replanting obligation (forestry land forever)

fepper

Was wondering is it because the Irish government is fully funding forestry here that they can enforce this rule, could they enforce the same obligation if the EU funded the forestry scheme?

timfromtang

fepper wrote: »

Was wondering is it because the Irish government is fully funding forestry here that they can enforce this rule, could they enforce the same obligation if the EU funded the forestry scheme?

It is my understanding that the obligation is contractual, and should apply to both parties to the contract. the forest owner and the govt have agreed that the land will remain forested forever. Further to this I'd suggest that the contract is likely enforceable and binding on both parties. i.e. that neither the govt nor the landowner can change the land use without the agreement of the other party.

tim
Fuisneóg Abú

fepper

Thanks Tim, but is that specifically why the Irish government funds it 100% only and not the EU so that it can make up its own rules here?

timfromtang

fepper wrote: »

Thanks Tim, but is that specifically why the Irish government funds it only and not the EU so that it can make up it own rules here?

As I am sure you can understand, I can not speak for "why" the irish govt does anything, they are their own masters, and frankly from my perspective much of what they do makes no sense to me whatever.

I'd suggest an email to the minister if you wish to know "why" he is doing something.

tim

fepper

The reason I asked 'why' is that I think that EU funding for forestry would put the Irish govt insistence on land use change and replanting out of their remit and be a EU decision,good or bad and what Ireland inc.does here is not always the right way

timfromtang

fepper wrote: »

The reason I asked 'why' is that I think that EU funding for forestry would put the Irish govt insistence on land use change and replanting out of their remit and be a EU decision,good or bad and what Ireland inc.does here is not always the right way

Hi Fepper,
This begs the question, why would you believe that the EU would do better? who is in charge of you? who can see reality from where you stand? who knows right from wrong? should right and wrong be followed or "regulations"? would you do do something you know to be wrong in your particular circumstances because regulations required it? Would it not be better if you were in charge of you? perhaps with responsibility to God or the entity of your choice? I question your faith in far away europe, when our own crowd of self glorifying liars are doing so well??

love and health to all
Fuisneóg Abú
tim

fepper

Good points there Tim,so I guess its BETTER THE DEVIL YOU KNOW' scenario

timfromtang

fepper wrote: »

Good points there Tim,so I guess its BETTER THE DEVIL YOU KNOW' scenario

aye, govern yourself or get governed, seems simple enough to me.

tim

Cattlepen

What is the story if its a silvopastoral plantation? Its always going to be grazed by stock so how can the goverment enforce replanting?

99nsr125

fepper wrote: »

Was wondering is it because the Irish government is fully funding forestry here that they can enforce this rule, could they enforce the same obligation if the EU funded the forestry scheme?

Incompetence

That's why the Irish government are the sole funders

The EU gave us ample time to come up with a plan
The Minister sat around and scratched his hole
No plans meant no EU funds, send your thanks to Fianna Fail

fepper

As the EU fund most agricultural schemes here,it was unusual that forestry wasn't included in that funding!!....thanks for that information

SILVAMAN

It's the law. Like having to tax your car or pay income tax. Been there since 1946.

SILVAMAN

fepper wrote: »

The reason I asked 'why' is that I think that EU funding for forestry would put the Irish govt insistence on land use change and replanting out of their remit and be a EU decision,good or bad and what Ireland inc.does here is not always the right way

Can you seriously compare Irish forestry to European forestry? Depending on how you look at it there's been a tradition of forestry for maybe 80 years, and much less in the private sector in this country vs. hundreds of years in Europe.
I'm always reminded of the story of how in the 1980s(early) the then forest body top brass came out in force to look at the operation of a harvester recently purchased from Sweden. Shortly after entering the afforested bog, it sank up to the cab into the ground. It had not occurred to anyone that Irish ground is not frozen in winter. My point is that we operate under totally different conditions here be it land or species or knowledge, and the EU would be incapable of running a proper forest programme here.

fepper

Its only law if grant aided by Irish govt,so its not a common law as you can still have your own forestry without the need to replant

fepper

SILVAMAN wrote: »

