Sale of Coillte (?)

Grudaire

So the sale of Coillte (or at least the sale of Coillte rights for all our lifetimes) looks as likely as ever..

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sale-of-coillte-harvesting-rights-will-cost-state-dear-1.1323765?page=1

I suspect that there is no smoke without fire, and the potential for this to impact people is massive. Coillte currently operate in a very positive way. Balancing the need to expand forestry in the country with the needs of various stakeholders.

Has anyone seen any more information on this?




PS: I'm amazed that a thread isn't here already about this.... are Green Issues as unpopular as the Green party?

KyussBishop

Don't have more information on it, but is something I've been watching, and is pretty sad that this national resource is going to be spun away to private investors (totally unnecessary too).

What's worse, is that it might be sold to the International Forestry Fund, which is chaired by Bertie Ahern of all people:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/drop-coillte-harvesting-rights-sale-impact-warns-220977.html

Pete_Cavan

I dont really see the issue here. The state owns commercial forestry land and, given that the operations are controlled and administered by state employees, I am sure there is better value to be had for the taxpayer by selling harvesting rights to private companies under competitive tendering for a limited period of time. State involvement is reduced (which reduces cost to the taxpayer), rights sold to the highest bidder (maximising income) and the state still owns the asset at the end of it all.

I am not saying this is definitely the best course of action but it is not a case of giving away a chunk of our country as some would have you believe. Im sure plenty of people will role out clichés like selling off the family silverware, but the silverware should be used to ensure the best economic return, even if that means selling it or the rights to it. Of course unions are up in arms over this, their only interest is their members even at the expense of the taxpayer. Any concerns regarding environment, local communities, work practices, etc. can be alleviated through contractual clauses. The vested interests would be better off lobbying for concessions in any contract that may be signed instead of ranting and raving.

The article in the OP just reads like more scaremongering to me. He talks about "selling public assets", knowing full well the asset is not for sale, just the right to use it for a limited period of time before it is returned to the state. Also, the fact is our state and semi-state sectors are grossly inefficient and wasteful, in many cases there is better value to be had for the taxpayer by bringing in the private sector. The author also claims the reason for selling leasing out public assets in to "pay off privately generated State debt". The fact is that €50bn of the €67.5bn we received from the Troika was to pay for our publicly generated budget deficit. The benefits of Coillte the author highlights (a commercial mandate, successful tree-planting incentives for private landowners and NGO activism) are not tied to harvesting operations and will remain even if harvesting rights are sold.

Fromthetrees

Our forests must be run with environmental sustainability in mind first and foremost and not for the bottom line of a private foreign company.

Selling the rights off for a quick buck of one of the most important aspects of what makes Ireland what it is smacks of the same dim witted short sightedness that has us in our current morass.

We have one of the lowest levels of forest coverage in Europe as it is so we should be looking at expanding existing woodlands instead of selling off what little we have.

Pete_Cavan

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Our forests must be run with environmental sustainability in mind first and foremost and not for the bottom line of a private foreign company.

Selling the rights off for a quick buck of one of the most important aspects of what makes Ireland what it is smacks of the same dim witted short sightedness that has us in our current morass.

We have one of the lowest levels of forest coverage in Europe as it is so we should be looking at expanding existing woodlands instead of selling off what little we have.

I would consider maintaining the status quo due to some unsubstantiated fears as being shortsighted. Selling harvesting rights does exactly what it says on the tin, sells the right to harvest the timber for a fixed period of time. It is not "selling off what little we have". If people want to discuss this issue they should at least use factually correct words instead of spinning it as using exaggerated, incorrect hyperbole designed to attract support from those who get angry over everything.

AlekSmart

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I would consider maintaining the status quo due to some unsubstantiated fears as being shortsighted. Selling harvesting rights does exactly what it says on the tin, sells the right to harvest the timber for a fixed period of time. It is not "selling off what little we have". If people want to discuss this issue they should at least use factually correct words instead of spinning it as using exaggerated, incorrect hyperbole designed to attract support from those who get angry over everything.

