
The wrong kind of trees: Ireland's afforestation meets resistance - f_allwein
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/07/the-wrong-kind-of-trees-irelands-afforestation-meets-resistance
======
scandox
Just to be clear to everybody who hasn't walked through one of these
"forests": five minutes is enough to know that these are literally dead zones.
In addition the company that manages all this land and all this planting won't
release figures on how much Roundup they're putting in the ground...but a
reliable source tells me it has to be measured in units of hundreds of
truckloads. And anyone who grows up in the Irish countryside knows the
preferred method of a pulling a single weed is to pour a gallon of the stuff
on it, rather than lift a hand.

So this doesn't have to be about native vs non-native...what's truly important
here is that these forests are about as much part of the ecosystem as a lawn
that's being sprayed twice a week.

~~~
rfreytag
The article mentions Sweden also cultivates Sitka pines.

Having traveled through Sweden I never heard a sound in their forests; no bird
song at all.

~~~
tapland
You could easily have that experience in our untouched forests as well. It's
not bird- or animal dense.

------
prepend
I wish the article spent more time on the preferred types of trees other than
the Sitka. The Sitka was chosen for its environmental (sucks up lots of
carbon, grows well in Ireland) and economical (quickly produces renewable
lumber jobs and products).

But if there are preferred trees, I would like to know more about their
differences from Sitka. Do they grow 10% more slowly? Or product 10% less
lumber? Or require 10% more maintenance?

I recently visited Ireland and walked through some awesome woods. But the
local houndsmaster explained that almost all of the trees are non-native. And
that wasn’t a problem.

I don’t think non-native is a self-sustaining reason by itself. I’m sure the
Leitrim group has more info on what are better trees for Ireland and I would
like to see the climate trade off analysis they did to show how other trees
should be used.

~~~
pvaldes
Is not a secret at all

Oak, linden, beech or chesnut. Start burning much slower than any resinous,
support a high biodiversity of insects and feed mammals and birds

If you want something that grows faster: poplar, maple, ash, birches and most
willows. Willows are bee lifesavers in early spring.

If you really want a pine, use a native species at least. I'm not
systematically against using a few Spruce, Cedrus or Sequioa here and there,
but if you invest strongly in a monoculture of Spruce you have a high risk to
lose all the money of your investors by Cytospora cancer or fire. As I said
before, none of this is a secret.

There are many solutions more simple and obvious.

~~~
dctoedt
Ireland of all places should have an ancestral memory of the dangers of
monocultures, having lost millions of people to starvation and emigration
_[EDIT: in part]_ as a result of a blight that clobbered the monoculture
potato crops [0].

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_\(Ireland\))

~~~
rusk
You’re probably experiencing some downvotes because you’ve made a common
mistake. The failure of the potatoes was the proximal cause but there was
plenty of food in Ireland that was being expropriated by the English and
exported. Its a common mistake, if you read down through the wikipedia article
you linked youll find out more about what went on.

~~~
dctoedt
One of my grandmothers was first-generation Irish-American; IIRC, _her_
grandparents survived the Famine, and her parents emigrated to America. I
heard all about the Famine growing up.

It's an interesting reason to be downvoted. I was writing a quick comment
about one of the causes of the Famine _that 's relevant to this discussion_,
i.e., monocultures. It wasn't intended to be a treatise exploring all the
various other causes of the catastrophe. But I know the rule about not
complaining about downvotes.

~~~
rusk
150 years later it’s still a very sensitive topic, particularly when the
victims are _seemingly_ blamed.

------
dalbasal
I agree... It about the wider approach.

Wilderness is simply a concept that doesn't quite exist in Ireland. We didn't
have any of it, and the closest equivalent, forestry, dates to earlier 20th
century land reforms.

Effectively forestry is agriculture, not wilderness.. in terms of the ideal.
Even agriculture has ecological standards, but preserving hedges for wildlife
is not the same as preserving an arboreal ecosystems.

I would absolutely _love_ to see as much forestry land as possible converted
(conceptually) to "wilderness." That doesn't mean it can't produce wood pulp
or other commercial products. But, it does mean that wood pulp is not the
goal. Native species are the goal. Recreation is the goal. ..And the long term
future is the goal.

Some of the spruce & pine patches dotted around the country have occasional
hardwood "groves." Walking in from the dark & inaccessible pack of spruce into
the the magical space created by as few as a dozen matures oaks and
chestnuts... you can almost imagine the Ireland of fairy stories and legends.
An acre of oak feels like a place, something that should have a name and a
story. Those don't happen on short term timescales, but we can and should
plant them as a gift to our grandchildren.

We need a paradigm shift. Some of this island should be dedicated to non-
agricultural use... and timber mono-cropping doesn't count. It should be
accessible to us. I would love for us to adopt Scottish "rambling rights," at
least for forestry land). It should probably be not-for-profit, reinvesting
any income into improvements and land acquisition.

*Personal: my Grandfather grew up on land that was "agriculturally unproductive." The land was acquired by the state for forestry in the early 50s and the people encouraged to migrate. That's the origin of much/most forestry land. It belongs to the public, morally (and technically, mostly).

We are wealthy enough as a nation that we can afford to use some of our least
productive ($-p-acre) land for recreational, ecological and spiritual
purposes. Planting an oak grove is spiritual, imo, especially in ireland.
Timber plantations are not that.

