Machine Nation

Irish Politics Forum - Politics Technology Economics in Ireland - A Look Under The Nation's Bonnet


Devilish machinations come to naught --Milton
 
PortalPortal  HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  GalleryGallery  MACHINENATION.org  

Share | 
 

 Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Wed May 21, 2008 10:46 am

Petition online here regarding sale of land by Coillte - I found another group elsewhere complaining about Coillte - anyone know anything about them as they seem to be a loose cannon around the place, selling land and chopping down trees left right and centre.

http://www.petitiononline.com/rfpii/petition.html
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Wed May 21, 2008 3:16 pm

did you read the story about coillte to having not giving any of its profits to the gov for the last 15 years!
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Thu May 22, 2008 3:10 am

lostexpectation wrote:
did you read the story about coillte to having not giving any of its profits to the gov for the last 15 years!
The Soapbox Ireland blogspot has a story on it as you can see

http://soapboxireland.blogspot.com/2008/05/coillte-has-made-no-payments-to.html
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Fri May 23, 2008 1:38 pm

Coillte are selling off my local forest for a quarry.

Moyode is a substantial forest and is home to red squirrels.
http://www.savemoyodewood.com/
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Fri May 23, 2008 4:26 pm

Coillte are a semi state organisation that was given ownership of Irelands extensive forestry lands. They have always repeated that they are legally obliged to operate on a profit making basis. I presume the Dail could revisit the terms of their operation ?

Local County Development Plans could adopt policy to protect these woods by amendment of the plan. Local councillors propose and vote on these amendments. Quarries also require planning permission and you should use to the full the timeframe for objections and appeals if you disagree with what it proposed. It is important to do things by the correct date, correct fee etc. or you will get nowhere.

Who is the responsible Minister ?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Fri May 23, 2008 4:29 pm

I think this falls under agriculture. A chance for the new fella to make his position on squirrels clear.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Fri May 23, 2008 4:30 pm

cactus flower wrote:
Local County Development Plans could adopt policy to protect these woods by amendment of the plan. Local councillors propose and vote on these amendments. Quarries also require planning permission and you should use to the full the timeframe for objections and appeals if you disagree with what it proposed. It is important to do things by the correct date, correct fee etc. or you will get nowhere.

Who is the responsible Minister ?
The company has two shareholders, I think. The minister for Agriculture and the minister for Finance.

Good points regarding planning permission and the CDP.
I've made a submission on the County Development Plan regarding recognising Moyode as an amenity.
I don't think planning permission has been applied for yet.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:55 pm

Thanks to Vega1447 on p.ie for finding this Fintan O'Toole article today in the Irish Times -
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=164&t=40544

Forestry policy appears as thick as two short planks

He starts:
Quote :
NOW THAT the boom is over, we have to reflect on two questions. What resources do we have? And how can we use them in a way that is both economically and environmentally sustainable?

These are pretty basic questions - but in the euphoria of the last decade, we've pretty much ignored them. The madness that has resulted is probably best illustrated by the example of forestry.
and we've been banging on about this for a while now, forestry as an asset because what other assets and natural resources do we have besides wind, rain and grass? Why the hell aren't we building more forests because there are good grants out there from the EU, we have a lot of wasted shite bogland that could be planted, trees would grow quickly and well here and could be used to offset imports of wood which I'm sure we do, not to mention that the world could be on the brink of natural disasters of serious magnitudes due to climate change or just energy shortages through depletion and it might be nice to have a lot of burnable, boat-building materials on our doorsteps....

Apparently this country is refusing to take money for forestry - O'Toole goes on
Quote :
Why on earth would we be doing this? There are two probable answers. One is that the 100 per cent grant scheme delivers larger subsidies to farmers, with less need to justify spending. Since no one has to come up with the other 20 per cent of the cost, there's no need to ask about the long-term viability or sustainability of what's being done.

But the other reason is that the EU money would come with some strings attached. There would have to be proper standards of environmental management and accountability.

