Save leitrim/forestry is ruining rural ireland

fergus1001

anyone want to express their views on what is being expressed by a vocal minority in leitrim at the minute ?

I personally see it as narrow mindedness but I'm open to a healty debate on the matter

toptom

Whats going on up there ? Lots of farmers made good money over the years from the forestry

fergus1001

toptom wrote:

Whats going on up there ? Lots of farmers made good money over the years from the forestry

farmers are claiming that 50% of land in leitrim is under forestry (official figures state 36%)

but it seems that they don't like that forestry has driven the price of land to 4500 to 5k per acre which is well out of their reach

murrak123

fergus1001 wrote: »

farmers are claiming that 50% of land in leitrim is under forestry (official figures state 36%)

but it seems that they don't like that forestry has driven the price of land to 4500 to 5k per acre which is well out of their reach

I think an awful lot of it has to do with entire areas and townlands been planted over the years leaving homes surrounded by forestry. The vast majority of farmers in these regions have land bought or rented in areas outside of leitrim so I do not think land price is an issue.

yosemitesam1

Would have sympathy for them. Commercial forestry planting as a way to mitigate climate change emissions is a pure ponzi scheme before taking into account effects on biodiversity...

fergus1001

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Would have sympathy for them. Commercial forestry planting as a way to mitigate climate change emissions is a pure ponzi scheme before taking into account effects on biodiversity...

As a forester who walks through commercial forest stands on a weekly basis my mind boggles at the notion that Biodiversity is negatively affected, certainly after you do first thinning at year 15 the place erupts with different species coming into it

Also the notion that you can plant native woodlands in the majority of leitrim and expect a farmer to make a return out of it is laughable, at the end of the day it is the same as me rocking up to a suckler farmer in newtowngore and telling him he cant have cattle anymore he must farm donkeys

forgottenhills

I drove through several parts of Ireland where the land quality is marginal enough recently and it seemed to me that a lot of land in these areas now seems to be somewhat abandoned or left to its own devices, compared how this same land was more intensively farmed in the 70's, 80's and 90's.

I don't know whether this is because farmers can't make any money farming this marginal land now, or whether a lot of this neglected land is owned by old bachelors who are now semi-retired, or whether it is owned by part-time farmers who are more concerned about their off-farm jobs.

In any case my view would be that this type of marginal land would be better off in forestry than growing rushes, whins and ferns which a lot of it seems to be doing now. Although I too would prefer to see a mix of tree types planted to aid biodiversity. I am sure that much of this land, apart from the rocky or mountainous stuff, i.e the wet heavy land, could produce good crops of the like of ash or willow on the better bits, mixed in with the spruce or pine, as these and other hardwood trees seem to be growing fine in the hedges there.

orchard farm

There are a variety of issues here,be it marginal farmland,older bachelor farmers,environmental concerns of water pollution ,land sentimentality,blanket forestry,investment company's etc but at the end of the day nobody wants to live surrounded by monoculture silka spruce which has knock on effects of rural depopulation schools struggling to stay open,as a young full-time suckler farmer I'm starting to wonder if it's worth all the work when trees would be a better land use,but if I planted I'd have to leave the area or I'd be shot!!

fergus1001

orchard farm wrote:

There are a variety of issues here,be it marginal farmland,older bachelor farmers,environmental concerns of water pollution ,land sentimentality,blanket forestry,investment company's etc but at the end of the day nobody wants to live surrounded by monoculture silka spruce which has knock on effects of rural depopulation schools struggling to stay open,as a young full-time suckler farmer I'm starting to wonder if it's worth all the work when trees would be a better land use,but if I planted I'd have to leave the area or I'd be shot!!

I still find the whole "it's depopulating the county" argument a bit miss directed, one of the biggest employers in leitrim is forestry be it digger men, harvest drivers or foresters

I think farming in leitrim has to go away from the small holding model it has now you need a large enough scale to make farming work, the reason you see field after field of rushes is because farmers are farming CAP payments rather than actually farming

Birdnuts

fergus1001 wrote: »

I think farming in leitrim has to go away from the small holding model it has now you need a large enough scale to make farming work, the reason you see field after field of rushes is because farmers are farming CAP payments rather than actually farming

Without the grants they wouldn't be planting Sitka spruce either. The grant system needs to be seriously overhauled to give a more sustainable species mix that reflects local community and environmental needs.

fergus1001

the government already incentivises native woodland Sitka spruce is grant aided with 15% Broadleaf mix at 206 euro per acre whereas native woodland is 275 euro per acre, problem is that the economics of native woodland does not compare to sitka spruce plots

also I might add leitrim is not suited to growing high quality Broadleaf species brown earth soils in the east are needed to produce a good crops of Broadleaf trees to a comercial standard

