IFA against Forestry one week and for forestry a week later!

Capercaillie

IFA call for forestry to replace farming in Hen Harrier SPAs. http://www.ifa.ie/ifa-says-responsible-forest-management-and-hen-harrier-conservation-wholly-compatible/#.VYHboPlVikp . IFA then contradicted themselves a week later by calling for Alan Matthews to the removed from the Expert Group on Climate Change for repeating their call for forestry to replace extensive grazing http://www.ifa.ie/member-of-expert-group-on-climate-change-lacks-credibility-with-call-to-replace-irish-beef-herd/#.VYHbqPlVikp

MickeyShtyles

Capercaillie wrote: »

IFA call for forestry to replace farming in Hen Harrier SPAs. http://www.ifa.ie/ifa-says-responsible-forest-management-and-hen-harrier-conservation-wholly-compatible/#.VYHboPlVikp . IFA then contradicted themselves a week later by calling for Alan Matthews to the removed from the Expert Group on Climate Change for repeating their call for forestry to replace extensive grazing http://www.ifa.ie/member-of-expert-group-on-climate-change-lacks-credibility-with-call-to-replace-irish-beef-herd/#.VYHbqPlVikp

They're a fair shower of fúcks altogether!

Sam Kade

But they are two different situations. Your man wanting to replace beef with trees is away with the fairies :rolleyes:

MickeyShtyles

Sam Kade wrote: »

But they are two different situations. Your man wanting to replace beef with trees is away with the fairies :rolleyes:

Shutter Island is on...,

Sam Kade

MickeyShtyles wrote: »

Shutter Island is on...,

Come again

MickeyShtyles

Sam Kade wrote: »

Come again

Rte wan!
Along the same lines as One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest!

Birdnuts

Sam Kade wrote: »

But they are two different situations. Your man wanting to replace beef with trees is away with the fairies :rolleyes:

I read Matthews piece in the Farming Indo. He seems to be saying that carbon credits for forestry will in a few years give better returns than beef. He also said that without EU supports beef would already be uncompetitive. I'm not particularly convinced by everything he said(certain forestry supports may come under the EU spot light too given the rather environmentally/economically dubious policy in this country of destroying existing peatland carbon sinks with poorly performing industrial conifer plantations) but either way I think the various trade deals the government has signed up to recently(notably TTIP) is going to put further pressure on the beef sector with more product from outside the EU being allowed in. The government argues that these deals will on the brighter side help boost the dairy sector. Time will tell but I think the next few years are going to generate a lot of stress and uncertainty for all sectors unfortunately:(

blue5000

I think there's a lot more going on underneath these headlines.

AFAIK the whole hen harrier thing was rushed through the dail because Ireland was going to face a massive EU fine for lack of conservation of species, or some such politically correct phrase. Because of this nobody, and I mean nobody affected by this was consulted before the legislation went through, least of all the land owners living in the NHA's.

Anybody who knows anything about wildlife, and this includes you OP, will tell you that newly established forestry provides fantastic habitat and a food source for birds of prey. A lot of mountainous land now in NHA's is bloody useless for anything else other than forestry. Because these farmers now don't have the option of forestry their land in these areas now has no value.

In the second link what Harold Kingston I believe is talking about is lowland, prime agricultural land, that if planted would be economically disastrous for Ireland and would do fook all for carbon sequestration because demand for beef would be met in S.America by clearing virgin rain forest. We in Ireland already produce beef with a low carbon footprint because it is grass based.

Capercaillie

blue5000 wrote: »

AFAIK the whole hen harrier thing was rushed through the dail because Ireland was going to face a massive EU fine for lack of conservation of species, or some such politically correct phrase. Because of this nobody, and I mean nobody affected by this was consulted before the legislation went through, least of all the land owners living in the NHA's.

Anybody who knows anything about wildlife, and this includes you OP, will tell you that newly established forestry provides fantastic habitat and a food source for birds of prey. A lot of mountainous land now in NHA's is bloody useless for anything else other than forestry. Because these farmers now don't have the option of forestry their land in these areas now has no value.

In the second link what Harold Kingston I believe is talking about is lowland, prime agricultural land, that if planted would be economically disastrous for Ireland and would do fook all for carbon sequestration because demand for beef would be met in S.America by clearing virgin rain forest. We in Ireland already produce beef with a low carbon footprint because it is grass based.

