Hen harriers (Circus cyaneus) - Friends of the Irish Environment

Allihies, County Cork, Ireland 

http://friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/ 

Circulation Copy 

Ireland’s designation of Special Protection Areas 

(SPAs) for 

Hen harriers (Circus cyaneus) 

under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the 

conservation of wild birds 

Final 

Caroline Lewis, Andrew Jackson, Tony Lowes 

26 February, 2009 

1

Index 

Introduction 

1. Background 

1.1. The European Legal Context 

1.2. The Political Context 

1.3. The anti-Natura 2000 Campaign 

2. SPA Site Selection Process 

2.1. Exclusion of three sites 

2.2. Limiting geographical range 

2.3. Reasons for exclusions 

3. Habitat Protection 

3.1. Habitat of the Hen harrier 

3.2. Forestry quotas in the ‘Forestry Management Protocol’ 

3.3. Conversion of rough grassland 

3.4. Exclusion of improved grassland 

3.5. Open Space 

4. Species Action Plans 

5. Conclusion 

Appendix I: Maps 

Appendix II: Management Protocol 

Appendix III: Economic reasons for exclusion of three ocSPAs 

Appendix IV: Species Action Plans and Resources Allocated to Nature 

Conservation: Northern Ireland/the UK compared to the Republic of Ireland 

Appendix V: Wind farms within pSPA in County Cork: breach of Article 4(4) of 

the Birds Directive 

Appendix VI: Charts Showing Potential Habitat loss through proposed 

afforestation within SPAs 

References: References are given as endnotes, many of which contain hyperlinks to the 

referenced material. Double left click on reference number in document to take you to the 

endnote. To return double left click on the number in the endnote. 

2

Introduction 

To date, Ireland has failed to designate Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for the Hen 

harrier (Circus cyaneus) in breach of its obligations under Article 4(1) of the Birds 

Directive [79/409/EEC]. 

A desktop study was undertaken by Friends of the Irish Environment of the potential 

long term impact of Ireland’s prospective SPA designations on breeding Hen harrier 

populations. The study raised significant concerns in relation to the long-term survival 

of the Hen harrier in the six proposed SPAs (pSPAs) and three excluded original 

candidate SPAs (ocSPAs). 

The main risks are due to the exclusion of nationally important areas containing >1% 

of the all-Ireland population and permitted land use changes from rough grassland to 

both forestry and improved grassland. The nine ocSPAs are already considered to be 

at carrying capacity due to extensive forestry, improvement of rough grassland and 

developments e.g. wind farms and quarries. Current fiscal measures were found to 

significantly favour afforestation over other land uses, particularly in marginal areas in 

both the pSPAs and excluded ocSPAs. 

The decision not to designate three of the original nine ocSPAs and the decision to 

exclude improved grassland from the pSPAs represented a loss of 110,000 ha. from 

the 279,000 1 ha. originally identified on scientific grounds for designation. Such areas 

were excluded from SPA designation for political and economic reasons, a clear 

breach of EC law (C-44/95; C-3/96). 

Similarly, in respect of the six pSPAs and the three excluded ocSPAs (areas which 

“have not been classified as SPAs but should have been so classified” (C-374/98, at 

paragraph 47), the Irish government’s failure to take steps to avoid pollution or 

deterioration of habitats or significant disturbances affecting the Hen harrier in these 

areas through land use change represents a breach of the first sentence of Article 4(4) 

of the Birds Directive, which applies to such areas (C-374/98). Specific breaches are 

highlighted throughout this paper and in Appendix V. 

Back to Index 

3

1. Background 

1.1 The European Legal Context 

Under the Birds Directive Ireland has a requirement to protect the Hen harrier. This 

directive recognises that: 

‘habitat loss and degradation are the most serious threats to the conservation 

of wild birds.’ 2 

There is great emphasis on the protection of habitats for endangered and migratory 

species (listed in Annex I), in particular through the establishment of a coherent 

network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs). Article 4(1) of the Directive requires 

Ireland to classify “the most suitable territories in number and size” as SPAs for Annex 

I species, including the Hen harrier. Under the terms of the Birds Directive, this 

classification process was due to have been completed by 1981. 3 

Three decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) provide the legal backdrop to 

this review. 

First is the Lappel Bank case (C-44/95), in which the UK government, supported by the 

French government, argued that in selecting SPAs and their boundaries, Member 

States should be allowed to take economic considerations into account (paragraphs 20 

and 21 of the ECJ’s judgment). The ECJ disagreed, holding that, in selecting SPAs 

and defining their boundaries, Member States are not authorised to take account of: 

(a) the economic requirements mentioned in Article 2 of the Birds Directive 

(paragraph 27 of the ECJ’s judgment); 

(b) economic requirements as constituting a general interest superior to that 

represented by the ecological objective of that directive (paragraph 31); 

(c) economic requirements which may constitute imperative reasons of 

overriding public interest of the kind referred to in Article 6(4) of the Habitats 

Directive (paragraph 42). 

Selecting SPAs and their boundaries, the ECJ ruled, must be done only on the 

basis of the ornithological criteria set out in Article 4(1) and (2) of the Birds 

Directive (paragraph 26). 4 

4

Second, a decision against the Netherlands (C-3/96) in 1998 established that Member 

States’ margin of discretion in selecting SPAs, “does not concern the 

appropriateness of classifying as [SPAs] the territories which appear the most 

suitable according to ornithological criteria, but only the application of those 

criteria for identifying the most suitable territories for conservation of the species in 

question” (paragraph 61 of the ECJ’s decision). 

The third important case for present purposes is the ECJ’s decision in case C-374/98. 

The case related to a site in France - the Basses Corbières - which the Commission 

contended should have been classified as an SPA. The opening and working of 

limestone quarries on the site, the Commission argued, had resulted in deterioration in 

breach of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. However, the ECJ reasoned differently, 

as follows: on a literal interpretation of Article 7 of the Habitats Directive, the Court 

held, only areas classified as SPAs fall under Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats 

Directive. Areas which have not been classified as SPAs but which should have 

been so classified, the Court held, continue to fall under the (old) stricter regime 

governed by the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive. 5 

Back to Index 

1.2 The Political Context 

In addition to the above EC legal context, it is worthwhile putting Ireland’s 

implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives in their national political context. 

We draw here on a recent article 6 by Professor Brigid Laffan of University College 

Dublin and Dr Jane O’Mahony of the University of Kent. 

They pointed out that: 

“Traditionally, nature conservation issues in Ireland had been heavily 

politicized with farmers and landowners resisting previous moves by the state 

to curb any practice or development on the land that might damage 

biodiversity. This had been the case with attempts to set up a system of 

designation of Areas of Scientific Interest and their successors, National 

Heritage Areas, from the early 1980s onwards (see Tovey, 1993, p. 321; 

Tovey, 1994, 2001; Tovey & Share, 2003 for full accounts). This shift in the 

5

They continue: 

policy paradigm occurred in a constitutional and legal environment that 

accorded considerable protection to landowners under the principle of natural 

justice underlined in an Irish Supreme Court Judgement in 1994 (Tovey, 

1994). Those responsible for the transposition and application of the national 

implementing measures [for the Habitats Directive] were acutely aware of the 

Supreme Court judgement, which upheld the right of landowners to be 

granted the opportunity to object to designation. In this sense, the policy 

implications of the Habitats Directive had profound legal consequences and 

was extremely neuralgic for those seen to be most affected, namely farmers. 

In such circumstances, implementation of the directive was always going to 

be politically and legally tricky because of the strong cultural sensitivity about 

property rights in Ireland (Flynn, 2007, p. 113; Taylor, 2001, p. 84; Tovey, 

1994). The potential for conflict between landowners (in particular farmers) 

and regulators was high.” [Laffan and O’Mahony, at p.182] 

“The minister responsible for the transposition phase [of the Habitats Directive] 

left office in June 1997 and was replaced by a minister, Síle de Valera, whose 

constituency was in a part of Ireland very much affected by site designation. 

The junior minister responsible for rural policy was her cousin, Eamon Ó Cuiv, 

who was also from the western half of the country. Both were grandchildren of 

one of the 1916 leaders, Eamon de Valera, who founded Fianna Fáil, the 

largest and most successful political party in Ireland. By temperament and 

political location, neither of these office holders was likely to risk alienating their 

constituencies in order to comply with a European law. They would invest 

considerable political energy in mediating between Brussels and the farmers 

and there is no doubt that their sympathies were entirely with the landowners. 

Speaking in Boston in 2000, Síle de Valera (then a junior minister for Arts, Heritage, 

Gaeltacht and the Islands) told her listeners that 

“we have found that directives and regulations agreed in Brussels can often 

seriously impinge on our identity, culture and traditions. Brussels, Birmingham, 

the Burren; the same European Union, different worlds.” 7 

6

Ó Cuiv, who was in a position of power in relation to the Habitats Directive, cited as the 

reason for his ‘No’ vote in the Nice referendum 

‘an inflexible and unreasonable attitude towards implementation of certain 

policies. This struck me particularly in relation to the Habitats Directive, where 

the room for manoeuvre to allow people to continue with traditional activities 

was very limited and where the EU seems very reluctant to facilitate the full 

compensation of, for example, farmers, who had to de-stock because of the 

over-grazing of the hills. No doubt some of the public thought the inflexibility in 

implementing the directives, such as the Habitats Directive, came from 

Dúchas, but I can assure them it is not so. 8 

Ó Cuiv expressed these views in The Irish Times in June 2001, before the public 

campaign against the designations - described below - began. 

