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
  • 13-01-2011 10:05am
    #1
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭


    One of the great joys of living in Ireland, is having access to run through the many mountains and forests throughout the land. The majority of these are public lands managed by Coillte, at whose pleasure we are granted access (see http://www.coillteoutdoors.ie/ for details of activities and trails).

    Coillte are jointly "owned" by the Ministers for Finance and Agriculture, with one share owned in trust by the Irish State. Our previous Taoiseach and Minister for Finance, Bertie Ahern, is now chairman of the International Forestry Fund, a private equity fund, that is seeking to buy Coillte land (reportedly at €1000 per acre)- in effect, transferring land owned by the Irish people (7% of the Irish landmass), to private ownership.

    Leaving aside the impact this will have for mining rights, carbon trading, woodland assets, it will mean the Irish people will no longer have the right to access the forests and mountains which we all enjoy. Since this directly impacts many runners here, I thought it worthwhile highlighting on the forum.

    Further details on googling "IFF Coillte", or check out http://www.woodlandleague.org/


«134

Comments

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


    You've got to be joking me! Is there anything the State won't do to make a quick buck?


  • Options
    #3
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    Micilin Muc wrote: »
    You've got to be joking me! Is there anything the State won't do to make a quick buck?

    It's a little more insidious than even just quick profiteering. One of the first thing Coillte did when set up in the 90's was to conduct a geological survey of the land under the forests. It's believed the mineral deposits are substantial and extremely valuable- "believed" because Coillte claim they are a private company (this is disputed), and thus are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. So very few have set eyes on the report, or know the true extent of the mineral deposits- exceptions being previous Ministers for Finance, eg. Bertie Ahern, now chair of the IFF.

    (disclosure- I'm not aligned to any political party, I'm just highlighting this as a citizen who enjoys the freedom of mountain and trail running).


  • Options
    #4
    jb-ski
    Registered Users Posts: 400 ✭✭jb-ski


    +1
    Micilin Muc wrote: »
    You've got to be joking me! Is there anything BERTIE won't do to make a quick buck?
    :mad:


  • Options
    #5
    Magnet
    Registered Users Posts: 472 ✭✭Magnet


    Makes me sick :mad:


  • Options
    #6
    BeepBeep67
    Registered Users Posts: 8,080 ✭✭✭BeepBeep67


    In a few weeks time the polititions will come knocking on your door soliciting for your vote. We should this an an opportunity to challenge them on this point!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    jeffontour
    Registered Users Posts: 930 ✭✭✭jeffontour


    BeepBeep67 wrote: »
    In a few weeks time the polititions will come knocking on your door soliciting for your vote. We should this an an opportunity to challenge them on this point!

    I turned one of them away last night as I'm sick of them but the next one will be hearing from me on this.


  • Options
    #8
    Antigrav
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭Antigrav


    If the land is sold, we then get into another 'rights-of-way' dispute.

    There is some hope for positive resolutions after the recent high court decision over Lissadell, but there are plenty of precedents where landowners have shut out the public. e.g Glencree valley, old Wicklow Way route near Kilmashogue.

    . . . stands back from blue touchpaper with fingers in ears :mad:


  • Options
    #9
    ocnoc
    Registered Users Posts: 830 ✭✭✭ocnoc


    and so i shall continue to run in the mountains and forests. Up and down. Jumping fences and walls, making sure to make as little damage as possible.

    I'll enjoy the emptiness of the mountains, but armed with a small wire cutters, just in case :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #10
    Cool Running
    Registered Users Posts: 451 ✭✭Cool Running


    I have had to deal with Coillte numerous times before to get permission to use forests for Orienteering events. They have always been very helpful and a joy to work with.

    It would be a very sad day if we started selling off such loved assets. Imagine not being able to go to a certain forest for a run that you've been going to for years.

    If sales did go through I wonder what limits would it put on people enjoying the land.


  • Options
    #11
    notsofast
    Registered Users Posts: 336 ✭✭notsofast


    What would Coillte become without forestry lands ??

