1. The BIOFOREST Project 2001-2006 Implications of Results for Policy and Practice Background to Project Results and Dissemination Forest Policy and Practice Future work Many thanks to COFORD and EPA, who funded this project with NDP funds Acknowledgements: Many thanks to all individuals, particularly landowners and foresters, who contributed to the success of this project in their professional or private capacity.

2. BIOFOREST Project – truly interdisciplinary Three partner organisations with different complementary areas of expertise Department of Zoology, Ecology and Plant Sciences (ZEPS), Environment Research Institute (ERI), University College, Cork. Leaders: Prof. P. Giller and Prof. J. O’Halloran Department of Botany, Trinity College, Dublin. Principal Investigators: Dr D. L. Kelly and Dr F.J.G. Mitchell Coillte Teoranta, The Irish Forestry Board. Principal Investigators: Dr A. Pfeiffer and Dr A. O’Sullivan Project Manager: Dr S. Iremonger Pic: Frank Koehler Pic: Ed Nieuwenhuys www.xs4all.nl/~ednieuw/ Copyright: Peter Hadfield. (www.manxbirdphotography.co.uk/) Graham Day (www.habitats.org.uk/flora) Des Callaghan

3. BIOFOREST Project 3 sub-projects: Project 1. Project 2. Project 3. Biodiversity assessment of afforestation sites Assessment of biodiversity at different stages of the forest cycle Investigation of experimental methods to enhance biodiversity in plantation forests

4. 1. Afforestation Project Mainly private sites 2. Growth Cycle Project All Coillte sites 3. Experimental methods Project All Coillte sites Data all in map-based database by Coastal and Marine Resources Centre, UCC

5. Approach to study of biodiversity in BIOFOREST Most basic level is to record the species diversity: All species in all groups not feasible. Concentration on: Flora: Ground flora and epiphytes Flowering plants (includes trees) Ferns Mosses and liverworts Lichens Fauna: Birds, spiders and hoverflies Groups represent a range of: Trophic levels Indicator groups Mobility capabilities

6. Taxonomic groups Ground flora and epiphytes - habitat mapping, species recording, quadrats Spiders - pitfall trapping Hoverflies - Malaise trapping Birds - point counts and mapping surveys Environment and Management Details Landowner surveys Database queries (Coillte, FIPS) Examination of maps Field observations Soils analyses Methods: species and environmental diversity, and management implications

7. Afforestation Project Main Objectives Develop methodologies for biodiversity assessment and identify indicator species in important habitats which might be subjected to afforestation Review current procedure for biodiversity assessment in sites proposed for afforestation Compare species composition between a range of recently afforested sites representing different habitats, and non-afforested equivalent habitats Assess the effectiveness of the Forest Biodiversity Guidelines and recommend improvements

8. Fieldwork in 2002 and 2004 Total 48 sites surveyed 24 afforested 5 years before 24 unafforested habitat 3 main habitat types 1. Improved grassland 2. Wet Grassland 3. Peatland, including wet heath and cutover blanket bog Poor fen and flush Lowland blanket bog

9. Afforestation Project Main Outputs 1.Recommendations of methodologies for assessment of biodiversity for afforestation sites 2. Comparison to show effect that pre-planting habitat has on biodiversity of developing forest: Biodiversity in three unplanted habitats Biodiversity in these three habitats five years post- planting vs 3. Recommendations on what habitats are most suitable for afforestation 4.Establishment of monitoring experiment that will show effects of habitat differences through the forest cycle as the forest grows. 5.Recommendations for improvement of Forest Biodiversity Guidelines

10. Growth Cycle Project Main Objectives Assess the range of biodiversity in representative forests at key stages of the forest cycle Review and recommend opportunities for enhancement of biodiversity in plantation forests Assess the effectiveness of the Forest Biodiversity Guidelines for promoting biodiversity in forestry plantations

11. Fieldwork in 2001 and 2002 Total 44 sites surveyed Three Forest types: 1 Dominated by Sitka spruce 2 Dominated by ash 3 Sitka spruce and ash in a mix Growth cycle stages: Pre-thicket Thicket Closed-maturing Reopening Mature Pre-thicket Thicket/pole Closed- maturing Mature

12. Procedure: 1.An extensive biodiversity survey of different types of open spaces (shapes, sizes) within mature Sitka spruce forests (fieldwork 2003, ~60 spaces within 12 forests) 2.An experimental manipulation of road width, together with a baseline survey (fieldwork 2005, 42 study sites within 8 forests) Investigation of experimental methods to enhance biodiversity (emphasis on open space)

13. Growth Cycle Final Project Report Launched at the October Conference Management and Open Space final report submitted January 2006 Afforestation Final Report due to be submitted Feb 2006 Products: Major Technical Reports, Huge database, many conference presentations in Ireland and abroad, publications, outreach.