Back to index 

1.3 The anti-Natura 2000 Campaign 

Laffan and O’Mahony explain that: 

“Farmers’ organizations emerged as key veto players in the implementation of 

the [Habitats] directive in Ireland, players whose voices the Irish government 

could not ignore if the directive was to be implemented.” [at p.186] 

“Although agriculture as an industry has declined in importance in Ireland in 

recent years, farmers and their representative organizations still retain 

considerable political power (Adshead, 1996, p. 597). Compared with Irish 

environmental NGOs (Flynn, 2007; Taylor, 2001), the farmers’ groups 

possess considerable resources, both financial and political. Successive 

governments have been heavily influenced in both the agricultural and 

environmental sectors by the activities of the Irish farming lobby, most notably 

the two largest farming organizations, the Irish Farmers Association (IFA) and 

the Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA). The IFA spends 

nearly half its income from farmers every year on its European lobbying 

efforts and exercises an influence on core executive policy makers far greater 

than its size would suggest (Murphy, 2005).” [at p.186] 

7

These organisations have access to decision-makers and public representatives 

because their structure draws its strength from a universal rural committed 

membership base that includes all major political parties. 9 This can produce large 

turnouts for public meetings and protests, historically a respected method of 

influencing political change in Ireland. 

The campaign against designations began against SACs even before the Habitats 

Directive was transposed in 1997, fuelled particularly by imminent restrictions on 

‘traditional’ turf cutting. It flared into the open in 2002 after the Government’s 

announcement of the first traunch of SPAs with a ‘keep out’ campaign against the 

Heritage Service (Dúchas), the predecessor of the current National Parks and Wildlife 

Service (NPWS), who were in the process of mapping the boundaries of the sites. 10 

This was followed in February and March of 2003 by protest meetings against the 

proposed Hen harrier designations, held in Ballina, County Mayo, 11 and 

Templeglantine, County Limerick, respectively. A large crowd of between 600 and 800 

attended the latter. Reporting on the meeting, the Irish Farmer’s Journal’s Mairead 

Lavery stated 12 that: 

She continued: 

“If the designation goes ahead, landowners interested in diversifying into 

forestry or wind farming may find it is no longer possible. Neither will they be 

allowed to spray rushes and they will have to get written permission from the 

Minister for the Environment for any development work on their land. In 

addition, the SPA designation will be shown as a burden on their deeds.” 

“Nicky Cotter of the Mid-Western Forestry Service told the meeting that 

already he is aware that the forest service has refused planting approval to 

some farmers following advice from Dúchas. He said the key problem is the 

approach taken by Dúchas on the issue: 

"We know they (Dúchas officials) have to designate land, but they are going 

about it in the wrong way. They must look at more than science and must 

take into account social, economic and recreational issues'' [emphasis 

added]. 

8

The wording in bold urges the government to breach EC law, since such issues cannot 

legally be taken into account in selecting SPAs and their boundaries (C-44/95; C-3/96). 

The report goes on to note that, 

“IFA president John Dillon urged all landowners to cease co-operating with 

Dúchas until a satisfactory agreement was reached on SAC and SPA 

designations. ‘Diversification into areas such as wind farming and forestry is 

essential for farmers,'’ he said. ‘Farmers are the species under serious threat, 

yet their survival seems to merit little consideration.’” 

The protest meetings intensified the 2002 ban on all officials from Dúchas entering 

protected areas on farmers’ land. 13 IFA Vice-President Brendan O’Mahony alleged in 

2003 that Dúchas was “unthinkingly enforcing areas inside lines that faceless 

bureaucrats have drawn in Brussels.” 14 

In April 2003, a month after the protest meeting in County Limerick, Dúchas was 

disbanded by Cabinet decision. According to Irish Times columnist Michael Viney, 

Dúchas had become “hostage to the reckless populism of the IFA leadership”. 15 

The disbanding of Dúchas (which Viney eulogised as that “brave and enthusiastic 

notion to emerge from the Civil Service”) did not appease everyone. In May 2003 the 

body of a Hen harrier - shot dead with a rifle - was delivered to the offices of the 

Kerryman newspaper. 16 

Back to Index 

9

2 SPA site selection process 

In 2003 the National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS; previously Dúchas) had 

identified the nine most suitable areas in which to establish SPAs for Hen harriers in 

Ireland. The nine original candidate SPAs (ocSPAS) (see Map 3) were: 

Back to Index 

1 Slieve Aughty 

2 Stacks to Mullaghareirks and Mount Eagle 

3 Slieve Beagh 

4 Slieve Felim to Silvermines 

5 Slieve Blooms 

6 Mullaghanish to Musheramore 

7 Ballyhouras 

8 Nagles 

9 Kilworth (originally Kilworth & Knockmealdowns; the Knockmealdowns 

were included during the initial assessment for the ocSPA process, but 

were later excluded. Kilworth is situated at the western end of the 

Knockmealdown Mountain range see Map 5) 

2.1 Exclusion of three sites 

Stakeholders expressed concern that designation might limit the extent and 

consequent profitability of farming and forestry activities in these areas. 17 They 

claimed that there would be a blanket ban on afforestation over 425,000 acres. The 

woodland contractors estimating the cost of the designation in lost income at 16 million 

euro a pair. 18 

As a consequence the number of candidate sites was reduced from nine to six (see 

Map 4) and the extent of these six sites reduced to exclude significant areas of 

improved grassland, buildings and farmyards. 19 

The three excluded ocSPAs - the Ballyhouras, the Nagles and the Kilworths & 

Knockmealdowns - contain nationally important Hen harrier breeding areas, each 

10

holding>1% of the all Ireland population. (One of the SPA selection criteria includes 

sites holding 1% or more of the all Ireland population of an Annex I species.) 

The most recent Hen harrier breeding survey suggests that the: 

• Ballyhouras’ breeding population is estimated to have increased from 7 pairs 

in the 1998-2000 survey to 17 - 19 pairs in the 2005 survey – 8.8% of the 

all-Ireland 2005 population and 12.5% of the Republic of Ireland (RoI) 2005 

population. 

• Nagles’ breeding population increased from 3 - 5 to 9 confirmed territorial 

pairs at 4.2% of the all Ireland 2005 population. 

• Kilworths & Knockmealdowns contained 4 - 8 pairs in 1998-2000, and 3 to 5 

territorial pairs were located in 2005, which is 2.3% of the all-Ireland population. 

(Note that this reduction is most likely to be a result of lower survey coverage in 

2005 rather than a genuine decrease in Hen harrier numbers.) 20 

The importance of these three areas is highlighted when compared to the 2005 survey 

figures 21 for three of the six pSPAs: 

• Slieve Beagh with 4 pairs 

• Slieve Felim to Silvermines with 4 - 5 pairs 

• Mullaghanish to Musheramore with 5 pairs 

Further, two of the excluded ocSPAs contain additional important species and habitats. 

The Knockmealdowns were included in the national survey of Red Grouse, carried out 

by BirdWatch Ireland for the NPWS in 2007-2008 (cf. the ECJ’s decision in C-117/00 

regarding Ireland’s failure to safeguard a sufficient diversity and area of habitats for the 

Red Grouse). Heath in the uplands of the Knockmealdowns corresponds to the EU 

Annex I habitat type. 

Waterford County Council support Natural Heritage Area (NHA) status (a national site 

protection regime) for the Knockmealdown uplands. There are over 800 proposed 

NHAs around the country which have not yet reached statutory designation as current 

resources are devoted to meeting EU obligations. 22 Thus, as a result of this site’s 

exclusion from the SPA designation process it has no specific protection. 23 

11

The Ballyhoura Mountains - one of the excluded ocSPAs - is a Site of Community 

Importance (SCI; referred to below as a candidate SAC (cSAC): [IE0002036]. The 

NPWS’s site synopsis states that: 

‘The Ballyhoura Mountain range, including the largely afforested slopes outside 

the cSAC, are important for birds. Seven pairs of Hen Harrier and one pair of 

Peregrine are known to use the site. Both these species are listed on Annex I 

of the E.U. Birds Directive. The unplanted bog and heath within the site 

provides crucial foraging habitat and potential nesting sites for the very 

important Hen Harrier population. The heathland and surrounding afforested 

slopes are important for Hen harrier and Peregrine. 24 [Emphasis added.] 

In terms of overlap, significant areas of land in the ocSPA are not within the 

boundaries of the SCI. The exclusion of fragmented habitat to the east and south of 

the Slievefelim and Silvermine Mountains pSPA must also be questioned. The 

excluded habitat is known to be used for breeding and foraging (Caroline Lewis pers. 

obs.). 

The Knockmealdowns were included during the initial assessment for the ocSPA 

process and it is difficult to understand why they were removed during the final 

assessment. They were surveyed together in the 2005 Hen harrier breeding survey 

and their populations were assessed as one unit (Barton et al 2006). 