~~~
jonpo
"magical space created by as few as a dozen mature oaks..." Absolutely this! I
can tell right there you understand the magic of trees. Imagine the magic of a
whole Island full of Atlantic Oakwood Rainforests.

------
barking
One of the most common native trees in Ireland the Ash tree is shortly due to
be hit hard by the Ash dieback fungal pathogen.

The Horse Chestnut (non native but in place for several hundred years at lease
and beautiful) is under threat too I believe.

This coming not so long after the catastrophe that the Elm tree population
suffered with Dutch Elm disease

The sitka spruce forests are an abomination, nothing grows in them except
sitka spruce, not even grass. They are also planted in rectangles that look
jarring to the eye on hillsides, nothing natural looking about them at all.

------
Anthony-G
The Sitka spruce problem has been an ongoing issue for at least the past 30
years (probably longer). The main problem is the acidification of the soil,
resulting in a barren carpet of dead needles on the forest floor and a vastly
diminished ecosystem. There’s a world of difference between a native deciduous
forest and one of Coillte’s plantations. One of the most publicised hiking
routes in Ireland, the _Wicklow Way_ covers some beautiful countryside but a
large proportion of it is marred by long, monotonous treks through fire-roads
in between lines of Sitka.

Coillte have a remit for recreational use of Ireland’s woodlands but
historically, they have always prioritised the commercial aspect over all
other considerations. For a private enterprise, this would make sense as the
income from tourism doesn’t appear on their balance sheets – but having a
broader mission is one of the reasons why Coillte are a semi-state company.

------
mikorym
This topic is relevant in South Africa as well. More than 100 years ago, many
of the indigenous forest were deforested to make way for pine and eucalyptus
plantations. The former is less than ideal, but the latter is even worse.

The water use issue of eucalyptus far outweighs its carbon sequestration and
the other problem is that after its cycle of 7 to 25 years (depending on use)
a lot of that carbon ends up in the atmosphere anyway, for instance through
burning for silicon mining.

The other important factor is the plant matter that composes the top soil and
how this decomposes or otherwise interacts with the soil. A major part of CO2
release is through decomposition of plant matter. In fact, the recent article
[1] that I read (on HN?) made me realise that a plant can be carbon neutral
(rather than carbon negative). In the article, there is actually no difference
between having a plant in that bottle or just having charcoal in the
bottle—it's a completely closed system. This invites a question about
afforestation and how important carbon capture via plantation is vs. re-
establishing indigenous forest and on the other hand simply subterranean C02
sequestration.

[1]

~~~
icebraining
Portugal has the same problem with the eucalyptus[1]; it's a dreadful choice
for a dry country like ours. There was brave popular resistance[2], but it
wasn't enough.

[1]
[https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/june/1370181600/mic...](https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/june/1370181600/michaela-
mcguire/eucalypt-invasion-portugal)

[2] [https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-
bulletin/section1/p...](https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-
bulletin/section1/portugal-28-years-ago-a-village-fought-against-eucalyptus-
the-land-never-burned-again/)

~~~
mikorym
A viable alternative (if you don't have qualms with this instead) is avocado
farming. Depending on climate (i.e., such as colder regions) the net water use
can actually be similar (or say 2:1) when switching from eucalyptus to
avocados; there still needs to be some amount of research done on this.

EDIT: To be clear, in warmer microclimates the irrigation is more water
intensive because your loss of water due to irrigation is high. Some advances
such as drip irrigation can mitigate this, and in theory things like mulching
and super absorbent materials can get the water use down even further.

~~~
wil421
I have a 10 foot 5 year old Avocado tree that would like to have a word you
about calling them “viable”.

Also, I believe the eucalyptus is used for pulpwood not fruit-nuts like
avocado’s. What would replace Portugal’s pulpwood farms?

IMHO, Avocado’s in Europe are terrible and have no taste. Hass from California
and Mexico are the best.

------
JoeAltmaier
Let me get this right: Ireland was deforested. Now its a big carbon offender.
Trees improve that drastically. So they planted trees, lots of trees, 11% of
Ireland now covered by trees (up from 1%).

But, get this, they're not pleasant to walk through! They're the wrong color.
They are 'dark and dank'.

Hm. Compared to what? The stripped, blasted landscape they replaced? The
ecological disaster that was remediated?

This seems a trivial, silly article.

