Forestry Now

speaker-0 (00:01.784)
Welcome to Forestry Now, where we explore the forces impacting profitable and sustainable management of commercial forests and natural woodlands. I'm Dermot McNally. Today I'm joined by Donald Whelan from the Irish Timber Growers Association. We talk a little about the role of the ITGA itself, but we mostly focus on a new challenge for forest owners across Ireland proposals to widen ESB corridors through existing semi mature and mature.

Plantations. We talk about the long-established practice which facilitates power lines in new plantations and how owners are compensated. And then we move on to the many possible implications if ESB corridors are now widened without adequate engagement and consultation with landowners. Some forest owners, myself included, have already been approached by the ESB and don't explain what landowners are obliged under current legislation to

To facilitate at present. But before all that, I asked Donald to introduce himself and his background as a professional forester.

Well, first of all, I'm a forester, a very proud forester indeed. I'm a graduate from UCD. I'm a UCD forestry graduate, a Bachelor of Agricultural Science degree, specializing indeed in forestry. And and since nineteen eighty-six, eighty-seven, I've been self-employed as a consultant forester, and we've had a forest management business, myself and Mekdell Skuller, my

My my dear wife and partner in the business who's also a professional forester and graduated from the University of Wagening in the the Netherlands. So I suppose I'm principal of Commercial Forestry Services Limited, which is a forestry company. But I suppose very importantly, I'm also technical director of the Irish Timbergrowers Association, and have been technical director of the Irish Timbergrowers Association since nineteen ninety or so.

speaker-0 (02:09.57)
That's, I suppose, for me, it's a very important role because I suppose it's it's the association. next year, Dermot, it's celebrating 50 years. it was established in 1977, before I was in involved with it, as you can imagine. So it's a long history. 50 years next year we'll be celebrating.

And I suppose it's seen a lot of changes over those fifty years. I mean, initially it was established to to help the development and indeed the expansion of private forestry in Ireland, and that it has done. And I suppose it has grown in the extent of its services, both information services and indeed representation services to the sector and particular to its membership and particularly to obviously timber growers up and down the country.

And who are your main members then, Donald? Maybe you just take a nod to that, please. Absolutely. I I suppose our membership would really be across the whole range of of timber growers, Dermot. So we would have members that would have one or two acres that would be particularly interested in environmental forestry or native woodlands, all the way up to sort of larger farm forest owners.

that would have planted for their own pension funds. we'd we'd have people that would have had woodlands, some of the old estates, and would have have regenerated the woodlands and would also be looking for an income. So a lot of the the estates would would be members and then all the way up to one or two of the forestry pension funds who are are members of the association. So I suppose we represent the whole range of timber growers from the the one acre, two acre

farm forester right up to the bigger forestry pension funds. And I suppose gives us a breadth of knowledge and understanding of the whole sector and and the industry. Brilliant. Okay. And then Donald, what are the main issues that it are working on at at the minute? I mean, you have some ongoing field days, you have information provision on your website, but you also are involved in representing the forest sector.

speaker-0 (04:29.748)
Absolutely. I I suppose, you know, we we produce a quarterly newsletter, Dermot, which I know you'd be we be familiar with. We produce an annual yearbook, which is I suppose it's the industry yearbooks, 208 pages. We produce that every year. And in the at the moment we're in the midst of it. I work with Donald Magner, who's the editor, and Gino, who's the designer, and and Mechteld as well. and that's a big production.

We we also, as you mentioned, we have our field days and we have a a lot of events throughout the year. To have webinars and we we would have had less talk forestry with with partners that would be a sort of a YouTube channel on forestry that we would have worked with with with Linda the the Cochran. But there I suppose there the representation services there, but they're not always seen. And I suppose that's that's where we would do a considerable amount of work. So for example

Association would be represented on the the Forest Strategy Consultative Committee within the department. We we'd be members of that. I know that you had a very interesting podcast here in relation to certification, and we'd sit on the board of Group Forest Certification Ireland with a number of other other parties on that. I suppose we'd have a lot of projects in relation to input into the forestry programme midterm review.

we'd have, you know, for anybody who might be interested, we'd have our formal submissions on the ITGA website. that's ITGA.ie. So we'd have a lot of submissions, whether it's on the midterm review, whether it's on, you know, recently we've done a lot of work on the contingency, the draft contingency plans for the the spruce bark beetle in Ireland, on how I suppose what

The department and how the sector and department would operate a contingency plan running into the future. So we would have a lot of work done on that indeed with the department and submissions. We work on the forest health stakeholders group, work in relation to the EU DR process. And also we're looking at at, I suppose, maybe enlarging the role of Irish forestry and its footprint in Europe. And maybe we'll talk about that at the end.