In addition, in the answer to a written Oireachtas question tabled in 2001, the Minister 

stated that: 

‘Numerically the most important hill ranges are the Mullaghareirks-Stack's 

where there are 29 to 36 pairs, the Slieve Aughties which has 11 to 18 pairs, 

the Slieve Blooms which have ten to 11 pairs, Slievefelim-Silvermines which 

has seven pairs, Ballyhouras which also has seven pairs, and the Kilworth and 

Knockmealdowns which have five and seven pairs.’ 25 

Given the ECJ’s decisions in the Lappel Bank case (C-44/95) and C-3/96, the 

exclusion from the SPA designation process of the three ocSPAs mentioned above on 

political and economic grounds (Appendix III) represents a clear breach of EC law. 

Back to Index 

12

2.2 Limiting Geographic range 

The Hen harrier’s range is already substantially reduced, in particular by its extinction 

in the Wicklow Hills which formed their easterly stronghold. 

The three excluded ocSPAs are relatively close together and form the Hen harrier’s 

most south easterly stronghold (See Maps 3 & 4). This is particularly so if the 

Knockmealdown mountains are included in the Kilworth ocSPA, which was originally 

the case (see below). 

Because these three sites comprise the most south easterly stronghold of the Hen 

harrier’s geographical range, their exclusion thus fails to protect the full range of the 

Hen harrier’s natural geographic land area in Ireland - which as a consequence may 

be further reduced. (See Maps 1 & 2) 

The importance of protecting a species geographic range is clear from Article 4(1) of 

the Birds Directive, which provides that: 

“The species mentioned in Annex I shall be the subject of special conservation 

measures concerning their habitat in order to ensure their survival and reproduction in 

their area of distribution [emphasis added].” 

Back to Index 

2.3 Reason for Exclusion 

The reason the NPWS give for their exclusion of these three ocSPAs was the high 

level of forestry in the sites, resulting in an insufficient area of preferred habitat. The 

NPWS question the ability of the sites to retain five or more pairs of Hen harriers into 

the future unless provision is made for ‘additional habitat measures.’ 26 However, if this 

were the reason for excluding the sites, it raises question as to why these three sites 

were included as ocSPAs in the first place. 

In fact, we would suggest that political and economic considerations were the reason 

for the exclusions. 

13

An analysis of relevant economic factors in respect of the excluded ocSPAs highlights 

the very high level of return in such areas through the afforestation premium compared 

to other agricultural land uses such as payment for livestock units or compensation for 

SPA designation (see Appendix III). This creates a financial incentive in favour of 

afforestation over other land uses. 

Additionally, Appendix III highlights the fact that the excluded south eastern 

geographical range of the Hen harrier is unique in falling within the 50 kilometre radius 

of the economic transport distance to the country’s largest manufactured board mills. 

These mills are owned, as is the bulk of Ireland’s commercial forestry, by Coillte 

Teoranta, the State Forestry Board. 

Back to Index 

14

3 Habitat protection 

3.1 Habitat of the Hen harrier 

Hen harriers are ground-nesters. They typically lay their eggs and rear their chicks in 

stands of mature heather and may also nest in newly afforested areas where suitable 

ground habitat can be found. 

However, for foraging, they rely on more open vegetation. They feed on grouse, voles, 

pipits and other small passerines which they take from shorter heather or grassy 

mosaics. Most birds move away from the uplands during the winter, moving down to 

the coast where they feed and roost on the salt marshes and neighbouring habitats 27 . 

Within Ireland’s pSPAs and excluded ocSPAs this preferred Hen harrier habitat is 

fragmented, mainly through exotic (non-native) conifer plantations and to a lesser 

extent land improvement, development, wind farms and quarrying. 

The NPWS Recommendations raise the key importance of habitat which can provide 

foraging areas for the species: 

• ‘In Ireland it is extensive foraging habitat that limits breeding population size. 

Thus protection and management of the remaining areas of unplanted foraging 

habitat is seen as a priority for the species’ conservation.’ 

• Hen harrier populations in all nine ocSPAs are currently ‘limited by the carrying 

capacity of the breeding range’ ; 

• ’Extensive foraging habitat requirements limit breeding population size’ making 

protection of unplanted foraging habitat a conservation priority; 

• ‘The best measure of a site’s likely future ability to support Hen harriers, once 

new plantings mature, is the remaining area of heath/bog and rough grassland 

for foraging. 28 

All six NPWS Hen harrier pSPA site synopses state that: 

‘The main threat to the long-term survival of Hen Harriers within the site is 

further afforestation, which would reduce and fragment the area of foraging 

habitat, resulting in possible reductions in breeding density and productivity’. 29 

15

A 2006 report on the distribution of Hen harriers in Ireland in relation to land use cover, 

particularly forest cover, states that: 

‘The proportion of land in the IAs [ocSPAs] that is unsuitable for Hen Harriers 

(i.e. mature forest and improved grassland) will increase from about 30% (at 

the time of the Hen harrier survey in 2002) to about 50% by 2015’. It points out 

that ‘Our estimate of suitable habitat cover in 2015 does not take account of 

any of the afforestation that will have occurred between 1999 and 2015’. 30 

Between 1999 and 2007 31 a further 102,796 hectares was afforested, the majority on 

marginal farmland - including land within the ocSPAs. 

Back to Index 

3.2 Forestry quotas in the ‘Forestry Management Protocol’ 

Pre-thicket first rotation and to a lesser extent pre-thicket second rotation forestry have 

been shown to provide temporary short-term breeding and foraging areas for Hen 

harriers. However they do not provide permanent suitable habitat. 

Even in terms of the temporary suitable habitat provided by forestry, it is not the 

forestry per se that attracts breeding Hen harriers but the exclusion of livestock that 

allows for mature heather growth and long grass cover found within the forest area at 

certain stages of the forest’s development – their preferred nesting habitat. 

This is illustrated by fieldwork during which it was possible to determine: 

and 

‘the habitat in the immediate vicinity of 18 nests within all classes of forestry. 

Heather was the most frequently recorded habitat, recorded in 77.8% (14 

nests) of all known nests in forestry.’ 32 

‘The ground vegetation of young plantation forests can be more suitable for 

Hen harrier nesting and foraging than that of surrounding open habitats, where 

heather and long grass cover can be limited by heavy grazing or burning 

(Madders 2003).’ 33 

16

The real impacts of conifer plantation forestry on the Hen harrier are well recorded. 

Published concerns include: 

• ‘due to forest maturation, the area of the ocSPAs in this category [

growth stages of conifer plantations, but Harriers have not recolonised the 

large areas of second-rotation forestry in County Wicklow and it is unclear if 

restock will continue to support breeding Harriers in the same way that new 

plantings have’. 40 

In the UK it was recently noted that it had been 

‘speculated that Hen harrier, for example, might return to big coupes on the 

upper edges of the forest, but it hasn’t happened’ 41 

Conifer plantations are densely shading and due to their relatively long rotations (35 – 

45 years) reduce seed banks of native flora. It has been found, for example, that the 

long term impact of forestry leads to a reduction in heather regeneration. Heather seed 

remains viable for approximately 40 years but there are ‘significant, exponential 

declines’ in the mean density of viable heather seeds with plantation age.’ 42 This may 

reduce the regeneration of suitable habitat following clearfell, even if the site is not 

replanted. 

Hen harriers select areas with greater than 60% suitable habitat and strongly avoid 

areas with less than 40% suitable habitat. 43 Forestry is not a permanently suitable 

habitat. 44 The suitability of clear felled areas in the long term has not been proven. 45 

In the United Kingdom Hen harriers avoid 3rd & subsequent forestry rotations. 46 In 

fact, due to uncertainties in relation to the long-term suitability of forestry for breeding 

Hen harriers the United Kingdom excluded conifer forestry from their SPAs. 47 

In sum, the Management Protocol for Forestry does not give adequate protection to 

the Hen harrier’s preferred habitat within the pSPAs. The potential effects of the 

current Management Protocol are clearly indicated in a series of charts set out in 

Appendix VI. 

These charts show the level of forestry already in ocSPAs is significant and that the 

current Management Protocol would allow the forest area, including open space within 

the forest, to increase up to 58% of the SPAs’ total areas, leaving the Hen harrier little, 

if any, margin before they will ‘strongly avoid’ the areas. 

Back to Index 

18

3.3 Conversion of Rough Grassland. 

Rough grassland has been included in the pSPAs whereas improved grassland is 

excluded as it was considered to be unsuitable breeding habitat. Nevertheless, and 

illogically, the Management Protocol allows for the conversion of rough grassland into 

improved grassland within the pSPAs. 

The Management Protocol states that within the SPAs (presently pSPAs) for Hen 

harriers: 

‘no restrictions proposed to the intensification of grassland management and 

reseeding of fields of rough grass on the premise that intensification and 

reversion to rushy pasture are a part of a management dynamic in such areas. 

Fields which are intensified post designation need to be retained in an SPA to 

avoid continued afforestation.’ 48 

The importance of rough grassland is emphasised by research in Scotland which 

found that: 

‘male hunting was significantly related to the amount of unmanaged grass 

habitat with a litter layer. Female hunting was related negatively to vegetation 

height, and to the prevalence of both Heather (Calluna vulgaris) and managed 

grass. Dramatic changes in land use on Orkney have occurred over the last 40 

years, with increases in the amount of intensive pasture and decreases in the 

amount of rough grazing. These changes, coupled with a doubling in sheep 

(Ovis aries) densities over the last 20 years, are likely to have reduced the 

amount of unmanaged grass. These changes will have been detrimental to 

hunting male Harriers by reducing the amount of food they can supply to the 

females prior to egg laying and during the incubation period.’ 49 

Allowing the conversion of rough grassland to improved grassland will permit the 

further deterioration of the Hen harrier’s habitat. 

