WRITTEN QUESTION E-1015/96 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (V) to the Commission (26 April 1996)

Subject: Burning as a means of land clearance in Ireland

In Ireland and, to some extent, in other countries of the EU bushes and heather are still being burnt so that the ash can be used as a fertilizer to achieve a more rapid growth rate for grass for grazing animals and to prevent bushes spreading over meadows.

However, this process of burning has serious consequences. It destroys the habitat of small animals; large quantities of CO2 are emitted; scant forest areas are reduced even further and erosion is encouraged.

The most important means of counteracting this is through afforestation; programmes with attractive EU aid are available for this.

1. Which directives promote afforestation in Ireland?

2. Is there any EU financial aid for farmers who clear land mechanically, rather than by burning (which is cheaper)?

3. Are there any studies of what CO2 emissions are released Europe-wide through the burning of farmland? If so, what studies?

4. Are there any studies of the connection between burning and erosion? If so, what studies?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 June 1996)

1. There are two kinds of Community measures which promote afforestation in Ireland. Firstly, Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 ((OJ L 215, 30.7.1992. )) provides for aid for the afforestation of agricultural land. The Irish national programme provides for the afforestation of approximately 90 000 hectares of agricultural land from 1993 to 1997, with support from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund totalling ECU 80 million. In 1995 afforestation projects covered 24 000 hectares.

Secondly, the Irish operational programme (Objective 1) provides for afforestation aid not covered by Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 concerning non-agricultural land.

2. There is no Community aid to encourage farmers not to burn their land.

The national or regional programmes pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 (concerning accompanying and environmental measures) provide aid to farmers who go further than common agricultural practice. Certain Scottish programmes even provide for fires ('muirburn') to maintain heather, which is a method approved and supported by environmental experts.

As the Honourable Member affirms in his question, burning in situ is not always negative since groves, heather and meadows are three very different types of land. The surface area (and quality) of heather in Europe is constantly decreasing, and afforestation (actively promoted or through negligence) of such areas is generally undesirable. The method of burning heather, under controlled and specific conditions, should not be criticised as a matter of course. The 'Natuurmonumenten' organization in the Netherlands, for example, uses this method on a very small scale in the winter. Using this method, the area of forest is not reduced and heather is prevented from disappearing following natural afforestation.

3. The Commission is aware of the following studies:

- Draft contribution to the 1992 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (VIth session; Geneva, February 1992): 'Agriculture, forestry and other human activities'.

- Temperate agricultural cropping systems: Assessment of the net greenhouse gas emissions - 1992.

- Prof. Dr. Sauerbeck, Braunschweig, Germany - IPCC VIth session, Geneva, February 1992.

- IPCC Second assessment report contribution of working group II (Rome - December 1995). References related to the questions can be found in draft as 1, 13, 15, 23, 24 and 25.

4. The Commission is not aware of the existence of such studies.