Can you seriously compare Irish forestry to European forestry? Depending on how you look at it there's been a tradition of forestry for maybe 80 years, and much less in the private sector in this country vs. hundreds of years in Europe.
I'm always reminded of the story of how in the 1980s(early) the then forest body top brass came out in force to look at the operation of a harvester recently purchased from Sweden. Shortly after entering the afforested bog, it sank up to the cab into the ground. It had not occurred to anyone that Irish ground is not frozen in winter. My point is that we operate under totally different conditions here be it land or species or knowledge, and the EU would be incapable of running a proper forest programme here.

When I see there on your post about our top forestry honchos out on wet forestry land to see a harvester bogged down doesn't instill confidence in our forest service even now

99nsr125

fepper wrote: »

Its only law if grant aided by Irish govt,so its not a common law as you can still have your own forestry without the need to replant

That is incorrect
Whether grant aided or not there is an obligation to replant

fepper

99nsr125 wrote: »

That is incorrect
Whether grant aided or not there is an obligation to replant

Ok so if grant aided and you paid back all grant and premium payment to forest service,does that get you out of the need to replant?

SILVAMAN

fepper wrote: »

Its only law if grant aided by Irish govt,so its not a common law as you can still have your own forestry without the need to replant

It's not. Grant aided or not you have to replant if whatever you remove has been there for 10 years or more.
Common law is judge made law. What's that got to do with forestry?

Oldtree

Grant aid means someone else's agenda and loss of freedom to me.

Sheep and dairy farmers have been grant aided into a right corner over time imo.

And what I'd like to.know is why I cannot sell the sequestered carbon credits on my woodland? Are they not mine to sell?

SILVAMAN

Oldtree wrote: »

Grant aid means someone else's agenda and loss of freedom to me.

Sheep and dairy farmers have been grant aided into a right corner over time imo.

And what I'd like to.know is why I cannot sell the sequestered carbon credits on my woodland? Are they not mine to sell?

Excellent! Apparently the state considers that it owns them.It's like saying that the state owns your livestock:D
Talk about rip-off Ireland.

Oldtree

Dont think they can claim the roots carbon under the mineral acts and the rest of the tree carbon above ground is most definitely mine. Even my worms are busy sequestering carbon for me in my carbon sink.

Minerals Development Act, 1940

3. In this Act (save where the context otherwise requires) the word “minerals” means all substances (other than the agricultural surface of the ground and other than turf or peat) in, on, or under land, whether obtainable by underground or by surface working, and includes all mines, whether they are or are not already opened or in work, and also includes the cubic space occupied or formerly occupied by minerals, and, for greater certainty but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the said word includes all scheduled minerals.

Minerals Development Act, 1979

In the Act of 1940 and this Act “minerals” shall not include stone, gravel, sand or clay except to the extent that any such substance falls within the list of minerals mentioned in the Schedule to the Act of 1940.

fepper

99nsr125 wrote: »

That is incorrect
Whether grant aided or not there is an obligation to replant

I suppose if you could have the option of replanting with a type of agro forestry if you were a livestock farmer for grazing rather than a full forest if they allowed ,but still satisfying the obligations

99nsr125

fepper wrote: »

I suppose if you could have the option of replanting with a type of agro forestry if you were a livestock farmer for grazing rather than a full forest if they allowed ,but still satisfying the obligations

This is an option under some of the current schemes but
I'm still unclear if replanting in this way is allowed.

Coveney managed to fuk up the forestry legislation
even more

Being buddies with the Minister now can get you anything you want
The Minister has total discretion to do as he sees fit.
Think Denis O'Brien and Michael Lowry gouging
That's going to happen to Coilte some day

barnaman

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1946/act/13/enacted/en/print

https://www.teagasc.ie/crops/forestry/advice/timber-harvesting/felling-of-trees---legal-requirements/

worth a read EU has nothing to do with replanting its been the law for over 70 years. Even individual trees, if legally felled (most just cut them down) require replanting.