I would suggest Pete_Cavan,that maintaining the Status-Quo for the foreseeable future is a very prudent approach,given the involvement of entities such as the IFF and in particular individuals of the proven calibre of Mr Aherne.

The only exaggerated hyperbole I see concerns the speed with which the participants want this wrapped up ?

Grudaire

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

rights sold to the highest bidder (maximising income) and the state still owns the asset at the end of it all.

Thats a big claim, one which I am sure you are unable to backup.


By definition any buyer will want to make a profit, so any proceeds recieved will reflect both the buyers required return, and margins for the riskiness of the investment.

(Note an example of the government getting less than the intrinsic value of an asset they are selling would be the recent sale of Irish Life.)


Secondly there is an issue that we should be looking at the total economic benefit of Coillte lands and assets.
While forestry will remain the primary use of the lands the question must be asked:
- Will they be as friendly towards recreational users of the lands?
- Will they move to different types of forestry?

The sale of Coillte rights could have a major impact on the environment, wildlife, tourism, and even locals.

EggsAckley

There is an on line petition here for anyone who is interested

Grudaire

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I would consider maintaining the status quo due to some unsubstantiated fears as being shortsighted. Selling harvesting rights does exactly what it says on the tin, sells the right to harvest the timber for a fixed period of time. It is not "selling off what little we have". If people want to discuss this issue they should at least use factually correct words instead of spinning it as using exaggerated, incorrect hyperbole designed to attract support from those who get angry over everything.

It'll be the rest of my lifetime by the sounds of things - and I'm still young

Alun

Cliste wrote: »

While forestry will remain the primary use of the lands the question must be asked:
- Will they be as friendly towards recreational users of the lands?

This is the main thing being pushed by outdoor recreation groups as a reason to blindly oppose the move, but I don't really see the problem TBH.

The only thing being sold, as has been pointed out many times on this thread, is the harvesting rights, not the land itself. So, the State/Coillte still retain ownership of the lands, and should get to say what can and can't happen on them recreation wise, not only in continuance of what is provided now but also going forward.

Basically, it all boils down to the exact wording of the eventual contract between the State/Coillte, and whoever gets the harvesting rights, and until these become known any out and out objection is premature. Note I say all this as a keen hillwalker and member of Mountaineering Ireland.

Grudaire

Alun wrote: »

Basically, it all boils down to the exact wording of the eventual contract between the State/Coillte, and whoever gets the harvesting rights, and until these become known any out and out objection is premature. Note I say all this as a keen hillwalker and member of Mountaineering Ireland.

Fair point,

But I would imagine that by the time that you and I get to see any contract wording that the deal will have already been struck.


This isn't a normal government action - it won't be discussed by the Dáil directly. Again to draw comparisons with the Irish Life deal - it will be presented to everyone in it's final format as a done deal.
(For good reason, any deals in talks would be considered sensitive information from a compeditive and investor point of view)


In summary NOW is the time to ask questions, and NOW is the time to be outraged.

Alun

Cliste wrote: »

In summary NOW is the time to ask questions, and NOW is the time to be outraged.

Well, I'd agree that NOW is the time to ask questions, the RIGHT questions, but getting outraged at something that might never happen is a waste of energy IMO.

I'm sure that with the right pressure from the right quarters, the general wording of the contracts with regard to access etc. can be revealed ahead of time and be able to be discussed rationally. Just taking to the streets with Save our Forests placards and collecting signatures will achieve very little I'm afraid.

clairefontaine

Sold to the highest bidder...more like the highest backhander.

How can this be legal?

oscarBravo

clairefontaine wrote: »

How can this be legal?

Is there a law it's breaking?

LK_Dave

clairefontaine wrote: »

Sold to the highest bidder...more like the highest backhander.

How can this be legal?

What do you think happens at them moment when a area of forest is ready for harvesting?

Orion

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I would consider maintaining the status quo due to some unsubstantiated fears as being shortsighted.