If you get EU money to plant trees, you have to submit to annual independent monitoring of the effects on, for example, the quality of water in lakes and rivers. (Inappropriate planting acidifies water courses and leads to the overuse of polluting chemicals.)

The names of those receiving grants have to be placed in the public domain. And the State is supposed to have a set of published standards for the proper management of the forests.

And why would the Government not want all of these worthy things? Because it has failed to apply any serious notion of either sustainability or accountability to the development of forestry policy. It established Coillte 20 years ago as the largest landowner in Ireland, but gave it a purely short-term commercial mandate.


Is this O'Toole imposing his own view on the reality which could be a lot different? Maybe there is some genuine reason that all that lovely bog I often see here in Clare (which has one of the better rates of forestation of any county, I understand) is not being planted by farmers who really and truly have genuine reasons for not planting? Do woodlands harbour all sorts of anti-farmer livestock life that plays havoc with the stewards of our soil? Shouldn't our national body, Coillte not aid farmers in planting their otherwise worthless land and more broadly, oversee some kind of restoration of Ireland's native tree population which could be useful if maintained sustainably and would be sitting there looking pretty for tourists and locals when not in use? Thus it would be at least a double asset if not more - don't forests count as CO2 offsetters? Why isn't Coillte doing this? Who tf is Coillte anyway and what are they doing?

Quote :
Bizarrely, Coillte (whose only shareholders are the ministers for finance and agriculture) proclaims itself a private company, with no obligations under, for example, the Freedom of Information Act. Coillte's policy has been to cover the 1.1 million acres it owns with cheap, low-grade, non-native sitka spruce which, with other imported conifers, make up 77 per cent of its stock.

According to its last published annual report, for 2006, it planted 8,621 hectares, just 117 of them with native trees.

In economic terms, this means that Ireland, which has some of the world's best conditions for growing trees, is locked in to the mass production of very basic timber.

I don't know an awful lot about timber, woods and forests in general but I know that those woodlands that we are planting are shite if you want to mountainbike through them. They are also unpleasant to look at and weird if you want to camp in or even near them. They have other properties though ...

Quote :
In environmental terms, the consequences are even worse. The landscape is covered with an ugly and unnatural monoculture that has disastrous effects on biodiversity. These forests are then clear-felled - an industrial process that leaves acidic soil, stripped of nutrients and subject to the kind of erosion and landslides that are becoming semi-regular events.

Why aren't we looking at our forests in terms of their use and beauty rather than simply in terms of money?

Quote :
And if the profit margins are too low, Coillte simply sells off forested land to private companies - Shell in Co Mayo, for example. In 2006, it sold 373 hectares of forest to private developers, mostly for housing and other commercial activities. It further declared its intention to step up the sale of its lands to "key industry participants" for quarrying.

So while the State is giving farmers grants to turn farmland into forests, the State forestry agency is balancing its books by turning forestry into development land.

It's a bizarre mystery - are we just bog ignorant or is it back to greed, money and land for housing? We just don't care about our outdoors once we have a good enough indoors, do we? "An Irishman's house is his coffin" - at least we have the industrial wood to make those.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:02 pm

Quote :
According to its last published annual report, for 2006, it planted 8,621 hectares, just 117 of them with native trees.

That's terrible.

Walk through these forests of conifers. They are sterile, with little or no bird-life.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:05 pm

Auditor #9 wrote:
Maybe there is some genuine reason that all that lovely bog I often see here in Clare (which has one of the better rates of forestation of any county, I understand) is not being planted by farmers who really and truly have genuine reasons for not planting?
I know farmers in Meath who think planting trees there, on the finest agricultural land in the country, is a sin.
As for the bad land of Galway or Clare, I'm not sure why there isn't more forest.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:15 pm

Do tyou know how the Green Party views Coillte and could you say what the party policies for forestry are, eoin? I must look into this a bit more now.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:17 pm

Auditor #9 wrote:
Do tyou know how the Green Party views Coillte and could you say what the party policies for forestry are, Eoin?
Not a clue.

