Auditor #9 wrote:

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. ?

the US have rules based accounting, we used to have principles based accounting under old irish gaap. now we have ifrs and a mix between rules and principles. the rules is that trees (as biological assets) must be valued at fair value. what is fair value? for a tree, thats pretty much unknown. therefore you are not breaking the rule by applying your own method of valuing (and using it to offset investment losses). i know of firms in sweden who are increasing the value of their forestry by the increase in the height in the trees, which is quite funny because they don't have someone measuring each and every tree with a measuring tape!

zakalwe wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

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. ?

the US have rules based accounting, we used to have principles based accounting under old irish gaap. now we have ifrs and a mix between rules and principles. the rules is that trees (as biological assets) must be valued at fair value. what is fair value? for a tree, thats pretty much unknown. therefore you are not breaking the rule by applying your own method of valuing (and using it to offset investment losses). i know of firms in sweden who are increasing the value of their forestry by the increase in the height in the trees, which is quite funny because they don't have someone measuring each and every tree with a measuring tape!

I bough to your superior knowledge of this. Have you any links for what's happening in Sweden - it does sound interesting. How do you think it could start to be applied here? Wouldn't businesses already have cottoned on to it?

Auditor #9 wrote:

zakalwe wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

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. ?

the US have rules based accounting, we used to have principles based accounting under old irish gaap. now we have ifrs and a mix between rules and principles. the rules is that trees (as biological assets) must be valued at fair value. what is fair value? for a tree, thats pretty much unknown. therefore you are not breaking the rule by applying your own method of valuing (and using it to offset investment losses). i know of firms in sweden who are increasing the value of their forestry by the increase in the height in the trees, which is quite funny because they don't have someone measuring each and every tree with a measuring tape!

I bough to your superior knowledge of this. Have you any links for what's happening in Sweden - it does sound interesting. How do you think it could start to be applied here? Wouldn't businesses already have cottoned on to it?

true ifrs expertise is thin on the ground. and it takes a certain amount of machavellian mischief to twist the otherwise onorous requirements to your favour. google ias39 and you'll get millions of articles of bellyaching about taking hits to revenue reserves. since these also fall into same category (but different accounting standard) in reserves you can offset your volitility in a positive manner. i doubt the authors of the standards anticipated that though!!!! (when accounting standards drive investment policy (such as mix of portfolios and type of pension schemes we call it "tail wagging the dog"). well this is one against the regulators, one for the shareholders and definitely one for the environment!!!!

from the London Lndo

Quote :

Phase out coal and burn trees instead, urges leading scientist

Current targets on emissions are 'a recipe for global disaster, not salvation'

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 14 September 2008

Phasing out the coal industry and replacing it with wood as fuel will deal with CO2, this NASA guy says and because he's from NASA he must be right.

Quote :

Growing trees, which absorb the gas from the air as they grow, burning them instead of fossil fuels to generate electricity, and capturing and storing the carbon produced in the process is needed to get the greenhouse effect down to safe levels, he says.

Sunday Lindo

If the amount of wood burned is in the right proportion to the amount of forest allowed to stand so that the system could be carbon neutral then isn't this a real method of dealing with CO2 issues than other avenues?

Surely this method is about as effective as using biofuels?

Auditor #9 wrote:

isn't this a real method of dealing with CO2 issues than other avenues?

I certainly see it as part of the solution.
For example, burning wood appears to me to be a great way to heat a house, but unsuitable for powering a train, aeroplane or car. Of course, it could also be used as part of the mix in generating electricity, which can then be used to power cars.
( I would see the others parts of the electricity mix being wind, wave and poop power).

On the issue of heating houses though, as ever the first step must be conservation, by means of insulation, etc.

riadach wrote:

Surely this method is about as effective as using biofuels?

A good question.

There are a lot of fallacies spread about the environmental friendliness of burning wood. Wood captures and holds carbon - if you burn it, or if it rots, it releases it again. There is certainly a point in increasing the amount of broadleaf planting as it will increase the total carbon "captured" at any one time.

Burning wood for fuel does not increase the total amount of woodland. In fact it is certain to reduce it in the short term as its much quicker to burn than to grow. Burning wood releases carbon and other emissions.

Biofuels tend to be even worse, because rain forest is being cut to make way for them, they do not sequester carbon to anything like the same amount and also because they require processing.

Certified forests in Ireland???.



We have plantations that are sprayed with chemicals including LINDANE certified by the Soil Association as sustainable to an FSC Standard that was written by coillte. Forest certification is a sick joke in Ireland and the so called Environmental Groups like An Taisce, Crann, etc that supports the Irish FSC Process should be disbanded.

Isn't certification based on the fact that you sign up to a plan developed by a specialist private forestry advisor? A typically Irish load of nonsense in my book.

Do An Taisce prevent forests from being planted the way they prevent buildings from being built? i don't understand how we have such a low level of forestry here in comparison to other EU states - shouldn't there be directives supporting some minimum of forestry - well above the slice we have now?

It looks like An Coillte need to get good chimney sweeping - what can be done at all to bring some more trees to the place and in the proper balance of broadleaf/commercial?

I had a look at a forestry deal once. Good land, good rebates if you keot it according to the requirements, good final product - only problem was that under the forestry acts once it was forest for 10 years you (and whoever you sold it to) had to keep it as forest. That is one serious disincentive.

Why don't we have the farmers break from tradition and actually perform some social good in exchange for te massive government handouts they get.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

I had a look at a forestry deal once. Good land, good rebates if you keot it according to the requirements, good final product - only problem was that under the forestry acts once it was forest for 10 years you (and whoever you sold it to) had to keep it as forest. That is one serious disincentive.

