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

[farmerm]

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?!

and what when you harvest the timber? do you have to buy back carbon credits for all the carbon released?? Say no to Carbon Credits, it was invented by the Rothchilds to make themselves a lots of money from us plebs! Like the emperors new clothes see it for what it really is!!

 

[farmerm]

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.

even if you don't harvest the timber at some point mature woodland stops being a carbon sink, at best it becomes carbon neutral.

 

[Steevo]

even if you don't harvest the timber at some point mature woodland stops being a carbon sink, at best it becomes carbon neutral.

Exactly, it’s just kicking the can down the road.

A bit like that new “clean coal” technology. Sounds snazzy but they were just planning to burn coal and hide the CO2 underground! Madness!

 

[Longlowdog]

Trees are a very low carbon capture once felled. Years of leaf fall, bugs and bird muck add to the soil, as does brash and a myriad other small factors but the main thing about trees is that timber in construction locks up carbon for the duration of its use and wood as fuel is carbon neutral. It grows it burns. 100 tonnes of timber in a stand is a fair amount of carbon captured but unless destined for a 200 year build it is released again pretty promptly.
Unless managed a forest of trees planted today would be overgrown, shaded out sticks in 30 years but try getting a chainsaw going in a publicly owned wood and you'l feel the heat of the outraged witless urban massive from miles away.
The previous folk who owned my place planted 40 of my 65 acres in granted trees, they are now officially woodlands as they exceed 4 inch diameter at breast height. The grants have run out, I can harvest 4mcube/year for personal use and the only other value other than the ecological gain is in telling vegans I'm carbon negative in my life.

 

[Goweresque]

Exactly, it’s just kicking the can down the road.

So its the perfect scheme for politicians then!

 

[GeorgeK]

Doesn't sound like the next government will get remotely close to delivering on their tree planting pledges... again. What will they do? Pay a whole lot more, or get the big stick out?
We are in the uncomfortable position of becoming a political pawn, existing solely to meet vote grabbing targets that likely do more harm than good, and fully exposed to the lies, trickery and deceit that is used to make it look like government targets are met

 

[brigadoon]

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.

The bottom section of the tree would hopefully go for sawlogs to make structural timber, assuming of course it is something that the sawmill wants and it is managed so as to grow to a suitable size

Small roundwood only good for OSB or pulp and limited demand for that - if you don't use it somehow it gets left on the forest floor and releases the carbon anyway.

As already said - once a wood always a wood so you would be replanting what you cut down

 

[Kiwi Pete]

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 guess your new day job provides the income?

I love my land, but given the option of letting some greedy bank pulling a tenant's strings into ploughing it up for crops - or planting it into trees to save the land I love from that waste, I'd go for trees every day of the week.
Unfortunately governments cannot see past f'ing monocultures, as this is what keeps people poor, so I'd be financing it myself.

 

[delilah]

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

which begs the question:
Over a 50 year period, does elephant grass not remove more co2, provide more renewable energy, and provide a more reliable income, than trees ?

 

[Brisel]

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 ?

British Agriculture has relied on the Government looking after it for the last 75 years through support payments of one kind or another. What's different now, other than a greater realisation of how daft and inefficient their administration is?

Ok, so the "market" has paid some of the living & ELM will mean more of the income is from government. I get that, plus there will be less £ paid out.

 

[GeorgeK]

British Agriculture has relied on the Government looking after it for the last 75 years through support payments of one kind or another. What's different now, other than a greater realisation of how daft and inefficient their administration is?

Ok, so the "market" has paid some of the living & ELM will mean more of the income is from government. I get that, plus there will be less £ paid out.

A few years ago very few people were aware of, or cared about farm subsidy, suddenly we're in the spotlight and blamed for everything. Environmental pressure groups are now in charge of policy with half baked ideas with little practical basis. We're now just a pinball bouncing around in the blame game of "someone who isn't me needs to sort this out" while the most important but unpopular issues are conveniently ignored

 

[Goweresque]

A few years ago very few people were aware of, or cared about farm subsidy, suddenly we're in the spotlight and blamed for everything. Environmental pressure groups are now in charge of policy with half baked ideas with little practical basis. We're now just a pinball bouncing around in the blame game of "someone who isn't me needs to sort this out" while the most important but unpopular issues are conveniently ignored

Modern political discourse consists of people inventing solutions to problems (that may or may not be real problems) that sound good in a five second soundbite, but don't have to pass any more rigorous scrutiny. The 'Lets plant elebenty gazillion trees' falls under this category, as does the ludicrous plastic bag tax, which has been shown to actually increase plastic usage. But of course its not politically viable to remove the tax and go back to how things were because that 'looks' bad. The fact that the tax 'looks' like a good idea trumps the fact it actually does harm.

Issues surrounding climate change are particularly susceptible to this sort of behaviour - the reality is that the only way to reduce carbon emissions (if you think such a thing is necessary) is a massive reduction in living standards, as our way of life is backed by energy use, the vast majority of which comes from fossil fuels. Politicians don't want to face this, because in a democracy everyone has a vote so if you openly tell voters they are going to lose their car, lose their foreign holidays, have to pay lots more for less fancy food, have less spare income to buy the fripperies they have become accustomed to, they will vote for someone else. Hence the desire for pointless little policies that offer no actual help to the problem, but don't impact Joe Public in any great way, and sound like 'something is being done!'.

I suspect tree planting is going to be one of those political footballs. Its superficially simple 'Plant trees, soak up lots of CO2, climate change averted!', it can be imposed on a small section of society (landowners) who aren't exactly popular with the public, and it won't stop Joe Public jetting off to Lanzarote at the drop of a hat. And by the time its all been proved to be a waste of time and money the politician elected on the back of it will be long retired or even dead. In many ways its the perfect political policy.

