The Cover
Contents

Events

.

 

Irish environmentalists must appreciate the ideological background of both Ireland's commercial and environmentalist approaches to woodland before effective woodland strategies can be built

 

It is increasingly obvious to those who are familiar with international standards that Ireland's performance in both nature conservation and environmentally-friendly forestry is one of the worst in the developed world. For example, both the most authoritative international nature conservation body, the IUCN or World Conservation Union, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), both consistently list Ireland as last among developed countries for protection of biodiversity. This ranking still obtains today, and in fact, if trends continue as in the past, Ireland will fall further and further behind the next worst achiever.

 Similarly, Ireland's forestry was evaluated in the document entitled 'Report From The Commission...On The Application of Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92'. The report states that Ireland, enormously more dependent on exotic species conifers than any other EU country, is the EU member who has most emphasised the commercial gain of forests at the expense of their environmental benefits.

The next worst offender, France, planted only 49% exotic conifers compared to Ireland's massive 80% annual planting. The French Forest Service, the Office nationale des forêts, while recognising the commercial gains such conifers provide, specifically does not plant more because of the ecological costs to the environment.

 This is to be expected since the most prestigious scientists of the developed world have long stated that the introduction of exotic species is one of the three main threats to biodiversity, habitat destruction and pollution being the other two. Is it in any wonder that Ireland is one of the only EU countries - if not the only one - that has specifically been convicted in the European Court in relation to its afforestation policy? Or that the authoritative David Cabot in his comprehensive overview of the Irish natural environment, Ireland: A Natural History, writing of Ireland's exotic plantations, stated:

 "Despised by most naturalists as ecological deserts, these cellulose factories have ravaged vast tracts of moorland and other habitats of great natural importance… ?

 Even the Environmental Protection Agency, with its penchant for diplomatic language when criticising government policy, termed Ireland's exotic plantations "poor substitutes" for our biodiversity rich native woodlands.

Ireland's Historically Negative Attitudes to Nature

To understand Ireland's underachievement in these two areas - nature conservation and environmental forestry -- it is indispensable to realise that Irish attitudes to nature, particularly in rural areas, are, for historical reasons, among the most negative in the developed world. These negative attitudes are not news to those who have studied the subject, and, indeed, there are many examples that could be cited. For one thing, nature conservation has long had a negative reputation and been identified on this island with an indolent privileged class, the "Castle Catholics" and "West Brits" of Ireland's past. "This identification has survived to our own time and has been one of the most stubborn of all obstacles in the campaign to educate the community to an environmental awareness."

 As a result, environmental consciousness and respect for nature, above all in rural areas, is very limited in Ireland compared with that of other developed countries. In addition, Ireland's long history of subsistence farming has meant the survival of those working the land was often on a knife-edge. A failure to win another perch of land from nature could sometimes be the difference between life or death. Everything had to be controlled in such a context, and nothing was less under control than wild nature and its undomesticated creatures, "vermin" in the vernacular of many of farmers even today.

 The catastrophe of the famine meant that a deep mistrust of, and antipathy to uncontrolled nature, was further reinforced in the Irish mindset. Such attitudes, while attenuated to some degree, still exist in the Ireland of 2002, and manifest themselves, for example, in the idea held by most Irish people including environmentalists that the true value of nature is as a practical resource that is economically useful. The concept of the intrinsic value of nature, a concept increasingly dominating forward thinking in nature conservation in most developed countries, particularly the UK and the U.S., is almost absent in the Republic.

 George Peterken, in his classic study of nature conservation entitled Natural Woodland, fully analyses attitudes to nature and forestry in the developed world. In his work, he points out the way in which these attitudes are normally at the heart of the fundamental differences of viewpoint between foresters and nature conservationists. There are, according to the author, two traditional attitudes to nature that usually distinguish the forester and the nature conservationist. One attitude is known as the "imperialist" attitude, an attitude often characteristic of foresters. Followers of this attitude seek to control nature, to make nature meet the needs of humanity. Such followers tend to be active, ambitious and innovative. Their activities are likely to be materialistic, utilitarian improving and realistic. The watchwords are, as Peterken writes, "control" and "order".

The "Arcadian" attitude, usually characteristic of nature conservationists, emphasizes peaceful co-existence with nature; the rule is live and let live. It aims to re-establish a kind of harmony with nature, and such personalities tend to be, holistic, idealistic, undemanding, and traditionalist. They reject the imperialists' materialist and expansionist attitudes and the language which equates improvement and progress with the destruction of nature.

