Debate contribution: Sliabh Beagh: Protection from Fires and Environmental Damage
Debate contribution by Mr Justin McNulty on .
- MLA
- Mr Justin McNulty
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 23 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Adjournment
- Heading
- Sliabh Beagh: Protection from Fires and Environmental Damage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5129913
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise to highlight the urgent need for greater protection of Sliabh Beagh, one of our most important natural landscapes, from the twin threats of fire and environmental damage. Sliabh Beagh is not just a border upland stretching across Tyrone, Monaghan and Fermanagh; it is a living, breathing ecosystem. Its blanket bogs are a critical carbon store; its woodlands and wetlands are home to rare species; and its open hills are part of our shared ecological heritage. It is a place where people walk, farm and connect with nature, yet, year after year, it comes under attack from fire and neglect. We have seen devastating wildfires in recent years that have destroyed hectares of precious bogland. Those fires are not just accidents of nature; many are caused deliberately. When the bog burns, centuries of stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere, wildlife is killed and the land is left scarred for decades. For the communities around Aughnacloy, Emyvale and Knockatallon, those fires bring fear, damage livelihoods and are destructive to the natural assets that should be protected for future generations. Environmental damage also comes in less visible but equally destructive forms such as illegal dumping, reckless off-road vehicle use and the draining of bogland, which undermines its ability to store water and carbon. All that weakens the land, increases flood risk downstream and chips away at the ecological and wildlife assets that should be cherished and protected. What needs to be done? First, there must be a clear cross-border protection strategy for Sliabh Beagh. That upland does not respect county or jurisdictional lines. A coordinated approach between DAERA, the National Parks and Wildlife Service in the South, local councils and community groups is the only way to ensure effective prevention, monitoring and enforcement. Secondly, we need enhanced fire prevention and rapid response capacity. That means supporting the Fire and Rescue Service, farmers and local volunteers with the resources to act quickly, alongside stronger penalties for those who deliberately light fires. Thirdly, there must be long-term investment in restoration. Re-wetting drained bogs, planting native trees and supporting sustainable farm practices will help protect biodiversity while locking in carbon. Those measures are not just good for the environment but are cost-effective climate actions that are good for humanity. Finally, education and awareness are key. Sliabh Beagh can and should be promoted as a place of pride, a place for responsible tourism and a shared natural heritage. If local communities are empowered and supported, they will be the strongest defenders of the landscape. The fires that rage across Sliabh Beagh are more than flames on a hillside. They are a symbol of how fragile our environment has become. If the Executive are serious about tackling climate change, protecting biodiversity and supporting rural communities, the priority must be safeguarding places such as Sliabh Beagh.
471 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.94).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.94 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.99 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:11 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.