Back to index 

19

3.4 Exclusion of improved grassland. 

In hill areas improved grassland forms an integral part of the mosaic of habitats. It is 

economically the most valuable to the hill farmer. Although improved grassland is not 

normally used for nesting by the Hen harrier, it is used extensively for foraging (Amar, 

A et al 2004). 50 This was further evidenced in Ireland during the 2005 survey, where: 

‘several Hen Harriers were observed hunting along field boundaries in 

improved grassland sometimes 5km or more from their nest sites (Nagle et al., 

2005)’. 51 

The exclusion of improved grassland from the pSPAs is a threat to the Hen harrier’s 

foraging habitat as there will be little if any restrictions on or regulation of land use 

changes. In particular there are no restrictions on afforestation which, unlike grassland 

reversion, results in a net loss of permanent foraging habitat. 52 

This exclusion has resulted in numerous small gaps or holes within the defined 

boundaries of the pSPAs that are evident on the maps. [See Map 6] 

Within the pSPAs for Hen harriers there are no restrictions imposed on the 

intensification of grassland management, including the draining, ploughing and 

reseeding of fields of rough grass. The justification is that both ‘intensification and 

reversion of rushy pasture are part of a management dynamic in such areas’. Any 

‘management dynamic’ must come within the scope of the Management Plan for the 

relevant site. The exclusion of improved grassland from pSPAs coupled with allowing 

rough grassland to be converted into improved grassland within the pSPAs is illogical, 

and in breach of EC law. 

It is essential that Ireland include improved grassland within the pSPA (and excluded 

ocSPA) boundaries and in the Management Plans recognise the habitat’s importance. 

It is difficult to see how to ensure adequate foraging habitat for the Hen harrier unless 

this issue is addressed. 

Back to Index 

20

3.4 Open Space 

Within pSPAs “open space” is included as a separate habitat category in Ireland. 

Under Ireland’s afforestation programme 5 -10% of the forest can be left as open 

space as part of the biodiversity area. Open space includes: 

‘ridelines and firebreaks, forest roads, turning bays, landing bays and their 

associated margins, together with buffer zones adjoining aquatic zones, 

exclusion zones adjoining archaeological features and areas left unplanted for 

landscape purposes’. 53 

These habitat types are not the preferred habitat of the Hen harrier. Open space does 

not contribute to the habitat type that is presently limiting the breeding population size 

of the Hen harrier in Ireland. The limiting factor is extensive foraging habitat 54 not 

firebreaks scraped clear of vegetation, graded roads, and small fragmented open 

spaces within forest areas that rapidly become unsuitable. 

Concerns were raised during the discussion phase of the designation process that: 

‘without management they [open areas] are going to become unsuitable habitat 

at much the same time as plantation reaches thicket stage and ‘some 2 nd 

rotation forestry is rapidly colonised by tall herb vegetation and scrub and is not 

very suitable from an earlier stage. It is difficult to see how unplanted areas 

can be prevented from becoming rank, particularly given their likely 

piecemeal and extensive distribution’. 55 [Emphasis added]. 

Ireland’s Forestry Acts require replanting of any forestry that has been felled 56 . 

However, only the initial afforestation is grant aided. Second or subsequent rotation 

forestry is not grant aided and the environmental requirements, including that of 15% 

biodiversity and Open Space which are a condition of the original funding, no longer 

apply. 57 Therefore the Open Space that is included as a preferred Hen harrier habitat 

under the SPA criteria is not permanent and may be lost on replanting. 

Back to Index 

21

4 Species Action Plans 

There is no Species Action Plan (SAP) for the Hen harrier in or outside the pSPAs. 

Rather than develop a SAP as Northern Ireland and many areas of Great Britain have 

done, Ireland has adopted a piecemeal approach. Separate guidelines are developed 

for developments such as forestry and wind farms. This does not allow for the 

assessment of cumulative impacts - required under Article 6(3) of the Habitats 

Directive, which will apply once Ireland’s Hen harrier SPAs are finally designated. 

For example, no allowance is made for activities like one-off housing developments, 

which the NPWS has instructed should not be refused development consent on the 

grounds of these designations if there are no other grounds for refusal. Oonagh 

Buckley, at the time Director of the NPWS, wrote to Clare County Manager, Alec 

Fleming, stating that 

“where the Hen Harrier is the sole conservation interest in the SPA, the SPA 

designation should not be cited as grounds for refusing permission for 

development of single rural houses within the SPA.” 58 

Ms Buckley said scientific advice advised the Minister that development of single rural 

dwellings does not represent a threat to the bird. 

It is unclear how - if at all - this policy takes account of cumulative effects, which 

seems an important consideration given that the land in the pSPAs is divided amongst 

around 5,500 landowners. 59 Indeed it is hard to see how such a presumption in favour 

of (cumulative) development fits in with the protection afforded by the first sentence of 

Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive (C-374/98). Further, Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats 

Directive will apply to the SPAs once designation has been completed and Article 6(3) 

expressly requires cumulative effects to be taken into account. 

The terms of reference of the Working Group on the Hen harrier established in 2006 

were: 

“to consider and advise on ways in which forestry in the proposed SPA and 

adjoining areas can be planned and managed so as to maximise the 

compatibility of present and future forests with the foraging requirements of hen 

22

harriers and the maintenance of breeding hen harrier populations in these 

areas.” 

At the first meeting, the terms of reference were changed by the NPWS at the request 

of the stakeholders to remove the words “and adjoining”. 60 

The removal of these words does not remove the legal obligation. Article 4(4) of the 

Birds Directive - which provides for a stricter protection regime than Article 6(2) to (4) 

of the Habitats Directive (see paragraph 50 of C-374/98) - applies to protect Ireland’s 

ocSPAs (C-374/98), such that Ireland must: 

“take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any 

disturbances affecting the birds, in so far as these would be significant having 

regard to the objectives of this Article.” 

Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, which will apply once Ireland has designated its 

SPAs for the Hen harrier, extends to cover activities that are not actually in an SAC or 

SPA but in respect of which significant effects cannot be excluded (C-127/02) – e.g. 

activities in areas adjoining SACs or SPAs. And since Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive 

is stricter than the regime in Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive, it is clear that 

activities in areas adjoining the ocSPAs are captured by Article 4(4). 

In order to fully protect the Hen harrier a Species Action Plan that assesses the 

cumulative effect of land uses within and adjacent to Hen harrier SPAs, 

consolidating and revising existing Guidelines, must be prepared and implemented. 

Back to Index 

23

6. Conclusion 

In breach of EC law, Ireland has yet to establish a network of SPAs for the Hen harrier. 

Further, the Management Protocol permits continued afforestation (at best temporary 

suitable habitat) on permanently suitable habitat in its pSPAs and excluded ocSPAs. 

This is in breach of the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive which 

continues to apply to such sites as a result of the ECJ’s decision in C-374/98. In 

allowing afforestation to continue in this way, Ireland has not “taken appropriate steps 

to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the [Hen 

harrier], in so far as these would be significant having regard to the objectives of Article 

4 of the Birds Directive” 

It has infringed the directive by: 

• Excluding areas containing >1% of the all Ireland breeding population from 

SPA designation on political and economic grounds (see Section 1.2 and 

Appendix III); 

• Excluding integral habitat type (improved grassland), on political and economic 

grounds (see Appendix III and Map 6); 

• Excluding the Hen harrier’s south easterly geographic range; and 

• Failing to protect its preferred habitat type. 

In order to adequately protect the Hen harrier and to comply with EC law, it is vital that: 

• All nine ocSPAs are designated, including excluded areas of improved 

grassland; 

• A Species Action Plan be developed, and implemented without delay, that 

recognises the importance of the permanent habitats and the management 

required to meet the relevant obligations of the Habitats and Birds Directives 

within and outside of the designated areas. 

Further, in all nine ocSPAs (areas that have not been designated as SPAs but which 

should have been so designated) the Irish government is obliged to take appropriate 

steps to avoid pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the 

Hen harrier under the first sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive (C-374/98). In 

24

other words, in addition to being obliged to designate all nine ocSPAs, pending such 

designation the Irish government is in breach of this obligation: 

• by permitting damaging farming activities to continue in these areas, 

• by specifically encouraging through disproportional grant aid further forestry, 

• by permitting wind farm developments (see Appendix V for specific examples), 

and quarry developments (see endnote 35) in these areas; 

• by permitting one-off houses without consideration of cumulative impacts. 

Afforestation, wind farms, residential developments and other potentially damaging 

activities within or near the ocSPAs must be brought to an end where they breach 

Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive. This must be done through appropriate use of the 

planning policy and development consent system, pending designation of the 

necessary SPAs. 

Once the SPAs for the Hen harrier are designated, any such activities should be 

permitted only in compliance with Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive. 

Back to Index 

25

Appendix 1: MAPS. 

Map 1. The Old Breeding Atlas showing the All-Ireland natural breeding range of 

the Hen harrier 1968-1970. 

Back to: Index 

Map 2: The breeding range of the Han Harrier in 2001. 

Back to Index 

. 