What unsubstantiated fears? Forestry land sold to private companies in other countries has led to recreational access being curtailed. Economists have studied the proposal in Ireland and concluded that what the Govt are proposing will cost the country money. A large list of outdoor organisations are completely against the proposal:

• Mountaineering Ireland
• Birdwatch Ireland
• CELT
• Just Forests
• Irish Mountain Running Association
• Irish Orienteering Association
• Irish Wildlife Trust
• Irish Natural Forestry Foundation
• National Association of Regional Game Councils
• An Oige
• An Taisce
• VOICE
• Zero Waste Alliance Ireland

Al Jazeera reported yesterday that the move would make Ireland the only country in the developed world without a publicly owned forest.

They can't all be wrong.

There's a big thread on it in A/R - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056146104

clairefontaine

Didn't Ireland also sell its oil? And now its forests? These are natural resources that could have made a lot of money for the country.

Plus wasnt there a big hullaballoo because the English stripped the Irish forests and it took ages to regrow them?

Grudaire

Alun wrote: »

Well, I'd agree that NOW is the time to ask questions, the RIGHT questions, but getting outraged at something that might never happen is a waste of energy IMO.

I'm sure that with the right pressure from the right quarters, the general wording of the contracts with regard to access etc. can be revealed ahead of time and be able to be discussed rationally. Just taking to the streets with Save our Forests placards and collecting signatures will achieve very little I'm afraid.

Stay calm and carry on?

I don't understand your point - I haven't taken to the streets with placards - I've started a thread in the politics forum of boards.ie.


The right pressure is EVERYONE who is concerned by this showing their concern to the quarters - ie the politicians.
Don't kid yourself thinking that the decision will be discussed ahead of time by you and me!

For info Patrick Nulty the de-whipped Labour TD had a partilmentary question in: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78690623&postcount=113

goose2005

clairefontaine wrote: »

Plus wasnt there a big hullaballoo because the English stripped the Irish forests and it took ages to regrow them?

Actually, we never bothered to regrow them. Imagine if all the unproductive farms in Ireland had been replaced at independence with forests, rather than stuffing them with endless subsidies for political reasons

Orion

goose2005 wrote: »

Actually, we never bothered to regrow them

That is true originally but coillte have done some great work over the last 30 years in replanting.

crockholm

Orion wrote: »

That is true originally but coillte have done some great work over the last 30 years in replanting.

I have to disagree there a little, what we seem to be getting from coillte at the minute are quickly grown conifers of such low quality that they're just being used as pulp.

The scandanavians harvest their trees,largely to use them as construction material,yet in Ireland, it seems to be about planting horrible trees that dont fit into the landscape,that acidify the rivers and damage the fish hatcheries.


Given that they are a quango,one could assume that they might take the long-sighted veiw that we need more broadleaves planted, both native- oak,willow,ash,hazel and non native-beech,horse chestnut etc. Yet, they don't.
they afforest upland areas that had never been forested, and point to the fact that Ireland is getting its forest cover back,bs really.

recedite

For many years Coillte paid nothing back into the exchequer. Nowadays their profit is about €20M/annum for the 445,421 hectares they manage; about €45/ hectare....that's a pretty dismal return. And only a portion of that seems to get paid over to the State as a dividend;

A €56,000 bonus payment to Mr Gunning, awarded for his work in 2008, but paid two years later as part of a €470,000 pay package, became the subject of controversy last year before he agreed not to accept the sum.
The forestry agency also locked horns with the Department of Agriculture over the payment of a €10m dividend to the State and over whether or not Mr Gunning would take a voluntary 15pc pay cut requested by Mr Coveney last summer.
He eventually agreed to take the cut, saying he had never actually refused the request, after being singled out for criticism in a speech by Taoiseach Enda Kenny last November

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/coillte-complains-it-will-struggle-to-find-boss-for-just-191000-26846243.html

They are no angels either when it comes to providing public access; part of the Wicklow Way at Kilmashogue in the Dublin Mountains was re routed a few years ago when the land was transferred into private ownership for a luxury house. The scenic Dunran Glen forest area near the Coillte HQ in Co Wicklow has been inexplicably closed off to the public for a few years now with barbed wire fencing. There are many other such examples of restricted access around the country.
Why should we assume that public access will be curtailed if the forest management company changes? It all depends on the contract.

recedite

crockholm wrote: »

one could assume that they might take the long-sighted veiw that we need more broadleaves planted, both native- oak,willow,ash,hazel and non native-beech,horse chestnut etc. Yet, they don't.

