replanting obligation (forestry land forever)

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