14. Cutting across all BIOFOREST projects: Product and a tool BIOFOREST Database Map information Species data Forest measurements Habitat results Management particulars All the results from the three projects

15. BIOFOREST Website http://bioforest.ucc.ie

16. Outputs page

17. Future of Forest Biodiversity Research Interdisciplinary forest biodiversity research is the key to management for sustainability. BIOFOREST Project provided: §Objective data on elements of biodiversity – massive database §Establishment of permanent study sites for forest research - site selection uses a very significant part of the resources of a project §Detailed Analysis of methods of site assessment §Detailed analyses concerning the range of taxa and the structural forest features, including indicators analysis §Technical reports/papers, website, conference presentations, workshops §Technology transfer – connecting research and the user

18. Some urgent questions: (1) Second Rotation Forests We have discovered an amount about first rotation Sitka and ash forests, but an increasing area of plantation forest is entering its second rotation. What animals and plants live in/around the second rotation forest, at the different stages of the growth cycle? Are the second rotation forests naturally richer in forest flora and fauna than first rotation forests? What are the implications of this for management? Use BIOFOREST taxa and approaches to measure biodiversity in 2 nd rotation forests

19. Some urgent questions: (2) Forest mixes We have studied Sitka/ash mix forests. What about other mixes? Planting mixes and broadleaves is more common now that the financial support for these has increased. What are the implications of this for biodiversity and forest habitat quality, at plantation level and in the landscape? What species are supported where larch is used in the mix? What species are supported where alder or oak are used? How does the use of a nurse species in two-species plantations affect the biodiversity dynamics of the stand? Use BIOFOREST taxa and approaches to measure biodiversity in mixed forests

20. Some urgent questions: (3) Poorly-known groups of fauna and flora We have studied a range of animals and plants including: 1.epiphytes (lichens and bryophytes) 2.hoverflies 3.ground-dwelling spiders How do the factors we have studied affect other poorly-known groups, such as fungi and canopy arthropods, including spiders living in upper layers of vegetation and trees? Use BIOFOREST approaches to measure biodiversity in these taxa in a range of forest types

21. Some urgent questions: (4) Effect of different habitat types on the developing forest We established study plots in a range of different sites that were afforested 5 years prior to the commencement of the study. Sites were in 3 different habitat types: peatland, wet grassland, improved grassland (24 sites afforested). How is biodiversity in these forests affected as the forests develop? How do other habitats used for afforestation affect the biodiversity of the subsequent forest? What are the implications of the results for forest planning and policy? Use BIOFOREST sites, taxa and approaches to measure biodiversity in recently afforested sites of different habitat types

22. Some urgent questions: (5) The effect of manipulating forest road space to increase biodiversity We established permanent experimental plots in 8 Coillte forests to record the effect of using wider road gaps to enhance biodiversity. What are the effects of a wider between-tree road clearance on the biodiversity within the space? Are there biodiversity effects in the overall plantation area induced by a wider road gap? Can space created by using a wider road be offset against the open space requirement in the “Area for Biodiversity Enhancement”? Does a wider road gap facilitate the use of the forest by species other than those included in the surveys to date? Use established study sites, BIOFOREST taxa and approaches to measure biodiversity in road spaces as the forest develops

23. Some urgent questions: (6) Birds of conservation concern We used standard recording techniques to study birds in the forests. We also conducted a special study on Hen Harriers. Because forest specialist birds are not common in Ireland, more refined and specific survey techniques are needed to focus on these. What is the status of forest specialist birds in Irish forests? What practices may be adopted to enhance the forest bird diversity and abundance in Irish planted forests? What are the habitat requirements of Hen Harriers in the afforested landscapes where they breed? Through focussed surveys and studies, record the ranges, habits and requirements of forest specialist birds in Ireland

