Coillte

How did 500 acres of publicly owned State forestry/land become the property of Shell?

Coillte’s main purpose, as outlined in ‘the objects of the company’ outined in legislation, is ‘to carry on the business of forestry‘. Coillte also (claim to) operate within environmental guidelines established by the international ’FSC’ (Forestry Stewardship Council) and according to the principles of ’SFM’ (Sustainable Forestry Management), and have an ‘FSC eco-label’ attached to their name which belies the truth, which is this:

Coillte are engaged in two main pursuits.

The growing of Sitka Spruce plantations for quick (and poor) commercial turnover. Sitka Spruce is a non-native conifer species, and the plantations are a sterile monoculture with no biodiversity. They require chemical insecticides and fertilisers which then run into water courses from drains that they dig to remove excess water, causing environmental pollution, and, as in the case of Corrib:
The selling off of land to private interests: Shell, wind farms, developers etc.

Feasibility studies to develop the Corrib Gas Field were conducted in the late 1990’s and onshore development and pipeline options were being proposed and considered in the North-West of County Mayo. It was only when Government minister Mr Frank Fahey offered Coillte Forestry lands as a possible site for a gas refinery that the project started to become a reality.

In March 2001 Coillte approved the sale of 250 acres of land at Bellanaboy, Co Mayo for the Corrib Gas Project. In December of 2004 the final area of 160 hectares was sold by Coillte to Shell for €2.75 million, to build a Gas Refinery Terminal. Subsequently Coillte granted Shell ’wayleave’ permission to build a high pressure raw gas pipeline through 3km of adjacent Coillte land at Aughoose, Co Mayo.

At no stage did Coillte consult with the local community with regard to the sale and use of this public land. Despite the efforts of the local community to organise meetings and to establish a consultation process, Coillte refused to meet them.

Coillte state that their policy on consultation is to: “consult at national, regional and local level to establish and maintain dialogue with relevant statutory and non-governmental organisations, special interest groups and general public.”

But Coillte never held any public consultation or information meetings in the local area in regard to the sale of land, which is in clear breach of their obligations. In fact, Coillte only announced the sale 5 months after the planning application for a gas terminal had been lodged in November 2000.”

Coillte’s claims to Sustainable and Consultative Principles of Management.

Coillte claims to have ‘committed itself publicly to comply with Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) Principles and Criteria. The specific commitment given by Coillte is as follows:

We have adopted Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) as the guiding principle by which we manage our forests now and in the future.

Among the principles:

Countries have the right to use forests for their social and economic development needs. Such use should be based on national policies consistent with sustainable development.
Forests should be managed to meet the social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations.
The planning and implementation of national forest policies should involve a wide variety of people, including women, forest dwellers, indigenous people, industries, workers and non-government organizations.
Indigenous peoples rights: The legal and customary rights of indigenous peoples to own, use and manage their lands, territories, and resources shall be recognized and respected
Coillte policy on consultation with local/indigenous people.

Coillte has committed itself publicly to comply with FSC Principles and Criteria and is an active participant in the Irish Forestry Certification Initiative which aims to develop FSC national standards for Ireland. Coillte remains fully committed to putting Sustainable Forest Management Principles into practise in the way we manage our business every day.”

No Consultation.
In October of 2005, the chief executive of Coillte, Mr Martin Lowery admitted that:
“Coillte did not consult the local community prior to the sale of the land at Bellanaboy. Coillte has no statutory obligation to consult prior to offering land for sale.”

Observation:
Here we can see the real commitment of Coillte to the SFM & FSC principles which, in effect, is no commitment at all. Martin Lowery, CE of Coillte is aspiring only to his ‘statutory duty’, not to any other duty or any duty outlined in his own Coillte Policy documents or public commitments.

And in the same month, Government Minister Mary Coughlan said this:
“Under Section 14 of the Forestry Act 1988 and the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies, Coillte has certain responsibilities and duties in the matter of sale of land. I am satisfied that all obligations and duties under these measures were properly discharged by Coillte in this matter. Notwithstanding the fact that Coillte is a private commercial company, I have made enquiries and I understand that there was no consultation with the local community by Coillte prior to the sale of this land.”

Minister Mary Coughlan refers in her reply, to ‘statutory obligations’ but omits to mention Coillte’s own obligations to the State, to the public and to the very principles designed to give the public a say as to how that land is managed. The Minister’s reference here to Coillte as a ‘private commercial company’ is not a true representation of Coillte’s company status and belies the fact that they are the stewards of public State land, entrusted to them for the purposes of Sustainable Forestry Management.

In 2003, Coillte accused the European Commission of “failing in its duties relating to cooperation in good faith, legal certainty and sound administration and breached the principle of legitimate expectations“. The European Court of Justice ruled against Coillte finding them to be a "public entity wholly owned and controlled by the State". while attempting to misrepresent themselves as a “private-law legal entity” in an attempt to draw down up to €50 million of European funding intended to compensate farmers for their loss of income incurred during the non-productive period of afforested agricultural land. These premium grants may be paid only to farmers or private law individuals, not to public undertakings.

Coillte claimed premium grants for loss of income from land the Company had only just purchased from farmers and used the funding stream to borrow funds to purchase more land from more farmers. The total illegitimate funding involved should have continued up to 2013, by which time the planting up to 2000 alone would have paid Coillte IRŁ37.3 million.

In this case, it was Coillte who were putting forward the arguments that they, while misrepresenting themselves, were expecting the European Commission to protect their position under the principles of ‘‘the protection of legitimate expectation’ and ‘the duty to cooperate on good faith’, when in fact it was Coillte themselves who were found to be in breach of these very principles.

A local resident put it this way:
“Since our first complaint in 2001 local people have given up and despaired of any ethical behaviour or adherence by Coillte to FSC principles of consultation. Our local community group has started off enthusiastically in the spirit and belief of public participation and we have ended in regarding the FSC logo as a tool of salesmanship without any meaning. Nobody is interested anymore in wasting time with make-believe-complaint-procedures.“