speaker-0 (06:46.872)
But I suppose one of the big one of our big aims at the moment, I suppose, is working on the ESB proposals to widen corridors under medium voltage ESB lines. Because Dermot, you quite rightly identified this as a as a as a significant issue for for forest owners, particularly in your area, but also actually throughout the country. And the

proposals in relation to widening, potentially widening the corridors, the unplanted corridors under these medium voltage lines is is potentially very significant for forest owners for a range of reasons, which, you know, maybe we we we'll outline as we discussed this. And your your podcast here is very timely. And it's timely because just last week,

the the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment, Minister Darrell O'Brien, welcomed the government approval for a revised Heads of the Electricity Supply Amendments Bill 2026. And the idea of this legislation will support the management of forestry and vegetation related risks across the ESB infrastructure, if you like. And I suppose that's

what we have been in endeavoring to engage with with DEC, which you when I I when I talk about DEC, it's the the Department for Climate, Energy and the Environment, and talking to them about the concerns and the the risks that private woodland owners see in this draft heads of a forestry bill, if you like. I will preface this by saying while the draft revised heads of a bill

Have been welcomed by the minister, they haven't been made publicly available yet. And as a result, we don't know exactly what's in them. But we are in a position, I suppose, to know what we're concerned about being in them. And we are preparing ourselves for, I suppose, engagement with DEC and indeed with the ESB when that becomes when that.

speaker-0 (09:10.37)
those draft heads of a bill become public knowledge. And and that's, I suppose, why your podcast here, Dermot, is so timely. Yeah, no, it's it's it's a big thing. And and it's the exact reason why we have you here, Donald, to to help us out with it. So let's go back a little bit, because as relatively new forest owner myself, I would have had to engage with the ESB on new plantations. And not everyone would be familiar with the established practice in Ireland. How

We have balanced the needs of ESB utility supply across the country with people who've wanted to plant for us. So maybe let's start with that, because that'll provide the basis for everything that happens afterwards. So don't lie, I'm coming to you. I need my far my farm planted and we've got approval, but there's an ESB line running through the middle. What happens next? Absolutely. And

Indeed, you you're right. For for many years now there has been a an agreement. the gre the agreement is is formally between the Irish Farmers Association and the Electricity Supply Board, but it effectively is agreement with with any landowner in Ireland. And it covers the impact of ESB lines on existing but also on proposed forestry plantations. And and

Your point is is well made there. So you're looking at a landowner who's looking at planting but has ESB lines over the over his lands and he may be precluded from planting some of those lands. What should he do? And what is available to him in in recompense for losing that productive area. And the agreement between landowners and the electricity supply board established guidelines whereby

Effectively, each case is examined on an individual basis, but there are some overriding guidelines which are very important to know about and which effectively all landowners would have to abide by. Now, the first thing I'd say, Dermot, is that I would highly recommend for any landowner in that position to engage with a professional forester in order to know the rights and what and what I'll outline, I suppose,

speaker-0 (11:29.4)
the the outline system here. But foresters' fees, reasonable fees are covered in this agreement, up to a maximum, I think, of around about 750 euro or so. But so also are the reasonable legal fees are covered with this. So they're reimbursed to the forest owner. And those reasonable legal fees will amount to about 850 euro plus

Plus reasonable legal outlay. So that's the first thing to say that the landowner, the forest owner, or the potential forest owner isn't on his own here. He can get some advice and for reasonable cost, that advice will be reimbursed to him. So, okay. So what can the landowner expect if he's got land sterilized for forestry because of ESB alliance? Well, first of all, the landowner must notify the ESB before any planting takes place.

And the idea there, I suppose, is if they're very significant lines or it's a very long area, it gives the the option for the ESB to move those lines if the compensation looks like it's going to be. I've never heard that happening in practice, but that is the rule that you must pre-notify DSB before planting, if you like. It gives them that option. And DSB basically generally agrees to pay the landowner monies equivalent.

To approximately 75% of the purchase price of the affected area or the value of the land. So obviously, if it's been in the family for a long time, the an estate agent, professional estate agent, would value the land. And based on that. And what I would say by the way is that the landowner should expect that there is a bit of negotiation with the ESB, but but it's important.

That valuation, 75% of that valuation is established and well established for the grower. That's the basic compensation, if like, for sterilizing the land. For that, the ESB will require anneasement through the forest that gives them the right to maintain the line and and such like. And I'll go through, I suppose, there are different types of lines and are different types, different widths.

speaker-0 (13:55.768)
Corridors that are acquired under the various different lines. And I'll I'll talk through them in a minute. But in addition to the compensation for sterilizing of the land and the redu and effectively the reduction land value because it is sterilized for forestry, there's also compensation for any premia payments that would have been available and would have been paid subject to eligibility over that area that was sterilized. And

effectively, you know what what I would do for for what I would recommend for timbergoers members, or indeed as a consultant would have done myself, is that you look at that whole cash flow. So that whole cash flow of premiums that have not that are not available to the landowner because that area of land is sterilized, you effectively look at the whole cash flow and they discount that fl cash flow

at a a low discount rate. So the ESB have wouldn't generally just cumulate the amount over the 15 or 20 years, whatever it would be. They would actually then discount the cash flow. So it reduces the cumulative value, but it is as I suppose a professional way of doing it. What I tell my clients is that discount rate should be very low. So that increases the value of their compensation.