Except that locally we (the Green Party) are campaigning for Coillte to be prevented from selling Moyode Woods to a quarrying company.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:24 pm

eoinmn wrote:
Auditor #9 wrote:
Do tyou know how the Green Party views Coillte and could you say what the party policies for forestry are, Eoin?
Not a clue.

Except that locally we (the Green Party) are campaigning for Coillte to be prevented from selling Moyode Woods to a quarrying company.
Is this in Athenry? I think I heard a report about it on Pat Kenny's radio programme one morning. Is there a FG senator - a woman - heavily involved in this too?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:27 pm

Correct.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames (FG) may be involved, but I've not heard.
I have heard that Cllr Vincent Feeney (FG) is getting involved, to protect the woods.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:28 pm

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:11 pm

eoinmn wrote:
http://www.savemoyodewood.com

The main thing here is to use the planning processes to the full - if you don't and then protest afterwoods it is **** in the wind. Also, Coille interpret the legislation that set them up as meaning that their bottom line is money, and they have no social or community responsibilities. This legislation may need to be amended to allow for community and sustainability responsibilites to be considered when they make their plans.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 6:33 pm

did you know that forestry falls under IAS41 where fair value gains are brought to revenue reserves.

as trees grow, so does its fair value, from the price of the seed to the price of raw timber.

gains in FV of biological assets, if classified shrewdly, could offset falls in investments (such as bonds, equities and the like).

furthermore, carbon credits from planting a forest could be traded generating an annual return.

so, the gains (capital appreciation) could offset investment losses, and could in turn generate a return on investment. a win win strategy.

furthermore, as a bank/corporation, you could win serious kudos from greens/govt for doing something that'll help your bottom line and protect shareholders investment.

anyone any thoughts on my proposal?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:06 pm

zakalwe wrote:
did you know that forestry falls under IAS41 where fair value gains are brought to revenue reserves.

as trees grow, so does its fair value, from the price of the seed to the price of raw timber.

gains in FV of biological assets, if classified shrewdly, could offset falls in investments (such as bonds, equities and the like).

furthermore, carbon credits from planting a forest could be traded generating an annual return.

so, the gains (capital appreciation) could offset investment losses, and could in turn generate a return on investment. a win win strategy.

furthermore, as a bank/corporation, you could win serious kudos from greens/govt for doing something that'll help your bottom line and protect shareholders investment.

anyone any thoughts on my proposal?

er, what's "fair value gains" precious? is this part of the national accounts or exchequer funds or rather, forestry could be counted as an income even if it's in private hands?

Do you know how the EU in general treats their forests?

Overall your proposal is to get the private sector into investing in woodland - it might be hard to do this unless there was a significant return so you'd imagine the state would have to be in charge of forests.

However if the value of carbon offsets was significant then a business might be into it - or if it was to generate serious Goodwill for a Corporation...
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:18 pm

Auditor #9 wrote:
zakalwe wrote:
did you know that forestry falls under IAS41 where fair value gains are brought to revenue reserves.

as trees grow, so does its fair value, from the price of the seed to the price of raw timber.

gains in FV of biological assets, if classified shrewdly, could offset falls in investments (such as bonds, equities and the like).

furthermore, carbon credits from planting a forest could be traded generating an annual return.

so, the gains (capital appreciation) could offset investment losses, and could in turn generate a return on investment. a win win strategy.

furthermore, as a bank/corporation, you could win serious kudos from greens/govt for doing something that'll help your bottom line and protect shareholders investment.

anyone any thoughts on my proposal?

er, what's "fair value gains" precious? is this part of the national accounts or exchequer funds or rather, forestry could be counted as an income even if it's in private hands?

Do you know how the EU in general treats their forests?

Overall your proposal is to get the private sector into investing in woodland - it might be hard to do this unless there was a significant return so you'd imagine the state would have to be in charge of forests.