Newly planted conifers do provide habitat for a very limited time period, but when the canopy closes it is worthless for harriers. Most of the SAC's for Hen Harrier are already contain a high percenatge of closed canopy forestry (often>50%). Another major problem is predation. One of the main causes of nest 'failure' is predation. Fox, Mink, Pine Marten, Hooded Crow and Magpie are seen as the key species involved. The change from open moorland and extensive farmland to forestry in many of the Hen Harrier areas has benefited those predators and put rare breeding birds like Hen Harriers, Curlew, Red Grouse etc. at a major disadvantage. Not just a disadvantage in the case of Hen Harriers -in fact a death trap. If a female harrier nests in young forestry because of the tall vegetation that grows between the trees (sometimes this is the only potential nesting habitat given it was planted on a bog they would have naturally used) there is a good chance she is in a precarious situation, surrounded by predators with very good noses.

If all the entitlements in lowland beef production went, it would be more profitable to plant forestry in those areas. In the farmers in upland area/SPA/SAC area were given fair entitlements comparable to lowland farmers they would not need to plant forestry and would be able continue to farm the land. Both production systems needs subsidies but only one is getting fair subsidies at the moment.

djmc

The whole thing is a mess and very badly planned and managed.
On one hand they have harvest 2020 and are trying to push milk production food production increase green energy production and carbon credits and plant more trees
On the other hand none of it is allowed any more on the most suitable site as it might endanger wildlife particularly the hen harrier.
I objected to my land being degesnated spa but didn't push the matter after being given assurances by the npws that it would not affect my dairy farming ,wind turbine development or planting of forestry as I was in discussions with interested parties at the time.
It has affected my cows milk yeild I was refused planning for 2 turbines and in 2011 refused forestry.
Did they not know this 3 years earlier or did they intend to mislead and Duke farmers in these areas.
Kerry co co have now almost stopped all wind development in the county just allowing turbines down in the valleys below the spa where there is no wind.
I have lads living near me that have had digging their quarry as it was near an spa and others refused planning on buildings etc. so its more than just farmers affected.

merryberry

How do we find a balance between two polar environmental issues. Afforestation seems to b the only way ireland can meet its climate obligations in the short but critical term but this means that credit from forest sequestration benefiting other economic sectors like transport. Government dont want afforestation credits isolated within land use sectors...its not just agriculture that will struggle to meet climate targets. On one hand there is an argument that afforestation credit should only benefit agriculture because afforestation, atleast from now on, will only takes place on agri land. But then again credits are state owned and not owned by the sector. There is any amount of land that could be afforested outside of designated areas but as matthews said about agri subsides, though they are not barriers, but are competing with forest incentives to plant.

have2flushtwice

one thing that gets me about forestry, is that it has to be replanted once harvested, and there is no subsidy for the second planting. so the second planting can be delayed.

if they allowed this for new owners, therefore the land which was felled once, would be planted again post sale. this would benefit the govt, and the timber industry, not to mention wildlife. I think the benefits would be positive.

I pass felled land each week and its a disgrace the way the land has been left for the past 2-3 years. I don't see it being replanted.

djmc

Does anyone know has replanting been stopped in spa's
I have noticed a lot of trees around here as well in the last few years that has been cut and not replanted.

blue5000

have2flushtwice wrote: »

one thing that gets me about forestry, is that it has to be replanted once harvested, and there is no subsidy for the second planting. so the second planting can be delayed.

if they allowed this for new owners, therefore the land which was felled once, would be planted again post sale. this would benefit the govt, and the timber industry, not to mention wildlife. I think the benefits would be positive.

I pass felled land each week and its a disgrace the way the land has been left for the past 2-3 years. I don't see it being replanted.

djmc wrote: »

Does anyone know has replanting been stopped in spa's
I have noticed a lot of trees around here as well in the last few years that has been cut and not replanted.

I think they are waiting for a re-planting grant to happen.

have2flushtwice

blue5000 wrote: »

I think they are waiting for a re-planting grant to happen.

thanks, that would explain it.

Buford T. Justice XIX

blue5000 wrote: »

I think there's a lot more going on underneath these headlines.

AFAIK the whole hen harrier thing was rushed through the dail because Ireland was going to face a massive EU fine for lack of conservation of species, or some such politically correct phrase. Because of this nobody, and I mean nobody affected by this was consulted before the legislation went through, least of all the land owners living in the NHA's.

Anybody who knows anything about wildlife, and this includes you OP, will tell you that newly established forestry provides fantastic habitat and a food source for birds of prey. A lot of mountainous land now in NHA's is bloody useless for anything else other than forestry. Because these farmers now don't have the option of forestry their land in these areas now has no value.

In the second link what Harold Kingston I believe is talking about is lowland, prime agricultural land, that if planted would be economically disastrous for Ireland and would do fook all for carbon sequestration because demand for beef would be met in S.America by clearing virgin rain forest. We in Ireland already produce beef with a low carbon footprint because it is grass based.

Just on the hen harriers, I was at a meeting recently where the speaker informed lads bounding NHAs(?), or whatever one is for the hen harriers, that lots more land will be designated in the near future as 45% of hen harriers are nesting outside the designated protected areas.

