Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 1st December 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Union responds to legislative review



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 June 2008
THE Ulster Farmers Union has responded to the Department of the Environments consultation paper which reviewed the Wildlife (NI) Order 1985.

Whilst the UFU supports the protection of wildlife, we remain opposed to the duplication of existing legislation, and the unnecessary burden of additional red tape.
1. Increased powers for inspecting premises - UFU queried the proposed use of
a lay magistrate and felt that warrants should be issued by a magistrate fully qualified in the area under scrutiny. The UFU felt that this would increase the risk of bio-security breaches as well as having implications for health and welfare and safety.
2.Regular reviews of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 - The current NI Wildlife Order has been around for over 20 years, but while recognising the importance of regular reviews, the UFU questioned whether or not the schedules of the wildlife order are reviewed every 5 years. The UFU proposed instead that this review should take place at 10 year intervals to allow for any changes to be established and evaluated.
3. Pesticides - The DOE is considering the introduction of an offence to possess pesticides without lawful excuse and whether it is actually needed in NI. The UFU stated that legislation already exists governing the use and storage of pesticides by the farming community.
The introduction of such an offence seems disproportionate, particularly at a time when 'better regulation' is being pursued by DoE.
4. ASSI's - After reading the consultation, the UFU felt that the proposed changes would significantly increase the regulatory burden on landowners in ASSI's without any additional outcome benefit. Within Northern Ireland there are very stringent controls in place in relation to ASSI's. The UFU are very strongly opposed to the requirement for the owner of the land within an ASSI to inform EHS of change of ownership/ tenancy. This is an unnecessary bureaucratic requirement.
5. Closed Hedge Cutting Period - Despite this not being included as part of this consultation, the UFU requested that it should be considered as part of this Wildlife Order review process. There are differing closed dates throughout the United Kingdom when hedges cannot be cut for fear of disturbing nesting birds. In Northern Ireland it is from 1 March to 31 August. This is a requirement under the EU Commission framework for 'cross-compliance' for the EU's Single Farm Payment Scheme.
The UFU is fully supportive of ensuring that birds are not disturbed during the main nesting season. However, the delivery of the objectives of maintaining the land in good agricultural and environmental condition and the non-disturbance of birds must be balanced against permitting practical farming operations to continue. In the consultation response, the UFU asked that the end date of the closed hedge cutting period in Northern Ireland should be changed from 31 August to 31 July from this year onwards. The UFU asked that this particular issue should now be reconsidered as part of the current review of the Wildlife Order.



The full article contains 499 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 June 2008 8:55 AM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: belfast
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.