26

Map 3: The ocSPAs – 105 pairs 

Back to Index 

2 

1 

4 

7 

8 9 

Map 4: The SPAs – 85 pairs 

6 

Hen Harrier SPAs 

Back to Index 

2 

6 

1 

5 

2 3 

5 

4 

3 

KEY 

Site Name 

1 Slieve Aughty 

2 Stacks to Mullaghareirks 

and Mount Eagle 

3 Slieve Beagh 

4 Slieve Felim to Silvermines 

5 Slieve Blooms 

6 Mullaghanish to 

Musheramore 

7 Ballyhouras 

8 Nagles 

9 Kilworth 

27

Map 5: Excluded ocSPAs 

Back to Index 

Ballyhouras 

Nagles 

Map 6: Exclusions within proposed SPAs. 

Kilworth & Knockmealdowns 

Source: http://www.designatednatureareas.ie/mapviewer/ Accessed 2 February 2009. 

Back to Index 

28

Appendix II Management Protocol for Forestry in Hen Harrier SPAs 

1. Designation of Sites 

NPWS propose designating 6 SPAs for Hen Harriers, as follows; 

• Slieve Bloom Mountains SPA 

Land in Laois and Offaly 

• Stack’s to Mullaghareirk Mountains, West Limerick Hills and Mount Eagle SPA 

Cork, Kerry and Limerick 

• Mullaghanish to Musheramore Mountains SPA (Boggerahs) Cork, 

• Slievefelim to Silvermines SPA 

Limerick and Tipperary, 

• Slieve Beagh SPA 

Monaghan, 

• Slieve Aughty Mountains SPA 

Clare and Galway, 

Landowners will be notified by post of intention to designate the area concerned along 

with a map of the proposed SPA. They will be able to seek more detailed maps of 

particular areas. 

There will be a three-month period within which landowners can lodge an objection to 

the designation of their lands as SPA. NPWS estimates that around 4,000 landowners 

will be involved. 

29

2. Land to be included 

In order to satisfy habitat requirements, all three land types previously discussed (i.e. 

Existing Forestry, Rough Grassland, Heath and Bog) are all required to be included in 

the sites. The good agricultural land previously removed will stay out. NPWS is 

satisfied that all three land types provide important habitats for Hen Harrier. 

3. Scope for Further Forestry within SPAs 

Each SPA is to contain a minimum of 55% suitable habitat (i.e. Forestry (pre-thicket 

1st and 2nd rotation - see below), + Heath and Bog + Rough Grassland) + open 

space. New Forestry is suitable up to 12 years after planting while 2nd Rotation 

Forestry is suitable for 3 to 8 years after planting. 

In general planting on Heath and/or Bog within the SPAs will not be allowed, save in 

exceptional circumstances. However, heath and bog may be used as part of the 

biodiversity/open space provisions in planting applications. The Forest Service is to 

consider the possibility of increasing the percentage of land provided for biodiversity. 

NPWS and FS to compile and issue guidance on the identification of H/B on this 

matter 

Rough Grass will generally be the main available land type within the SPAs that may 

be planted. On the basis of the 55% suitable habitat threshold the following table 

shows the amount of Rough Grass available for planting in each of the six proposed 

SPAs: 

Hen Harrier 

pSPA F 

Area of 

unplanted 

RG 

Area 

available for 

planting 

under 55% 

(ha) threshold 

Slieve Blooms 3,040 See below 

Mullaghareirks 15,110 4,410 

Boggeraghs 1,770 1,010 

Slieve Felim 5,500 760 

Slieve Beagh 570 390 

Slieve Aughty 13,650 2,490 

Total 39,640 (23%) 9,060 

30

Quota Allocation of New Forestry 

It is proposed that the above area for planting should be released on an annual quota 

basis, over a 15-year period. In recognition of the fact that most of the applications 

which are being held at present are two years old or more, the quota will be 

frontloaded with 2 years quota available in the first year. Any unused quota from year 

one may be carried into year two. Thereafter, any unused quota may be carried 

forward from one year to the next, subject to the review of the management regime 

after 5 years. 

With regard to the Slieve Blooms, given the high level of existing forestry, it has been 

difficult to identify an area of suitable land. Instead, any applications will be examined 

on a case by case basis to assess suitability. 

This quota will be managed by the Forest Service, taking account of likely conversion 

rates on applications and monitored closely in consultation with NPWS. 

4. Implications for Hen Harrier areas outside of 6 SPAs 

Under the Habitats Directive Ireland must also examine the issue of Hen Harrier 

conservation as it arises outside of the designated SPAs. This is a particular issue in 

the 3 non-designated Indicative Areas (Ballyhouras, Nagles and Kilworth) but other 

such areas may need to be defined by NPWS through further research. 

With regard to forestry applications in these areas, it is proposed that the Forest 

Service will address this issue in the first instance. 

5. Review 

These arrangements to be reviewed within 5 years. This review to be informed by 

COFORD/NPWS research being carried out in UCC. 

Back to Index 

31

Appendix III – Economic reasons for exclusion of three ocSPAs 

In our submission, the three excluded ocSPAs and the exclusion of improved farmland 

from the pSPAs were motivated by the following economic considerations. 

The existence of an SPA clearly has the potential to make farming, forestry and other 

activities more difficult (i.e. in terms of the increased regulatory burden and the 

possibility of certain activities being restricted or prohibition), such that the Irish 

government, pressed by stakeholders, has an interest in minimising its number of 

SPAs (in general) insofar as is possible. 

The Government is aware of compensation obligations in respect of SPAs. The final 

paragraph of the NPWS’s information on site designation states: “The Government is 

committed, as part of the social partnership process, to the payment of a fair and 

proper level of compensation to landowners and users for actual losses suffered due 

to restrictions imposed as a result of their lands being included in formal proposals for 

designation as NHA, SAC or SPA.” 61 

In terms of the three excluded ocSPAs, it is our submission that specific economic 

circumstances, in addition to the pressure exerted by stakeholders (detailed above), 

led to their exclusion. As set out in detail below, the grant aid system for forestry in 

Ireland makes forestry more attractive than SPA compensation payments or livestock 

production on all poor quality marginal land (such as that in the excluded ocSPAs). 

In addition, the excluded ocSPAs are located in a particularly advantageous position 

for the transport of timber at low cost to the board mills. 

Disproportionate grant aid 

There is a disproportionate grant aid of forestry on poor quality marginal land. Hen 

harriers frequent open moor land and hill farmland. These land types are not highly 

productive. A well managed perennial ryegrass / white clover sward is capable of 

sustaining stocking rates of 1.3 to 1.7 livestock units (LU)/ha. 62 It is provisionally 

estimated that the average grazing capacity of the mountain and hill units is 0.5 L U 

/ha. 63 

The issue of the disproportionate level of grant aid to afforestation on Irish uplands 

was raised following the EU Court of Auditors’ ‘Audit Mission to Ireland to examine 

32

Forestry Measures funded from the EAGGF Guarantee and Guidance Funds’ in 

2005. 64 

‘We are not convinced of the reality of a loss of income in areas of previous 

extensive agricultural use (mostly on unenclosed land). Even if very extensive 

farming was done (a couple of sheep for 2 to 3 months per year) a premium 

for loss of income is paid at a level of at least 209 EUR/ha/year. We doubt if 

this is realistic.’ 

Updated to 2008, the income from normal agricultural practices in these areas is 

between a net loss of €82 per hectare per year (ha/yr) for beef cattle and a gross profit 

of €61 for sheep. The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) is Ireland’s 

national scheme, pursuant to EU CAP obligations, to reward farmers for carrying out 

their farming activities in an environmentally friendly manner and to bring about 

environmental improvement on existing farms. The REPS 4 payment for designated 

areas is €242 ha/yr. The SPA payment in Hen harrier areas is €350 ha/yr. This higher 

payment in Hen harrier SPAs is to compensate for potential loss of income through 

forestry premiums and wind farms. Typical afforestation premiums are €480 ha/yr. 

This is a real incentive to afforest areas that would otherwise give a very low financial 

return. 

Estimated income from normal agricultural activities on improved grassland and 

hill/mountain land. 65 

Land Type 

Improved 

grassland 

Hill/ 

mountain 

land 

(rough 

grazing) 

LU per 

hectare 

Net 

margin 

beef 

cattle @ 

1LU per 

cow 

gross 

margin 

hill 

sheep @ 

0.15 LU 

per 

sheep 

REPS 

annual 

payment 

per 

hectare 

(1) 66 

1.3 -82 61 242 

Hen 

harrier 

SPA 

annual 

payment 

per 

hectare 

Forestry 

Premium 

(diverse 

conifers 

>12ha) 

350 478.94 

0.5 -42 23 242 350 478.94 

(1) for eligible Commonage land, Natural Heritage Areas, Special Areas of 

Conservation and Special Protection Areas up to a maximum of 40 hectares. 

33

Specific drivers in excluded SPAs 

In the long term Irish forestry plantations are proving overly expensive to establish, 

manage, and harvest. They have significant negative economic implications, 

particularly in hill areas. A key factor is the country’s inadequate transport 

infrastructure with excessive transport costs falling on to remote and fragmented 

locations. 