Birdnuts

fergus1001 wrote: »

the government already incentivises native woodland Sitka spruce is grant aided with 15% Broadleaf mix at 206 euro per acre whereas native woodland is 275 euro per acre, problem is that the economics of native woodland does not compare to sitka spruce plots

also I might add leitrim is not suited to growing high quality Broadleaf species brown earth soils in the east are needed to produce a good crops of Broadleaf trees to a comercial standard

I don't really buy that - there is a growing market for hardwood off cuts for firewood and the like which can be provided on poorer land by the likes of willow,birch,sessile oak etc. The damaging effect of spruce mono cultures on the likes of water quality, fisheries etc. also needs to be taken into account. Thats before you get into the issue of the destruction of peatlands by commercial forestry and the associated loss of important carbon storage and flood soakage functions

TooOldBoots

The Soil erosion from those commercial forests is horrific.

fergus1001

Birdnuts wrote: »

I don't really buy that - there is a growing market for hardwood off cuts for firewood and the like which can be provided on poorer land by the likes of willow,birch,sessile oak etc. The damaging effect of spruce mono cultures on the likes of water quality, fisheries etc. also needs to be taken into account. Thats before you get into the issue of the destruction of peatlands by commercial forestry and the associated loss of important carbon storage and flood soakage functions

there is a market for firewood but the timber sold for that purpose is low value

Forestry has to abide by rigorous standards set down by the forest service and the EPA under both water quality and biodiversity

https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/forestry/publications/water_quality.pdf

https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/forestry/publications/biodiversity.pdf

Forestry is non grant aided on Peatland and will not be approved by the department under the European habitats directive

TooOldBoots wrote: »

The Soil erosion from those commercial forests is horrific.

Again forestry has to abide by the water quality guidlines set out above if you see soil erosion happening please do not hesitate to report it as it is more than likely a rouge operator and it damages the industry as a whole when the proper standards are not being followed

yosemitesam1

wrote:

As a forester who walks through commercial forest stands on a weekly basis my mind boggles at the notion that Biodiversity is negatively affected, certainly after you do first thinning at year 15 the place erupts with different species coming into it

Low input farmland is the only habitat for a lot of birds and insects. Large-scale afforestation wipes these out.
The government plans for increasing afforestation rates to mitigate emissions are all focused on planting large tracts of marginal farmland which is important habitat, and it achieves very little if anything in the long term for climate change, possibly is a contributor in the case of commercial forestry.

On the employment point, forestry hardly provides more employment than farming over the course of multiple growth cycles?

fergus1001

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

Low input farmland is the only habitat for a lot of birds and insects. Large-scale afforestation wipes these out.
The government plans for increasing afforestation rates to mitigate emissions are all focused on planting large tracts of marginal farmland which is important habitat, and it achieves very little if anything in the long term for climate change, possibly is a contributor in the case of commercial forestry.

On the employment point, forestry hardly provides more employment than farming over the course of multiple growth cycles?

Low input = low output, you are comparing forestry schemes from years ago which did block out roads and buildings and everything else, today there are strict guidelines for setback distances from roads and buildings and also designing the forest edge to incorporate broadleaf species, thankfully as forests get to the end of their first rotation they too will have to be replanted under the same guidelines so you wont have the same roads being overshadowed and the like

yes it does you have the harvest drivers digger drivers lorry drivers and foresters providing raw material to the likes of crowes sawmill and masonite then the mechanics, fuel merchants, and quarries. all these bring money into the area and is spent in the local shops

yosemitesam1

wrote:

Low input = low output, you are comparing forestry schemes from years ago which did block out roads and buildings and everything else, today there are strict guidelines for setback distances from roads and buildings and also designing the forest edge to incorporate broadleaf species, thankfully as forests get to the end of their first rotation they too will have to be replanted under the same guidelines so you wont have the same roads being overshadowed and the like

yes it does you have the harvest drivers digger drivers lorry drivers and foresters providing raw material to the likes of crowes sawmill and masonite then the mechanics, fuel merchants, and quarries. all these bring money into the area and is spent in the local shops

Any figures to back up the employment? I know you're dealing with all the lads working in it on a day to day basis but I don't see how it can anywhere near equal farming. Take medite/smartply, process a huge portion of total production between them but have only a couple of hundred people working there, meat processing is much more labour intensive.

