An Taisce has always exercised its independence, but now it's feeling the heat, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor
Few organisations have been so demonised by politicians at every level as An Taisce. It has been turned into a sort of national whipping boy for having the cheek to stand in the way of development - and, worse still, for citing public policy as its reason for doing so.
The most recent broadside was delivered by Dick Roche, Minister of State for Europe, who conjured up images of Robespierre by branding it as an unaccountable directoire. Previous epithets include arrogant, elitist, dictatorial, faceless, undemocratic and even Ku Klux Klan.
"We've become very topical," one An Taisce stalwart wryly remarks. But the pressure has been so intense that it sparked off a row within the organisation between those who wanted to soldier on against the odds and those who favoured a tactical withdrawal of sorts.
The trust had been receiving €70,000 a year in public funding but that arrangement came to an end on December 31st, 2003 - "it's not the taxpayers' job to pay salaries," according to a spokesman for the Minister for the Environment, Martin Cullen - and An Taisce responded by letting go its natural environment officer and public relations officer. Many members saw this as a wrong turn by the trust's national chair, Stephanie Bourke, who had been elected last September offering a new approach. "We've been perhaps too associated with the planning issue. I would be more in favour of bringing people together," she said then.
Last weekend, Bourke stepped down from her post "as a measure of goodwill and to enable a renewed focus on growth". Afterwards, An Taisce's 52-member national council agreed unanimously on a number of motions reaffirming its commitment to stay active in the planning arena.
To make up for the loss of Government funding, the trust is appealing directly to the public for money to re-employ Shirley Clerkin as natural environment officer and to continue the work of others, notably Ian Lumley, heritage and planning officer, who has incurred the wrath of developers.
"Letting go essential staff like the natural environment officer was not authorised by council and they reversed that decision," says Frank Corcoran, who has taken over as acting chair. "We need to be able to participate properly in oral hearings on landfill and incinerator proposals, for example."
Recently, An Taisce won a contract from the European Commission's environment directorate to monitor implementation of EU environmental legislation in Ireland. It has also been approaching wealthy individuals who are concerned about conserving Ireland's landscape.
The €70,000 in Government funding was to enable the trust to perform its role as a "prescribed body" under the 2000 Planning Act, which involves a very laborious job monitoring planning applications for developments that would affect amenities, heritage areas and natural habitats.
Prescribed bodies have one advantage over members of the public - they are entitled to be consulted by local authorities on proposed developments affecting their areas of interest. Others with the same status include the Arts Council, Fáilte Ireland and the National Roads Authority (NRA).
One of the main reasons An Taisce now finds itself in the firing line is that it's the only prescribed body which regularly exercises its right not just to make submissions to local authorities on planning applications but to lodge appeals with An Bord Pleanála in significant cases.
Incredibly, the NRA has never lodged an appeal. Though obliged to maintain the integrity of national primary and secondary routes, it has done nothing to stop the proliferation of potentially dangerous driveways for one-off houses, apart from making observations and issuing circulars.
Asked why the NRA doesn't appeal in cases where a local authority ignores its views, a spokesman said: "We're a small body and we wouldn't have the resources." But An Taisce, which is a fraction of its size, says the NRA's failure to defend road safety on this front costs lives as well as money.
Apart from accidents which are directly attributable to the traffic hazard associated with driveways, it will cost an estimated €90 million to build a new road to replace the N22 between Killarney and Farranfore in Co Kerry because it has become too peppered with housing to be widened.
It's been years since Fáilte Ireland (formerly Bord Fáilte) lodged an appeal, even in cases where sensitive scenic areas are under threat. And the Heritage Council, which used to lodge a few, took - in the words of one insider - "a policy decision to be polite" after seeing Dúchas bite the dust last year.
Dúchas has been absorbed by the Department of the Environment, now merely functioning as its heritage section, and the Minister takes a close interest in how its officials exercise their planning functions. In 2003, he permitted five appeals to be lodged with An Bord Pleanála and vetoed five others.
Regional fisheries boards, also prescribed bodies, are playing a less active role in appealing cases where water quality is at risk. Even the North Western Fisheries Board, which used to be the most vigilant, has reduced the number of appeals it takes.
An Taisce may be feeling the heat, but it has no intention of getting out of the kitchen. As the only prescribed body which is truly independent of Government, it has decided to soldier on, fighting what it sees as the good fight to uphold the common good rather than the short-term gain of vested interests.
"The reason we take so many appeals to An Bord Pleanála is that local authorities often don't comply with their own development plans, regional planning guidelines, national policy and EU directives. It's as if none of them was ever meant to be taken seriously," says a spokesman. "Because it's at the heart of Irish culture to have a whole set of guidelines, policies and regulations to protect the environment, water quality, the landscape, our architectural and archaeological heritage, regional planning and so on, without ever having any intention of complying with them.
"So we're in the unenviable position of monitoring the effects on a national basis and highlighting some of the worst examples. It's not something that's likely to make us popular, because there's no political or even public demand for rules to be enforced. But somebody has to do it."
An Taisce can be "nobbled" only if its prescribed status under the Planning Act is withdrawn. And if the Government was to do that, as Dick Roche and others have proposed, it would be signalling clearly which side it is really on in the struggle between sustainable and unsustainable development.