I was disgusted when they clear-felled one of my favourite forests, a wildlife haven comprised of very mature beech trees, and then put up a sign saying they were preserving the resulting decimated area for "native species".

Grudaire

If you're not happy with Coillte as they are under the Government then you definitely won't be happy when a private company calls the shots!

The irony of what FG and Labour were saying before the last election:

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/site/farming-Labour-and-Fine-Gael-oppose-privatisation-of-Coillte-forests-12449.html

Anyway lets hope it doesn't happen...

http://greenparty.ie/news.html?n=190
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/25526

kupus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Is there a law it's breaking?

Not that I know of but a clear conflict of interest arises, when a former taoiseach is now a sitting member of a group looking to take over the forestry rights...
and going by past experiences just like the gas rights, toll rights, there is going to be something in the wording of the contract that will end up costing the taxpayer....
I dont know what it would be but I can imagine it could go something like....

Too much rain has fallen for the trees to be grown and cannot be harvested in the time alloted by the former entity known as Coillte. So the penalty clause of x amount must be paid by the Irish state until trees reach the maturity level needed....

I know its speculation, but I'm a firm believer in history repeating itself. And on that the irish government have plenty of form in making a shambles when dealing with outside influences.

Pete_Cavan

According to the 5 Year Performance on their website, Coillte returned total dividends of €12.6m between the years 2007 - 2011. That is an average of just over €2.5m per year, that doesnt seem like a great return from over 1,000,000 acres. At that rate, were harvesting rights for 80 years sold for only €500m, the state would more than double its income for the period (and thats before we consider savings on interest due to national debt being paid off). Little over a year ago Simon Coveney mentioned figures of between €1.1 and €1.8 billion to the Farmers Journal. In the same article he confirmed they do not intend to sell the land. These are commercial forests, of limited ecological value, will be cleared regardless, and should generate the best return for the taxpayer. Access to lands owned by Coillte will not be an issue because the land will still be owned by Coillte.

antoobrien

Orion wrote: »

Al Jazeera reported yesterday that the move would make Ireland the only country in the developed world without a publicly owned forest.

Ireland is not proposing selling the forests, it is proposing to sell forestry rights.

Icyseanfitz

considering my main hobby is mountain biking (a massively growing sport which every european country bar ireland has put time and money into as its very profitable for adventure tourisim) id be all against selling off the tiny bit of forestry we have left, and to anyone saying "oh it wont be that bad etc.", yeah this is ireland remember, stuff like this always goes arseways here

brian_m

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

According to the 5 Year Performance on their website, Coillte returned total dividends of €12.6m between the years 2007 - 2011. That is an average of just over €2.5m per year, that doesnt seem like a great return from over 1,000,000 acres. At that rate, were harvesting rights for 80 years sold for only €500m, the state would more than double its income for the period (and thats before we consider savings on interest due to national debt being paid off). Little over a year ago Simon Coveney mentioned figures of between €1.1 and €1.8 billion to the Farmers Journal. In the same article he confirmed they do not intend to sell the land. These are commercial forests, of limited ecological value, will be cleared regardless, and should generate the best return for the taxpayer. Access to lands owned by Coillte will not be an issue because the land will still be owned by Coillte.