I've seen the buffer strips and areas unplanted in a bid to help with biodiversity but really it's not going to do anything for the vast amount of farmland wildlife that has been pushed to lower intensity farmland (which is in the cross hairs of policymakers). Ultimately it still comes down to severely reducing their habitat size and further fragmenting it, all in the name of climate change mitigation which is really just kicking the can down the road until the plantings start to mature

fergus1001

yosemitesam1 wrote:

Any figures to back up the employment? I know you're dealing with all the lads working in it on a day to day basis but I don't see how it can anywhere near equal farming. Take medite/smartply, process a huge portion of total production between them but have only a couple of hundred people working there, meat processing is much more labour intensive.

last census had agri and Forestry at 1091 employed in that sector

I can easily jot up at least 3-400 people directly employed with the sawmills adding another 250 or so that without looking at haulage

yosemitesam1 wrote:

I've seen the buffer strips and areas unplanted in a bid to help with biodiversity but really it's not going to do anything for the vast amount of farmland wildlife that has been pushed to lower intensity farmland (which is in the cross hairs of policymakers). Ultimately it still comes down to severely reducing their habitat size and further fragmenting it, all in the name of climate change mitigation which is really just kicking the can down the road until the plantings start to mature

forest store carbon from day one they don't suddenly start taking in carbon at year 30

have you a source for this claim on habitats ? do you not realise the forest is a habitat too ?

Birdnuts

fergus1001 wrote: »

there is a market for firewood but the timber sold for that purpose is low value

Forestry has to abide by rigorous standards set down by the forest service and the EPA under both water quality and biodiversity

https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/forestry/publications/water_quality.pdf

https://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/forestry/publications/biodiversity.pdf

Forestry is non grant aided on Peatland and will not be approved by the department under the European habitats directive .


Again forestry has to abide by the water quality guidlines set out above if you see soil erosion happening please do not hesitate to report it as it is more than likely a rouge operator and it damages the industry as a whole when the proper standards are not being followed

I have serious doubts whether alot of that is actually enforced given what I see around the West in particular. The likes of the Woodland trust and other related NGO's have also raised serious concerns in this area recently. The activities of Coillte over the years would not inspire confidence either in relation to the environmental performance of monoculture spruce

fergus1001

Birdnuts wrote:

I have serious doubts whether alot of that is actually enforced given what I see around the West in particular. The likes of the Woodland trust and other related NGO's have also raised serious concerns in this area recently. The activities of Coillte over the years would not inspire confidence either in relation to the environmental performance of monoculture spruce

the forest service (Department of ag) has recently appointed an inspector dealing specifically with water quality I only had a conversation with him the other day about that

Coilte is certified by FSC and PEFC standards and is subject to annual random inspection if they are found not to be compliant with the standards quoted above their certification would be revoked untill it is rectified meaning medite ect would grind to a stop

Birdnuts

fergus1001 wrote: »

Coilte is certified by FSC and PEFC standards and is subject to annual random inspection if they are found not to be compliant with the standards quoted above their certification would be revoked untill it is rectified meaning medite ect would grind to a stop

I'm glad you mentioned the FSC cos I have myself spoken to a few people who work in the area of Environmental consultancy and they tell me that Irelands version of FSC sets standards among the lowest in the EU. I was not aware FSC standards were set on a country by country basis but there you are. The FSC has also come in for some criticism in its application outside the EU with logging companies that have a very poor record when it comes to rainforest destruction getting certification for their products. Anyway thats outside the remit of this discussion. Getting back to the situation in this country I thought the link below highlights some of the issues with forestry practices in this state and sustainability certifications - it also highlights the dangers of relying on monocultures when it comes to forestry


https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/coillte-faces-pressure-over-hazardous-pesticide-348951.html

fergus1001

Birdnuts wrote: »

I'm glad you mentioned the FSC cos I have myself spoken to a few people who work in the area of Environmental consultancy and they tell me that Irelands version of FSC sets standards among the lowest in the EU. I was not aware FSC standards were set on a country by country basis but there you are. The FSC has also come in for some criticism in its application outside the EU with logging companies that have a very poor record when it comes to rainforest destruction getting certification for their products. Anyway thats outside the remit of this discussion. Getting back to the situation in this country I thought the link below highlights some of the issues with forestry practices in this state and sustainability certifications - it also highlights the dangers of relying on monocultures when it comes to forestry


https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/coillte-faces-pressure-over-hazardous-pesticide-348951.html

The use of cypermethrin is being curtailed, europe have given a two year deragation allowing it to be used because their was nothing to replace the spray, Coillte are conducting trials on an alternate and less harmful spray to use