So a cause for celebration or anger, depending on where you sit.

It will be one of the first things that will have to be dealt with by the next government, according to him.

merryberry

blue5000 wrote: »

In the second link what Harold Kingston I believe is talking about is lowland, prime agricultural land, that if planted would be economically disastrous for Ireland and would do fook all for carbon sequestration because demand for beef would be met in S.America by clearing virgin rain forest. We in Ireland already produce beef with a low carbon footprint because it is grass based.

Blue i know ur quoting what the IFA believe should b done but there are incentives that are funded by me you and others to stop deforestation in developing countries, and believe me, they are as critical of us, with our high ag emissions, as we are of them, with their deforestation policies.

It amazes me how 'concerned' the IFA have become of global environmental issues like deforestation!!

I wouldn't get too worked up on how low our carbon footprint as a result of adopting efficient practices. Take EBI for example. Sure the whole purpose of EBI is to deliver more output. The carbon footprint may go down but that may not necessarily result in lower absolute emissions.

rangler1

merryberry wrote: »

Blue i know ur quoting what the IFA believe should b done but there are incentives that are funded by me you and others to stop deforestation in developing countries, and believe me, they are as critical of us, with our high ag emissions, as we are of them, with their deforestation policies.

It amazes me how 'concerned' the IFA have become of global environmental issues like deforestation!!

I wouldn't get too worked up on how low our carbon footprint as a result of adopting efficient practices. Take EBI for example. Sure the whole purpose of EBI is to deliver more output. The carbon footprint may go down but that may not necessarily result in lower absolute emissions.

I don't get your point, environmental issues are going to be hugely important and Irish farmers need representation to mark the treehuggers and conservationalists and stop draconian rules and regulations being dreamed up in the name of environmental protection

Capercaillie

merryberry wrote: »

Blue i know ur quoting what the IFA believe should b done but there are incentives that are funded by me you and others to stop deforestation in developing countries, and believe me, they are as critical of us, with our high ag emissions, as we are of them, with their deforestation policies.

It amazes me how 'concerned' the IFA have become of global environmental issues like deforestation!!

I wouldn't get too worked up on how low our carbon footprint as a result of adopting efficient practices. Take EBI for example. Sure the whole purpose of EBI is to deliver more output. The carbon footprint may go down but that may not necessarily result in lower absolute emissions.

I always laugh when I hear the IFA extrapolating that Ireland's Grass-fed produced cattle are somehow stopping deforestation in the Amazon. They could not care less about any wildlife/Upland farmers in this country not to mind the Amazon.

blue5000

Undisturbed grassland sequesters carbon.

merryberry

rangler1 wrote: »

I don't get your point, environmental issues are going to be hugely important and Irish farmers need representation to mark the treehuggers and conservationalists and stop draconian rules and regulations being dreamed up in the name of environmental protection

Of course u don't...

rangler1

Capercaillie wrote: »

I always laugh when I hear the IFA extrapolating that Ireland's Grass-fed produced cattle are somehow stopping deforestation in the Amazon. They could not care less about any wildlife/Upland farmers in this country not to mind the Amazon.

Well every one looks after their own interests in this world , get used to it.
I'm sure you couldn't care less about lowland farmers either

merryberry

rangler1 wrote: »

Well every one looks after their own interests in this world , get used to it.

would that b the attitude of the IFA?

rangler1

merryberry wrote: »

would that b the attitude of the IFA?

It'd be my attitude any way, you're supposed to have upland (as you call them) farmers in IFA, ......if they're not there, not my fault

Birdnuts

merryberry wrote: »

How do we find a balance between two polar environmental issues. Afforestation seems to b the only way ireland can meet its climate obligations in the short but critical term but this means that credit from forest sequestration benefiting other economic sectors like transport. Government dont want afforestation credits isolated within land use sectors...its not just agriculture that will struggle to meet climate targets. On one hand there is an argument that afforestation credit should only benefit agriculture because afforestation, atleast from now on, will only takes place on agri land. But then again credits are state owned and not owned by the sector. There is any amount of land that could be afforested outside of designated areas but as matthews said about agri subsides, though they are not barriers, but are competing with forest incentives to plant.

The problem with afforestation policies in this country is that it involves putting industrial conifer plantations on peatlands. Given that peatlands are major carbon stores, destroying them with industrial afforestation makes no environmental sense whatsoever. In contrast small scale forestry at a farm level would contribute far more in terms of carbon capture, biodiversity, shelter belts, preventing run-off(and flooding) firewood, other products etc. This is the model you see in most other EU countries. It comes back to the complet lack of any joined up thinking with govenment agencies when it comes to sustainability in farming, forestry, energy policy etc:(