"BAC" wrote in message
...

I don't think I have missed the point. Yes, landowners own land in order
to
use it, and, I guess from your remarks, you mean use it for a financial
gain. Hence, the use to which they wish to put it has to be one they are
confident will be profitable. I don't believe that wholesale upland
conifer
planting would fit that particular bill. For example, the 1998 Bell Ingram
study for the forestry commission suggested that, without grants, Douglas
fir plantations generated the highest internal rate of return, at 2.82 % -
hardly an attractive investment and perhaps the reason standing timber
values have dropped so much over the past few decades.

OTOH, doing relatively inexpensive things which attract grant income
(which
includes some things beloved to conservationists, like removing deer
fences)
and sporting uses, e.g. deer stalking, etc., are more attractive.
Alternatively, if no viable commercial use is found, the landowner might
be
better off cutting his losses and investing elsewhere, with the
consequence
the land will probably be considered worthless and left to its own
devices,
as used to happen to disused quarries, etc.

abandoned land tends to get used, tyre dumps and other such uses come to
mind. Not only that but there are so many people out there with uses for
land now, 4x4 tracks, paint ball, somewhere to leave heavy vehicles, park
carvans when they are not being used. Land further from towns will have less
uses, but what you must remember is that people already own the land. To say
that they will get a better return by cutting their losses presupposes
someone will buy it off them.
For someone to buy it off them, that person has to see a return. So what you
are more likely to see is the land remaining in the ownership of someone who
plants trees, or does 4x4 courses or runs hill sheep, whichever enables them
to make a living

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

I don't think I have missed the point. Yes, landowners own land in order
to
use it, and, I guess from your remarks, you mean use it for a financial
gain. Hence, the use to which they wish to put it has to be one they are
confident will be profitable. I don't believe that wholesale upland
conifer
planting would fit that particular bill. For example, the 1998 Bell
Ingram
study for the forestry commission suggested that, without grants,
Douglas
fir plantations generated the highest internal rate of return, at 2.82
% -
hardly an attractive investment and perhaps the reason standing timber
values have dropped so much over the past few decades.

OTOH, doing relatively inexpensive things which attract grant income
(which
includes some things beloved to conservationists, like removing deer
fences)
and sporting uses, e.g. deer stalking, etc., are more attractive.
Alternatively, if no viable commercial use is found, the landowner might
be
better off cutting his losses and investing elsewhere, with the
consequence
the land will probably be considered worthless and left to its own
devices,
as used to happen to disused quarries, etc.

abandoned land tends to get used, tyre dumps and other such uses come to
mind. Not only that but there are so many people out there with uses for
land now, 4x4 tracks, paint ball, somewhere to leave heavy vehicles, park
carvans when they are not being used. Land further from towns will have
less
uses, but what you must remember is that people already own the land. To
say
that they will get a better return by cutting their losses presupposes
someone will buy it off them.

Maybe, maybe not. If, say, you inherited a block of hill land, and a vegan
dictatorship banned livestock farming (the scenario we were discussing), and
in order to generate any income from commercial softwood forestry you would
have to invest money likely to yield less than the cost of borrowing it, you
would have to be either a mug or an optimist to go ahead, regardless of
whether you could sell the land for something else or not.

For someone to buy it off them, that person has to see a return.

The person or body purchasing has to (a) have the funds it is willing to
bid, and (b) motivation to bid (a belief the ownership would be to their
advantage), which doesn't have to incorporate a direct financial return from
exploiting the land. For example, once upon a time, some water authorities
owned moorland catchment areas around reservoir sites to ensure no
incompatible activities were carried out there (although, strangely,
shooting was allowed and that was in the days of lead shot). Subsequently,
the land in question was transferred to the National Trust, which body
didn't see much chance of a profit, but still wanted the land for heritage
and conservation purposes.

So what you
are more likely to see is the land remaining in the ownership of someone
who
plants trees, or does 4x4 courses or runs hill sheep, whichever enables
them
to make a living


Obviously, the land would tend to be exploited by whoever is willing to pay
most for it, for a legal use, be that amenity or agricultural or whatever -
although it equally obviously wouldn't be livestock in the 'vegan'
dictatorship scenario. What I was saying was I didn't think it likely it
would all go to commercial softwood plantations, either :-)

"BAC" wrote in message
t...