    Is it ALL Coillte land or just some of it. If it's just some of it, it will be interesting to see what the IFF do with it after a selective purchase. :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    notsofast wrote: »
    What would Coillte become without forestry lands ??

    Is it ALL Coillte land or just some of it. If it's just some of it, it will be interesting to see what the IFF do with it after a selective purchase. :mad:

    All, I'm afraid. The McCarthy Report in 2009 ("An Bord Snip") recommended Coillte be sold (article in the Indo)

    More recent report on Bertie's bid in the Sunday Tribune.

    What sickens me so much, is that the mountains and forests are one of the last "free" things we can enjoy, literally to "get away from it all". That another politician is using his connections to monetize public assets again, purely to line his own pockets, heaps insult onto injury. Make no mistake, this is going to happen unless you make a stand against it.


  • Options
    #13
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    It is extremely important to oppose this as vigorously as possible. In fact rather than allowing a single euro of irish money to be spent abroad on environment related issues, all such designated money should be spent in Increasing our National parks and Coillte Woods.
    If Coillte Woods are sold off, it will be a part of our heritage that is lost forever.


  • Options
    #14
    mithril
    Registered Users Posts: 970 ✭✭✭mithril


    anymore wrote: »
    It is extremely important to oppose this as vigorously as possible. In fact rather than allowing a single euro of irish money to be spent abroad on environment related issues, all such designated money should be spent in Increasing our National parks and Coillte Woods.
    If Coillte Woods are sold off, it will be a part of our heritage that is lost forever.

    I would not focus too much on Bertie Ahern's involvement. It's true that the man would do anything for money, but his political influence with the next government will be minimal.

    The real issue is that the next government will have some truly awful choices to make given the state of the economy.
    Regardless of your political views, what do you do, while in government if you don't have the funds to keep a cancer hospital operating and you have an option of raising a large injection of cash by selling Coillte or the E.S.B.?

    I am not sure any new owner would necessarily ban public access to the forests. I don't see why they would do this. It would be a PR disaster and make the core assets they have acquired more difficult to operate profitably. They don't want to create a scenario like Shell faced in Mayo where forest roads are blocked by angry protestors.

    A more likely scenario - which I think you are going to see even if the forest remain in state ownership - is an increased move to commercialise the value of access to the lands which is currently provided free. This will mean pay parking in every forest park and possibly levies on organisations such as IMRA which want to run events on forest lands.


  • Options
    #15
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    Glad to have a questioning view mithril: if my original post isn't strong enough to bear scrutiny, then its not well-defined, so I welcome the opportunity to expand it a bit.
    mithril wrote: »
    I would not focus too much on Bertie Ahern's involvement. It's true that the man would do anything for money, but his political influence with the next government will be minimal.

    I don't believe Bertie Ahern's chairmanship is based on his being a figurehead or political avenue, rather he has had access to confidential mineral reports. If state land is to be privatized, lets have full disclosure of those reports, so we can perhaps place a higher value on them than the mooted €1000 per acre.
    mithril wrote: »
    The real issue is that the next government will have some truly awful choices to make given the state of the economy.
    Regardless of your political views, what do you do, while in government if you don't have the funds to keep a cancer hospital operating and you have an option of raising a large injection of cash by selling Coillte or the E.S.B.?

    I might equally ask how can the State pay its bill for a new fleet of ministerial mercs, or the Senate, or Thornton Hall, or such generous pensions on top of salary to sitting TD's; without first keeping the cancer hospital operating.

    If the assets of the State are to be (best) monetized, I'd prefer those whose policies contributed to the economic downturn weren't prime personal beneficiaries of that monetization.
    mithril wrote: »
    I am not sure any new owner would necessarily ban public access to the forests. I don't see why they would do this. It would be a PR disaster and make the core assets they have acquired more difficult to operate profitably. They don't want to create a scenario like Shell faced in Mayo where forest roads are blocked by angry protestors.

    Shell still got their way, bad PR or no?

