Archaeology and Forestry in Ireland Gina Johnson 1998 The Heritage Council, Kilkenny, Ireland Abbreviations used in text Acknowledgements Foreword Preface Executive Summary CHAPTER 1: Identifying and Protecting Archaeological Sites CHAPTER 2: Forestry in Ireland Introduction CHAPTER 3: Organisations, Policies and Practices CHAPTER 4: Archaeology and the Forest Cycle CHAPTER 5: Archaeology and Forestry in the United Kingdom CHAPTER 6: Archaeology, Forestry and Land Use CHAPTER 7: Conclusions and Recommendations Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Bibliography Abbreviations used in text AGS Afforestation Grant Scheme ALS Afforestable Land Survey CADW Welsh Historic Monuments CAP Common Agricultural Policy COFORD The Council for Forest Research and Development D/AFF Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry D/AHGI Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands D/ANI Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland D/MNR Department of the Marine and Natural Resources D/OE Department of the Environment D/OENI Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland EIA Environmental Impact Assessment FIRST Forest Institute of Remote Sensing Technology FPS Forest Premium Scheme GIS Geographical Information System GTO Grants to Owners HEM Historic Environment Manager IAPA Irish Association of Professional Archaeologists ICMSA Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association IFA Irish Farmers Association IFIC Irish Forest Industry Chain IFS Indicative Forest Strategy ITGA Irish Timber Growers Association NHA Natural Heritage Area NMA National Monuments Act/s NMHPS National Monuments and Historic Properties Service OP Operational Programme (for Agriculture, Rural Development and Forestry) OPW Office of Public Works RCAHMS Royal Commission of the Archaeological and Historic Monuments of Scotland REPS Rural Environmental Protection Scheme SAC Special Areas for Conservation SIC Society of Irish Foresters SMR Sites and Monuments Record UCC University College Cork UCD University College Dublin UFA United Farmers Association UK United Kingdom WGS Woodland Grant Scheme Acknowledgements The generous assistance, information and advice received from the following is gratefully acknowledged: Michael Bulfin, Teagasc Emmet Byrnes, Department of Archaeology, UCD Rose Cleary, Department of Archaeology, UCC Tom Condit, National Monuments and Historic Properties Service Gabriel Cooney, Department of Archaeology, UCD John Cronin, Cork Archaeological Survey, UCC Brian Duffy, National Monuments and Historic Properties Service Claire Foley, Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland Glenasack Forestry Ltd, Co. Cork Michael Gibbons Matthew Kelleher Seán Kirwan, Department of Arts, Heritage, the Gaeltacht and the Islands Lesley Macinnes, Historic Scotland Tim McCarthy, Foraiste don bPobail John McLoughlin, Coillte Teoranta Seán Murphy, Derreenaling, Co. Cork Tom O'Byrne, Irish Wildlife Federation Ray O'Coinneadagh Pat O'Connell, Forest Service, Cork Terry O'Regan, Landscape Alliance Ireland Denis Power, Limerick Archaeological Survey Andre Q. Berry, Clwyd Archaeological Services,Wales Rachael Uí Riorda, Uadaras na Gaeltachta, Ballyvourney Lee Snodgrass Caroline Wickham-Jones Peter Woodman, Department of Archaeology, UCC Timothy Yarnell, The Forestry Commission, Edinburgh The staff of the Cork Archaeological Survey, UCC The staff of the Department of Archaeology, UCC Thanks is due, in particular, to Gabriel Cooney, John Cronin and Seán Kirwan for advice and discussion, to Denis Power for assistance throughout the course of the project, and to the Cork Archaeological Survey, UCC, for facilitating research and compilation of the project. Foreword The former National Heritage Council, under the chairmanship of Lord Killanin, commissioned Gina Johnson to prepare a report on Archaeology and Forestry in Ireland. On receipt of the final report from Ms. Johnson by the Heritage Council (established on a statutory basis by Minister Michael D. Higgins, TD., in July 1995), the Council decided that it should be published to make the valuable information and recommendations contained in the report available to the many agencies and individuals with an interest in the impact of forestry on archaeology. Ireland has the most ambitious forestry programme in Europe, and in the State Strategy on Forestry it is proposed to increase planting by 25,000 ha per annum to the year 2000, and by 20,000 ha per annum to the year 2030. The Heritage Council recognises the need for policies in regard to the beneficial development of forestry in relation to the environmental and manmade heritage. This publication is intended as a review of the existing structures with the author's recommendations to aid in the development of future policy. With the increased interest and awareness of environmental and heritage issues, it is hoped that this report will make a positive contribution to the continuing development of sustainable development strategies at all levels in Ireland. Freda Rountree Chairperson, March 1998 Preface Archaeology is an essential element of the Irish culture and must be protected and managed for future generations. Afforestation poses a greater threat to archaeology than any other rural land-use. Planting trends have changed considerably in the past five years and is now distributed on a wide variety of soil-types in a wide range of landscapes. The onus is on the archaeological and forestry authorities to ensure identification and protection of sites threatened by afforestation. The original intention of this research was to explore the impact of afforestation on archaeology in the marginal zones of Ireland where planting had been concentrated. Evidence, from Ireland and elsewhere, suggested that forestry was damaging and destroying archaeological sites at an unprecedented rate. Archaeology in marginal upland areas and previously undeveloped land appeared to be most at risk with large sections of prominent mountain