Obviously, the land would tend to be exploited by whoever is willing to
pay
most for it, for a legal use, be that amenity or agricultural or
whatever -
although it equally obviously wouldn't be livestock in the 'vegan'
dictatorship scenario. What I was saying was I didn't think it likely it
would all go to commercial softwood plantations, either :-)


well if you assume take over by a bunch of sad loosers then anything can
happen,

:-)))


but I would point out that if the capital value of the land drops, the %
return from softwood actually increases.
Indeed if the land is worth virtually nothing then investing in timber
production becomes worth considering.

I too don't think that softwood will be a universal end, but remember that
if you have a contractor coming into an area to do 100 acres for me, then
his price per acre will fall if he is also doing 100 acres for you and
another 100 acres for someone else. Similarly if I open a quadbike track or
similar, it might be even more profitable if we run it across your 100 acres
as well as it gives a better track we can charge even more money for.

What SFP and the latest round of CAP reform has done is it has taken the
money away from food production and put it onto environmental work. As there
is damn all profit in food production, then there is no money from that
enterprise to cross subsidise the environmental work (which is what has been
happening in many if not most cases) so the environmental work has to stand
on its own feet economically. We looked at Entry Level Stewardship and
decided that it didn't cover the cost of the hassle of the paperwork
applying so we aren't taking part

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
t...



Obviously, the land would tend to be exploited by whoever is willing to
pay
most for it, for a legal use, be that amenity or agricultural or
whatever -
although it equally obviously wouldn't be livestock in the 'vegan'
dictatorship scenario. What I was saying was I didn't think it likely it
would all go to commercial softwood plantations, either :-)


well if you assume take over by a bunch of sad loosers then anything can
happen,

:-)))

If they managed to impose a totalitarian state, it wouldn't be them who
would be the losers. I have nothing against people who wish to pursue a
vegan lifestyle, but it has to be a matter of free personal choice. If there
were such a state, I'd put money on suitable uplands, ostensibly purchased
for amenity purposes, being allowed/encouraged to be populated by 'wild'
food animals like deer, hares and rabbits (and wild boar in forested areas?)
and a thriving black market in illicit meat products developing.



but I would point out that if the capital value of the land drops, the %
return from softwood actually increases.
Indeed if the land is worth virtually nothing then investing in timber
production becomes worth considering.

I too don't think that softwood will be a universal end, but remember that
if you have a contractor coming into an area to do 100 acres for me, then
his price per acre will fall if he is also doing 100 acres for you and
another 100 acres for someone else. Similarly if I open a quadbike track
or
similar, it might be even more profitable if we run it across your 100
acres
as well as it gives a better track we can charge even more money for.

What SFP and the latest round of CAP reform has done is it has taken the
money away from food production and put it onto environmental work. As
there
is damn all profit in food production, then there is no money from that
enterprise to cross subsidise the environmental work (which is what has
been
happening in many if not most cases) so the environmental work has to
stand
on its own feet economically. We looked at Entry Level Stewardship and
decided that it didn't cover the cost of the hassle of the paperwork
applying so we aren't taking part



Good points. We will have to hope the next round of CAP reform doesn't
further erode the environmental payments, as I believe some on the continent
have suggested, or we will have the worst of both worlds - no food
production to speak of, and little environmental protection, either.

"BAC" wrote in message
...



What SFP and the latest round of CAP reform has done is it has taken the
money away from food production and put it onto environmental work. As
there
is damn all profit in food production, then there is no money from that
enterprise to cross subsidise the environmental work (which is what has
been
happening in many if not most cases) so the environmental work has to
stand
on its own feet economically. We looked at Entry Level Stewardship and
decided that it didn't cover the cost of the hassle of the paperwork
applying so we aren't taking part



Good points. We will have to hope the next round of CAP reform doesn't
further erode the environmental payments, as I believe some on the
continent
have suggested, or we will have the worst of both worlds - no food
production to speak of, and little environmental protection, either.


Well actually it is the UK government, or at least Tony and Gordon, who have
been demanding further cuts.
As there is no money for production (the sugar regieme is technically still
continuing but is being wound down) all money is for environmental
work/public goods.
Hence any cut in the amount of money is a cut in environmental spending.
By my reckonning a lot of intensive dairy farms will start to drop out of
cross compliance in a couple of years time as the costs of cross compliance
will no longer be matched by the money recieved from SFP.
For hill farms it is more difficult to calculate, much depends on what
happens with other, non-SFP hill farm allowance and similar. But it looks as
if government are intent on cranking up the costs of cross compliance, and
as sheep aren't actually an income stream, but are a cost, it is likely that
we are going to get major changes in the uplands.

Jim Webster