    These are OUR forests, with rights of way "granted" by a quasi-public gatekeeper (Coillte). When the forests are closed, and the trees felled to mine ore, access will be curtailed surely, if even on only "health and safety" grounds. There have already been exploratory interests in mining for uranium in the Wicklow mountains. Personally, I wouldn't want this to be exploited, but if it was, I see no reason why a private company should take the lions share of profits (as has been Irelands model in selling its natural resources, as opposed to, for example, Scandanavian countries, where the tax take is far higher).
    mithril wrote: »
    A more likely scenario - which I think you are going to see even if the forest remain in state ownership - is an increased move to commercialise the value of access to the lands which is currently provided free. This will mean pay parking in every forest park and possibly levies on organisations such as IMRA which want to run events on forest lands.

    You seem to believe any sell-off of Coillte would retain the status quo (forestry), and a new private owner would extract a return on their investment (partially) through levies. If that was to be the case, I'd almost hold my hands up and say we should take the money, its needed. But I'm already aware of several local cases in Wicklow where Coillte land has been sold to new owners who immediately apply for mining licences and permission, against the wishes of the local community. This Coillte sell-off is about mining, not forestry, otherwise Bertie Ahern would have no intrinsic value to IFF.

    (Happy to concede we may just have different views, or that I may be incorrect- either way I know we both care about running freely in the Wicklow mountains)


  • Options
    #16
    mithril
    Registered Users Posts: 970 ✭✭✭mithril


    donothoponpop wrote: »
    Glad to have a questioning view mithril: if my original post isn't strong enough to bear scrutiny, then its not well-defined, so I welcome the opportunity to expand it a bit.

    I don't believe Bertie Ahern's chairmanship is based on his being a figurehead or political avenue, rather he has had access to confidential mineral reports. If state land is to be privatized, lets have full disclosure of those reports, so we can perhaps place a higher value on them than the mooted €1000 per acre.

    I actually think Bertie Ahern's involvement is a bit of a red herrring.
    I don't think he left with a load of secret geological reports in his brief-case. The same information is available to hundreds of people in the public service and will be used to set the price in any sale. The 1000 Euro an acre is a figure plucked out of air. I think there is a good likelihood of Coillte being privatised to close a hole in the public finances but his role will just be as a member of one of number of competing companies and I don't think will be helpful in IFF making a winning bid. His star has fallen somewhat since he was originally appointed.

    donothoponpop wrote: »
    I might equally ask how can the State pay its bill for a new fleet of ministerial mercs, or the Senate, or Thornton Hall, or such generous pensions on top of salary to sitting TD's; without first keeping the cancer hospital operating.
    If the assets of the State are to be (best) monetized, I'd prefer those whose policies contributed to the economic downturn weren't prime personal beneficiaries of that monetization.

    True there are still some questionable priorities for expenditure, but even if you eliminate them, you still have a huge gap in the public finances that needs to be bridged.

    donothoponpop wrote: »
    Shell still got their way, bad PR or no?

    It was a far more expensive exercise than they anticipated and I think they would have made different decisions with the benefit of hindsight.
    donothoponpop wrote: »
    These are OUR forests, with rights of way "granted" by a quasi-public gatekeeper (Coillte). When the forests are closed, and the trees felled to mine ore, access will be curtailed surely, if even on only "health and safety" grounds. There have already been exploratory interests in mining for uranium in the Wicklow mountains. Personally, I wouldn't want this to be exploited, but if it was, I see no reason why a private company should take the lions share of profits (as has been Irelands model in selling its natural resources, as opposed to, for example, Scandanavian countries, where the tax take is far higher).