ranges and valuable boglands already planted. Planting patterns and farming practices have changed in recent years, however, and the threat to archaeology has become even more widespread and more complex. Afforestation now poses a greater threat to archaeology than most other rural land- uses. The systems and processes involved in the administration of archaeology and forestry are continuously developing and changing and are constantly forcing new issues to be considered. As such, it was felt that a broad-based, comprehensive investigation of the industry and its relationship with archaeology was warranted to allow for an overall assessment of the situation. Objections to large-scale afforestation of the countryside have been voiced by rural community action groups, farmers, environmental groups and more recently by archaeologists. While some sectors have successfully organised their protests, utilising media exposure and political pressure to express their concerns, the case for archaeology is as yet fragmentary. The primary role of this research, therefore, was to update the situation vis-à-vis archaeology and forestry and to draw together some of the available evidence. Two central assumptions are maintained throughout the report: 1) that archaeology is a valuable and irreplaceable resource, and 2) that forestry, provided it is planned as part of an inclusive management scheme, can be a positive aspect of the countryside. While archaeology and forestry may sometimes appear to be vying with each other for superior status, there are mutual benefits to be gained from a co-operative approach to their promotion and management. The two subjects are explored here in the broader context in which they exist, that is, their relationships with rural communities, the environment and natural habitats, the landscape and the Irish economy. There are practical difficulties involved in responding to any rural development which has the potential to impact on archaeology. Comprehensive legal protection of archaeological sites and monuments is now in place but there is a fundamental problem with implementing this protection - there is no policy or system in place for the management of archaeological sites and monuments at a local or regional level. Therefore, the impact of any new land-use has to be addressed from a variety of aspects starting with what is regarded as 'archaeology', how to identify it, and how to protect and manage it. Communication between archaeology and other sectors involved with land and land-use issues must also be improved considerably. The centralised system in place for dealing with archaeological matters, however, cannot always provide a practical response to rural developments, in this case, forestry. Executive Summary Ireland is particularly rich in archaeological sites and monuments which form a central component of Irish Heritage. These sites, however, can be affected at any stage in the forest cycle; planting preparation, forest establishment, maturity, and harvesting, all pose dangers to sites within the plantation. The distribution of afforestation in Ireland has increased the threat to archaeological sites and monuments, but the extent of the potential impact is not yet known. · There are three inter-related stages to protecting archaeological sites from afforestation and the activities associated with it: 1) identifying sites and monuments, 2) enforcing the legal protection, and ensuring adherence to the Forest Service guidelines on archaeology and forestry, and 3) planning forestry in such a way that damage to archaeology is minimised and sustaining management plans for the forest environment. · The extent of the impact of afforestation on archaeological sites is not yet known. Assessment of a sample of archaeological sites known to exist in forestry is required to investigate the extent of the damage to archaeological sites. It would also provide information on which to base management policy and mitigating procedures to reduce the potential impact of afforestation on the archaeological heritage. · Statutory protection is conferred on archaeological sites that are entered in the Record of Monuments and Places. This lists sites that have previously been identified, but many more remain to be discovered. Over reliance on the Record of Monuments must be avoided and its preliminary status must be emphasised. The lists must be continuously updated and distributed to the Forest Service, the larger forestry companies, and those with control over agricultural/forestry activities in the regions. · Identifying and protecting unrecorded archaeological sites requires input from professional archaeologists into forestry training and education courses. It also requires a more direct form of contact and consultation between archaeologists and foresters during the planting process. · The initial risks to archaeological sites could be reduced through consultation with archaeologists and through field-based assessment pre-afforestation. The costs of archaeological assessment must be borne by the developer, but financial assistance from the forestry programme could reasonably be expected for pre-planting inspection of planting proposals. · To ensure continued protection for archaeological sites in forests, landowners must be actively encouraged to maintain sites free of overgrowth and to ensure protection against accidental damage from machinery, wind-throw, etc. Forest managers should not be financially penalised through the loss of income for protecting archaeological sites. Compensation for such management could be provided by formally including the unplanted 'buffer zone' in the calculation of the forest grant. · To fully assess the impact of afforestation on archaeological sites, it is necessary to identify those sites that already exist in forestry. An inventory of archaeological sites in existing forestry would allow a more complete assessment of the situation and would facilitate management policies and plans for their future.