Heritage; it's one of those awkward emotive words, like history - a painful reality Irish people tended to ignore, confront. Heritage seems to make people nervous, particularly in the Brave New World of Ireland Inc where every tract of empty land is a potential building site. It also makes them angry, writes Eileen Battersby
It's all very simple: heritage has been reduced to a question of either being for development or against it. It appears we are not very good at heritage - unless of course there is a tourism angle and possible profit. Why are visitors considered more important than citizens?
But it's always been a problem, this business of preserving what we are, what we were. Examples of Ireland and heritage remain dominated by draconian methods adopted to revive the Irish language. The legacy of that well-intentioned project left generations of Irish school children with a passionate hatred of their native tongue. Compulsory Irish may not have ruined lives, but it did ruin many careers.
Almost a century further on and the Irish language still claims minority status. Yet the language, with less than 2 per cent of the population able to speak it - hopefully the census will improve on this figure - is a relative success story compared with other aspects of Ireland's much beleaguered heritage; consider Georgian and Viking Dublin. Why are there so many conflicting planning agendas at war in a heritage city like Kilkenny? Few Irish politicians, could claim to have never been approached on a heritage issue.
While the nation appears to have become obsessed with development and most modern housing estates seem to have been devised off the same set of third-rate plans, local communities battle for the preservation of their heritage - be it in the form of a wood or period building, a ring fort or yet another castle about to be swallowed up by a development.
Career historians and archaeologists are unanimous in praising the contribution of their amateur counterparts, not only in producing valuable research and new sources, but in raising heritage awareness. It is at local level that politicians are approached. That so few of them have been effective in saving either the natural or built heritage is tied to development implications. For every lobby protesting against the development of a golf course in a place of great natural beauty, there is another demanding the right to place that same golf course right there, using the sea views as a dramatic backdrop. Vulnerable ecology has always been sidelined by profit.
One of the multiple ironies left in the wake of Fianna Fáil administrations is that while Charles Haughey implemented heritage policies, his party was behind most of the contentious interpretative centres. Under the guise of providing local employment, interpretative centres such as the one in Mullaghmore, in the Burren, Co Clare - an area of international conservation interest and contained within a national park - split the community. Development, and with it planning permissions, as we know, has been highly political under Fianna Fáil.
Exasperation has forced environmentalists and conservationists to make stronger speeches, and sarcasm surfaces when sheer logic is no longer enough. Destroy today, regret tomorrow.
It is quite true that people do not like being told where they can or can not build, but permission is supposed to be part of the planning process. The problem now is the process itself. People take offence if told they should not install uPVC windows into a period building. This is not an infringement of human rights. It should not be seen even as an issue - under conservation guidelines the integrity of a period building depends on its windows and timber sash being correct.
Owning a period building is a privilege and it is also a responsibility. Anyone intending to remove inappropriate metal or uPVC from a period building to replace the correct sash style requires planning permission. No one could infer conservationists are indulged.
It would seem that now, more than ever, intelligent politicians would be looking towards the heritage lobby, as people become more aware of its significance. Parents are now bringing children to archaeological and heritage sites. This has to be positive. The Heritage Service, Dúchas, is responsible for Ireland's 120,000 recorded national monuments, most of which are on privately owned land. Therefore access is not a right.
Ireland's hill-walkers are finding it increasingly difficult to ramble the countryside. Dogs and horses have long lost freedom of movement in the country. Few dog-owners or horse-riders will take their chances on public roads.
But now even people are fettered. Landowners, especially farmers, are disputing what was an ancient freedom. Keep Ireland Open is a national environmental organisation concerned with access to the countryside. Considering the importance placed on tourism, it is outrageous that no government body is concerned with the admittedly non-paying rights of walkers. Keep Ireland Open has reasonable demands.
1. Freedom to roam over rough grazing land, or about 7 per cent of the country;
2. The introduction of well-marked rights of way in lowland areas;
3. An end to obtrusive fencing in mountain areas as it is ugly and hinders walkers.
David Herman of Keep Ireland Open has written several valuable hill-walking guides to the west coast, yet he told Bord Fáilte last year he would do so no longer as access was prohibited. Farmers in Wicklow have a good relationship with walkers. Elsewhere, particularly in Connemara, Mayo and Sligo, fencing is destroying walking along beaches as well as hills. In Britain, freedom to roam is a right. Legislation has made it such and has throughout every country in north-western Europe.
Documents exist confirming walkers have been intimidated and threatened. Considering that the five national parks account for less than 1 per cent of this country's land and not all State forests are open to the public, Ireland is hardly the paradise of tourism brochures. It is almost four years since Birdwatch Ireland voiced concerns about the increasing loss of access to the natural heritage.
Politicians know the value of heritage. Why don't they do something about it?
Breda O'Brien is on leave