    You seem to believe any sell-off of Coillte would retain the status quo (forestry), and a new private owner would extract a return on their investment (partially) through levies. If that was to be the case, I'd almost hold my hands up and say we should take the money, its needed. But I'm already aware of several local cases in Wicklow where Coillte land has been sold to new owners who immediately apply for mining licences and permission, against the wishes of the local community. This Coillte sell-off is about mining, not forestry, otherwise Bertie Ahern would have no intrinsic value to IFF.
    That's my position. Different ownership but pretty much same status quo after sell-off. I don't have much emotional attraction to the forests being in state ownership provided access is protected. I don't think the forests are full of mineral resources waiting to be exploited. There should be roughly the same proportion of exploitable resources in forests as in the rest of the country - maybe less since I think sandy glacial deposits are more likely to be forested.
    Other than sand pits , which have a short commercial life, I am struggling to think of any mines still operating in the country. Not sure if Navan is still operating and that's the only one I can think of? Its only going to be a tiny proportion of forest land that is suitable for mining.

    donothoponpop wrote: »
    (Happy to concede we may just have different views, or that I may be incorrect- either way I know we both care about running freely in the Wicklow mountains)
    Agreed.
    And with a change in government, comes a new opportunity to protect this through legislation like in the UK. Ruairi Quinn was making positive noises about this previously.


  • Options
    #17
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    mithril wrote: »
    Other than sand pits , which have a short commercial life, I am struggling to think of any mines still operating in the country. Not sure if Navan is still operating and that's the only one I can think of? Its only going to be a tiny proportion of forest land that is suitable for mining.

    There's a mining dispute local to me, where a landowner is seeking to mine aggregate (for 20 years), over the wishes of the local community. His only access for heavy machinery is through Coillte lands and trails, which so far have refused permission, based on the right of access to the community trumping his right of access as a developer. A new owner for Coillte would (IMO) be less inclined to listen to the community, over their shareholders. This is a Coillte-focused right-of-access dispute that is a stones throw from my house, I've no doubt similar access disputes are played out throughout the country.

    Incidently, the above location is at the foot of Croghan Kinsella mountain, site of Irelands only gold rush two hundred years ago. Three thousand ounces are known to be found through panning the streams.
    Nearby, the Avoca mines sourced huge amounts of copper, making Ireland (for a time), an important player in the world copper market. The mines are now closed, but the local Avoca river is heavily polluted from heavy metals.
    I cannot find the source online, but a couple of years ago, the local Wicklow paper named the Canadian company who had been granted the exploritory access rights for Uranium mining rights in the Wicklow mountains.

    mithril wrote: »
    And with a change in government, comes a new opportunity to protect this through legislation like in the UK. Ruairi Quinn was making positive noises about this previously.

    I agree with your earlier assessment that Bertie Ahern's name can poison a project, but nevertheless this bid for Coillte is going ahead. If his involvement causes people to start demanding access is enshrined, then some good will have come of it. Any sell off of Coillte lands should have accompanying legislation defining the "right to roam".


  • Options
    #18
    Reaganomical
    Registered Users Posts: 218 ✭✭Reaganomical


    Similar debate ongoing in the UK at the moment.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/16/forests

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/16/andy-wightman-woodlands-public-ownership


  • Options
    #19
    anymore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,672 ✭✭✭anymore


    mithril wrote: »
    I would not focus too much on Bertie Ahern's involvement. It's true that the man would do anything for money, but his political influence with the next government will be minimal.

    The real issue is that the next government will have some truly awful choices to make given the state of the economy.
    Regardless of your political views, what do you do, while in government if you don't have the funds to keep a cancer hospital operating and you have an option of raising a large injection of cash by selling Coillte or the E.S.B.?

    I am not sure any new owner would necessarily ban public access to the forests. I don't see why they would do this. It would be a PR disaster and make the core assets they have acquired more difficult to operate profitably. They don't want to create a scenario like Shell faced in Mayo where forest roads are blocked by angry protestors.

    A more likely scenario - which I think you are going to see even if the forest remain in state ownership - is an increased move to commercialise the value of access to the lands which is currently provided free. This will mean pay parking in every forest park and possibly levies on organisations such as IMRA which want to run events on forest lands.

