|
|
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.
|
|
.