~~~
weego
It's absolutely non-trivial. Have you walked through planned pine forests?
There is vast swathes of them around where I live in Scotland and there is no
bio-diversity there at all. They are planted so close that the canopy coverage
allows very little sunlight to the forest floor, and even if it did not much
could grow because of the heavy littering of dead needles that cause very
acidic soil. At best you will find patches of lichens and ferns and some
squirrels and martins / other rodents.

Also working plantations are usually not available for public access for a
portion of the year so they're not actually providing much quality of life for
local people, which if you're going to go commit to large scale reforestation
plans should be a considered part.

~~~
bsder
> There is vast swathes of them around where I live in Scotland and there is
> no bio-diversity there at all.

Um, you do know that forests have stages? Right?

Evergreens tend to be one of the first stages. Evergreens generally grow
quickly and tolerate fairly crappy soils. "waterlogged soil with high clay
content" (from the article) is a _REALLY_ crappy soil for trees. The littering
of needles generally helps add some level of nutrients back to depleted soils
(an acidic humus is going to be vastly better than completely leached out
waterlogged clay) It's why you plant evergreens on strip mined areas to help
reclaim them.

After the evergreens, the deciduous trees start coming in from the edges--but
this takes _decades_.

Now, it's possible that Ireland/Scotland don't have enough deciduous trees
(or, in the case of Scotland, the climate may simply not be correct--Scotland
has a _lot_ of land that's really crappy for growing anything much at all) to
start the process and those trees need to be added to their planning. Fair
enough.

However, I don't see any discussion or acknowledgement of any of this in the
article.

~~~
rorykoehler
These forests are essentially tree farms. There is no bio diversity and no
deciduous trees growing in from the side. The forest will be felled for wood
long before a deciduous tree would have time to grow. It's a travesty. Come to
Ireland and see for yourself.

~~~
bsder
> These forests are essentially tree farms.

Then the real problem is that this really isn't "afforestation" at all and
what trees are being planted is irrelevant.

------
gdubs
So, monoculture or not these trees are going to sequester carbon. Preserving
natural forests is ideal, but these are areas that weren’t forested before
this project. Obviously if they’re cleared and / or burned, a lot of that
carbon will go back into the atmosphere. Therefore, creating systems people
will be happy maintaining and living with for centuries isn’t a superficial
concern. For an idea of what that might look like, think of the olive tree
agroforestry hillsides of Italy that have existed for centuries.

The tropical “homegarden” — similar to the permaculture idea of a “food
forest” — shows enormous promise for high annual and lifetime carbon
sequestration potential. They can be beautiful, productive systems that have
the added benefit of producing food and sustenance.

~~~
mmaurizi
I would assume the intention _is_ to clear them once they mature - you get the
most carbon sequestration if you cut the trees down once they mature and use
them to build things and then replant.

Obviously burning is counterproductive, but once you turn the trees into
houses the carbon will be out of the atmosphere for a very long time.

------
harimau777
It seems to me that it would be wise for legislation that provides tax breaks
for reforestation to require native trees and/or diverse trees.

~~~
I_complete_me
In most of the poor land that is currently afforested Coillte have planted
Lodgepole Pine and Sitka Spruce because no other trees could grow
commercially. These trees do not harbour much wildlife and they are generally
unsuitable for walking through, unlike forests of oak and beech which I
believe would be better for animals and humans alike. Therefore I agree with
you.

~~~
antupis
Have you ever been an old spruce forest you can definitely walk thought it eg
[https://johnbarger.photoshelter.com/image/I0000eZaLJgCgJHg](https://johnbarger.photoshelter.com/image/I0000eZaLJgCgJHg)
.

~~~
arethuza
I don't know about Ireland - but some commercial forestry here in Scotland
look nothing like that - dark, almost no plants at ground level and _very_
unpleasant to walk through.

Scotland had a problem with the "wrong kind of forest" when someone thought it
would be a good idea to plant non-native tree species on enormous blanket bogs
of the 'flow country':

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_Country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_Country)

~~~
patrickk
Sounds similar to Irish forests. The trees are in artificially straight rows,
really dark underneath as no natural copse can form. No wildlife to be heard.

~~~
arethuza
Some examples of natural forests in Scotland - which look _nothing_ like
commercial planting:

[https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/news/our-pick-scotlands-
nati...](https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/news/our-pick-scotlands-native-
forests/0012621/)

------
blunte
Trees are great, but when it is timber and other _avoid-carbon-tax_ interests
driving it, you can be sure it’s being done with the priority of corporate
profit rather than environment.

And generally speaking, it is safe to assume that mass monoculture systems are
flawed, even if it takes 50 years for us to prove and illustrate those flaws.

