During the last two hundred years in Ireland the topic of forestry has given rise to much controversy and comment. But, hitherto, no comprehensive assessment of what looks like becoming one of our major industrial enterprises within the next fifty years has been published.
In order to attempt a broad perspective, a progression must be traced, and periods of emphasis categorized. The most effective method is historical, since it includes species-dominance and life-cycle as well as references to the contemporary legal status of forests and woodlands. Except for a very general introduction, the geologic primeval period is excluded.
The assessment may be divided into four periods. Firstly we have what may be called the 'Gaelic period', which dates from the proto-historic period to the end of the Tudor conquest. It embraces the definitive change of dominant species during that time; rights of title and ownership; obligations and penalties under Brehon Law tracts and derivative claims of ownership; Norman claims to absolute ownership of land and consequentially assumed rights, and the decline, revival and destruction of the Gaelic Order before and during the Tudor conquest.
The second period runs from the Tudor conquest to the Act of Union, when, so far as may be judged, the greatest exploitation and decline of Irish natural forests occurred. During what I call this, the 'Period of Foreign Exploitation', some species (and whole forests) virtually vanished from the landscape. What remained was of little value. This period also produced developments in timber industries, and the beginning of extensive timber imports. It ended with the Act of Union when, for the first time, the forest laws of Great Britain applied to the forests of this country. One result of this legal 'regularization' was the development of a climate of public opinion, principally among farmers, hostile to forests and forestry, the residual effects of which still exist.
During this period, from about the middle of the eighteenth century, another development began which, for want of a better name, is called 'Estate Forestry', to distinguish it from later 'State Forestry', of which it was an important precursor. It exemplifies a trend amongst landowners in England, Scotland and Ireland, partly fashionable and scientific, towards enlightened self-interest. Such people, both the dilettante and the genuinely committed, were in a position to undertake long-term economic investment while at the same time entertaining an interest in 'scientific' forestry. 'Estate Forestry' and those engaged in it were, for 180 years, to have profound and formative effects on the whole subsequent course of Irish forestry.
The third period covered is the nineteenth century, ending in 1899, when the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction (DATI), which went on to form a committee for forestry, was established. During the nineteenth century far-reaching changes occurred in the course of Irish forestry. Principles of forest management, economics and species changed, not only in Ireland, but also, if for widely differing reasons, in Britain and continental Europe. In Ireland great social and political changes also occurred. Some of these, in respect of land and tenure, greatly affected forestry and attitudes towards it.
Finally, the twentieth century saw the emergence, growth and development of an Irish forest policy which was to provide the foundation for the national afforestation programme undertaken after independence in 1922. Forest policy was largely promoted, encouraged and, to some extent, controlled by landowners. They were the inheritors of 'Estate Forestry'. They were also (the new tenantry apart) those most affected by the Land Acts that were altering the whole social order in rural Ireland, with all the resulting consequences, legal and otherwise, for forestry and land title. The movements for national expression and self-determination, and the First World War, also influenced forest policy-makers.
Although the idea had existed since 1884, the beginning of the State Forestry programme effectively coincided with the period when the foundations of the State itself were being laid. Clearly, having regard to the times, events, individuals and interests involved, the possibility of conflict already lurked, so to speak, on the forest floor when the State came into being. The interests and motives of those who knew most about forestry, namely the landowners, were, for a number of reasons, suspect. Almost all were representative of a minority traditionally regarded as repressive and with an alien tradition. Since they represented a resented elitism their very existence fuelled hostility among rural smallholders, even though the Land Acts offered tenants certain land purchase rights. In frequently creating many holdings from one, this had a direct bearing on the later problem of fractured holdings and piecemeal acquisition.
Most landlords belonged to a class which regretted the passing of the ruptured link with Britain. Since such forestry as existed was (and for many years remained) 'Estate Forestry'; and because those who had managed government forest policy under the DATI tended to be either members of the landed class or of the English tradition (for the very good reason that they knew most about the subject), forestry was generally associated with this elitism and was resented in the Irish rural community. This affected the questions of tenure, land for planting and any conceivable land purchase or land-use policy. 'The landlord was regarded as an alien, both by birth and religion, possessing by right of conquest what the farmers considered to be theirs by hereditary right' (Dardis).
On the other hand, many enthusiastic nationalists, at a time when it was believed that natural resources hardly existed in the country, and regardless of their own lack of experience or expertise, held views on forestry coloured by a romanticism which envisaged it as some sort of boundless natural panacea of limitless economic and social potential. They tended to join in unlikely alliance with the landowners to promote programmes of forestry and reafforestation, but did not always agree among themselves and, for a considerable period after independence, some might say to the present day, there were almost as many forest policies as there were forest policy makers.
There were other important factors. The natural political polarization which is at the heart of representative democracy, while it examines legislation in the making on any issue with care and caution, also tends to a short-term rather than a long-term view of economic planning, particularly when the national purse is lean and its strings tightly drawn. Short-term planning, however, is impractical when forestry is being undertaken virtually de novo, without established forests of any significance and in the absence of any social forestry conscience, tradition or system of established management. In such circumstances a capital-intensive undertaking such as new forestry is costly, but has a low political priority. Their high level of professionalism notwithstanding, it strains the limits of common sense to suppose that the key English or Scottish forest experts introduced to assist the new State's forest programme were all free of partisanship. Inevitably they came into conflict both with landowners and enthusiasts; with, at a more active level, politicians and smallholders and, sometimes, with their own staffs; and, of course, with each other.
Once the State programme got under way the influence of 'Estate Forestry' began to decline. This was not foreseen, perhaps, and had some curious consequences, the most important being the metamorphosis of State input to the planned National Programme from a minority one to one approaching 80 per cent. Circumstances also led to existing estate forests being drastically reduced during the Second World War, weakening the landowners of whom remarked Mr H. M. FitzPatrick, 'they knew more about forestry than all the rest of us put together'. During the early years proposals for forestry programmes and bases for policy emerged at regular intervals from a variety of sources. They were sometimes so self-cancelling that advocates of one policy would neither speak to, nor give credence to, the advocates of another.
These were some of the problems that beset the infant Irish National Forest Programme. In spite of this Irish forestry has grown from less than 101,173.6 (South and North combined) hectares in 1922, to more than 404,695 hectares (1,000,000 acres in the State) today. This considerable progress, the type of woodlands created, their location, economic viability, ancillary industries and potential are described in Part Two, while Part One is concerned with the historical development up to 1900.
The question of the role and function of a bureaucracy in relation to the initiation, administration and continuing management of a productive forestry marketing programme on such a vast scale requires consideration. The National Forest Programme was undertaken largely from scratch; such managed forests as were in the country were in private hands. Forests had to be created from nothing, with limited tradition and experience, and little capital outlay. The obstacles were great, but there were also opportunities - to avoid the limitations of imposed outmoded traditions and methods, for instance. But there is a point between the development of a State forestry programme, de novo, and the successful marketing of its product, where the management dynamics radically...
