Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Access for runners on Coillte lands may be curtailed

Options
24

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    That's the most hopeful thing I've heard from an Irish politicians mouth in years, its almost the antithesis of decades worth of self-entitlement, excuses, ineptitude, etc. Well done Andrew Doyle.

    give him time!! He'll come around soon enough :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,842 ✭✭✭Micilin Muc




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭brownian


    Today's Irish Times carries a story that the forestry investment people wouldn't want Coillte's forestry anyway.

    How true this is, and how much of it is "if we can't have it, we didn't want it", is your own call :rolleyes:

    Either way, it's looking a little more like Coillte will continue to run our forests in their own way for the next while.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    The tender for Evaluation of the Public Goods Value on the Coillte Forest Estate has closed a few weeks back.

    Part of the tender states "It is expected that this economic evaluation will be a combination of market research techniques involving a statistically significant random sample of the Irish public and/or focus groups and will provide aggregate sums of the value for the Coillte estate." So if you do get a call from a market researcher about this issue, be sure and engage them on just how much value you put on being able to run freely on Coillte lands.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    brownian wrote: »
    Today's Irish Times carries a story that the forestry investment people wouldn't want Coillte's forestry anyway.

    How true this is, and how much of it is "if we can't have it, we didn't want it", is your own call :rolleyes:

    Either way, it's looking a little more like Coillte will continue to run our forests in their own way for the next while.

    It is probably true to say that some of Coilltes holdings are too small to be economically viable but if the principle of selling off these woods are established and legislated for, then at some point no doubt some private enterprise will be able to find a way to buy even the smaller holdings....'for the good of us all', of course.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    Where is this third party business model that has clear social-value clauses?

    I've had recent dealings with Coillte regarding access (for a race), they were very accommodating, and happy for Coillte lands to be open and used for recreational purposes. They've been proactive in this regard for years- in direct contrast to private land owners who may own adjacent lands, and restrict or charge for access (as is their right).

    I think your post does Coillte a disservice, they are (and have been) very willing to encourage varied use and enjoyment of their (our) lands. Their recreation policy is part of their remit, and I know of hundreds of trails and loops through their forests, currently open to all.
    Well said ! The notion that all Coilltes woods are monocultural as suggested by another poster is totally untrue - my nearest Coillte Woods are wonderfully diverse having every form of vegetation you would expect to find in a natural woodland. NO private operator, and I stress NO private operator would allow this. I have never had problems with access to Coillte Woods either.
    Private enterprise has only one motive -- and that is profit. I dont have a problem with that. The notion that private enterprise operating as some kind of benevolent socially motivated entity is quite funny.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,842 ✭✭✭Micilin Muc


    I haven't got a head for these kinds of documents, but today's report from the Review Group recommends:
    that the state should initiate the disposal of Coillte’s forest and non-forest assets (but not its forest land), possibly using the New Zealand Crown Forest Licence template modified to make it suitable to Irish conditions. Unforested land surplus to Coillte’s requirements should be sold and the proceeds remitted to the Exchequer by way of special dividend.

    What are the 'forest and non-forest assets', as opposed to the 'forest land'?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    What are the 'forest and non-forest assets', as opposed to the 'forest land'?

    "Forest Land" is land under forest. Which may explain why Coillte have massively extended their felling of forest's in the past two years; this land is no longer "under forest" and will now be for sale.

    "Forest" is the timber, "non-forest assets" includes such valuable commodities as carbon-sinks, which are traded under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

    All of this to prop up banks which should have been let fail under the capitalist system they were part of. As of today, I'm planning an exit from this joke of a country.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,119 ✭✭✭Mongarra


    Presumably the "Forestry assets" are the trees but "non-forestry" beats me. Maybe it's the wildlife that will want to leave anyway when the trees are felled as they will have no habitat.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,842 ✭✭✭Micilin Muc


    Thanks donothoponpop, that's a lot clearer.

    RTÉ have an interesting take on it:
    It is not proposing that all assets be disposed off. In the case of land-based assets in particular, it proposes that the State sells the rights to reap the produce of the land but not the land itself.

    I presume this means that the access to Coillte lands won't be curtailed ... or is that wishful thinking?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    So am I reading this right.

    They won't sell land with forests but they can sell land once they've cut down the forests and a company can come in and effectively "rape" the land of all its resources.....and if they don't actually sell the land they will lease it for companys to do the same thing.

    If the above is the case then god help the remaining forests of Ireland :(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,120 ✭✭✭Gringo78


    I presume this means that the access to Coillte lands won't be curtailed ... or is that wishful thinking?

