“Prejudice should not exclude foreign trees; the question is whether they will grow well as forest trees.” Augustin Henry

When the 2023 Forestry Strategy proposed an afforestation programmes of at least 50% native species, it did so without any scientific or research basis. The strategy contains no analysis of national land availability for forestry and its suitability for growing quality native species.

There is no social or economic rationale behind the decision and certainly no marketing justification – short- or long-term – for most native species. The ecological reasoning is also unsound as it is devoid of analysis of soil types to support a major native tree afforestation programme.

The strategy runs counter to Prof Cathal O’Donoghue’s recent study The Economics of Afforestation and Management in Ireland: Future Prospects and Plans.

It also ignores the findings of Dr David Styles in two crucial studies which he co-authored: Harnessing the Forest Carbon Life Cycle for Climate Neutrality and Commercial Afforestation can Deliver Effective Climate Change Mitigation Under Multiple Decarbonisation Pathways. It references Ireland’s Climate Action Plan which calls for species that will displace fossil based material in building construction to help Ireland achieve net zero by 2050.

Conifers will play a major role in cement, brick and steel substitution by mid-century and beyond while broadleaves will play no role in this sector even by the middle of the next century in climate. Conifers will also play a major role in renewable energy, just as they are in climate leading countries such as Sweden and Denmark.

Nobody disputes the argument that native species are needed, and make for a more diverse forestry programme but apart from Coillte’s pledge to achieve a 50% native tree afforestation programme, there is no analysis that a 50:50, future indigenous-introduced species mix will be the “right trees in the right places for the right reasons” especially for private forest owners.

Against this background, it’s hard to escape the reasoning behind the 50% native species goal; that it is emotionally rather than scientifically based.

The strategy never asks the question why Ireland, unlike Europe, has been more reliant on introduced rather than native species. The answer is outlined in Table 1.

While we like to think that we have an abundance of native trees, shrubs and other vascular plants, we don’t. Unlike European foresters, who have between three and 10 native timber producing conifers to choose from depending on the country. Ireland has one. Likewise European countries have eight quality native broadleaves to choose from while Ireland has two.

If, like Europe and the US, we had an abundance of native species, there would be no argument for not planting them. We are fortunate however, in having the climate and sites to grow the highest yielding forests in Europe.

The big advantage Ireland has over other European countries is its ability to grow every species listed in Table 1 and more productively than in their native regions.

Diversifying

Climate change is now forcing countries to increase forest cover and sustainably manage existing forests. This means diversifying tree species and in some instances looking outside native species.

For example, some European foresters are looking to Douglas fir as a replacement to their damaged Norway spruce forests, while Portugal is experimenting with non-native red oak on former drought-affected farmland.

If there is a message in the current Forestry Strategy, it is to diversify which has ecological and economic benefits.

This should include diversification of native, naturalised and introduced species with clear environmental, social and economic goals, supported by research.

Foresters, farmers and other landowners have an innovative role to play in establishing more diverse forests. But the ultimate goal should be to produce quality forests and not let prejudice dictate tree species selection as Augustine Henry advised over a century ago.

Why has the opposition to introduced species focused on forestry but doesn’t exist in agriculture, horticulture, and gardening? Conservation projects to restore the Kerry, Dexter and Droimeann cattle breeds are laudable, but nobody is suggesting that these breeds should form a major component of Ireland’s dairy and beef herds.

The same argument applies to native food sources including the potato which only became the staple diet throughout Ireland by the 1780s.

Nor does the ‘natives only’ debate apply to gardening. Our gardens are awash with overseas colour from azaleas to camellias and rhododendrons to viburnums. Even the beloved lilac and fuchsia are non-native.

At what stage does an introduced species become accepted? There should be no issue with naturalised broadleaves like beech, sycamore and sweet chestnut.

But these are also precluded from the native species tree list even though there should be no issue with accommodating them.

In the case of conifers, with the exception of Scots pine, the time scale is shorter, but the visual impact is greater. Although species such as Norway spruce and European larch have been grown in Ireland since the 1700s and Sitka spruce and Douglas fir since the 1830s, they have only been planted extensively as forest trees since the middle of the last century.

The overreliance of Sitka spruce has influenced the native versus non-native debate, even though it accounts for little more than 5% of the land area.

The solution lies in species diversity including broadleaves and commercial species with climate change mitigation as a central objective. This will require diverse conifers including Douglas fir, Norway spruce, Sitka spruce, and our only native softwood – Scots pine – if forestry is to play its part as the most important land use in helping Ireland achieve net zero by 2050 as outlined in successive climate plans.