nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.