    You'd be presuming wrong....a private company given management of the lands(rather than ownership) will not allow 3rd party access otherwise they would be leaving them exposed to lawsuits etc. You can be guaranteed any contractual arrangement would include the clause that the riff raff are not welcome anymore.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭nerraw1111


    Keep the faith DoNot. It's just a report and recommendations of how to raise capital. Doesn't mean it'll be implemented, far from it. Just an option and given what govt have already said re irish forests, its not a done deal. Still the idea of putting monetary value on a forest is something that is wrong on every level.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    We must say no sale of coillte and mean it !


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    From the McCarthy report (pages 70-77 relevant to Coillte):

    "While we do not recommend in principle the sale of forest land, Coillte possesses a substantial land area which is not forested and which may never be forested. Coillte should be encouraged to accelerate its disposal of that part of its land bank which is surplus to its immediate commercial requirements in its own business, as recommended by the Report of the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes, with the proceeds being remitted to the Exchequer by way of special dividend."

    And the part that depresses me, having been waiting for signs of replanting in any of the large tracts recently felled under a massively ramped-up deforestation program over the last two years:
    "Irrespective of the ownership decision, Coillte is now managing a static forest estate in which the only planting is reforestation of cut-down areas. The requirement to re-afforest is a long standing one and applies to all recipients of grant aid for forestry and not only Coillte. We consider this restriction to be unjustified and counter-productive. There will be
    fears that removing this requirement might lead to a reduction in the forest area. But forests are a means to an end, not an end in themselves"


  • Registered Users Posts: 970 ✭✭✭mithril


    "According to Coillte, forestry in Ireland and other temperate climates typically provides an
    internal rate of return of between 3% and 7% in real terms. Coillte’s returns have been well
    below these levels in recent years. Since 2002, Coillte’s average pre-tax return on capital
    employed (including profits from the sale of land and immature forests) has been under
    2.5%. Without the contribution from the sale of these property assets, its average pre-tax
    return on capital would be 0.4%"
    In the light of this, its reasonable to ask questions about whether a different ownership model might be better given the urgent need to improve the public finances.
    You don't need to be an accountant to know how badly a company with 0.4% return in capital is being managed. You can get nearly 10 times as much by putting your money in the bank. Its also appropriate to question why was the Coillte chief paid €56,000 bonus against minister's request

    Regarding continued access to the land for recreational use, it says the following:

    "Public recreational access needs to be assured. Regulation can take the form of legislation
    governing forest management, as well as covenants inserted into forest leases. For example,
    all Irish forests, whether public or private, are required to abide by the Irish National Forest
    Standard which implements the principles of sustainable forest management and is
    enforced by the Forest Service. Before trees can be felled a felling licence is needed and the
    Forest Service will continue to issue these licences. Planning consent is required for change
    of use from forestry to other activities such as golf courses. Forest owners must also
    comply with a range of environmental legislation which applies regardless whether the
    forests are publicly or privately owned."

    I doubt anything will happen. It won't fetch anything like 1.2 Billion if the state retains ownership of the land (and with it mineral rights, telecom and wind farm sites, potential to commercialize recreational use of the forests which would be a large proportion of the potential value). The model of splitting ownership of land from the forest management is complicated and would need yet another report to decide the details before you could even make a proposal. The unions would be vehemently opposed and would use the previous statements by the Fine Gael and Labour spokespersons in the election (see above) to try and kill it. Another report that will be kicked to touch like the original MacCarthy Report which was effectively ignored.








  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    Links not working Pat^


  • Registered Users Posts: 970 ✭✭✭mithril


    Links not working Pat^
    Corrected now. Trying to brighten up a dull Good Friday with some lively debate :).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    I'm too engrossed in Poisson distributions to devote any time to real statistical analysis, I'm afraid:) Agree with your general assessment. Another report.
    mithril wrote: »
    Corrected now. Trying to brighten up a dull Good Friday with some lively debate :).

    I ran leg 6 WW yesterday, and wasn't charged for doing so, you could do the same to brighten up your day. Grab it while its still there and free:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    Cabinet are set to discuss the sale of Coillte next week. A portion of the proceeds are to be sidelined for "jobs stimulus". This is a cynical attempt at softening debate- expect to see earnest faced politicians sidestepping debate on the sale of public land by playing the "What do you want? Jobs stimulus or not?" card.