Oldtree

Interestingly the teagasc link states

A Limited Felling Licence is valid for two years and is mainly used for small fellings. This type of Licence must be used if the applicant is "requesting not to replant" or if nominating an alternative area to replant.

barnaman

yeah but that request not to replant is I assume only applicable where site clearance for house etc

timfromtang

fepper wrote: »

When I see there on your post about our top forestry honchos out on wet forestry land to see a harvester bogged down doesn't instill confidence in our forest service even now

this is why it is important to govern yourself in terms of forestry here,,,, educate yourself, learn, observe, plant, walk, tend, prune, eat blackberries, thin, harvest, enjoy, but most important, YOU are in charge of the land, not some lackey in an office far away from which he cannot see a tree.

However I will say this, In my experience of dealing with the forest service over the last 20 years, through hard times and good (hard times at the moment with chalara) They have been helpful and willing to listen, flexible and willing to learn, I note the forest service is staffed by committed and knowledgeable individuals, in short i have had only support and help from that quarter.

Ireland is already punching well above its weight in international terms when it comes to forest research also. And our land is proving to be amongst the BEST IN THE WORLD for growing trees in a temperate climate. Rain lovely rain, fall on me and my tree. Water availability is one of the limiters of tree growth in temperate forests, we do not suffer in this regard here on our lovely green island.

Any problems folk experience are more likely to stem from politicians acting in ignorance, than from the forest service in my humble opinion.

Lastly with confidence in yourself, in your own observations and knowledge, you are well placed to tackle any incompetence you may experience from other quarters.

Fuisneóg Abú
tim

lazybones32

Oldtree wrote: »

And what I'd like to.know is why I cannot sell the sequestered carbon credits on my woodland? Are they not mine to sell?

I was looking into this some years ago and I think it's a worldwide-thing where individuals cannot enter this market; only companies. It stinks of being a big scam.

fepper

barnaman wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1946/act/13/enacted/en/print

https://www.teagasc.ie/crops/forestry/advice/timber-harvesting/felling-of-trees---legal-requirements/

worth a read EU has nothing to do with replanting its been the law for over 70 years. Even individual trees, if legally felled (most just cut them down) require replanting.

. So the Irish laws on tree replanting are incompatible with EU law as there is not a EU obligation to replant trees in its countries if funded by EU forestry grant

SILVAMAN

fepper wrote: »

. So the Irish laws on tree replanting are incompatible with EU law as there is not a EU obligation to replant trees in its countries if funded by EU forestry grant

but the forest grant system here is I believe 100% state funded now

fepper

SILVAMAN wrote: »

but the forest grant system here is I believe 100% state funded now

Wouldn't it be better financially for the Irish exchequer if the EU funded it so and let the forest service here implement it so it would be practically the same scheme as its now as they already do with the other EU funded schemes

ganmo

fepper wrote: »

. So the Irish laws on tree replanting are incompatible with EU law as there is not a EU obligation to replant trees in its countries if funded by EU forestry grant

i don't think incompatible is the right word.
the law on the books in ireland doesn't have to be the same as eu law, as long as one doesn't contravene the other neither will care too much.
and if the forestry money was coming from the eu it would still be administered by the irish gov so i can't see that changing much either.

but i do agree that the replanting clause is a very hefty one when considering planting

timfromtang

ganmo wrote: »

i don't think incompatible is the right word.
the law on the books in ireland doesn't have to be the same as eu law, as long as one doesn't contravene the other neither will care too much.
and if the forestry money was coming from the eu it would still be administered by the irish gov so i can't see that changing much either.

but i do agree that the replanting clause is a very hefty one when considering planting

Howdy Folks,
It is the case that a first rotation in forestry does not perform like subsequent rotations. Trees are responsible in large part for creating the soils that we all use for agriculture and various purposes.

Some species, exotics like sitka for example do little to improve soils in the way we use them here in Éire, and indeed on some sites they even do harm, however it would be true in general that native species change and improve the soils they are growing on.

