ENVIRONMENTAL CAMPAIGNERS ARE questioning a “lack of transparency” around an appeals board for special areas of conservation (SACs) which allows landowners to object to protections for sites across the country.

The Journal has learned that the little known group, called the Designated Areas Appeals Advisory Board (DAAAB), has not had a formal hearing to decide on categorising a site in almost two years.

However, it has had almost 100 “informal” meetings with objectors in recent years over adding special legislative protections around the sensitive habitats.

Jennifer Whitmore, Social Democrats spokesperson on climate and biodiversity, said that the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage needs to clarify what took place in the informal discussions.

“There needs to be full transparency about this. If anyone puts in a planning objection that’s publicly available for everyone to see,” the Wicklow TD said.

Whitmore added that it was all the more concerning given this week’s ruling by the Eurpean Court of Justice that Ireland has failed to protect hundreds of these sites across the country.

The court found that the Irish government had failed to designate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) in certain areas and had failed to comply with an EU obligation to establish badly needed conservation measures for sensitive habitats across a range of sites.

Last month The Journal reported that while a large amount of sites have been registered to date – some 250 in the past two years – some high-profile areas yet to be designated SACs include Killarney National Park and parts of the Burren.

The government has insisted all sites will have statutory protection by the end of the year as locations of significance that support flora and fauna.

The DAAAB

The DAAAB appeals board is a non-statutory body which makes the recommendations to the National Parks and Wildlife Service for SACs and natural heritage areas, which can be home to certain species.

It held formal hearings for a total of 19 appeals from landowners between 2017 and 2021 but has held not formal hearings since then.

However, the past six years have seen “approximately 90 informal appeals considered” according to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

The hearings are made up of representatives forming two separate panels representing environmentalists and farmers. Their meetings are chaired by a barrister.

One panel is comprised of “landowners, users and producers”, and is drawn from the Irish Farmers Association, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association and the Irish Business and Employers Confederation.

A separate pillar is made up of representatives from conservation groups and members are drawn from environmental groups, the department said.

According to the National Parks and Wildlife Service guidelines for the DAAAB, the board will only consider formal hearings after an “opportunity to have the matters at issue dealt with on an informal basis” with the objector.

The process will be moved to a formal footing if it has not resulted in a “satisfactory conclusion from the objector’s point of view”.

Access to documentation for the DAAAB has been sought by environmental information campaign group Right to Know.

Its co-director Ashley Glover said the level of transparency is concerning.

“Nobody’s a winner from this level of secrecy. It states very clearly and repeatedly in the documentation for the board that it needs to be based on ‘science’ but instead there are farm lobby groups involved and the process is taking place behind closed doors.

“A big concern would be whether there is horse-trading taking place, especially at the informal meetings which no records are being released for.

“You can also look at it another way: if you’re a farmer in one area and you’d like to see how other people were successful in appealing designations, you can’t get an idea of that at all.”

Whitmore, of the Social Democrats, said in respect of the ruling by the European Court of Justice: “We need to start taking environmental protection seriously and move away from positions where we see designation of sites as something that happens on paper and doesn’t have a corresponding management plan to strengthen nature and strengthen biodiversity.

“It cant be just a box-ticking exercise – there needs to be designation of site and then an appropriate management plan in place.”

Earlier this week, The Journal put Whitmore’s criticism around the board’s alleged lack of transparency to the department.

The department was also asked what were the outcomes of the 90 informal discussions and whether the full board oversees the informal appeal. It had not responded at the time of publication.