However if the value of carbon offsets was significant then a business might be into it - or if it was to generate serious Goodwill for a Corporation...

fair value gain is a gain in the market price of an asset thats valued at fair value. gains/losses in FV are brought to Revenue Reserves on a company's balance sheet, recycled through equity rather than through the profit&loss account.

since everybody's revenue reserves are tanking (due to investments such as bonds, securities, equities etc falling in value), a way to "offset" the fall in bad investments may be to plant some trees. the valuation of trees has been a hard one to calculate so you could pretty much invent your own valuation (as some swedish companies are doing as we speak). therefore the falls in revenue reserves due to sub prime exposure and bad investments could be cancelled out by increases in the values of your trees. creative (and ecological!) accounting!!!!

and to top it off you can sell your carbon credits and gain the admiration of gormleys everywhere!

win win for your company!
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:25 pm

zakalwe wrote:
Auditor #9 wrote:
zakalwe wrote:
did you know that forestry falls under IAS41 where fair value gains are brought to revenue reserves.

as trees grow, so does its fair value, from the price of the seed to the price of raw timber.

gains in FV of biological assets, if classified shrewdly, could offset falls in investments (such as bonds, equities and the like).

furthermore, carbon credits from planting a forest could be traded generating an annual return.

so, the gains (capital appreciation) could offset investment losses, and could in turn generate a return on investment. a win win strategy.

furthermore, as a bank/corporation, you could win serious kudos from greens/govt for doing something that'll help your bottom line and protect shareholders investment.

anyone any thoughts on my proposal?

er, what's "fair value gains" precious? is this part of the national accounts or exchequer funds or rather, forestry could be counted as an income even if it's in private hands?

Do you know how the EU in general treats their forests?

Overall your proposal is to get the private sector into investing in woodland - it might be hard to do this unless there was a significant return so you'd imagine the state would have to be in charge of forests.

However if the value of carbon offsets was significant then a business might be into it - or if it was to generate serious Goodwill for a Corporation...

fair value gain is a gain in the market price of an asset thats valued at fair value. gains/losses in FV are brought to Revenue Reserves on a company's balance sheet, recycled through equity rather than through the profit&loss account.

since everybody's revenue reserves are tanking (due to investments such as bonds, securities, equities etc falling in value), a way to "offset" the fall in bad investments may be to plant some trees. the valuation of trees has been a hard one to calculate so you could pretty much invent your own valuation (as some swedish companies are doing as we speak). therefore the falls in revenue reserves due to sub prime exposure and bad investments could be cancelled out by increases in the values of your trees. creative (and ecological!) accounting!!!!

and to top it off you can sell your carbon credits and gain the admiration of gormleys everywhere!

win win for your company!

Planting forestry has been heavily grant aided for the last decade or so - lump sum, and a premium - but the trees must be looked after and grow, and I wonder has this happened everywhere. The carbon capture by trees is only temporary as it is given up again as the tree rots or burns at the end of its life. A big increase in overall forestry is still worth doing right now. Irish trees grow at the speed of light. The timber is not great quality because of that but its good enough for burning. Trees along streets have been proven to promote more walking and less car trips. Fruit trees and nut trees give us food. I agree with Zakalwe - win win win.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:38 pm

cactus flower wrote:
zakalwe wrote:
Auditor #9 wrote:
zakalwe wrote:
did you know that forestry falls under IAS41 where fair value gains are brought to revenue reserves.

as trees grow, so does its fair value, from the price of the seed to the price of raw timber.

gains in FV of biological assets, if classified shrewdly, could offset falls in investments (such as bonds, equities and the like).

furthermore, carbon credits from planting a forest could be traded generating an annual return.

so, the gains (capital appreciation) could offset investment losses, and could in turn generate a return on investment. a win win strategy.

furthermore, as a bank/corporation, you could win serious kudos from greens/govt for doing something that'll help your bottom line and protect shareholders investment.

anyone any thoughts on my proposal?

er, what's "fair value gains" precious? is this part of the national accounts or exchequer funds or rather, forestry could be counted as an income even if it's in private hands?

Do you know how the EU in general treats their forests?