    I disagree that Ahern's influence with the next Government would be minimal. I know from my own dealings with members of both opposition parties on environmental issues that there is precious little difference between them, unfortunately. Behind closed doors, when it comes to commercial matters, they are very similar. Quite a lot of the apparent anger and antagonism between politicians on TV and in the Dail is simply for show and for the gullible public.
    The choice of financing a cancer hospital's operation or keeping Coillte Woods in State hands is totally invalid. The HSE has a budget of € 14 billion much of which is wasted on bloated PR budgets, grossly overpaid Consultants etc. Political expediency is one of the main factors which influences how HSE money is spent - how is that the small town of Kenmare, which is only a relatively short distance along excellent roads, from Killarney is getting a new Community hospital when there are far more urgent medical issues which need to be addressed ? Well, Jackie Healy Rae says it is entirely down to him and we all know that this is true. It is votes which builds and runs hospitals.
    How could banning the public result in a woods being run less efficiently ?:confused::confused: And any public protests would be short lived and would not prevent a commercial company planting more intensively with commercial species and effectively obliterating pathways.
    The commercialisation of woods by charging for entrance might be cost effective in large woods which have a constant high volume of traffic, but I suspect that the high costs of semi state wages etc would mean that the many woods would show a loss. Again this is something that should be opposed vigorously. The notion of promoting a healthy lifestyle and exercise and then charging for access to State forests is a nonsense. It would also be a disincentive for the tourist industry. I can roam completely free of charge in the alps, why on earth would I pay to go into
    a relatively small Irish wood/forest ? And frankly with the cost of petrol now it is becoming more economic to avoid spending leisure money in Ireland and using it to go on a few cheap long weekends abroad.


  • Options
    #20
    mithril
    Registered Users Posts: 970 ✭✭✭mithril


    anymore wrote: »
    I disagree that Ahern's influence with the next Government would be minimal. I know from my own dealings with members of both opposition parties on environmental issues that there is precious little difference between them, unfortunately. Behind closed doors, when it comes to commercial matters, they are very similar. Quite a lot of the apparent anger and antagonism between politicians on TV and in the Dail is simply for show and for the gullible public.
    .

    Nothing wrong with that. Away from the camera a politician is more likely to be friends with a TD in another party than their colleague who is trying to cut their throat. Traditionally, they are competing for a different pool of votes. There are many examples of politicians from one party being appointed by another in the national interest e.g. Alan Dukes as chairman of Anglo, John Bruton as European Ambassador, either directly by or with the influence of Fianna Fail. Both though were well respected former leaders with a reputation for integrity and achievement. Bertie Ahern does not fall in this category. He is poison, even to his own party. Any bid fronted by Ahern would have less chance of succeeding than one led by anyone else. Even if it won on its intrinsic merits, it would have the appearance of something dodgy.
    anymore wrote: »

    The choice of financing a cancer hospital's operation or keeping Coillte Woods in State hands is totally invalid. The HSE has a budget of € 14 billion much of which is wasted on bloated PR budgets, grossly overpaid Consultants etc. Political expediency is one of the main factors which influences how HSE money is spent - how is that the small town of Kenmare, which is only a relatively short distance along excellent roads, from Killarney is getting a new Community hospital when there are far more urgent medical issues which need to be addressed ? Well, Jackie Healy Rae says it is entirely down to him and we all know that this is true. It is votes which builds and runs hospitals.

    It's not an invalid argument but if you think the hole in the public finances can be fixed purely by eliminating waste, then I won't be able to change your mind.
    The government is borrowing from the IMF and other bodies the money to pay medicines and wages for the cancer hospital. If we can't borrow the money, the hospital closes. The price of continued IMF support is likely to be extensive privatisation of public assets as has been the case in other countries.
    anymore wrote: »
    How could banning the public result in a woods being run less efficiently ?:confused::confused: And any public protests would be short lived.
    There is minimal cost in allowing access. Why would they want to close it off? A determined group could make it very expensive to operate the forest profitably by increasing security costs c.f. Glen of the Downs, Hill of Tara. I think your assumption that any protest would be short-lived is also not correct.

    anymore wrote: »

    and would not prevent a commercial company planting more intensively with commercial species and effectively obliterating pathways.