On FSC im not sure what the story is outside of europe but in my personal dealings with FSC certification it is very rigorous with everything being questioned and you have to have a paper trail for everything you do and also produce a management plan that covers the entire growth cycle of the forest including what you are doing to boost the biodiversity in the forest.

at the end of the day Leitrim already has a large forestry industry and it is only growing people need to realise this

fergus1001

murrak123 wrote: »

I think an awful lot of it has to do with entire areas and townlands been planted over the years leaving homes surrounded by forestry. The vast majority of farmers in these regions have land bought or rented in areas outside of leitrim so I do not think land price is an issue.

if land price is not the issue then surely the land is not suited to farming if they are looking outside the county ?

baaba maal

OP, I know you are in favour of the general concept and have argued well for it throughout. Do you yourself think there any negative impacts from this scale of planting in Leitrim (and I presume relatively high portions of Roscommon, Fermanagh etc.)?

fergus1001

baaba maal wrote:

OP, I know you are in favour of the general concept and have argued well for it throughout. Do you yourself think there any negative impacts from this scale of planting in Leitrim (and I presume relatively high portions of Roscommon, Fermanagh etc.)?

I am personally from a farm myself, I think where land is genuinely non productive they should be allocated to an alternative land use ( I'm not just talking about forestry wind and solar farms spring to mind too), where land is actually productive or has the potential to be land should be put into larger blocks in a land commission style system to ensure that farms are large enough to sustain themselves and provide employment to the surrounding areas

I know there is an emotional attachment to the land in this country but we need to look at things differently if places like leitrim is to succeed going forward

orchard farm

I think something like a high nature value scheme for land like leitrim would be much more beneficial for people who want to live in these marginal areas now and in the future than monoculture silka forestry

fergus1001

orchard farm wrote: »

I think something like a high nature value scheme for land like leitrim would be much more beneficial for people who want to live in these marginal areas now and in the future than monoculture silka forestry

Im not saying that SITKA spruce has to be planted everywhere, as i was thought you match the species to the soil types, also as a nation we need to diversify the species of tree that is being planted but as it stands now with the current regime that is in place Sitka is the most profitable tree for a farmer to plant, which we must remember is devoting his OWN land to this


how would this "high nature value scheme" work and how would it sequester the same amount of carbon that a forest can ?

yosemitesam1

wrote:

Im not saying that SITKA spruce has to be planted everywhere, as i was thought you match the species to the soil types, also as a nation we need to diversify the species of tree that is being planted but as it stands now with the current regime that is in place Sitka is the most profitable tree for a farmer to plant, which we must remember is devoting his OWN land to this


how would this "high nature value scheme" work and how would it sequester the same amount of carbon that a forest can ?

Pay a rate per ha for certain management with the condition of results. No different to what has been done in the burren.
Forestry doesn't sequester carbon, it buildup a store in timber which on harvest is released once more. Over the course of multiple cycles it will average out holding a certain amount but that is relatively small and could be more than offset by soil carbon losses which have not been fully investigated. Also forest soil carbon is much less stable with regards to climate change than grassland soil carbon.

fergus1001

yosemitesam1 wrote:

Pay a rate per ha for certain management with the condition of results. No different to what has been done in the burren. Forestry doesn't sequester carbon, it buildup a store in timber which on harvest is released once more. Over the course of multiple cycles it will average out holding a certain amount but that is relatively small and could be more than offset by soil carbon losses which have not been fully investigated. Also forest soil carbon is much less stable with regards to climate change than grassland soil carbon.

Wrong the carbon is stored in the timber which is harvested and used predominantly to create planking for roofing joists and other construction timber which stays there for up to 100 years or more

a conifer forest sequester's 4.4 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year
Kenneth A. Byrne et al UCD/Coford

yosemitesam1

Only about 15% of timber harvested ends up in construction as sawn timber, also I think its a bit much to be expecting much of that ****ty quality spruce to be still there in 100 years.
That 4.4tonne of carbon is just held in standing biomass and a large portion will be released rapidly upon harvesting. Then there's still the question of soil carbon losses which has not been properly investigated yet.

fergus1001

yosemitesam1 wrote:

Only about 15% of timber harvested ends up in construction as sawn timber, also I think its a bit much to be expecting much of that ****ty quality spruce to be still there in 100 years. That 4.4tonne of carbon is just held in standing biomass and a large portion will be released rapidly upon harvesting. Then there's still the question of soil carbon losses which has not been properly investigated yet.

wrong again, only 16% of the total carbon stored in a tree is stored in the crown (leaf litter and branches) the rest is in the main stem trunk and roots (which once harvested goes back into the ground)

Andrea Jane Leys PhD Forest Learning