 

[Bogweevil]

There is always biochar - trees pyrolised and the resulting char added to soils to enhance fertility and sequester carbon, perhaps indefinately.

 

[Bogweevil]

Tractors can run on wood :

 

[Jackov Altraids]

British Agriculture has relied on the Government looking after it for the last 75 years through support payments of one kind or another. What's different now, other than a greater realisation of how daft and inefficient their administration is?

Ok, so the "market" has paid some of the living & ELM will mean more of the income is from government. I get that, plus there will be less £ paid out.

The difference now is that the payments of the last 75 years were to support farming whereas ELM will largely support anything but farming.
Equally significant is the general transition of realtime payments for what you're doing to a promise of a payment should you fulfill the terms of an agreement with all the power in their hands to change, amend or cancel the agreement and likewise any payments.
The length of your commitment is being continually extended. This erodes flexibility and increases the probability that they will find reasons for breaches of contract and decrease/ retrieve payments. This also means your property can be re-designated and you will no longer be free to use it as you wish. 15 years of tree growth or re-wilding and it will be permanent woodland or an sssi.
This is why the OP's question is so important. There may not be any income after 15 years and no option to get some.

 

[Hesston4860s]

The difference now is that the payments of the last 75 years were to support farming whereas ELM will largely support anything but farming.
Equally significant is the general transition of realtime payments for what you're doing to a promise of a payment should you fulfill the terms of an agreement with all the power in their hands to change, amend or cancel the agreement and likewise any payments.
The length of your commitment is being continually extended. This erodes flexibility and increases the probability that they will find reasons for breaches of contract and decrease/ retrieve payments. This also means your property can be re-designated and you will no longer be free to use it as you wish. 15 years of tree growth or re-wilding and it will be permanent woodland or an sssi.
This is why the OP's question is so important. There may not be any income after 15 years and no option to get some.

Thats how it already is !, I’ve had no income what so ever off any of mine since 2012. And the grants payed for the first 15 years don’t really compensate for income forgone like the FC say they do, but it is in the contracts that after the full term of the contract that the land can be returned to agriculture. One of mine finishes next year so we will see what happens on that one, but it is my full intention that the whole 20ac worth are coming out one way or another !.
I need an income from my land it’s as simple as that !.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Issues surrounding climate change are particularly susceptible to this sort of behaviour - the reality is that the only way to reduce carbon emissions (if you think such a thing is necessary) is a massive reduction in living standards, as our way of life is backed by energy use, the vast majority of which comes from fossil fuels.

Isn't it conveniant that CO2 creation via imports is off the UK books ?

Isn't it conveniant that large multinational corporations bought areas the size of Belgium in Africa some years ago for relatively small amounts of money.

Unable to grow Livestock & Crops in the UK ?? .. oh look we'll help by importing from Africa.


Remind me, didn't the UK politicians want UK citizens to pay a tax to fund the 3rd world circa 2000 ? It went down like a lead balloon. Doesn't the UN have agenda 21 where populations are supposed to live in cities only with the remaining land area used for "Rewilding".

Looks to me as though a VERY small number of people are engineering the "Science" to force everyone else to do as they say.

And that "Science" includes calculating water usage for cows based on rainfall on a livestock farm in the Amazon .. a rain forest.


People need to wake up and smell the coffee .. these PC Liberals are lining their pockets at everyone else's expense.

 

[toquark]

Consider the move from agricultural production to timber carefully, its a permanent change but which if planned well can offer a number of potential future benefits to a farm business. The argument I use to sell the idea to clients is that trees offer a landowner the potential to create a fairly low cost, low risk pension asset if they're young enough or tax efficient capital asset if you're thinking of succession. The income is "blocky", I.e. Annual cash flow is not provided by trees unless you're harvesting every year which is unlikely, however the thought of a significant tax free lump sum coming in in say 5 or 10 years allows plenty of time for investment planning.

There are loads of other benefits of planting some woods which don't preclude productive farming and should add to the value, workability and aesthetics of a farm.

I would stress that I'm focussing on commercial softwood which in my part of the country (SW Scotland) have a ready market and good labour resource.

 

[Longlowdog]

So far as I'm aware there is a ten year burden of care attached to the end of the grant paid period. Otherwise I'd be reducing the gross area of trees on my place to the extent they were wildlife corridors and wind/snow brakes.
The last inspector to come see my place said in his opinion there would be no going back. Once a tree reaches 4 inch diameter at breast height it officially becomes a tree, felling may only be done under a thinning or a felling licence. Thinning must be in the best interest of the remaining trees and a felling licence only ever comes with a replant clause.

 

[toquark]

So far as I'm aware there is a ten year burden of care attached to the end of the grant paid period. Otherwise I'd be reducing the gross area of trees on my place to the extent they were wildlife corridors and wind/snow brakes.
The last inspector to come see my place said in his opinion there would be no going back. Once a tree reaches 4 inch diameter at breast height it officially becomes a tree, felling may only be done under a thinning or a felling licence. Thinning must be in the best interest of the remaining trees and a felling licence only ever comes with a replant clause.

Depends on the grant, some were 10 years, some 15 the really old ones were 20, but I reckon they'll all have expired by now. Your inspector was right though, once its woodland it has to stay woodland, unless there is a very good reason for deforesting and even if you do get the green light to remove woodland, you must compensatory plant elsewhere to the same acreage on land under the same ownership. Like I say, its a permenant change and not one to be taken lightly or without careful planning. A lot of mistakes have been made in the past with woods being planted miles from roads etc which may have coloured some opinions as the returns in these cases will naturally be much lower, but if planned correctly, woodland can offer a multitude of benefits.