireland and the UK, the vast majority of land historically did have an owner.
that said, there are serious issues with the way lots of national parks are run in the UK too - the above model needs buy-in from the locals, i can't see a farmer being happy being told 'your land now falls within the boundary of the shannon callows national park, so you're now going to have to change the way you farm'.

We could have both: keep our existing national parks and then designate areas like British 'national parks'. Call them something like 'National Scenic Areas' or even something as Gaelige. Farmers would've have to change much though, just more oversight and better planning.

Would still like to see our excisting national parks increase, even if only my a combined few hundred square kilometres.