Trees and/or Rewilding - Where does the continuing income come from ?

[Courier]

As those who signed up to government backed FIT incentives which were withdrawn suddenly when many were still only part way through their projects which had factored in the promised progressive reductions of FIT, where will the continuing income come from for the next 50 years when land which had been annually productive since WW2 and will incentives being bandied about at present actually continue.

I know little or nothing about trees or rewilding and am hoping that someone can enlighten me as what the incentives are and whether anyone will be gullible enough to embark on a project relying on government incentives in the future ?

 

[farmerm]

As those who signed up to government backed FIT incentives which were withdrawn suddenly when many were still only part way through their projects which had factored in the promised progressive reductions of FIT, where will the continuing income come from for the next 50 years when land which had been annually productive since WW2 and will incentives being bandied about at present actually continue.

I know little or nothing about trees or rewilding and am hoping that someone can enlighten me as what the incentives are and whether anyone will be gullible enough to embark on a project relying on government incentives in the future ?

I share your concerns. Long term commitment that greatly devalues the land, probably indefinitely, without any likelihood of indefinite ongoing returns.

 

[spin cycle]

I share your concerns. Long term commitment that greatly devalues the land, probably indefinitely, without any likelihood of indefinite ongoing returns.

it's the 'elephant' in all the main parties 'tree planting manifesto room'

 

[farmerm]

it's the 'elephant' in all the main parties 'tree planting manifesto room'

Perhaps the solution is for either the government or some none profit charity to buy up marginal land and create new "nationalised" forests as a public good....

 

[spin cycle]

Perhaps the solution is for either the government or some none profit charity to buy up marginal land and create new "nationalised" forests as a public good....

thats the conclusion i've come to....i really can't see how landowners can trust govt......just look at stewardship fiasco

 

[unlacedgecko]

thats the conclusion i've come to....i really can't see how landowners can trust govt......just look at stewardship fiasco

No one can trust the government.

If it makes financial sense for the landowner to plant trees, exclusive of any dole money, then do so. Just retain full ownership rights and treat the trees as any other crop.

 

[Goweresque]

Perhaps the solution is for either the government or some none profit charity to buy up marginal land and create new "nationalised" forests as a public good....

More likely is for the State to impose a land tax at a level that is greater than the productive capacity of marginal land, so it becomes effectively worthless and the only way to escape the ongoing tax liability is to sign the land over to the State for nothing...............

 

[spin cycle]

No one can trust the government.

If it makes financial sense for the landowner to plant trees, exclusive of any dole money, then do so. Just retain full ownership rights and treat the trees as any other crop.

even if that was the fact is that trees are long term....a govt could unilaterally just list them as protected and you'd be stuffed......govt buying land is only way IMO

 

[Courier]

No one can trust the government.

If it makes financial sense for the landowner to plant trees, exclusive of any dole money, then do so. Just retain full ownership rights and treat the trees as any other crop.

I’d love to get a bank managers reaction to a 30 year business plan - I feel sure that there will be consultants queuing up to charge for their services to do that, but doubt that any due diligence will be positive.

 

[DrWazzock]

My brother and I were discussing this topic and came to the conclusion it was best left alone. The tree planting grant isn't really income. It's to cover the cost of planting the trees. Thereafter there isn't really any reliable ongoing income that can't be cancelled at the drop of a hat.

We also believe that tree planting on any scale will be enacted by the government through the forestry commission buying up marginal land for a knockdown price just as it did in the late 1940's here. The neighbour's farm and quite a few others totalling 2000 acres of sandy heath land were bought for the princely sum of 7 shillings and acre (35p) and planted with Sitka spruce. These are being felled and replaced as I type.

Having spent a day last week with pruning saw and spade cutting willow roots from 10 yards of drain and still not getting it running I am pretty reluctant to ruin years of drainage investment by planting difficult but potentially productive land with trees. I remember when I was at school the geography teacher said that our land was only fit for forest. Dad pulled a 5 kg sugar beet out of the heap and told me to take it to school and show them.