 Peterken recognises, naturally, that all this is very much an oversimplification, even a series of caricatures, and that the characteristics do not describe particular individuals. Nevertheless the author holds that they describe a set of characteristics which correlate to a certain extent with the attitudes of timber producing foresters and nature conservationists. Thus the herbicides and pesticides that the forester uses are instinctively regarded as a danger to nature by the conservationist.

Some Consequences of These Attitudes

 Over the last several decades these opposite traditions, the imperialist tradition and the arcadian tradition have begun to converge, particularly in such countries as the UK and the U.S. In Ireland, on the other hand, this convergence been very slow, almost non existent, and when it has taken place, it has usually been forced upon the country from the outside, from the EU, for example.

 In fact, the arcadian tradition has itself been so weak in Ireland, and the imperialist tradition so strong, that the former has had very little influence whatsoever. It is the predominance of these "imperialist" attitudes that help to explain, in my opinion, Ireland's unique deficiencies and anomalies in nature conservation and forestry. And examples are not lacking.

 Thus despite the fact that the IUCN itself has consistently urged Ireland to create much larger national parks along the line of its European neighbours, Ireland has refused. It has also recommended a large increase in Irish nature reserves, but this advice too has always been ignored. Even when Ireland has been forced to improve nature conservation under EU law, it has done so almost begrudgingly. Similarly, perhaps no other EU nation has more stubbornly ignored the Precautionary Principle than Ireland. Vast areas of acid sensitive uplands were planted with exotic conifers without the slightest regard to it. The result is the disaster that is only now beginning to be revealed. Moreover these exotic conifers, unlike native broadleaves, are highly susceptible to catastrophic fire in periods of drought. Very little, if any, attention has been paid to the possible ecological consequences of the introduction of these resinous - and thus highly inflammable -- trees. Moreover, and as surprising as it may seem, Ireland has still not surveyed all of its woodlands for scientific purposes, and not even begun to identify its ancient woodlands which is the international norm in our ecologically similar neighbour, Great Britain.

 As for commercial forestry, any suggestion that Arcadian values should play a meaningful role is similarly considered wildly unrealistic even though this also is the norm in most other developed countries. Instead, a veneer of "biodiversity enhancing" measures are applied to environmentally damaging exotic plantations, and this is trumpeted in expensive media campaigns designed to convince the Irish people that these plantations are good for biodiversity. Any environmental restrictions that might inhibit the primary and almost exclusive commercial objective are quite simply out of the question.

Consequences For The Environmental Movement

The influence of these unique attitudes, and the corresponding undervaluing of nature, have long made themselves felt in the environmental movement in Ireland. Remember that in most of the developed countries of the world the average protected area of national parks and nature reserves represents about 12% of the national territory. These areas, or the legal rights to these areas, have for the most part been acquired for the respective nations through the use of national funds. In other words, the most valuable areas for nature conservation - natural woods, bogs, mountains, meadows and coastal areas including dunes - have been considered valuable enough to justify the allocation of real national resources. If Ireland protected the average amount safeguarded by other nations, or even half that amount, such areas as Doonbeg and countless other areas would be in national parks or nature reserves.

 It is true that non-governmental organisations such as An Taisce do courageously and rightly object to certain developments such as the Doonbeg Golf Course. But they do not accompany their objections with the logical demand that Ireland follow international practice and acquire for the nation, using state funds, such priceless areas of biodiversity. The reason they do not is that environmentalists in Ireland, like the administration officials in Duchas, and politicians and the people in general, do not consider such areas valuable enough to justify such expense. And yet every other developed country in the world has taken the opposite viewpoint. One can conclude only that Ireland's figure of 1% of the national territory dedicated to national parks and nature reserves, the smallest in the OECD, is the mirror image of the extent of environmental awareness and appreciation for nature here.

 Indeed so weak is the Arcadian, nature conservationist, tradition that an NGO such as Crann that has as its main objective the promotion of commercial forestry is considered to be an environmental NGO. The most cursory examination of its activities and attitudes since its founding make it clear that it is more characteristic of the "forester" or "Imperialist" tradition than the "nature conservationist" or "Arcadian" tradition, and in fact Crann shares many of the key attitudes of the Forest Service and Coillte Teoranta.