Teagasc, the Government’s agricultural advisory agency advises: 

‘The low mill gate prices for and the costs associated with harvesting and 

transportation of the pulpwood fraction can result in losses for plantation 

owners.’ 67 

Thus the value of forestry is related to its location. The greatest incentive to 

afforestation will be in areas within economic transport distances of manufacturing 

facilities. The two major state owned manufactured board mills are Medite in Clonmel 

County Tipperary and Smartply in Waterford Port. 

For haulage distances greater than approximately 50 kilometres, pulp wood coming 

from thinning operations is not regarded as an economic product in the current market 

place. 68 The Ballyhouras , Nagles, Kilworth and Knockmealdowns, and southern flank 

of the SiIvermines are within economic transportation distance of these plants. 

Further, SmartPly Europe have constructed their facilities on land leased from the 

Waterford Harbour Commissioners and Kilkenny County Council. The Company has a 

commitment, under the terms of the lease, to ship a certain agreed tonnage of finished 

product through the Port of Waterford each year or accept financial penalties for 

shortfalls. 69 

The disproportionate grant aid for forestry makes it more attractive than livestock 

production or SPA compensation payments on all poor quality marginal land. In these 

areas of the south east, however, the commercially advantageous low transport costs 

added further pressure to ensure that forestry development was not hindered by 

European environmental restrictions. 

Back to Index 

34

Appendix IV: Species Action Plans and Resources Allocated to Nature 

Conservation: Northern Ireland/the UK compared to the Republic of 

Ireland 

The Republic of Ireland (RoI) has a cross border SPA for the Hen harrier - Slieve 

Beagh - with Northern Ireland (NI). The site is a designated SPA on the NI side 

(Source: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/SPA/UK9020302.pdf accessed 04 Feb 2009) and 

a pSPA on the RoI side. The NI Hen harrier Species Action Plan has the following 

targets 

4.1 Maintain the current population of 57 nesting females. 

4.2 Maintain the range of breeding birds at 20 10km 2 . 

4.3 By 2010, increase the population to 68 nesting females. 

4.4 Increase the range of breeding birds to 25 10km 2 by 2010. 

4.5 By 2020, increase the population to 90 nesting females. 

4.6 Increase the range of breeding birds to 30 10km 2 by 2020.’ 

(Source: http://www.nienvironment.gov.uk/henharriersapmbwebversionapril05changed-2.pdf 

accessed 04 Feb 2009) 

The Northern Ireland forms part of the United Kingdom (UK). In the UK 

‘All sites that were known to support more than 1% of the national breeding 

population were considered under Stage 1.1 and all were selected after 

consideration of Stage 2’. (A6.47a Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus (breeding)) 

Source: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/UKSPA/UKSPA-A6-47A.pdf accessed 04 

Feb 2009) 

NI’s approach affords more appropriate conservation for the Hen harrier than is offered 

by the RoI. In the RoI there are no SPAs for the Hen harrier at present, no 

Species Action Plan, no plans to increase the number of breeding pairs, and 

important areas have been excluded from the list of pSPAs for political and 

economic reasons. 

35

In addition, and as a general matter, there are insufficient resources allocated to 

environmental legislation and protection in the RoI, particularly when compared with 

the United Kingdom. This was highlighted by Birdwatch Ireland who stated that: 

In both the ‘Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) and the Scottish Natural 

Heritage (SNH) there is in the order of 20 or 30 people working on European 

designations… In contrast the NPWS have one or two’. And ‘for birds there is 

only one’. There has been ‘a one-man show on the designation of special 

protection areas for birds, while in SNH there are 20 or 30 people working on 

the same sorts of issues. That indicates a gross under-resourcing of the 

Department. 70 

That said, the Irish government advertised in summer 2008 to recruit a team of six 

people to deal with its ongoing SPA designation process. Whether the recruitment of 

this team and its subsequent work has been affected by the recent deterioration in 

Ireland’s public finances is unclear, however. 

In terms of legal resources, the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food 

and Rural Affairs (Defra) has around 100 lawyers working for it, including around 10 

who work in the legal department’s “Countryside and Nature Conservation” division, 

with three lawyers in that division working on the Habitats and Birds Directives 

(Andrew Jackson, pers. comm.). In addition, Northern Ireland’s Department for 

Environment has its own legal team, which works in partnership with Defra’s lawyers 

where necessary. In contrast, Ireland’s Department of the Environment, Heritage and 

Local Government has one lawyer, covering all areas of departmental policy. 71 

Back to Index 

36

Appendix V: Wind farms within one pSPA in County Cork: breach of 

Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive 

While we have not sought to review development projects in all of the pSPAs and 

excluded ocSPAs, a number of specific examples within one of the pSPAs can be 

highlighted. The projects in question - which have either recently been permitted or are 

actively under consideration - are all due to be constructed within the “Stack’s to 

Mullaghareirk Mountains, West Limerick Hills and Mount Eagle” pSPA (Code 004161). 

Significantly, this pSPA was the site of a large landslide in August 2008 - apparently 

caused by wind farm construction activities - prompting the European Commission to 

launch an investigation, having commented that the “lessons of Derrybrien” did not 

appear to have been learnt by the Irish authorities. 

In October 2003, construction of the Derrybrien wind farm in County Galway triggered 

a huge landslide which caused, in the words of the European Court of Justice, “an 

ecological disaster, when the mass of peat which was dislodged caused the death of 

about 50,000 fish and lasting damage to the fish spawning beds” (C-215/06). 

In light of these incidents, it is alarming that wind farm proposals continue apace within 

the boundaries of the pSPA, as detailed below. 

While the site has not formally been designated as an SPA, the NPWS has prepared a 

site synopsis. The synopsis affirms that the site is of importance for a number of Annex 

I bird species, including: 

(1) “the largest concentration of the [Hen harrier] in the country”, making the 

site “among the top two sites in the country for the species”; 

(2) the Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), which is “very rare” in Ireland; and 

(3) the Merlin (Falco columbarius). Red grouse are also found on some of the 

unplanted areas of bog and heath. 

In light of the site’s conservation importance, it is difficult to understand the statement 

in the site synopsis that “The site has a number of wind farm developments but it is not 

yet known if these have any adverse impacts on the Hen Harriers.” A similar 

statement is made in the site synopsis for another of the pSPAs, Slieve Aughty 

37

Mountains. 72 Since these sites are pSPAs (and hence are clearly sites that have not 

been classified as SPAs but should have been so classified), the first sentence of 

Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive applies (by virtue of the ECJ’s decision in C-374/98). 

In other words, the Irish government must “take appropriate steps to avoid pollution or 

deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the birds, in so far as these 

would be significant having regard to the objectives of this Article.” Significantly, 

Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, which provides a derogation allowing damaging 

projects to go ahead in limited circumstances, is not available until a site has been 

formally designated as an SPA. 

Friends of the Irish Environment fully supports renewable energy projects that do not 

impact negatively on biodiversity. In this regard, we note Professor Richard Hodas of 

the University of Widener’s argument that 

“In developing climate change law, we must not forget the need to protect and 

enhance biodiversity. For example, we should discourage carbon sequestration 

projects that reduce biodiversity and social well-being, such as monoculture 

afforestation. Instead we should seek win-win sustainable development 

solutions that reduce GHGs while protecting and enhancing biodiversity.” 73 

Allowing wind farms to continue operating in circumstances where it is acknowledged 

that the effects on the Hen harrier are unknown is a breach of Article 4(4) of the Birds 

Directive, since the Government has not taken “appropriate steps to avoid pollution or 

deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the birds, in so far as these 

would be significant having regard to the objectives of” Article 4. 

That a precautionary approach should be taken here is clear, since 

(a) the ECJ has confirmed that Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive provides a 

stricter protection regime than Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive (see 

paragraph 50 of C-374/98); 

(b) a wind farm could not be granted consent in the above circumstances via 

Article 6(3) – cf. “no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of 

[adverse effects on integrity]” – the ECJ in C-127/02; and 

(c) in her Opinion in C-127/02, AG Kokott makes it clear that: 

• measures under Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, which mirrors the 

first sentence of Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive (and applies to 

38

ongoing projects, which have received permission in the past), “may be 

no less effective than the procedure under Article 6(3) of the habitats 

directive” (at paragraph 118); and 

• the substantive standard of protection under Article 6(2) and 6(3) is 

“identical” (at paragraph 117). 

In spite of the legal position, not only are existing (potentially damaging) projects being 

allowed to continue at present, but a new wind farm has recently been granted 

planning permission, and new applications are presently being considered. The pSPA 

has been the subject of at least 5 applications to develop wind farms, 3 of which are 

awaiting decision at the time of writing. 

While the designation of Ireland’s SPAs for Hen harriers is caught up in the national 

appeals’ process (created at the behest of farming interests – see Laffan and 

O’Mahony’s article (endnote 6), at p.8) - developers and landowners are seeking to 

“rush through” planning applications before the sites are formally designated. 

Such a strategy is of course misguided and should fail. The protection regime that 

should be applied by the Irish government in the current phase - Article 4(4) of the 

Birds Directive - is in fact stricter (were it being applied in practice) than the regime 

(Article 6(2) to (4) of the Habitats Directive) that will apply once the sites are actually 

designated (C-374/98). 

Wind farm applications in “Stack’s to Mullaghareirk Mountains, West Limerick 

Hills and Mount Eagle” pSPA (Code 004161) 

Cork County Council is the relevant planning authority in respect of all of the following 

applications. 