What did you have in mind as a use for it after the 10 years? To my mind, there is Irish countryside which should never be used for anything other than agriculture or forestry. This might applyas much to forestry close to urban centres as that in parks or green belts as it does in disadvantaged areas of the country. But it's obviously a serious disincentive on the part of the investors that forestry should remain on the land after 10 years.

So many people, so many little plots of land, so few forests..

Grants are dependant on proof of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). The FSC was used in Ireland as proof of SFM. The Government set up a group called Woodlands of Ireland to make sure a standard for FSC was developed that coillte could get certified to. This they did with the help of An Taisce and others. The standard states for example that forest managers are abiding with the Forestry Acts but complaints from Rossport, Moyode, Derry Brien and many others showed that coillte were selling off forested lands and it appears that the EU has stopped 900million in forestry grants. The Government it appears are going to fund forestry itself.



An Taisce was set up and funded by the Government. They object to developments and cost the state millions in hearings and court cases. They hijack the hearings and prevent people with real objections getting heard and the developments proceed. An Taisce get their “expenses”. An Taisce are con artists.

brendan kelly woodlawn wrote:

Grants are dependant on proof of Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). The FSC was used in Ireland as proof of SFM. The Government set up a group called Woodlands of Ireland to make sure a standard for FSC was developed that coillte could get certified to. This they did with the help of An Taisce and others. The standard states for example that forest managers are abiding with the Forestry Acts but complaints from Rossport, Moyode, Derry Brien and many others showed that coillte were selling off forested lands and it appears that the EU has stopped 900million in forestry grants. The Government it appears are going to fund forestry itself.



An Taisce was set up and funded by the Government. They object to developments and cost the state millions in hearings and court cases. They hijack the hearings and prevent people with real objections getting heard and the developments proceed. An Taisce get their “expenses”. An Taisce are con artists.

Do you know what the picture is with Coillte selling off lands? I had heard the mantra from them over the years that their remit only extends to the "bottom line" and not to any social or environmental agenda. Do you have any specific examples of lands being sold off?

An Taisce can't take away your rights to object in the planning process as a third party. I do know of one case in which they made what I personally found a very shocking intervention, that was contrary to their remit as a heritage body. I've also seen a lot of cases in which they did look for proper treatment for land and buildings.

The OECD last year was highly critical of Irish "government by agency" which is unaccountable and has no clear and logical remit. Coillte seems to be a good example of this.

Coillte selling land? Coillte were set up with an economic remit under the Forestry Acts.

Where should I start?. Rossport, Derry Brien or the one already mentioned on your page Moyode. Moyode is one of the very few areas managed by coillte that could be described as a woodland or even a forest. Sadly for Moyode it is growing on a sand hill and coillte want to sell the sand.

An Taisce have failed to win more objections than they win. They object to thousands of plannings so they have to win a few.

Peter Sweetman is one of An Taisces main objectors. He was objecting to the development in Rossport and coillte were about to loose their FSC certification over this. He is now on the Irish FSC Steering Committee claiming to represent the Rossport Community and would you believe the issues in Rossport are resolved according to IFCI and coillte are still certified by FSC.

An Taisce turn up and claim to be professionals and lodge the objections on behalf of the Local communities. They pretend to be under funded and bleed the Community dry and sell them out at the oral hearings.

Visit http://woodlandleague.org

evercloserunion wrote:

Why don't we have the farmers break from tradition and actually perform some social good in exchange for te massive government handouts they get.

We could also do with a break in the tradition of people who don't know what they're talking about making unfounded generalisations about farmers. You might like to research the involvement of farmers in forestry before you make comments like the above.

brendan kelly woodlawn wrote:

Coillte selling land? Coillte were set up with an economic remit under the Forestry Acts.

Where should I start?. Rossport, Derry Brien or the one already mentioned on your page Moyode. Moyode is one of the very few areas managed by coillte that could be described as a woodland or even a forest. Sadly for Moyode it is growing on a sand hill and coillte want to sell the sand.

An Taisce have failed to win more objections than they win. They object to thousands of plannings so they have to win a few.

Peter Sweetman is one of An Taisces main objectors. He was objecting to the development in Rossport and coillte were about to loose their FSC certification over this. He is now on the Irish FSC Steering Committee claiming to represent the Rossport Community and would you believe the issues in Rossport are resolved according to IFCI and coillte are still certified by FSC.

An Taisce turn up and claim to be professionals and lodge the objections on behalf of the Local communities. They pretend to be under funded and bleed the Community dry and sell them out at the oral hearings.

Visit http://woodlandleague.org

Well, I can think of two Oral Hearings on built environment matters in which An Taisce officers blew the thing in one case by suggesting planning conditions could solve the issue and on the other by coming down on the side of the developer ( a public body).

I don't think it is a conspiracy, it is just the middle class dilettante's they are. I have still found them on a few occasions prepared to do their stuff and get a result.

When you say "bled people dry" - were they charging communities for acting for them in Hearings ? How much ??

Anyone can lodge an appeal - why would people rely on An Taisce, who are Dublin based and very much urban oriented?

My own view would be not to rely on them. Oral hearings are the very divil though because people can come out with all kinds of stuff on the day without any warning. Written objections are more reliable.

Kate P wrote:

evercloserunion wrote:

Why don't we have the farmers break from tradition and actually perform some social good in exchange for te massive government handouts they get.

We could also do with a break in the tradition of people who don't know what they're talking about making unfounded generalisations about farmers. You might like to research the involvement of farmers in forestry before you make comments like the above.

And in order to assist my enlightenment you might tell me what exactly I said that was so objectionable.