We have a low percentage of forest cover on our island, we were raped for oak for warships, and departing landlords often removed the timber before they left too, we have done well since the foundation of the state in increasing our forest cover from circa 1% to circa 11% today, but this is not nearly enough to ensure the health of our island.

Properly done, the first rotation can begin the improvement, subsequent rotations can be better and better, continuous cover management systems spread out the replanting and harvesting, providing both continuous income and not requiring big lumps of capital for replanting as natural regeneration is usually used.

To sum up, it is my opinion that the "forest for ever" clause and law makes perfect sense, and is a good thing.

I do understand however how a body who was planting sitka or other exotics on short rotations and clearfelling and having to pony up a lot of change to replant might not see it that way.

Forestry however is about growing trees, and not about making money, the making money happens by default if you grow trees well. I would suggest that planting exotic conifers on short rotations for pallet and pulp with a proportion of sawlog may not be the best way long term.

Regards
tim

fepper

You sure do love your trees Tim,are you a TREE HUGGER type of person!....

timfromtang

fepper wrote: »

You sure do love your trees Tim,are you a TREE HUGGER type of person!....

That is a judgement, it may be true, it is the health of the land i love, and forests. And I am a lifetime hobbyist woodworker too, so quality raw materials interest me.
I have a commercial interest in forests too, my (now deceased) father and I decided to plant the farm in the 90's based on our shared interest in woodworking and love of forests, so it's in the blood so to speak.
My commercial interest would also include adding value to my trees on farm, for example I once made a Loy handle from a single small ash stem about 9" diameter (like a hurl, the loy uses the toe at the butt of the tree to form the turn at the bottom where the metal shoe fits on), the same tree yielded 3 axe handles and 4 shovel handles too, when you do the sums, thats a load of euro from one small tree, took a bit o work, but was a good days wages nevertheless.

For the first time school leavers who have studied woodwork will have access to quality raw materials from all the small farm forests that have been planted since the 90's.

tim
Fuisneóg Abú

TalkingBull

Would there be an obligation on the son/daughter of a farmer, who planted forestry, got his 20 years of payments, clearefelled the forest (or not), sold timber(tax free i think??), and now the son is left with forestry to re plant and no forestry grants ?

SILVAMAN

Yes. Replanting is a condition of the felling licence.
However there is talk of plans at some stage to grant aid in some part the reafforestation.

timfromtang

TalkingBull wrote: »

Would there be an obligation on the son/daughter of a farmer, who planted forestry, got his 20 years of payments, clearefelled the forest (or not), sold timber(tax free i think??), and now the son is left with forestry to re plant and no forestry grants ?

It is silly in my opinion to use clear fell management, the replanting cost is high.
It is silly in my opinion to use exotics like sitka too, norway spruce though less productive can be managed on a continuous cover basis and natural regeneration will replace the crop, although scots pine and native hardwoods regenerate more easily.

Clear fell management is short term thinking, profit now, at the expense of land damage and excessive costs in the future.

since your forested land must remain forest forever, it makes much more sense in my opinion to use native species, or proxies that will naturally regenerate, and use continuous cover management where income comes in in a regular stream rather than in chunks and lumps every now and then.

tim

timfromtang

SILVAMAN wrote: »

Yes. Replanting is a condition of the felling licence.
However there is talk of plans at some stage to grant aid in some part the reafforestation.

If you fell yourself, say a lorry load or two a year over a number of years, selectively, the replanting cost can be significantly reduced as much natural regeneration can be persuaded to move in the created clearings if done properly.
Of course when you fell yourself you get paid much better for your timber at roadside as there are no contractors grabbing the lions share of the money.

tim

SILVAMAN

timfromtang wrote: »

It is silly in my opinion to use clear fell management, the replanting cost is high.
It is silly in my opinion to use exotics like sitka too, norway spruce though less productive can be managed on a continuous cover basis and natural regeneration will replace the crop, although scots pine and native hardwoods regenerate more easily.