 It cannot be denied, of course, that Crann does a great deal of high profile valuable work promoting nature conservation through the development of commercial broadleaved woodlands and the protection of hedgerows. Nature conservation, while not its primary aim, is certainly a very important objective, and a large part of the work of the organisation. In addition, Crann makes available to the general public a great deal of information on wildlife protection, not least through its excellent magazine Releafing Ireland.

Nevertheless, an examination of its policies, actions and philosophy over the years makes it abundantly clear that Crann is above all a commercial forestry organisation that firmly, and with the best of intentions, espouses the forester's viewpoint. The organisation itself was greatly aided by a University College Dublin specialist on forestry economics, and launched at UCD in 1986. Crann itself has made no secret of the fact that commercial forestry, not nature conservation, is its primary goal. In fact, the founder of Crann, and its president, stated in an interview in 1999 in their magazine, Releafing Ireland:

"…We must meet our own timber needs. We must get away from the idea that broadleaves are just something to be conserved. They are a sustainable resource, to be cut down, used and replanted…." These are the words of the commercial forester par excellence who speaks as if Ireland, with the least amount of native broadleaved woods in the EU, has been overdoing their conservation. Indeed, when at crucial moments Coillte and the Forest Service needed the support of an environmental NGO, Crann has often lent its decisive support.

It is surely because of this shared forestry ethos that the Forest Service (Department of the Marine and Natural Resources) has since at least 1997 given Crann massive sums of money, compared to most other large NGOs, for its nature conservation work, and for the organisation in general. This has enabled Crann to maintain a high public profile so vital in attracting a significant membership and the fees that accompany it, and also sponsorship. It is interesting to note in this regard that according to the balance sheet provided by the Forest Service (Department of Marine and Natural Environment) at Parliamentary Question Time, - Crann and Irish Woodworkers For Africa / Just Forests received for activities of all sorts by far the most funding, in fact well over £200,000 between them for the years 1997 - 2001. These NGO's were most supportive of the Forest Service/Coillte position in the FSC process. Voice, which opposed certification for massive exotic species afforestation received, on the other hand, just £3,809 for the same period.

Such funding has enabled Crann to promote the idea, in countless projects, conferences, campaigns and festivals, that commercial forestry, whether using exotic or native species, is more nature friendly than it actually is. What is of even more concern is that nothing could have been more helpful for Coillte's and the Forest Service's environmental credentials, and hence its forest policy, than this association with Crann, and its high-profile nature conservation activities. Besides this very close relationship over the years with Coillte and the Forest Service, Crann has often used, and almost always deferred to, the "experts" in both institutions. Thoroughly convinced of the correctness of the "forester" philosophy of "the right tree in the right place", Crann has tended to support Coillte and the Forest Service in its massive coniferisation programme, and itself often favours the planting of exotic broadleaved species such as sycamore, American red alder, red alder, Spanish chestnut or Norway maple over the planting of purely native species. Why? Because of their primary concern for the commercial return of the plantings.

In fact, so important is the dominance of commercial forestry in many of Crann projects, including the flagship ones of Oak Glen I, and Oak Glen II, that they would not be permitted in the true sanctuaries of Irish nature conservation, our national parks and nature reserves. Oak Glen II, trumpeted as a hardwood timber commercial project, would seem, from the description in Releafing Ireland, to be composed mainly of exotic broadleaved species such as Norway maple, walnut and Spanish chestnut. The introduction of exotic species, as mentioned above, is considered by the world's leading scientists to be one of the major threats to biodiversity.

 Indeed, Crann has been so in favour of broadleaved and conifer exotic species forestry that in a crucial document, the Draft Heritage Council Report, Impact of Current Forestry Policy on Aspects of Ireland's Heritage, May 1998, Reference 4492, Crann strongly supported Coillte's and the Forest Service's drive to align exotic conifer afforestation with Reps. Thus, a leading member of Crann is quoted in the report as stating:

 "CRANN suggests that if REPS could be lined up with extensification systems and with forestry grant structures, such that they all worked together towards a common policy, then the targets of the Strategic Plan might begin to seem more feasible. It really requires that REPS and forestry strategies be more closely integrated."

The main target of the strategic plan of course was the annual planting of 80% exotic species conifers for the next 30 years, a strange concern, one would have thought, for an environmental NGO, but perfectly normal and legitimate for a commercial NGO. There is of course nothing untoward or improper in the fact that Crann, like Coillte and the Forest Service, believes, in good faith, that such a forest policy is quite simply in the best interests of this country. And one can not doubt their bona fides in the matter since the people who represent Crann are unpaid volunteers who believe they are safeguarding the future of Ireland and particularly its hard pressed rural communities. If the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources (the Forest Service) wishes to promote through lavish funding an NGO that shares its point of view, and helps its environmental public image, obviously no one can fault Crann for availing of such funds.

 But all this nevertheless suggests, in my opinion, that Crann's primary interest is - not nature conservation - but commercial forestry. It also explains (A), why Crann is so comfortable with various National Forest Standards, which call for a massive 90% annual planting of environmentally damaging conifers, (B), why Crann has been far and away the NGO that has been most enthusiastic about the Forest Stewardship Council process that has now enshrined, pending appeal, the massive coniferisation policy of old. Crann's deeply held belief in commercial forestry, and its actions in support of the Coillte/Forest Service viewpoint in the Forest Stewardship Council process, have had one other consequence, unintended I am certain, but nevertheless of great importance. Crann, in tending to side with the Coillte/Forest Service point of view at decisive moments, has deeply divided and weakened the environmental chamber and indeed environmentalists generally. Such environmentalists had for the most part hoped to see Ireland adopt a more environmentally friendly forest policy along the lines of Great Britain, Austria, Switzerland and other European countries.

 These hopes ended, when at one of the most crucial moments in the Forest Stewardship Council process, Crann decided to leave the Coalition for Sustainable Forestry (composed of the environmental NGOs) and side with "the rest of the forestry and timber chain." As the President of Crann put it:

 "As Crann has been promoting the cause of sustainable forestry since its inception in 1986, many people might be surprised to learn that the Crann Board has chosen to have Crann's name removed from the list of conservation non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who currently make up the Irish Coalition for Sustainable Forestry. I suppose it boils down to a question of attitude and approach. Crann was not founded on negativism towards coniferous forestry; "

 Whether being opposed to massive exotic species coniferisation, and the enormous environmental damage it has done to Ireland, should be called "negativism" is a debatable point. What is certain is that Coillte with its 90% annual planting of exotic conifers claims to practice, like Crann, "sustainable forestry". What is more certain still is that Crann, by siding with the Coillte/Forest Service point of view, and thereby splitting the environmental coalition, made it impossible for the divided Environmental Chamber to stop the enshrining of the old massive coniferisation policy in the FSC certification process in Ireland. The result was a triumph of exotic species forestry over the natural environment, a triumph for commercial forestry unparalleled in the developed world.

 Indeed so divided and weak was the environmental chamber that commercial forestry interests were able to ensure that Ireland's is the only FSC process in which there are two economic chambers out of four, instead of the more usual balance of one economic chamber, one social chamber and one environmental chamber. I accept of course, as I have stated above, that Crann, its members and officials, and indeed all those environmentalists, state and commercial forest officials whom I have criticised, have acted in good faith in the various processes, debates, and other actions in relation to forestry and nature conservation. I have no doubt that their main priority, like that of the Forest Service and Coillte, has always been what they perceived to be the best interests of the country. Nevertheless, the end result has been that once again as we have seen so often in this country, the philosophy of the forester who sees nature as a commercial resource has triumphed unconditionally over the ethos of the conservationist, and their respect for the natural environment.

Some Conclusions

The Forest Stewardship Council's Certification of industrial exotic species coniferisation is under appeal by many environmentalists who are not only outraged by the result but also by the process. This process has been, in the opinion of many, a shambles, in which, inter alia, those with holistic attitudes to forestry have worked on a shoestring, and those favouring commercial forestry have had lavish funding. Nevertheless, no matter what the outcome of the appeal, I do not think that Ireland will ever significantly improve its forestry or its nature conservation record until there is a fundamental shift in Irish appreciation of the "Arcadian" tradition. By this I mean that first a significant proportion of the people of this island must appreciate, as in most other developed countries, the irreplaceable value of wild nature. Until that happens, the motivation for truly environmentally-friendly forestry, and the meaningful and extensive protection of this island's natural environment, will not exist. As a result, it is inevitable that we will continue to lose at an ever increasing rate those precious areas of biodiversity that make this island unique.

© Ray Monahan MMII

Ray Monahan was born in New York, and has lived most of his life in Europe, mainly in Castlegregory Co. Kerry. After an MA in History from New York University, he has primarily specialised in the study, (including extensive field work), of historical ecology, and the history of nature conservation and forestry.

 

The Cover

Events

Contents