Overall your proposal is to get the private sector into investing in woodland - it might be hard to do this unless there was a significant return so you'd imagine the state would have to be in charge of forests.

However if the value of carbon offsets was significant then a business might be into it - or if it was to generate serious Goodwill for a Corporation...

fair value gain is a gain in the market price of an asset thats valued at fair value. gains/losses in FV are brought to Revenue Reserves on a company's balance sheet, recycled through equity rather than through the profit&loss account.

since everybody's revenue reserves are tanking (due to investments such as bonds, securities, equities etc falling in value), a way to "offset" the fall in bad investments may be to plant some trees. the valuation of trees has been a hard one to calculate so you could pretty much invent your own valuation (as some swedish companies are doing as we speak). therefore the falls in revenue reserves due to sub prime exposure and bad investments could be cancelled out by increases in the values of your trees. creative (and ecological!) accounting!!!!

and to top it off you can sell your carbon credits and gain the admiration of gormleys everywhere!

win win for your company!

Planting forestry has been heavily grant aided for the last decade or so - lump sum, and a premium - but the trees must be looked after and grow, and I wonder has this happened everywhere. The carbon capture by trees is only temporary as it is given up again as the tree rots or burns at the end of its life. A big increase in overall forestry is still worth doing right now. Irish trees grow at the speed of light. The timber is not great quality because of that but its good enough for burning. Trees along streets have been proven to promote more walking and less car trips. Fruit trees and nut trees give us food. I agree with Zakalwe - win win win.

i agree, but you're missing my devilish masterstroke. Twisted Evil

imagine for a minute, if you will, you're the chairman of bear stearns. you're facing a billion dollar hole in your accounts and your bank is circling the drain. you had an idea 5 years previously to buy some cheap land in louisiana and plant trees. suddenly you adopt ias41 (agriculture), you'r billion dollar hole is now a whole lot smaller. 5 years later bear stearns still exists and hasn't had to be nationalised and sold to morgan stanly for a tenth of its value.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:49 pm

Would'n't that have to be an awful lot of trees? Still I like the idea and I even have a funny feeling that I read about an Irish firm doing something similar.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:54 pm

cactus flower wrote:
Would'n't that have to be an awful lot of trees? Still I like the idea and I even have a funny feeling that I read about an Irish firm doing something similar.
And what's a set of trees and a forest worth anyway? A lot to me but on a balance sheet of an investment bank ...
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Wed Sep 03, 2008 11:31 am

Auditor #9 wrote:
cactus flower wrote:
Would'n't that have to be an awful lot of trees? Still I like the idea and I even have a funny feeling that I read about an Irish firm doing something similar.
And what's a set of trees and a forest worth anyway? A lot to me but on a balance sheet of an investment bank ...

thats the beaut!

no one can really value the "move in fair value" of a seed to sapling to tree. therefore, you pretty much can value it anyway yourself, its not as if the auditors will have aborologists qualified in valuing a forest!
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:04 pm

zakalwe wrote:
Auditor #9 wrote:
cactus flower wrote:
Would'n't that have to be an awful lot of trees? Still I like the idea and I even have a funny feeling that I read about an Irish firm doing something similar.
And what's a set of trees and a forest worth anyway? A lot to me but on a balance sheet of an investment bank ...

thats the beaut!

no one can really value the "move in fair value" of a seed to sapling to tree. therefore, you pretty much can value it anyway yourself, its not as if the auditors will have aborologists qualified in valuing a forest!
I don't really understand this one because surely there are laws governing how a business values its assets and investments? There must be a ballpark value applied to a hectare ?? Doesn't this kind of thing go on in the U.S. ?
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?   

Back to top Go down
 
Did someone say 'Forestry Thread'?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 Similar topics
-
» The Italian Thread
» The Tarot Collectors Thread
» Most viewed thread to date
» The crafters topic- post your handiwork here! ( non grazing thread!!)
» The Korean language thread.

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Machine Nation  :: Machine Nation :: Agriculture and Food-
Jump to: