Tag Archives: articles
Future Of Forestry Is A Growing Problem
Forests can combine a working environment with places for recreation and nature. Picture: Jon Savage by STUART GOODALL Published on the 07 August 2013 FORESTRY is a Scottish success story, supporting almost 40,000 jobs and contributing nearly £1.7 billion to the economy every year. It is also a backdrop to Scotland’s tourism industry – many iconic Scottish landscapes and images feature forests, and tourists and locals alike enjoy walking, biking or viewing wildlife in these special areas. Our forests are unique in that they can combine a working environment with places for recreation and nature. Most are actively managed and produce wood to supply the materials for our everyday lives. Our ancestors used wood for shelter, fire and hunting. While we no longer need to hunt for food, we still build with wood, and use it for fuel. This sounds wonderful, and indeed Scotland’s forest industry has bucked the economic downturn with continued investment of around £50 million a year. Increased production and expanding exports have had an annual beneficial impact of £1bn on the UK’s balance of payments. But all is not green in the forest garden. The public image of forestry is stuck in the 20th century; think forestry, and many imagine dark, impenetrable blocks of trees where nothing lives. When trees are harvested, it’s assumed they will not be replaced. These misconceptions make it harder to achieve support for new woodland creation, especially those containing a proportion of trees grown to supply future stocks of wood. If we do not overcome this, we will damage rural employment, undermine carbon reduction targets and, ironically, undermine much of the wildlife that popular perception believes is damaged by forestry. The successful reintroduction of the sea eagle has seen these majestic birds set up home in forests managed to produce wood, alongside other birds of prey and the iconic red squirrel. Long-term Wood production and availability is at a modern-day peak due to high levels of historic planting, but forestry is long-term, with planning horizons stretching 15-25 years – and investment will only continue if Scottish businesses can guarantee a supply of wood. The problem is the stark fall in softwood planting (the mainstay of the forestry sector) since the early 1990s. In more than 20 years since 1991, only 41,000 hectares (ha) has been planted, compared to 215,000ha in 1981-90 alone – an astonishing drop. Successive Scottish Governments have committed to 6,000ha of new softwood planting annually, which would provide the required confidence in future supply. Scotland is also losing large swathes of softwood forestry to windfarms, conversion to other habitats, and changes to the make-up of existing productive forests to make them more diverse and attractive to wildlife. This cannot continue. Wood availability will peak around 2025-2030, then fall steeply. This is a long-term problem with short-term consequences; reduced confidence in future raw material supply will lead to a drop in investment, job losses and reduced economic growth. We have to plant far more trees in the next decade than we are doing now, to secure the future of a successful industry, vital also for our existing forests. If forests are not managed, they do become dark and impenetrable, and unwelcoming to wildlife and people. Businesses Scotland’s wood-using businesses generate the income to pay for management; if these businesses decline, so will our forests. There are people who want to plant trees and we need to ensure Scotland’s regulatory and grants system for land allows them to do so, to achieve what all of Scotland needs – new, well-managed, multi-benefit forests that provide the wood we need for our everyday lives, while allowing people and wildlife to enjoy the woodland environment. The forestry sector is campaigning on this issue and had a productive meeting recently with forestry minister Paul Wheelhouse and enterprise minister Fergus Ewing, who recognised the significance of softwood forestry and reaffirmed the commitment to plant 10,000ha a year until 2022, with a 60:40 split in favour of productive softwoods. The ministers also delivered a clear message to the sector to keep planting, stressing that the latest reform to the Common Agricultural Policy should not lead to unnecessary and potentially damaging delays. There was also support from Mr Wheelhouse and Mr Ewing for ensuring that grants do not dissuade landowners from planting productive softwoods. This is encouraging, but it is important that it leads to real action; the future of a sector that can do great things for Scotland depends upon it. • Stuart Goodall is chief executive of Confor: promoting forestry and wood (www.confor.org.uk) More information on becoming Continue reading
Farmland Values in U.S. Rise 9.4% to $2,900 Per Acre
By Alan Bjerga – Aug 2, 2013 U.S. farmland values climbed 9.4 percent this year as high prices paid for crops and livestock after last year’s drought bolstered real-estate while commodity prices fell, the Department of Agriculture said. The average value of all land and buildings on farms and ranches in the 48 contiguous states was $2,900 an acre, according to a June survey of farmers, the USDA today said in an annual report , up from $2,650 a year earlier. The drought that spread through the Corn Belt and Great Plains last year prompted record insurance payments and will push farm profits to a record $128.2 billion this year as growers rebuild inventories, the USDA said in February. The most expensive farmland was in New Jersey at $12,700 an acre, followed by Rhode Island at $11,800, according to the USDA. The cheapest was in New Mexico at $550 an acre. The Corn Belt was the most expensive of the 10 regions tracked by the USDA, averaging $6,400 an acre after gaining 15 percent from the previous year. The Mountain region had the lowest prices, averaging $1,020 per acre. The USDA will update its farm profit forecast on Aug. 27. To contact the reporter on this story: Alan Bjerga in Washington at abjerga@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at jmorgan97@bloomberg.net Continue reading
The Price of Being Politically Innocuous
When it comes to the price of an energy project, biomass power is often viewed as having a difficult time competing with natural gas and coal based power production. Conventional fossil fuels have a longstanding foundation as the primary fuels for electricity production and a lower levelized energy cost than biomass power, according to EIA . The EIA estimates that a biomass power plant entering service in 2018 will cost $108 per MWhr on national average. Compared to conventional coal ($100/MWhr) and conventional combined cycle natural gas ($67/MWhr), the EIA estimates that conventional fossil fuel plants will be more cost competitive that biomass power. While the EIA does include recent Clean Air rules and legislations into their levelized cost modules for power production, the EIA neglects to include market trends and likely future legislation as possibilities into their projections. Their reason for not doing so is unstated but understandable. Any projection that they release that leans towards one energy source will be seen by elected representatives that are opposed to that energy source as ‘biting the hand that feeds them.’ The EIA’s political abstinence from broader projections by including current market and political trends as a potential outcome is logical given their role as reporter of current realities in the energy sector to congress and the executive branch. By remaining politically innocuous, the EIA stays out of unnecessary and wasteful congressional hearings, but it comes at the cost of missing realistic predictions that offer a broad scope of pragmatic energy pathways. For example, there is a broad movement in Europe and the U.S. to move away from coal and inefficient natural gas generation, but much of these trends are omitted by EIA’s modules for the sake of not offending those in congress with strong ties to these industries. The EIA must walk a political tightrope of making projections while attempting not to offend the many stakeholders that make up the energy sector, particularly those that are politically active. Unfortunately, the balance required to stay on this political tightrope leads to narrow projections that do not realistically predict market realities. Continue reading