It sounds like Coilte are doing a poor job on making a decent ROI and if the land was managed better it would be more profitable i.e like more exploitation of adventure tourism. Selling off the harvesting rights may be more profitable compared to the current ROI numbers but to me it sounds like a quick fix solution which could have far higher long term costs especially in terms of lost opportunities... With Bertie Ahern involved I have serious reservations

Pete_Cavan

brian_m wrote: »

It sounds like Coilte are doing a poor job on making a decent ROI and if the land was managed better it would be more profitable i.e like more exploitation of adventure tourism. Selling off the harvesting rights may be more profitable compared to the current ROI numbers but to me it sounds like a quick fix solution which could have far higher long term costs especially in terms of lost opportunities... With Bertie Ahern involved I have serious reservations

There is a difference between commercial and recreation forest. Commercial forests are not much good for adventure tourism (because the forest is going to be cleared when the trees reach maturity) and visa versa. They will be different in terms of type of tree planted, how they are planted, forest infrastructure present, etc. so are not easily converted.

The Management Objective section of the relevant Forest Management Plans 2011-2015 breaks down the purpose of the various areas of Coillte each forest. It gives the percentage area for timber production, biodiversity, recreatation, etc. Harvesting rights will only be sold for the areas for timber production because other areas will be of little commercial value anyway. The only lost opportunities for commercial forest areas will be if we continue to let them be harvested by an inefficient state company instead of selling the harvesting rights to unlock its full economic value.

Maudi

kupus wrote: »

Not that I know of but a clear conflict of interest arises, when a former taoiseach is now a sitting member of a group looking to take over the forestry rights...
and going by past experiences just like the gas rights, toll rights, there is going to be something in the wording of the contract that will end up costing the taxpayer....
I dont know what it would be but I can imagine it could go something like....

Too much rain has fallen for the trees to be grown and cannot be harvested in the time alloted by the former entity known as Coillte. So the penalty clause of x amount must be paid by the Irish state until trees reach the maturity level needed....

I know its speculation, but I'm a firm believer in history repeating itself. And on that the irish government have plenty of form in making a shambles when dealing with outside influences.

that ahern lad dont forget was criminally investigated.reason enough to have nothing to do with him and the devastating impact on people as rec forest users.wildlife.fauna.etc this sell off will cause..ps there wont be any jobs out of it either.ireland is already one of the least forested area in europe why would we even consider this retarded idea is beyond me.

brian_m

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There is a difference between commercial and recreation forest. Commercial forests are not much good for adventure tourism (because the forest is going to be cleared when the trees reach maturity) and visa versa. They will be different in terms of type of tree planted, how they are planted, forest infrastructure present, etc. so are not easily converted.

The Management Objective section of the relevant Forest Management Plans 2011-2015 breaks down the purpose of the various areas of Coillte each forest. It gives the percentage area for timber production, biodiversity, recreatation, etc. Harvesting rights will only be sold for the areas for timber production because other areas will be of little commercial value anyway. The only lost opportunities for commercial forest areas will be if we continue to let them be harvested by an inefficient state company instead of selling the harvesting rights to unlock its full economic value.

The Coilte built MTB trail networks that are currently in place are built within commercial forests from what I can see...?

Pete_Cavan

brian_m wrote: »

The Coilte built MTB trail networks that are currently in place are built within commercial forests from what I can see...?

Most likely recreational areas of forests which also contains commercial areas. I was looking for the FMP for Ballinastoe where there is a MBT but I dont know what Coillte call that forest because Ballinastoe is not listed on the website.

Grudaire

brian_m wrote: »

It sounds like Coilte are doing a poor job on making a decent ROI and if the land was managed better it would be more profitable i.e like more exploitation of adventure tourism. Selling off the harvesting rights may be more profitable compared to the current ROI numbers but to me it sounds like a quick fix solution which could have far higher long term costs especially in terms of lost opportunities... With Bertie Ahern involved I have serious reservations

Perhaps Coillte has been focused on Increasing forestry rather than increasing profits

"Between 1989 and 2007 Coillte has:
Increased its Forest estate from 376,000ha to 445,421 ha. (445,315 ha are forested)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coillte

You can't look at Profits or ROI alone when considering performance. It's unfair and completely inaccurate to quote a single performance measure alone

SupaNova2

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I dont really see the issue here. The state owns commercial forestry land and, given that the operations are controlled and administered by state employees, I am sure there is better value to be had for the taxpayer by selling harvesting rights to private companies under competitive tendering for a limited period of time. State involvement is reduced (which reduces cost to the taxpayer), rights sold to the highest bidder (maximising income) and the state still owns the asset at the end of it all.