 

[Goweresque]

even if that was the fact is that trees are long term....a govt could unilaterally just list them as protected and you'd be stuffed......govt buying land is only way IMO

Trees are already protected. Once they reach 3" diameter at breast height they would need a felling licence to cut down, and you can't get one without a replanting plan in place. Anyone signing up for a tree planting scheme is pretty much locked into woodland in perpetuity. You'd only get out of it if the trees were still small and you paid back all the grant money received.

https://assets.publishing.service.g.../831638/Tree_Felling_-_Getting_Permission.pdf

Note Section 4.5.2: Conversion of woodland to Agricultural:

We will not normally agree to woodland clearance for conversion to agricultural use. If this is what you want to do, we may ask the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to assess the contribution that the conversion of the land to agriculture would make to the economic viability of your agricultural holding before making our decision. It is likely that if we do agree to the conversion to agriculture, you will be required to create an equivalent area of replacement woodland. Without this, your proposal is likely to be refused. You will need to complete an EIA deforestation enquiry form and submit it with your felling licence application

 

[DrWazzock]

^ precisely. There's no easy way back once you have taken the King's shilling. I'd be wary. Very wary.

 

[Goweresque]

As far as I can see there's no money in logs anyway. Anyone who has ever tried to sell any standing timber will know that all you get is a lot of sucking of teeth and derisory offers. And thats with the current supply level. Try adding in hundreds of thousands of acres of new supply and you won't be able to give the things away.

Now its entirely possible that new 'Carbon Offsetting' payments may be forthcoming to woodland owners in years to come, but anyone planting trees on the back of them has to realise what the State legislates for the State can legislate against as well. Who fancies trusting that the word of a politician today will still hold good in 25 years time? Heck, even in 10 years time?

 

[Still Farming]

RSPB and other Charities have to pay out maybe too?

 

[brigadoon]

As far as I can see there's no money in logs anyway. Anyone who has ever tried to sell any standing timber will know that all you get is a lot of sucking of teeth and derisory offers. And thats with the current supply level. Try adding in hundreds of thousands of acres of new supply and you won't be able to give the things away.

Now its entirely possible that new 'Carbon Offsetting' payments may be forthcoming to woodland owners in years to come, but anyone planting trees on the back of them has to realise what the State legislates for the State can legislate against as well. Who fancies trusting that the word of a politician today will still hold good in 25 years time? Heck, even in 10 years time?

Timber prices pretty good over the last couple of years - biomass demand has put a good floor in the market although log price presently down because of disease and windblow generated felling in Europe, but still a very good margin over harvesting costs.

You are, of course correct that a sudden and massive spike in planting would result in a potential oversupply 25-50 years from planting but the probability is that encouragement will be focused on hardwoods which in all likelyhood will end up as scrub with no timber value. Thing there is to think long term.

Only country in the UK meeting present planting targets is Scotland with a much more attractive grant scheme that England or Wales, without being familiar with the detail or having time to look it up at present the key to the thing is that BPS continues (in Scotland).

As far as trust goes any planting schemes are administered under contract so any variation during the contract term would be subject to legal oversight

 

[Slippery Slope]

Surely the income from any such project will come in the form of creating and then trading 'carbon credits ' for providing said woods/scrub etc to the big multinational corporations that are destroying the world whilst yelling from the roof tops that they are carbon neutral?!

 

[Jackov Altraids]

I think everyone is right to be extremely cynical about signing up to any tree planting.
I'm amazed that many don't seem so worried about the way they are high scoring the habitats on their land to get mid & higher tier agreements.

 

[Goweresque]

Surely the income from any such project will come in the form of creating and then trading 'carbon credits ' for providing said woods/scrub etc to the big multinational corporations that are destroying the world whilst yelling from the roof tops that they are carbon neutral?!

Thats entirely possible, I was speaking to a land agent the other day, who is fairly well connected into the whole future ag policy thinking sphere, and thats exactly what he said. Large companies could be forced to buy carbon credits from people such as woodland owners to offset their activities .

My point is that such a scheme is reliant on the State legislating to make it compulsory on those doing the emitting, and what the State legislates for today may be un-legislated tomorrow. No Parliament can bind its successors, and if your income is entirely created by State dictat you may one day find its been taken away overnight.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Trees will only absorb Carbon for the lifetime of the tree.

At the end of the trees life span the tree will rot .. turning into CO2 or Methane. So ultimately the net result is a temporary storage of carbon at a land owners expense.


Looks like another con job in order to justify a policy which will export food production to those multinationals which bought Belgium sized areas of land in Africa.

 

[Steevo]

Surely any planting scheme would be banned from selling the timber for logs/woodchip.

After years of storing the carbon it would be undoing all the work by burning it and releasing it back into the atmosphere again.