Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development
Draft Forestry Bill
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation
BASC’s comments on the Forestry Bill preparatory to the
evidence session on Tuesday 8 December 2009
Introduction
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) is the UK’s largest representative body for sporting shooting, with a membership of around 130,000 people.
We have significant reservations about the Bill as its main thrust is to set out to acquire new powers for Forest Service without appearing to give due consideration to other options that exist for forestry in Northern Ireland, either now or into the future. This is unfortunate, both for the future of forestry and for the wider environment.
We believe that many of the proposed new powers are largely unnecessary, as two main pillars of regulation already exist that offer great scope for proper forest management, together with numerous other minor powers and regulations that already lend support.
There are other issues raised in the document that are simply unacceptable to BASC and its membership, specifically in the area of the proposed powers to create statutory rights for Forest Service staff to go onto private land adjacent to ALL forestry – not simply that belonging to Forest Service - to pursue deer and other species of quarry.
Initial consultations in the development stages of this Bill sought measures to give the Department powers for compulsory purchase of sporting rights. BASC argued its case very strongly and, whilst we welcome the fact that these powers are not sought in the Bill, comments by senior Forest Service staff that they have dropped the proposals “for the time being” leave concerns.
In any case, the powers of access sought within the Bill would convey many of the effects of compulsory purchase, without recourse to the actual purchase. For example, Section 8, with its vague description of an animal “which is living wild and is likely to damage trees” would effectively allow Forest Service to usurp traditional sporting rights where they are the occupier but the rights are reserved.
Introduction, continued
Other powers are also sought, in relation to requirements for felling licences and management plans, from which Forest Service itself would be exempt. We believe this is unhelpful in terms of land management, as well as shooting and conservation management, and it is both an abuse of power and the creation of unnecessary bureaucracy.
Northern Ireland is notable within Europe as a whole for the extent of the forestry that remains in public ownership. Many of the measures proposed in this Bill seem designed to preserve that imbalance rather than correct it and the powers sought are without check or balance.
BASC Concerns
Forest Service’s new Forestry Bill seeks to take unto the Service a range of unprecedented, sweeping powers.
1. Forest Service wants to have powers for compulsory purchase of land that is of strategic importance.
Many private landowners might wish for similar powers for laudable purposes but they will never get them. Is it right that the State should be able to have such supremacy? If the example that they cite – ref suggestion of gaining access to land-locked public forestry - is their main/only concern, they could address this by seeking powers allowing compulsory, temporary access rather than compulsory purchase. Once power is created to permit compulsory purchase, the extent to which it might be used, or abused, is hard to project from where we currently stand.
If power is to be granted, BASC would hope that the legislation will tightly restrict the instances in which compulsory purchase will be approved.
2. Forest Service has a very respectable ambition of wanting to double forest cover in NI.
However, has this ambition been agreed after consultation and engagement, dialogue and agreement with all of the other land interests in the Province? For example, with the world population predicted to expand by nearly 50% over the next 40 years – ie an additional 3 BILLION people - has consideration been given to the effects of the loss of productive agricultural capacity that a removal from production of 6% of the land mass of NI would deliver, and the impact on annual revenues to the country, as opposed to long term capital growth?
3. Forest Service wants powers to allow their rangers to go on to the private land adjacent to all forestry in Northern Ireland – both publicly and privately owned - to shoot deer.
With current staff and other arrangements, Forest Service cannot control the deer in their own forestry and, much worse, the numbers of foxes in their forestry is widely acknowledged as being at a plague level with massive negative impacts on many of the NI Biodiversity Action Plan Species (eg Red Grouse, Curlew, Irish Hare).
With an ambition to double the area of Northern Ireland that is covered in forest from 6% to 12%, the prospect of government staff being empowered to go onto adjacent land to that 12%, for a distance of up to ½ a kilometre out, would mean armed rangers covering a truly enormous proportion of Northern Ireland.
The case for going onto private land is simply not made; it is against everything that landownership is about, and it has public safety implications as well as legal implications, including potential armed trespass.
4. Forest Service want their staff to be exempt from the provisions of the Wildlife Order (or its successor legislation) and the Game Acts so as to be able to shoot deer day or night, 365 days per year without legal control on appropriate calibres/weights of bullets.
This proposal has appalling implications for deer welfare – orphaned fawns being one of the principal ones. The proposals seek exemption from the wildlife legislation that has been developed through wide consultation and understanding of deer ecology. There is no justification for such sweeping exemption for one small group of government employees from the laws that govern the entire remainder of the population.
Indeed, at present, the Dept of the Environment is currently proposing (in the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill) to scrap the right to Crown immunity for its staff, so it is bizarre in the extreme that the Dept of Agriculture is actively seeking to introduce immunity. This exemption would give FS staff the powers to act in grossly unacceptable ways, yet be immune from any form of controls. The creation of such a lack of independent oversight would be a travesty and is entirely unacceptable. Not only does Forest Service want to be the regulator of forestry for all (and be the largest producer), but they also want to be the regulator of wildlife law for themselves, rather than be answerable to the statutory agency (NIEA) which governs everyone else.
5. Forest Service wants to be able to cull deer that might cause damage, not just those that are actively causing damage.
Again, this is entirely unacceptable, as it is so subjective; all deer might cause damage. It would put the Forest Service beyond control, and completely in charge of deciding policies that could, potentially, see the eradication of the majority of the deer population without check or balance. It is also an opportunity to deprive sporting rights owners without discussion, agreement or compensation.
6. Forest Service wants to be able to recover the cost of such deer culling on private land, supposedly for the benefit of other private woodland owners, fromthe owners of the adjacent land.
Forest Service currently accepts no responsibility for road traffic accidents caused by wild deer, on the basis that they are “wild”. This is correct in law. They also accept no responsibility for losses incurred by sheep farmers to foxes that inhabit their forestry and stray out onto farmland. Yet they want to reverse this in their own interests and cull wild animals on private ground adjacent to any publicly or privately owned woodland, and expect the private landowner to pay. It is worth noting the inconsistency of this even within their own Bill, as it is different from the treatment of invasive plants.
7. Forest Service wants powers for compulsory purchase of land.
This power always raises concern in any Western country unless very tightly controlled. Taken in conjunction with the other direct and indirect powers sought in this Bill, it raises considerable concern.
8. Forest Service proposes powers to create better access to the public forests but they refuse to extend this access to any recreational deerstalkers, thus denying genuine equality of opportunity.
Although Forest Service recognises the value of sporting shooting, they consistently resist the concept of helping to unlock value from stalking in their Estate, unlike their counterparts in Scotland, England and Wales. This is not only an opportunity lost but is a major restriction on legitimate sporting opportunity. Taken in conjunction with some of the powers sought in this Bill, and some that were proposed earlier but have been discarded at the moment, BASC has strong reservations about the intentions of the Service, and the proposals to give them such massive powers with so few checks and balances.
We look forward to giving evidence to the Committee on Tuesday.