This is actually much worse than selling it into private hands completely. Incentives are twisted so that the company rapes as much as possible under said period as they might just lose rights come the next round of bidding. Where as if forests were sold off completely, and for a much higher price obv, the same approach would not be taken as nobody wants to devalue the price of their own assets.

Grudaire

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I dont really see the issue here. The state owns commercial forestry land and, given that the operations are controlled and administered by state employees, I am sure there is better value to be had for the taxpayer by selling harvesting rights to private companies under competitive tendering for a limited period of time. State involvement is reduced (which reduces cost to the taxpayer), rights sold to the highest bidder (maximising income) and the state still owns the asset at the end of it all.

Value

Value is a hightly subjective term to use. I hope you wouldn't have a bankers attitude to the word 'value'?

brian_m

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Most likely recreational areas of forests which also contains commercial areas. I was looking for the FMP for Ballinastoe where there is a MBT but I dont know what Coillte call that forest because Ballinastoe is not listed on the website.

I think recreational facilities can be easily tied in to commercial areas is my point, maybe more care taken during harvesting time?

Pete_Cavan

Cliste wrote: »

Perhaps Coillte has been focused on Increasing forestry rather than increasing profits

"Between 1989 and 2007 Coillte has:
Increased its Forest estate from 376,000ha to 445,421 ha. (445,315 ha are forested)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coillte

You can't look at Profits or ROI alone when considering performance. It's unfair and completely inaccurate to quote a single performance measure alone

We are talking about commercial forest areas here, as distinct from forests for recreational or biodiversity reasons. These commercial forests were planted for one main reason, to provide a financial return to the state. The state owes it to the taxpayers to pursue this profit with these assets, after all it was taxpayers money invested in them. Planting of forests for non-commercial reasons can continue irrespective of the ownership of harvesting rights for commercial forests.

SupaNova2 wrote: »

This is actually much worse than selling it into private hands completely. Incentives are twisted so that the company rapes as much as possible under said period as they might just lose rights come the next round of bidding. Where as if forests were sold off completely, and for a much higher price obv, the same approach would not be taken as nobody wants to devalue the price of their own assets.

"Rape as much as possible"? We are talking about growing trees for timber production! Selling harvesting rights for 80 years has been talked about, this would mean two plant/harvest cycles. Apart from adequately maintaining and thinning the plantation and hoping for good weather, there is not much else you can do, unless you can control nature.

As for the next set of rights once the first period ends, the company can be contracted to undertake replanting before their contract ends, Coillte can undertake the work themselves, procure a different contractor to do it or make it part of the next harvesting rights contract. The trees they use can be required to meet a certain specification or taken from Coillte nurseries. These things are tied up in the contract.

SupaNova2

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

"Rape as much as possible"? We are talking about growing trees for timber production! Selling harvesting rights for 80 years has been talked about, this would mean two plant/harvest cycles. Apart from adequately maintaining and thinning the plantation and hoping for good weather, there is not much else you can do, unless you can control nature.

Ok, my point is nil if 80 years is what it goes for.

Grudaire

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

We are talking about commercial forest areas here, as distinct from forests for recreational or biodiversity reasons. These commercial forests were planted for one main reason, to provide a financial return to the state. The state owes it to the taxpayers to pursue this profit with these assets, after all it was taxpayers money invested in them. Planting of forests for non-commercial reasons can continue irrespective of the ownership of harvesting rights for commercial forests.

Can companies not grow then?

it would be nice if you could accept my valid point, can we look at the companies profit in the context of what occurred over the same time period?


It's owned by the Government, so won't manage the emergence of profits in the way other companies will.

recedite

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Access to lands owned by Coillte will not be an issue because the land will still be owned by Coillte.