    The real reason is to pay for interest on the contentious €30.6 billion of promissory notes, or State IOUs, which are being used to fund the cost of Anglo Irish Bank and INBS (€16.8 billion in interest must be paid on the loan).

    This is the sale of public Irish land, to pay interest on bad private loans, which should have nothing to do with us as citizens. The sale of this land has been prepared for some time- massive felling programs over the past few years with none of the mandated reforestation.

    Anyone who enjoys the freedom of running through Irelands forests and mountains, needs to write to their local TD to make their opposition known. A list of members by constituency is here. You've a week to do so, its very important that you make your voice heard. Ireland has suffered too long from apathy, make sure you can say you at least tried to affect some change, and write a letter or email this weekend.

    **********

    Portion of profits from sale of State assets to go into job creation

    HARRY McGEE and SIMON CARSWELL

    A MEMO recommending the sale of State assets will be considered by the Cabinet, possibly as early as next Tuesday, following agreement from the EU-IMF troika that a “sizeable” portion may be used for jobs stimulus.

    Minister for Public Expenditure Brendan Howlin announced yesterday that there had been a breakthrough on this issue during discussions with the EU Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund as part of the latest review of Ireland’s €67.5 billion bailout programme.

    Mr Howlin said the troika had moved from a position where it had insisted the funds could be used only to reduce the country’s debts to a position where it agreed that a portion could be used to create employment.

    “We made progress in that regard. We will have sizeable quantities of money available from assets that we can apply to new jobs,” he said during a joint conference with Minister for Finance Michael Noonan on the outcome of the review.

    At a later press conference, the EU Commission seemed to play down the concession. Its head of mission Istvan Szekely said plans had to be finalised about the use of cash from the sale of State assets.

    “We would like to understand their plans for asset sales and I understand this is in the process,” he said.

    Government sources insisted last night that Mr Howlin’s comments had been approved by the troika beforehand. While Mr Howlin refused to be drawn on the extent of asset sales, or the proportion to be used to fund jobs, it is understood the more the Government sells, the higher the proportion of funds available for jobs creation.

    In its programme the Government set an upper threshold of €2 billion but now looks more likely to approve more than €3 billion in disposals, including part of ESB. A report prepared by a special group included Dublin Port, shares in Aer Lingus, and parts of Bord Gáis and Coillte in its list of recommendations.

    The troika, in its summation, said the Government has met the terms of the €67.5 billion programme so far but that the country faced “considerable challenges” and must implement policy measures.

    The Government also claimed significant progress with the troika on the contentious €30.6 billion of promissory notes, or State IOUs, which are being used to fund the cost of Anglo Irish Bank and INBS. A further €16.8 billion in interest must be paid on the loan.

    Mr Noonan last night described the promissory notes, with their punitive interest rates, as “abominable”. He said the troika would present a position paper by the end of February.

    “What we are working on is an alternative to the promissory note that will reduce the costs to Ireland,” he said. A source said it would mean an extension of the term or a drop in interest rates, or both.

    A number of deadlines for the introduction of new legislation and plans for the banking sector have been deferred.

    Legislation to reform the personal insolvency regime and a restructuring plan for Irish Life and Permanent (ILP) have been deferred until the end of April, with ILP recapitalisation put back to June.

    Stress-testing of Irish banks (the PCAR) has also been deferred from March to November.

    The troika highlighted challenges including the weaknesses of domestic demand, high unemployment and an economic slowdown in some of the main trading partners.

    As a result, its growth forecasts for the economy had been cut from 1 per cent to 0.5 per cent – just over a third of the Government’s forecast. It still expects the 8.6 per cent budget deficit for 2012 to be met.

    Mr Noonan, for his part, said there was no reason to resile from the Government’s own growth prediction.

    The ECB again ruled out forcing losses on senior unsecured and unguaranteed bondholders as it would damage confidence in the Irish banking system and could be “very costly”. Anglo is due to repay a €1.25 billion senior unsecured unguaranteed bond next Wednesday.

    Mr Noonan said the fiscal consolidation targets had been met by a significant margin, in tandem with the first return to growth in 2011 for three years.

    The troika said the Government had delivered a budget deficit of 10 per cent for 2011, significantly ahead of programme targets.

    Mr Howlin said the troika was sensitive about the €5 billion in the National Pension Reserve Fund and regarded it, in some sense, as “collateral”. This signalled that some or all of this fund may not be available for Government programmes.