(1) Applications 04/8354 and 07/12954 

Application 04/8354 was for the construction of 29 wind turbines (hub height 80m, 

blade diameter 90m), an electrical sub-station with control building, two 80m high 

meteorological masts, and the construction and extension of internal site tracks and 

associated works at Meentinny West, County Cork – Applicant SWS Natural 

Resources Limited. 

39

The project received planning permission on 14 January 2005, on the condition, we 

understand, that a study be carried out (pre and post construction) of the interaction of 

wind farms and Hen harriers. As the wind farm has yet to be constructed, clearly this 

study remains incomplete. In this regard, it is worth recalling the NPWS’s statement in 

the site synopsis dated 21 May 2007 (link above), that: “it is not yet known if these 

[wind farms] have any adverse impacts on the Hen Harriers.” 

A connected application - 07/12954 - which received conditional planning permission 

on 25 September 2008, related to the construction of 10 borrow pits for the 

construction of the 29 turbines. 

(2) Application 08/10248 

This application is for the erection of 8 wind turbines (hub height 80m, blade diameter 

90m and overall height from ground to blade tip 125m), the construction of four 

borrowpits and internal site tracks and associated works at Glentanemacelligot, 

Glennakeel, South Newmarket, County Cork – Applicant SWS Energy Ltd. 

A decision is due from Cork County Council on 21 February 2009. 


This application is for the erection of 5 wind turbines (hub height 80m, blade diameter 

90m and overall height from ground to blade tip 125m), three borrowpits and the 

construction of internal site track and associated works at Tooreenmacauliffe, 

Rockchapel, County Cork – Applicant SWS Energy Ltd. 

Again, a decision is due from Cork County Council on 21 February 2009. 

In our view, the grant of planning permission in 2005 and 2008 in respect of the 

applications mentioned in (1) above represents a clear breach of the first sentence of 

Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive. After all, in 2005 and 2008 the site (which is now a 

pSPA) was evidently an area that had not been classified as an SPA but which should 

have been so classified, such that Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive applies (C-374/98). 

To allow wind farms to be constructed on such a site on the condition that a study be 

carried out of the interaction between windfarms and Hen harriers pre and post 

construction, represents, in our view, a clear failure to take “appropriate steps to avoid 

pollution or deterioration of habitats or any disturbances affecting the birds, in so far as 

40

these would be significant having regard to the objectives of” Article 4. After all, once 

the project has been completed, a post-construction study of the impacts on the Hen 

harrier will be of little use to the species if the study reveals the impacts to be negative. 

Put another way, there would appear to be no need whatsoever to allow a new wind 

farm to go ahead in order to study the interactions between the Hen harrier and wind 

farms. Such interactions could be studied in respect of existing wind farms – either 

here in Ireland or elsewhere (e.g. the UK). 

Similarly, it is our view that the Irish government will be in breach of Article 4(4) of the 

Birds Directive if Cork County Council grants planning permission in respect of 

applications (2) and (3) above in February 2009. 


This application is for a further 5 Wind turbines (hub height 80m, blade diameter 90m) 

with an overall height from ground to blade tip of 125m, three borrowpits & 

construction of an internal site tracks & extension of existing forestry access track & 

associated works. Rockhill West, Milleenduff, Rockchapel. Applicant SWS Energy Ltd. 

It is at the pre-validation stage. 

Back to Index 

41

Appendix VI 

Pie chart series showing current forest cover and impact on permanent 

preferred habitat from further afforestation permitted under the current 

management protocol 

51% of the land in the ocSPAs is forestry - not a suitable long term 

habitat according to the NPWS 

49% 

51% 

% forestry already present in ocSPAs 

% suitable natural habitat in ocSPAs 

A total of 58% forest area will be allowed in SPAs under the current 

Management Protocol 

42% 

58% 

% total forest area 

% suitable natural habitat 

At 60% unsuitable habitat Hen harriers leave the area 

40% 

Back to Index 

60% 

% unsuitable habitat 

% Hen harriers leave when 

suitable habitat falls below this 

level 

42

References. 

1 See the reference to 169,000 hectares in The Irish Times, 7 August 2008, “Objections lodged to protected areas for hen 

harriers,” Gordon Deegan http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0807/1218047756416.html. 

2 

About the Birds Directive http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm accessed 

January 2009. 

3 See Krämer, L. (2007). EC Environmental Law, Sixth Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, at p.202. 

4 A limited exception to this is provided by the Leybucht Dkyes case (C-57/89). The ECJ established in that case that, 

once classified, the reduction in size of an SPA (e.g. because of a construction project within the site’s boundaries) could 

be justified only on exceptional grounds. Such exceptional grounds, the ECJ held (at paragraph 22), “must correspond to 

a general interest which is superior to the general interest represented by the ecological objective of the directive.” On 

the facts of the case, the ECJ held that the interests of public safety justified the coastal protection works authorised by 

the German government. Crucially for our considerations here, however, the ECJ held that the interests referred to in 

Article 2 of the Birds Directive, namely economic and recreational requirements, could not be considered as exceptional 

grounds justifying the reduction in size of an SPA. 

5 The ECJ had of course established in the earlier Santoña Marshes case (C-355/90) that a Member State cannot avoid 

its Article 4(4) Birds Directive obligations simply by not classifying an area as an SPA. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that 

the Spanish government had not actually classified the area in question as an SPA in that case, it was nevertheless found 

in breach of Article 4(4) for permitting various damaging activities to take place in the marshes (e.g. road-building, clamfarming, 

and the discharge of untreated waste). 

6 Laffan, B. & O’Mahony J. (2008) 'Bringing Politics Back In'. Domestic Conflict and the Negotiated Implementation of EU 

Nature Conservation Legislation in Ireland. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 10(2): 175-197. 

7 Quoted in O’Kelly, C. (2004) Being Irish, Government and Opposition 39(3): 504-520, at 515. 

8 The Irish Times, June 22, 2001. [Laffan and O’Mahony, at pp.184-185] 

9 Data from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) of Ireland show that the agri-food sector contributed 8.6% of GDP and 

8.5% of total employment in 2005. When the sector statistics are decomposed to consider the role of agriculture alone, 

the contribution of the sector to GDP is found to be approximately 2.5% in 2005. That said, the relative significance of 

agriculture to the local economy differs substantially by region (e.g. agriculture accounted for over 15% of employment in 

four of the eight regions in Hennessy et al’s recent study of agriculture across Ireland). See Hennessy, T., Shreshta, S. 

and Farrell, M. (2008), “Quantifying the viability of farming in Ireland: can decoupling address the regional imbalances?” 

Irish Geography 41(1): 29-47, at 32-33. 

10 IFA Press Release, 12 December 2002. See Laffan and O’Mahony, supra note 6, at p.192. 

11 See Dr Crowley’s contribution in a debate in the Oireachtas on 19 February 2003: Source 

http://www.birdweb.net/henharrier.html#AnchorHenHarrier Accessed 08/02/2009 

12 Source: http://www.farmersjournal.ie/2003/0308/ruralliving/countrylifestyle/feature.htm. Accessed 08/02/2009 

13 See Laffan and O’Mahony (2008), supra note 6, at 192. 

14 See John Lee, The Sunday Times, 9 March 2003, ‘EU law gives Irish farms to the birds’: 

Source http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article1117679.ece Accessed 08/02/2009 

15 Michael Viney, The Irish Times, 10 May 2003, ‘Brooding on the Politics of Conservation’. 

Source http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2003/0510/1052466093572.html Accessed 08/02/2009 

16 “Hen harrier was shot by rifle”, The Kerryman, 22 May 2003: Source http://www.kerryman.ie/news/hen-harrier-wasshot-by-rifle-824622.html. 

Accessed 08/02/2009. As the IFA’s then President highlighted, there was “no evidence that 

[the] bird was killed by a farmer or sent to The Kerryman by a farmer.” 

17 Wilson, M. (2006) Report on 2005 Hen Harrier Survey Data For National Parks and Wildlife Service, Dublin., p1. 

18 Woodland Contractors Limited to National Parks and Wildlife Service, 5 May 2006. ‘Yet you want to set aside some 

425,000 acres of land and impose a blanket ban on afforestation and perhaps other forestry activities at an economic cost 

of maybe €16 million per pair.’ 

43

19 Norriss, D. & Wilson, J. (2007) Recommendations for Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for Breeding Hen Harrier 

National Parks and Wildlife Service, Dublin., p7 

20 Barton, C., Pollock, C., Norriss, D.W., Nagle, T., Oliver, G.A. & Newton, S (2006) The second national survey of 

breeding Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in Ireland 2005, Irish Birds (8), p12. 

21 Barton, C., Pollock, C., Norriss, D.W., Nagle, T., Oliver, G.A. & Newton, S (2006)The second national survey of 

breeding Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in Ireland 2005, Irish Birds 8. 

22 Dail Debates, Vol. 183 No. 1, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 

Source http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=SEN20060321.xml&Page=2&Ex=527#N527 Accessed 08/02/2009 

23 Conserving our Natural Heritage County Waterford Local Biodiversity Action Plan (2008 – 2013) Waterford County 

Council. Source http://www.waterfordcoco.ie/en/services/heritage/Biodiversity%20Plan%20%20Publication.pdf 

Accessed 08/02/2009 

24 Site Synopsis Site Name: Ballyhoura Mountains Site Code: 002036 (23.6.2003) NPWS Source 

http://www.npws.ie/en/media/Media,4142,en.pdf Accessed 08/02/2009. 