Technically, the land is owned by the State, not Coillte. They are just the management company. The government will decide the terms of any contracts to any new management companies. This is why one lot, the International Forestry Fund, thought Bertie would come in handy as their negotiator.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Most likely recreational areas of forests which also contains commercial areas. I was looking for the FMP for Ballinastoe where there is a MBT but I dont know what Coillte call that forest because Ballinastoe is not listed on the website.

Its under the general area of "Roundwood".
When Coillte built the MTB trail they hoped that all the MTB people would move off the other unofficial trails that the bikers had built themselves. After the official trail was completed they introduced byelaws banning bikes and horseriders from most of the other forests. The plan backfired because the official trail made mountain biking more popular than ever. IMO it's a healthy outdoor pursuit that should be encouraged where possible.
Most of the recreational areas are also commercial forest. There are only a few places, like around the lakes in Glendalough, where the trees are left standing long after their harvesting age.
Even broadleaf forest which has the highest recreational and wildlife value can be harvested in stages, while still retaining its amenity value.

Orion

From this month's Kildare Labour News:

Sale of Coillte Harvesting Rights Now Most Unlikely - Donadea Forest Park Secure
Following the Dail Debate on the proposed sale of the harvesting rights of Coillte Forests, and particular given the qualified nature of Minister Howlin's speech, Deputy Emmet Stagg said that he was now satisfied that it was not possible for the many strictures and conditions referred to by the Minister to be met and that it was now most unlikely that the proposed sale would go ahead.
Deputy Stagg complimented Impact Trade Union for the effective campaign they had mounted against the proposal and for bringing together in the campaign all the stakeholders and interested parties.
In addition to protecting the State's interest in our forests, Deputy Stagg stated that he was confident of the future of Donadea Forest Park and its amenity value to the people of Co. Kildare and the Greater Dublin Area, given that it was now most unlikely that the proposed sale would go ahead.

AlmightyCushion

"Deputy Stagg stated that he was confident of the future of Donadea Forest Park and its amenity value to the people of Co. Kildare and the Greater Dublin Area, given that it was now most unlikely that the proposed sale would go ahead."

There was no risk to the future of the park in the first place.

Pete_Cavan

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

There was no risk to the future of the park in the first place.

Yes. According to the Forest Management Plan for Donadea Forest Park, 95.3% of its area is for biodiversity purposes with the remaining area as non-forest commercial and recreation. It is not a commercial forest, would be of little or no commercial value and is more valuable retained in its present condition so there would be no point in selling harvesting rights. There are many other non-commercial forests which will be retained, however harvesting rights for the commercial forests should be sold.

Cookie_Monster

Cliste wrote: »

Perhaps Coillte has been focused on Increasing forestry rather than increasing profits

"Between 1989 and 2007 Coillte has:
Increased its Forest estate from 376,000ha to 445,421 ha. (445,315 ha are forested)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coillte

You can't look at Profits or ROI alone when considering performance. It's unfair and completely inaccurate to quote a single performance measure alone

Agree.

I've had issues with Coillte in the past but to be perfectly honest they are about the only Quango / Semi State that actually seem to be doing a good job overall.
It's just a pity the state doesn't seem to recognise it all that highly, they should be given more land and money to continue to expand forestry for future use, both commercial and otherwise.

Pete_Cavan

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Agree.

I've had issues with Coillte in the past but to be perfectly honest they are about the only Quango / Semi State that actually seem to be doing a good job overall.
It's just a pity the state doesn't seem to recognise it all that highly, they should be given more land and money to continue to expand forestry for future use, both commercial and otherwise.

Given more money? Coillte had retained earnings of over €32million in 2010 but declined to pay a dividend to the state! Instead of being given money, they should be giving more money back as per their commercial mandate. This is even more important when the state is introducing new taxes and cutting services to close the budget deficit.