    They still need pathways to get the timber out and as fire breaks.
    anymore wrote: »
    The commercialisation of woods by charging for entrance might be cost effective in large woods which have a constant high volume of traffic, but I suspect that the high costs of semi state wages etc would mean that the many woods would show a loss. Again this is something that should be opposed vigorously. The notion of promoting a healthy lifestyle and exercise and then charging for access to State forests is a nonsense. It would also be a disincentive for the tourist industry. I can roam completely free of charge in the alps, why on earth would I pay to go into
    a relatively small Irish wood/forest ? And frankly with the cost of petrol now it is becoming more economic to avoid spending leisure money in Ireland and using it to go on a few cheap long weekends abroad.


    I don't want to give anyone ideas, but either coin operated entrance barriers such as at Glendalough, or a requirement to display a sticker on the windscreen costing say Eur 20 a year or risk getting clamped, would allow money to be collected very efficiently. Regardless of whether the forests remain in state ownership or not, I expect this to happen shortly.

    There are many examples of apparently short sighted measures being taken in conflict with long term strategic policy just to bring in short-term cash e.g. changes in pension tax relief which makes it no longer sensible to save for retirement, changes in carers allowances which mean that disabled people are more likely to require treatment in an expensive hospital bed.


  • Options
    #21
    figs
    Registered Users Posts: 610 ✭✭✭figs


    schnellimbiss wrote: »
    Similar debate ongoing in the UK at the moment.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/16/forests

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/16/andy-wightman-woodlands-public-ownership

    Also highlighted in the politics forum in case anybody's interested.

    While I'm entirely aggrieved at the notion of making a fast buck by selling off Coillte to private investors, I believe this needs to be countered by a logical and well founded arguement. I don't believe there's been any details of the proposed offer published (correct me if I'm wrong on this), so we don't know how this would impact public access and social benefits of forrested sites.

    Having just read the woodlandleague.org website, I think a number of their arguements are speculative at best. For example:
    • The public will be unable to prevent unsustainable development happening in their woodlands, like quarries, windfarms, incinerators, nursing homes, golf courses, etc.
    • Access to rivers and water rights, fishing, will also be taken away
    • ...could entail having Private security companies with razor-wire fencing in place to prevent the sovereign citizens of Ireland accessing their old rights of way, areas of commonage, archaeological and sites of cultural significance

    There is no evidence that this will / might be the case.

    In my view, speculative arguements will appeal to emotions and will motivate people to act, but may not help the cause if unsubstanciated. It may even be counterproductive and dilute the overall strength of the opposition. While I very much agree with their sentiments, I don't agree with the WoodlandLeague's strategy of scaremongering and I think this enters the political arena they will just be seen as a bunch of treehugging greeno's.

    I think the arguement for keeping Coillte state owned should be based in fact ie: what the terms of sale (if it occurs) will be. Arguements for retaining Coillte should be constructed based on the long-term benefits to the Irish people (both economic and social benefits). It currently appears to be a profitable company, that in the long term will be a benefit to Ireland rather than a cashing in for short term gain. The inefficiencies (or other such arguements that are usually used for selling of state companies) should be dealt with during the inevitable public sector restructure (a whole other debate!).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    anthonyvbyrne
    Registered Users Posts: 77 ✭✭anthonyvbyrne


    I have had second thoughts about this post. i.e. the wisdom of posting it, not the content.


  • Options
    #23
    anthonyvbyrne
    Registered Users Posts: 77 ✭✭anthonyvbyrne


    "Coillte"
    "1 million acres" for sale
    "Swiss finance company Helvetia Wealth" - who own the
    "International Forestry Fund" (IFF) - chaired by "Bertie Ahern",
    "The China Investment Corporation."

    The questions forming in my head are as follows. ...
    Is 'sombody' here orchestrating the sale of 7% of our country to China in order to fatten a Swiss bank account ?
    Does this scenario have the stench of corrupotion about them ?
    Do the words "Libia" and "Gadafi" ring any bells here. (The concept of powerful individuals amassing vast private wealth at the expense of theit National heritage?)

    I am not flabergasted, shocked, or even surprised. As a peasent in this nation; in my 40s, I have learned to expect nothing more than this type of behaviour from our 'ruling classes.'
    There are those of us who - when we refer to 'my country' - we mean our ancestral heritage .
    There are others who - when they refer to 'my country' they mean A nation / a people / a national resource over which they hold personal OWNERSHIP.