25 Dáil Éireann (2001) Written Answers. - Wild Bird Protection. Volume 536 – 23. Source http://historicaldebates.oireachtas.ie/D/0536/D.0536.200105230131.html 


26 

Norriss, D. & Wilson, J. (2007) |Recommendations for Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for Breeding Hen Harrier 

National Parks and Wildlife Service., p10 

27 CRoW Act 2000: S74 – Wales List Species Action Plan Wales Biodiversity Partnership 

28 

Norriss, D. & Wilson, J. (2007) |Recommendations for Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for Breeding Hen Harrier 

National Parks and Wildlife Service p4 & p9 

29 

Site Synopses sourced at http://www.npws.ie/en/ConservationSites/SpecialProtectionAreasSPAs/ accessed 

08/01/2009 

30 Wilson, M., Gittings, T., O’Halloran, J., Kelly, T., and Pithon J. (2006) The distribution of Hen Harriers in Ireland in 

relation to land use cover, particularly forest cover COFORD Connects Environmental Note 6. p1 & p6. 

31 Dáil Éireann - Volume 654 - 20 May, 2008 Written Answers. Afforestation Programme. http://historicaldebates.oireachtas.ie/D/0654/D.0654.200805200081.html 


32 Barton, C., Pollock, C., Norriss, D.W., Nagle, T., Oliver, G.A. & Newton, S (2006)The second national survey of 

breeding Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in Ireland 2005 Irish Birds 8., p14 


relation to land use cover, particularly forest cover COFORD Connects Environmental Note 6. Source 

http://www.coford.ie/iopen24/pub/COFORD-Connects/HenHarrier.pdf Accessed 08/02/2009 

34 Wilson, M. (2006) Report on 2005 Hen Harrier Survey Data For National Parks and Wildlife Service Dublin., p6. 


relation to land use cover, particularly forest cover COFORD Connects Environmental Note 6. p6. 

http://www.coford.ie/iopen24/pub/COFORD-Connects/HenHarrier.pdf 


relation to land use cover, particularly forest cover COFORD Connects Environmental Note 6. p2. 


37 

Norriss, D. & Wilson, J. (2007) Recommendations for Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for Breeding Hen Harrier 

National Parks and Wildlife Service p5. 

38 Barton, C., Pollock, C., Norriss, D.W., Nagle, T., Oliver, G.A. & Newton, S (2006)The second national 

survey of breeding Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in Ireland 2005 Irish Birds 8 p 11. 


relation to land use cover, particularly forest cover COFORD Connects Environmental Note 6, p2. 


44

40 Norriss D. et al. (2002) A national survey of breeding Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in Ireland 1998-2000. Irish Birds, 

Vol. 7; No. 1, pp1-10. 

41 Leslie, R,. (2008) Mitigating climate change: The challenges and opportunities for forestry in Ireland Silver 

Springs Hotel, Cork Environmental Advisor rodleslie@btinternet.com 

42 R. F. Pywell, , a, R. J. Pakemanb, E. A. Allchinc, N. A. D. Bournd, E. A. Warmana and K. J. Walker (2002) The 

potential for lowland heath regeneration following plantation removal Biological Conservation Volume 108, Issue 2, , pp 

247-258 Source http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5X-45PTSWJ- 

2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid= 

10&md5=bc0746678543b79f40e419ca7932817d Accessed 08/02/2009 

43 

Norriss, D. & Wilson, J. (2007) Recommendations for Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for Breeding Hen Harrier, 


44 Bibby, C.J. and Etheridge, B. (1993) Status of the Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus in Scotland in 1988-89. Bird Study 40, 

pp1-11. 

45 

Norriss D. et al. (2002) A national survey of breeding Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in Ireland 1998-2000. Irish Birds, 

Vol. 7; No. 1. 

46 

Petty et al., 1986. and Madders, 2000 in Wilson, M. (2006) Report on 2005 Hen Harrier Survey Data, For National 

Parks and Wildlife Service Dublin 

47 


National Parks and Wildlife Service., p6. 

48 



49 Amar, A., Arroyo,.B.,Meek, E., Redpath. S.,& Riley, H,. (2004) Influence of habitat on breeding performance of Hen 

Harriers Circus cyaneus in Orkney Ibis Volume 147 Issue 1, pp 37 – 47. 

50 AMAR, A., ARROYO,.B.,MEEK, E., REDPATH. S.,& RILEY, H,. (2004) Influence of habitat on breeding performance of 

Hen Harriers Circus cyaneus in Orkney Ibis Volume 147 Issue 1, pp 37 – 47. 

51 Wilson, M. (2006) Report on 2005 Hen Harrier Survey Data For National Parks and Wildlife Service Dublin 

52 Bibby, C.J. and Etheridge, B. (1993) in Wilson, M., Gittings, T., O’Halloran, J., Kelly, T., and Pithon J. (2006) The 

distribution of Hen Harriers in Ireland in relation to land use cover, particularly forest cover COFORD Connects 

Environmental Note 6. p2 


53 Forest Biodiversity Guidelines (2000) Forest Service Dublin 

54 


National Parks and Wildlife Service, p4. 

55 NPWS (19 April 2006) ‘Discussion points for Hen harrier Working Group Proposal’. 

56 Revision of Ireland’s Forestry Acts went to public consultation in 1999 and again in 2006. However, while the replanting 

requirement may be amended, the legislative review excludes the Act that established Coillte Teo, the State Forestry 

Board, with its commercial principle object. 

57 The requirement for replanting does not arise as part of the initial afforestation grant but is implemented through a 

Felling Licence which is required to fell any tree and to which conditions can be attached. The legality of environmental 

conditions and the degree to which they could be enforced appears not to have been addressed to date. 

58 ‘Bird will not affect planning’, Irish Examiner, 24 January, 2008. This letter and the advice supporting is under request 

from the Department of the Environment by Friends of the Irish Environment. 

45

59 See Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government Press Release, 9 November 2007, “Proposals to 

Designate Special Protection Area (SPAs) for Hen Harriers”: 

http://www.environ.ie/en/Heritage/NationalParksandWildlife/News/MainBody,15820,en.htm Accessed 09/02/2009 

60 Minutes of the 1 st Meeting of the Hen Harrier Working Group, 2 March, 2006, Montague Hotel, Co. Laois 

61 Source: NPWS, Implications of site designation. http://www.npws.ie/en/ProtectedSites/ImplicationsofSiteDesignation/ 


62 

Source: http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2009/TeagascGrasslandManagement19-11-08.pdf page 2. Accessed 

04/02/2009 

63 

Source: http://www.agresearch.teagasc.ie/rerc/downloads/workingpapers/07wpre18.pdf page 11 Accessed 04/02/ 

2009 

64 

European Court of Auditors, Special report No 9/2004 http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/173377.PDF 


65 Breen. J,.. Connolly.L. Donnellan. T,. Hanrahan. K,. Hennessy. T,. Kinsella. A,. Martin. M,. Ryan. M,. Thorne. F,. 

(2008) Situation and Outlook in Agriculture 2008/09 Teagasc Rural Economy Research Centre p5 Table 1 p5 Table 1 & 

p86 Table 6. Source: http://www.agresearch.teagasc.ie/rerc/downloads/SitOutl_2008_Proceedings_a.pdf 


66 147/07 Eur 3 Billion Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS 4), page 2. Source: 

http://www.aughty.org/pdf/reps4launch.pdf Accessed 13/01/ 2009 

67 A Road Map for the Farm Forestry Sector to 2015 Forestry Development Unit, Teagasc, 2007. Source: 

http://www.teagasc.ie/publications/2008/20080507/Forestry_Roadmap.pdf Accessed 07/02/2009 

68 A study of the County Clare Farm Forestry Market Summary Report (2004), Rural Resource Development, page 9. 

Source: http://www.ccwep.ie/pdf/Forestry_Report.pdf Accessed 07/02/2009 

69 Source:http://www.coillte.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Annual_Report_2006_Financials.pdf Accessed 07/02/2009 

70 Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government (7 April 2004). BirdWatch Ireland: 

Presentation.p13. Source: http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees29thdail/jcelg/jelg070404.rtf Accessed 

08/02/2009 

71 Source: http://www.environ.ie/en/AboutUs/OrganisationalStructure/FileDownLoad,1166,en.pdf. Accessed 07/02/2009 

The lawyer in Ireland’s Department for the Environment will of course be supported by a lawyer or lawyers in the Attorney 

General’s Office. That said, it remains undeniable that significantly fewer legal resources have been allocated to 

environmental protection in Ireland as compared to the UK, even when one takes into account the comparative sizes of 

the countries’ populations and land/sea areas. 

72 Source http://www.npws.ie777/en/media/Media,6465,en.pdf. Accessed 07/02/2009 

73 Hodas, D.R. (2008) Biodiversity and Climate Change Laws: A Failure to Communicate? In Jeffery, M.I., Firestone, J. 

and Bubna-Litic, K. (Eds.) Biodiversity, conservation, law + livelihoods: Bridging the North-South Divide. Cambridge 

University Press: Cambridge, UK: 383-399. 

46

Hen harriers (Circus cyaneus) - Friends of the Irish Environment

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?