I dont know where you are getting that they "seem to be doing a good job overall" from either. Operating costs eat up for 84% of turnover with no details of these given. Apparently the Directors are of the opinion that "such disclosure would be seriously prejudicial to the Group’s interests". I am not surprised they feel this way when you see the packages these guys get. Coillte's foreign business provides about half of its turnover, I would be very confident that Irish operations account for well over half of their costs. It would be interesting to see how much of these costs could be eliminated by removing harvesting operations.

So the only evidence we have to support the claim that Coillte are doing a good job is figures on the area planted. Planting new forests is not related to harvesting rights of existing forests and can continue, and even be intensified, if harvesting rights are sold. The evidence we have is that Coillte is just another inefficient state owned company with extremely well paid board members and a huge pension deficit. They refuse to give out information on operating costs and did not pay any dividends in their most profitable years (2007 & 2010) but yet could afford to pay a €10m dividend in 2011, a much less profitable year, when they were coming under scrutiny. That says it all really.

Grudaire

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Given more money? Coillte had retained earnings of over €32million in 2010 but declined to pay a dividend to the state! Instead of being given money, they should be giving more money back as per their commercial mandate. This is even more important when the state is introducing new taxes and cutting services to close the budget deficit.

The government has chosen to take no dividend from the company, your gripe there is with the government.

Although it could just be an indication that they are trying to fatten the company a bit before any sale of rights.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Operating costs eat up for 84% of turnover with no details of these given.

Again you're quoting out of context - what is the international average for this industry? Does it allow for the non-commercial aspects of Coillte?

For instance according to here Tesco's operating costs use up a whopping 94% - they must be doing terrible! *

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I am not surprised they feel this way when you see the packages these guys get.

This is a completely separate argument to everything else.

But two quick points:

• The company has operating profits of several million. I don't think that is an excessive salary in comparison with private enterprises
• If you're sickened by the CEO getting paid that much, why doesn't it bother you that any company (eg Berties International Forestry Fund) will be making a multiple of that?

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Coillte's foreign business provides about half of its turnover, I would be very confident that Irish operations account for well over half of their costs. It would be interesting to see how much of these costs could be eliminated by removing harvesting operations.

That just shows revenue...?

If you look at the rest of the report you can see that yes a lot of revenue comes from selling Panel Products abroad... but they're created in Ireland

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

So the only evidence we have to support the claim that Coillte are doing a good job is figures on the area planted. Planting new forests is not related to harvesting rights of existing forests and can continue, and even be intensified, if harvesting rights are sold. The evidence we have is that Coillte is just another inefficient state owned company with extremely well paid board members and a huge pension deficit. They refuse to give out information on operating costs and did not pay any dividends in their most profitable years (2007 & 2010) but yet could afford to pay a €10m dividend in 2011, a much less profitable year, when they were coming under scrutiny. That says it all really.

I don't see that your evidence backs that up at all..


* Note I accept this is a ridiculous comparison - but your argument here is equally ridiculous!

PS: Apologies for long post is long

Grudaire

Ah Bertie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh2CrBe8dJc

Colonialboy

Cliste wrote: »

* Note I accept this is a ridiculous comparison -

thats the only part in your post that was correct...

Grudaire

Looks like a decision will be taken quite soon on this, and luckily all the signs are looking negative for a sale of coillte/coillte rights.

In fact Pat Rabbitte recently told the Dáil that the “mooted privatisation of Coillte looks more unlikely every day”.


Article in the Times about it from Tuesday: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/sale-of-coillte-tree-harvesting-rights-would-raise-a-few-grains-of-sand-in-a-desert-of-debt-committee-told-1.1393245

And the Indo earlier in the month: http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/timber-chief-fires-selloff-jobs-warning-29239242.html

Sweden tried it and then had to u-turn on their decision: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/sweden-had-to-reverse-privatisation-of-state-forestry-expert-says-1.1396636

Anyway it doesn't seem like any lobby group is in favour of the damn idea except the Troika, and Bertie! :pac:

Iwasfrozen

We shouldn't be selling our forests we should be doing everything we can to grow them. Ireland used to be covered in trees it was humans who cut them down.