Clear fell management is short term thinking, profit now, at the expense of land damage and excessive costs in the future.

since your forested land must remain forest forever, it makes much more sense in my opinion to use native species, or proxies that will naturally regenerate, and use continuous cover management where income comes in in a regular stream rather than in chunks and lumps every now and then.

tim

In theory what you say is valid. The reality is that great quality land required for growing top quality native trees like Oak and exotic broad leaves like Beech is under agriculture. It's not going to come into forestry any time soon. Perhaps hedgerows which are drier might be an option for filling in with broad leaves?
As for continuous cover, that requires a rethink on thinning regimes, possible very early intervention to ensure stability of a future crop. Soils tend to be wet and susceptible to compaction and problems re. stability for remaining trees so one will have to redesign harvesting systems.
Other conifers like western red cedar make mull humus which is incorporated into the sol, also tsuga, so maybe more intimate mixes of these species with SS. Scots pine a native likes a free draining soil too.
Greater species mix, better design of initial plantings, smaller coupes and CCF on sites where possible is probably the way to go.
The other worrying issue is the spread of disease- I think 15 or so new diseases in the country since 2000, with larch being pulled from the planting programme quite soon.

fergus1001

barnaman wrote:

yeah but that request not to replant is I assume only applicable where site clearance for house etc

If you seek a limited felling licence for an area you have to replant another area which is 10% larger, so if 1 hectare is taken out 1.1 hectares must be planted and approved by the forest service at your own expense

TalkingBull wrote:

Would there be an obligation on the son/daughter of a farmer, who planted forestry, got his 20 years of payments, clearefelled the forest (or not), sold timber(tax free i think??), and now the son is left with forestry to re plant and no forestry grants ?

Yes it's a condition on all general felling licences, and you would clearfell at 30-35 for sitka spruce when the income far out ways the cost of replanting, and yes all forest related is tax free but liable to USC and PRSI, no you only get grant aid once

Everyone seems to forget/not know the amount of money made from a clearfell !

timfromtang

SILVAMAN wrote: »

In theory what you say is valid. The reality is that great quality land required for growing top quality native trees like Oak and exotic broad leaves like Beech is under agriculture. It's not going to come into forestry any time soon. Perhaps hedgerows which are drier might be an option for filling in with broad leaves?
As for continuous cover, that requires a rethink on thinning regimes, possible very early intervention to ensure stability of a future crop. Soils tend to be wet and susceptible to compaction and problems re. stability for remaining trees so one will have to redesign harvesting systems.
Other conifers like western red cedar make mull humus which is incorporated into the sol, also tsuga, so maybe more intimate mixes of these species with SS. Scots pine a native likes a free draining soil too.
Greater species mix, better design of initial plantings, smaller coupes and CCF on sites where possible is probably the way to go.
The other worrying issue is the spread of disease- I think 15 or so new diseases in the country since 2000, with larch being pulled from the planting programme quite soon.

Note,
I am putting this theory into practice on our 100 acres, some is good quality land. I agree that management needs to be more intensive, but with only 100 acres i can afford to do this. I am not spouting theory ****e, i am reporting on practical experience from our own forest, first planting in 1996.
On the disease issue, our only hope i propose is education of folk nationwide, and ensuring our trees have the best vigour and health possible on the sites they are growing on.

the Ash alder maple rowan mix we have planted on our bottom land has already improved the soil and drainage after only 21 years. They are jumping out of the ground.

Harvest in continuous cover forestry requires a great deal of sensitivity and care, and I would suggest is best done by the on site management team rather than contractors.

tim

visitors welcome
pm me
a number of forester friends of mine have brought potential clients here for a look, I'll walk them round and show them what i am doing and what is possible. I love the forest.

SILVAMAN

Appreciate you're coming from at the coalface experience. Similarly here but twice as long.
Different part of the country with relentless rain, gley soils and strong winds the norm.

corco2000

If you received a grant and premums. And in time youd like to biuld a house. Would you have to pay back monies on the section you remove or could you replant section else where?

timfromtang

corco2000 wrote: »

If you received a grant and premums. And in time youd like to biuld a house. Would you have to pay back monies on the section you remove or could you replant section else where?

I believe it is possible to nominate and plant a different piece of land in this case.
tim