Two years ago, Bord Fβilte was able to announce that over the course of the previous decade, the number of annual overseas visitors to Ireland had more than doubled to reach a record of 6.3 million. In 2001, due to concerns over foot-and-mouth disease in the spring and fears of recession in the autumn, that figure dropped by approximately five per cent. Nevertheless, last year our foreign exchange earnings from tourism rose by around the same percentage to a new high of just over €3.8 billion.
Globally, tourism is becoming a steadily larger and more competitive business, but are we Irish doing enough to protect our share of the market? Specifically, are we providing tourists with the experience they have been led to expect when booking their visit to this country?
A recent letter published in The Irish Times suggests not. Last month, Americans Joan and Harold Seamon returned to this country for the first time in 10 years. They were not happy with what they saw, summarised in their letter as "the evident destruction of the rural landscape" through the construction of "new nondescript and 'trophy' houses that tarnish the countryside which you in Ireland have been so fortunate to inherit".
Towards the close of their letter, the Seamons warned that such development should not be allowed to continue "if Ireland is to retain its allure for both its own citizens and the many American citizens who, like us, plan to visit the beautiful Irish countryside. Should the current rate of destruction continue, we would not return".
Speaking from her home in Williamsburg, Virginia last week, Joan Seamon stressed that the views expressed by herself and her husband were not theirs alone but had met with general agreement among the people they spoke to when here in March. "What especially struck us on this trip to Ireland were the enormous 'trophy' houses in the countryside that didn't seem to fit in to the landscape or to follow any Irish architectural style. I definitely think they're a tourist turn-off. My husband and I have been hiking through Tuscany and we've seen a lot of new building there, but all in the style of the region. That doesn't seem to happen in Ireland."
At the moment, the application of planning regulations in rural Ireland is a contentious issue, especially in the western counties where many local residents believe they are no longer permitted to build new homes for themselves. However, the risk is that if these houses were constructed, they could destroy the familiar appearance of the landscape and also deter tourists from visiting the country.
Although housing development is much in the news at present, concern over its potential negative impact on our tourist industry has been aired for some time. The most obvious difficulty in this area is that current planning legislation does not distinguish between parts of the countryside which are of exceptional natural beauty worthy of preservation and those which would not be damaged by development. As a result, places visited by large numbers of overseas tourists enjoy no special protection when it comes to applications from local residents to build in the vicinity.
Almost three years ago, in Bord Fβilte's own publication Link, Gaye Moynihan of Donegal Co Council remarked on the lack here of a "national landscape policy framework" within which each local authority could establish relevant policies. She then posed the question "What type of rural landscape do we want?" According to Moynihan, whatever the eventual type, it should "recognise that some parts of the rural landscape which we have inherited are worthy of passing on to future generations in a relatively unchanged way . . . The need for a national landscape policy framework and particularly some form of national recognition system for our most valuable landscapes are increasingly recognised."
The same point is made by Sean Browne, who worked for Bord Fβilte for 25 years and is now an independent tourism consultant. Having advised around 20 countries on the development of their tourist business in recent years, Browne sees that a crucial weakness in Ireland is the want of statutory protection for certain parts of the countryside. At the moment, there is a small number of State-owned properties which have been designated national parks and where no development is possible.
Sean Browne believes that in addition "there are a very large number of other landscape areas around Ireland which are of great value; we need to give them a second tier of protection because at present all planning applications are judged on the same standard criteria. A lot of other countries have recognised the necessity of doing this, whereby parts of the landscape are given special status under planning acts."
Browne appreciates that, given the high value placed on land ownership in this country, winning acceptance for such legislation would be "extremely difficult" but insists that "this is a case where leadership is needed from the State". Persuading the electorate to accept that certain areas, even if in private ownership, should be subjected to especially rigorous planning legislation, is undoubtedly going to be a major challenge and it may be that, instead of this occurring, the expectations of potential visitors to Ireland will have to be changed.
It could be argued that our tourist industry has done too good a job in selling Ireland as a haven of unspoilt landscape. In the 1930s, Paul Henry's idyllic images used by tour operators encouraged a vision of idyllic countryside. This image of the Irish landscape contains expanses of unadorned field and mountain interrupted only by the occasional white-washed cottage. Current tourism campaigns continue to sell this image - although much has changed in many parts of rural Ireland. Joan and Harold Seamon accept that this Rousseauesque vision of Ireland "may be unrealistic, but still when you have that wonderful treasure, not to be able to treasure it would be a pity - it would just be so nice if there were some sense of planning".
The Seamons' disappointment with their visit here was based not just on excessive amounts of building in the Irish countryside but also inappropriate development and this point is made also by Pat Dargan, a lecturer in physical planning and tourism at the Dublin Institute of Technology. He observes that many visitors here comment on the number of old houses left abandoned next to large bungalows, owing to grants being available for the construction of new houses but not for the refurbishment of their precursors. But Dargan also believes that one of the great blights on the Irish countryside is "the proliferation of inappropriate houses with no reference to traditional forms, materials or colours - in other words, our problem is the bungalow blitz". In many long-established holiday areas, additional grants and tax incentives have led to the creation of "what are strictly urban forms in rural settings; you essentially have town streets in the countryside".
Pat Dargan says such development "is potentially damaging for our tourist industry. One of the main reasons people come here is to see our traditional unspoilt landscape and that's not what they're getting".
Unfortunately, no research has been undertaken on this subject, there are no official statistics on the effect of development on tourism here and at the moment the only information available is in the form of letters from the likes of Joan and Harold Seamon after they have returned, disappointed, from a holiday in Ireland. But there is growing awareness that over-building in the countryside may be detrimental to the tourist industry.
According to Donal Guilfoyle of Bord Fβilte, that organisation "is concerned about the gradual erosion of our natural environment. Our landscape is fragile. Building in it must, therefore, be carefully controlled, not alone for tourism but for future generations of Irish to enjoy".
"We love Ireland so much," remarks Joan Seamon. "We'd just hate to see hideous over-development take place."