  • Options
    #24
    anthonyvbyrne
    Registered Users Posts: 77 ✭✭anthonyvbyrne


    "Swiss finance company Helvetia Wealth"

    Does this not say it all ??? There is one, and only one underlying motivating factor. $$$$££££EEEE


  • Options
    #25
    ger664
    Registered Users Posts: 2,400 ✭✭✭ger664


    If any one wants to sign feel free

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/help-save-irelands-forests/


  • Options
    #26
    brownian
    Registered Users Posts: 1,741 ✭✭✭brownian


    I personally feel a sense of unease about the notion of selling off public assets of any sorts, and particularly big ones that many of us use for recreation, green belt, etc.

    But would a change of ownership/management of Coillte woods NECESSARILY be a bad thing? So far, my impression of Coillte is characterised by
    - unhelpful access (build a car park, then lock it)
    - monoculture planting, making access into the forest a no-no, except on forestry roads. Consider how much more beautiful and enjoyable properly-spaced deciduous trees are, than the dense needle-fest that is a Coillte forest
    - minimal use of the enormous landbank for recreation...only in the last few years have we had a tiny handful of MTB trails and a few loop walks. These are very nice, but don't in any way tap the potential of the forest.
    - Savage, ugly clear-felling as the only apparent form of "harvest", leaving big ugly scabs of Battle-of-the-Somme mess all over the countryside.
    - pretty poor management in terms of litter - oil drums, dead diggers and other crud left lying about.

    So, yes, they're public (sort of), but they've a pretty poor track record (recent initial efforts at recreation stuff aside). If their land was sold to a third party, with very clear social-value clauses, things could improve a lot. The forests could be profitable, and also improved from a recreation/social perspective, at the same time.

    Is it impossible to imagine a situation where the forests are better managed than they are now? Is it possible that such improved management might come from the private sector?


  • Options
    #27
    byhookorbycrook
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 12,487 Mod ✭✭✭✭byhookorbycrook


    Just on TV3 news that the new govt have no plans to sell Coillte.


  • Options
    #28
    big mce
    Registered Users Posts: 428 ✭✭big mce


    Would that be similar to the previous government denying the IMF were moving in?:D


  • Options
    #29
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    brownian wrote: »

    So, yes, they're public (sort of), but they've a pretty poor track record (recent initial efforts at recreation stuff aside). If their land was sold to a third party, with very clear social-value clauses, things could improve a lot. The forests could be profitable, and also improved from a recreation/social perspective, at the same time.

    Is it impossible to imagine a situation where the forests are better managed than they are now? Is it possible that such improved management might come from the private sector?

    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.


  • Options
    #30
    mithril
    Registered Users Posts: 970 ✭✭✭mithril


    This what the the Fine Gael Agriculture spokesperson Andrew Doyle said on the subject:


    "Coillte and forestry are now central to the change in thinking needed to deal with the effects of climate change and a low carbon economy. The Fine Gael 'New ERA' plan will invest in a combined Coillte and Bord na Mona to increase forestry planting and to create a biomass-for-energy industry," Mr Doyle said.
    "Our vital national resources are not up for sale. National resources like forestry, agriculture and marine resources are held in trust for all the people of Ireland.
    "Ministers are stewards of these resources and must return them to the people with benefits after their term in office. That includes the forests of Ireland,"


    Labour Party agriculture spokesman Sean Sherlock said the sale of Coillte was not an option.
    "We should be looking at ways that we can use Coillte's resources to a greater extent," Mr Sherlock said.


    That's pretty unequivocal for the moment. There is every chance though that the holes in the banks balance sheets are even bigger than expected, and the IMF won't lend us the money to fill them, unless we sell all state owned companies.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    donothoponpop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,608 ✭✭✭donothoponpop


    mithril wrote: »
    "Ministers are stewards of these resources and must return them to the people with benefits after their term in office. That includes the forests of Ireland,"

    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.


Advertisement