~~~
adminu
On the other hand, it is great I think, when economic interests produce mass
planting of trees. It is not realistic to assume, that we will let
agricultural land become wasteland for the nature to recapture it.

It is the same principle with the hunting of e.g. rhinos. Licenses for killing
rhinos are given out for money (sometimes quite a lot) and that money is put
into sustaining the population. Without that economic incentive, poachers will
kill the animals, but nobody will try to sustain them.

~~~
blunte
Portgual is an example of why this is a bad idea. The timber industry
introduced and mass planted eucalyptus trees in that country many years ago,
and those invasive, rapidly growing, highly flammable trees have become a huge
problem.

Huge forest fires are common and deadly to humans (60 killed in one fire in
2017). Had these been native and diverse trees, the fires would not spread as
far and as rapidly as they do now.

------
shakyshakyshaky
It seems to me that planting historically native trees would be best for
preserving cultural landscapes and identity. Ireland is absolutely beautiful,
but the sheer breadth of deforested rocky landscape now being used for sheep
pastures is depressing.

~~~
cf141q5325
Sure if you are willing to invest that much into preserving the cultural
landscape and identity. The trees planted there are chosen to be as
economically viable as possible. Without that aspect the program might not get
implemented.

------
dharma1
Reforestation is clearly great, but it feels like we are still figuring out
better alternatives to monoculture tree farming and clear cutting

------
tomohawk
Ireland was deforested by the British, who needed wood for ships and wood to
burn (industrial revolution before coal). It was also deforested in an attempt
to quell the Irish attempts at independence. With no forests to hide in, it's
harder to fight against an army. Prior to this, Ireland was heavily forested.

With no wood, Irish began to burn peat (their own soil) for heat and cooking.
Eventually there was famine and a mass exodus.

The soil is now markedly different, and requires trees that can tolerate the
ph.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Ireland was mostly defeorested before the British even arrived. Though having
arrived they did indeed make it worse.

~~~
dalbasal
That depends on who/what you consider "British" and what you consider
"arrival."

Is it the first time Viking/Germanic/scandi lowlanders permanently migrated,
the first time normans take control of those settlements or the first time
"English" lords displaced Gaelic speaking ones outside of cities and trade
centres.

Not sure strongbow was (a) British or (b) responsible for land use outside of
his east coast enclaves.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Well I don't consider the Norman invaders of Britain and Ireland either
British or English (or Irish!). That necessarily comes later. It took 300
years for the ruling class to even share the same language, sticking to Norman
French.... English were the subjugated who were tending the field and cow for
producing the ruler's french beef (bœuf). They still thought themselves French
until the wars of succession.

Danish adventures don't really count either, even with the Danelaw in parts of
Britain.

So we have to get to the time of the early English adventures around the 1600s
for it to make a lot of sense, though it certainly does before British being a
concept with the Scottish Act of Union uniting Britain.

TL;DR it's complicated. :)

~~~
dalbasal
Lately, we've been calling them cambronormans. Turns out they were Welsh.

------
jonpo
we have a once in a millenium chance to rebalance our landscapes and
ecosystems towards biodiversity. A spruce monocrop wont help.

------
RocketSyntax
I can attest from Glendalough that these trees grow extremely close together.

------
aurizon
It is more important that large volumes of biomass be grown to soak up CO2
than it is to build the idyllic fairey glens of old. The countries with air
forces should think seriously about destroying thermal coal/oil/gas plants all
over the globe that make electricity. Going forward we will need
nuclear(preferably thorium based) or fusion(if we ever figure it out?) along
with solar/wind/wave to save humanities collective ass The stupidity of that
new coal mine in Australia.....

------
ralusek
I know that this is a serious article, but there's something very funny about
something that is:

a.) combatting climate change effectively

b.) generating wealth

and

c.) creating a degree of variety and beauty

being shot down because a bunch of Irishmen think the forests are spooky and
depressing. If my googling of these forests is accurate, they're actually
pleasant looking forests.

~~~
jqgatsby
I agree with you 100%, ralusek. This sounds like a particularly infantile form
of nimbyism to me. Apologies to the folks living there that the forests suck,
but with the fate of the planet at stake you get very little of my sympathy.
Yes, in the long run, let's plant something more pleasant, but we are dealing
with an immediate climate crisis and your concern about the view and local
walkability are just not important compared to that.

If these shitty trees do the best job of quickly soaking up carbon, then
that's what should be planted. It's not about you.

~~~
dr_dshiv
The unsympathetic tone of your argument makes me want to take a position
against you, regardless of your rationale. I don't think that provoking
opposition is your intention -- so consider this as constructive feedback on
your rhetorical style.