    Fianna Fáil finance spokesman Michael McGrath said the real economic test was the number of people on the Live Register. Sinn Féin’s Pádraig Mac Lochlainn said the latest review showed austerity was not working as a policy.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,849 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    The goverment should be forced to put this to a referedum as its the people's land and not the government


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    The goverment should be forced to put this to a referedum as its the people's land and not the government

    Coillte sometimes refer to themselves as a Public body ("Coillte is a commercial State company, owned by the Minister for Finance who holds 795,059,999 shares and Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who holds 1 ordinary share. Prior to the establishment of Coillte on 1 January 1989, the civil service through the Forest Service managed the State owned forests"), and sometimes as a Private body, as when denying FOI requests into their reports on mineral assets under their land.

    It certainly used to be the public's land, now it will become private land, as private debt became public debt. Nice symmetry to that, don't you think?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭nerraw1111


    Can't believe this is even up for discussion and with the Govt's recent u turns, their earlier promise doesn't mean a lot.

    The part in that article that really angers me is that Howlin's comments were "approved" by the troika.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,116 ✭✭✭Peterx


    Any chance of drafting a letter which I can then copy and paste on to my constituency representatives?

    I'm happy to just send them one saying Coillte sale bad, me running into trees good but I presume a well written one with with reasoned arguments would be better.

    cheers and thank you!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    +1 on Peters suggestion, a well reasoned template rather than me having a meandering rant at them would be good, I'm not the most concise person around.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    Feel free to send on, amend, point out corrections, etc. But please do send it on in your name, if you agree with the sentiments. I know for a fact that things can change when TD's listen to their constituents. And they do listen, but you have to speak up.

    *****************

    Dear Elected Representative,

    It has been reported that over 7% of Irish land, owned and managed by Coillte, is to be sold to private investors, at the behest of the EU/IMF troika. This land is public land which is our bequest to future generations. It is currently freely accessible to Irish citizens, who can enjoy the many benefits our forests and uplands offer- including walking, bike trails, nature watching, mountain climbing, running, etc. At a time when these outdoor pursuits are becoming more popular, and the associated health benefits better understood, to sell off such an asset in order for private debt to be serviced, is nothing short of treason to the Irish State.

    The health and recreational benefit of these Coillte lands are immeasurable. With sustainable management, these forests and uplands can create thousands of jobs and training opportunities, and remain the property of the Irish people. As more people discover the benefits of exercise, keeping Coillte lands open and free will reduce our reliance on Health services.

    The mineral rights under Coillte land belong to the Irish people. Currently, any Freedom of Information request to see the results of Coillte's internal mineral surveys are greeted with stonewalling and refusal. What assets are contained in those reports, and are now secretly for sale?

    Ireland is one of the best land masses in the world on which to harvest wind energy, a clean, environmentally friendly, energy resource. The prime sites on which to operate wind farms are on Coillte hilltops. Far better to keep these sites and future income streams in public ownership, than to sell them on to speculators at knock-down prices.

    At the stroke of a pen, 7% of Ireland will be transferred to private hands- land that generations of patriots fought to keep free for the Irish people. I urge you, as an elected representative of the Irish people, to oppose any measure which would see Coillte lands transferred from Irish sovereignty to fenced-in private corporations.

    Is mise le meas,


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,191 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    Done. Letters sent to Dublin SE TDs


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    FYI if you do look at your local reps website for their contact details some will only give a constituency office one, the standard for the oireachtas email addresses is firstname.lastname@oireachtas.ie

    You'll find links to either a html or excel list of all deputies email addresses here
    http://www.oireachtas.ie/ViewDoc.asp?DocId=-1&CatID=138


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,089 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    ...including walking, bike trails, nature watching, mountain climbing, running, etc. ..

    Wouldn't want to suggest spamming across multiple fora, but other interested parties may be found in these corners of boards.ie if anyone frequents these areas and might want to highlight it to the locals:

    Outdoor Pursuits
    Cycling
    Health & Fitness
    Nature & Bird Watching


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 139 ✭✭forestman


    Just a few thoughts on this:

    I dont think it is ever on the cards to dispose of the land owned by Coillte, I would imagine if there was a sale then it would be comprised of the trees/timber only. As for the argument put forward about clearfelling trees in order to sell the bare ground - this would be impossible as a felling licence is required in order to fell trees and a replanting requirement is built into this. Therfore it would not be possible to sell the land and not replant it. This argument has been in the public domain for a while now and whilst it is impossible to determine what excatly the goverment will decide I can safely say that a wholesale disposal of Forestry lands would not be on the cards. We will all be running through forests for a long time more to come!!


Advertisement