24. Recommendations from the BIOFOREST Project for Forest Policy, Planning and Practice Best Practice Report Hen Harrier Report Open Space Project Report Growth Cycle Project Report Afforestation Project Report We all acknowledge that the Forest Service has made huge advances towards more sustainable and biodiversity-friendly forestry in the last few years. Synthesis Report March 2006

25. Rural Development Regulation Axis 1 – Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector, e.g.: Article 20 (a) (i) …diffusion of scientific knowledge and innovative practices for...the forestry sector Axis 2 – Improving the environment and the countryside, e.g.: Article 36 (a) (vii)…support for non-productive investments, (b)…sustainable use of forestry land, (i) and (iii) first afforestation of agricultural and non-agricultural land, (v) forest-environment payments, (vi) restoring forestry potential, (vii) support for non- productive investments Axis 3 – The quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy, e.g.: Article 52 (d) skills-acquisition …measure…preparing and implementing a local development strategy

26. Article 36 (b), (v) (vi) and (vii) support preventative actions and non-productive investments: e.g., diversify the forest estate and forest management practices, and use the fund for non-productive investments. Create forests that are more natural in their cycle; let parts of them grow old in long-term retentions; set up, maintain and monitor experimental forest patches; encourage non-commercial tree species; increase open space within forests Article 52 (d) allows for upgrading skills to develop Indicative Forest Strategies Article 57 (a) allows for identifying areas in the current forest estate worth conserving for heritage and monitoring purposes, e.g., Glendine, which has very tall spruce past its commercial maturity

27. (1) Whether the Guidelines and other forestry stipulations apply to all forests or just those (majority) that are grant-aided. Do private non- grant-aided plantings below the EIA threshold require planting consent? (2) Do the Guidelines (mainly the biodiversity guidelines, but this concerns other guidelines too) cover new second rotation forests as well as afforestation plantings? Specifically, are reforestation projects legally bound to follow criteria laid out in the guidelines? Questions that have come up a number of times Specific outreach activities could cover these…under RDR Axis 3 “awareness actions”. (3) Can the ABE (in the Guidelines) include the creation of a natural forest area, where native tree species are planted (or allowed to colonise) and allowed to grow old, or does it just cover the preservation of specified semi-natural habitats and the maintenance of open space?

28. Actions to support more biodiversity-friendly Afforestation. Much of BIOFOREST was based on afforestation sites and first rotation forests. Our recommendations reflect this. Second-rotation forests were only used for the Manipulations experiment (reforestation, planting stage), which will need monitoring and re-surveying if it is to yield meaningful results. Afforestation should be properly planned from the application stage. As most affor projects are now under the threshold required for EIA, most do not have an ecological assessment associated with them. In Ireland there is very little relevant information to facilitate a *screening process* at the application stage. This needs to be corrected by providing land information in a readily accessible manner. With the development of Web-based technology, this process should be a simple and streamlined one, where Competent Foresters and Certified Ecologists can just refer to land information on line.

29. Actions to support more biodiversity-friendly Afforestation. For sub-EIA threshold applications, improve the system by: 1.Developing detailed screening criteria to ensure that every afforestation project which would involve planting of semi- natural habitat is subject to a screening process to determine whether an EIA is required. 2.As part of the preparation of IFSs, specialist reports identifying biodiversity constraints (outside of designated sites) should be compiled.

30. 3. To support both 1 and 2 above, a comprehensive on-line database of ecological land information with habitats and species information should be developed and made available*. 4. The Forest Biodiversity Guidelines should be revised to contain precise definitions (based upon the Heritage Council classification; Fossit, 2000) of the habitats which are required to be mapped, the fauna which should be recorded and to explicitly specify that the total extent of these habitats within a site should be mapped, not just the 15% Area for Biodiversity Enhancement. 5. The consultation procedures for all grant applications should be amended to include posting of fuller details of applications on the FS website, circulation of weekly lists of applications to local authorities, NPWS and any other bodies on request, and availability of full details of all applications for inspection in the local FS office, or other suitable venue. *Indicates that these should be developed in collaboration with other Agencies

31. 6. The official guidance to local authorities (Department of the Environment, 1997) should be revised to encourage comment on nature conservation issues. 7.Any application which contains more than 15% semi-natural habitats should be referred to the FS ecologist for assessment as to whether EIA is required. In addition, any applications for which consultations raise potential issues of biodiversity concern should also be referred to the ecologist for assessment. 8. Upgrading the ecological skills of the Competent Foresters by formally integrating ecological skills into the basic degree and diploma training courses, as well as providing supplementary training. 9. Where a suitably qualified forester is not available, applicants should be required to employ a qualified ecologist to assess their site.

32. 10. Upgrade the ecology skills quotient of the Forest Service. The Forest Service needs enough qualified ecologists (either on staff or contracted) to ensure adequate examination of a percentage of applications. The FS ecologists should inspect a sample of applications from each self-assessment company to monitor the adequacy of their ecological assessments. 11. Establishing an accreditation system for ecologists to ensure quality standards*.

33. Recommendations to upgrade the EIA/EIS for Afforestation projects. EIS review criteria should be developed to require that the biodiversity assessment contained in EISs submitted for afforestation projects conforms to the standards we have recommended. EISs that do not conform to these standards should be considered inadequate. The biodiversity assessment contained in EISs should be reviewed by either the FS ecologist, or by an accredited external ecologist.

34. Modifications required to the Biodiversity Guidelines and other documentation 1.Choose Improved Grassland sites over semi-natural habitats for afforestation. 2.Establish forests in close proximity to semi-natural woodland, where appropriate, ensuring the forest will not threaten the woodland integrity. 3.Design complex edges to plantations to increase proportion of edge habitat. 4.Leave boundaries unplanted to allow development of complex edge structure. 5.Provide guidelines to help foresters to identify potentially important habitats for ground flora, spider, bird and hoverfly diversity.

35. 6. Where possible roads should have a between-tree across-road clearance of more than the stipulated minimum of 15m, and a scalloped road edge, creating a more varied total road space width with spaces up to 30m+ across. 7. The minimum ride width to qualify for inclusion in the open space requirement of the ABE should be changed to 15m (from the current 6m). 8. Glades should be a minimum of 225m 2 to qualify for inclusion in the ABE as open space. 9. There should be a mandatory protective zone of 7m on each side for linear features (e.g., hedgerows, small streams, drains) to be included in the ABE 10. Native broadleaved shrubs and trees make important contributions to forest biodiversity. More specific guidance for foresters could help them to encourage shrub and non-crop tree layers in plantations.

36. 11. The importance of small water features not included on 6” Ordnance Survey maps should be emphasised and foresters encouraged to include these in the ABE. 12. Early and frequent thinning of Sitka spruce forests to prevent canopy closure. 13. Avoid removal of shrub layer during thinning. 14. Retain mature Sitka spruce forests, where there is no risk of damage to adjoining semi-natural habitats. 15. Retain large diameter deadwood.

37. Hen Harriers Afforestation and agricultural improvement should be regulated in the Indicative Areas defined in the report, to prioritise only improved agricultural land for afforestation. Any change in the habitat composition within a radius of 1 km of the Hen Harrier occupancy should be scrutinised for its effects on suitability of habitat distribution for the Hen Harrier. Suitable habitats should be kept above a 30% threshold in these areas. A detailed database of forest holdings, with planting date and management interventions should be developed to facilitate the monitoring of suitable habitat within the IAs.

38. Forestry Schemes – changes that would support the above recommendations… Much of the above would be appropriate as changes to the Code of Best Forest Practice Develop practical tools for foresters, e.g.: Guide for foresters for pre-afforestation biodiversity assessment, including indicators, e.g., for grasslands: high (> 25%) cover of broadleaved herbs frequent meadow thistle (Cirsium dissectum) Guide for foresters to identify biodiversity components of established forests, including indicators, e.g.: high (> 50%) moss & liverwort cover abundance of coarse woody debris abundant Dunnock or Blackbird

39. Other FS Action: Review the full extent of the current Irish forest estate with a view to establishing Permanent Research Plots. We have established two sets of plots that should be monitored to reap the full benefits of the project: Coillte sites for Roads manipulation experiment (8 forests) Private sites for monitoring habitat effect (24+24) Additionally we have records for (Coillte) sites used during the Growth Cycle study (44 sites), and for the extensive survey of open spaces (12 forests).

40. Link to WorkGroup Web from Portlaoise Conference… End of presentation Link to BIOFOREST Project Website