And again, Dermot, that's why I suppose the ESB say that each case will be examined on an individual basis. it's important for the landowners, the forest owners, to engage a consultant forester that has experience in this and that will represent them well in in relation to any negotiations with the ESB. There's also the potential for fencing of the wider power lines. So

And I go through that, as I say, the power line widths now, but there's the potential for fencing or compensation for fencing where the landowner will do it himself. So I suppose they're the main points. It's not that straightforward. And I as I as I repeat myself here, it is important that landowners get independent forestry advice on it, and indeed legal advice as well. So, okay, you might say then, well, there are many different types of

speaker-0 (16:20.338)
ESB lines and and what are the corridor widths that are required to be left clear under the various different lines? And if if I may go through that now. So the very low roadside lines, if you like, distribution lines, there's only branch clearance required from from those particular lines. And therefore, there's effectively no compensation available.

For those low voltage, very low voltage distribution lines. But then you move up into the medium voltage lines. And your forestry consultant will, because it's of his mapping, will be able to tell you what lines you have on your on your site. But the medium voltage lines are 10 kilovolt, 20 kilovolt, or 38 kilovolt lines. And currently, and when I say currently, that is before.

the heads of a bill and as I say we haven't seen it. But so currently as things stand before that becomes legislation, as things stand for those medium voltage lines, a twenty meter wide corridor is required to be left. And growers would get compensation based on the length of the line and that width of of corridor, if you like, for the twenty for the for the medium voltage lines. And that's Donald

That's 20 meters in total. So the the power line is in the center, we'll roughly say at 10 meters and it's 10 meters either side of the line. Would that be it? That's exactly it. And you know, in relation to fencing that, generally the ESB won't cover the cost fencing it unless that area is on a boundary of the site. So if it falls on a boundary, or unless there was an ex

existing fence within that 20-meter corridor, then they will compensate for the fencing. But unless you can make a special case outside that for the 20-meter wide corridor, it's very difficult to get compensation for fencing. But there is the compensation reimbursement for the sterilized area to 75% of land value for the compensation for the premiums missed. And then the reimbursement

speaker-0 (18:45.966)
Adjustment of the legal and forestry fees, they're all available on those slides. Yeah, and Dole, I just say that you know, not everyone might think, well, why would you even want a fence in a forest? But the reality is this: if you're actively farming a hundred acres and you've decided to plant 30 acres, but that there's a long ESB line going through part of your forest, well, as an existing farmer, you might want to run your stock underneath that ESB line.

But without a fence, you're not actually allowed to do that because the stock can wander into the forest. And there's also a payment for farming area. And unless that area is fenced, it can't be claimed as a farming payment. So this is why it it is an important thing for someone who is already farming and will continue to farm on the site to be aware that fencing, having fencing and permanent fencing in place, not just ESB.

Isn't enough to allow you to def to effectively engage with some of the farming schemes. That's a very important point. And that's a point that that case should be and then must be made by your your consultant Forrester. But you're absolutely right. And I suppose again, I go back to the ESB agreement with the IFA and with landowners. It's on a case-by-case basis. So your point is well made. And

And in those situations sh you know, should be argued and the case must be made by by your consultant or representative. And Dermot, that I suppose is is going to be very important in relation to any changes in the legislation. And we'll we'll come to that again, I know, but but that will be because over a lot over

At least some of the SB lines, they're talking about widening them from twenty to fifty-five meters for these medium voltage lines. And then your point becomes much more important as you can appreciate under that. I I suppose just going back then to the the existing legislation and what what landowners can get compensation for, for the 110 kilovolt lines, a corridor of 61 meters must be left. And in that case.

speaker-0 (21:03.544)
you know, generally a a grower can successfully argue for for fencing. And then under the higher two twenty kilovoltage lines, there's there's sixty eight meters acquired under that. And the highest, you know, long long high highest voltage lines for the long distance transmission, they're four hundred kilovolt and the corridor under those that are is required by DSB is seventy four meters in total.

This podcast is kindly supported by the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. If you're thinking of planting a new forest or keen to access information on financial and technical supports to manage your existing forest, then go to gov.ie forward slash forestry for you. I'll include that link and other critical details about the guest and this topic in the show notes. Now back to the chat.

Yeah, that gives us a the context and i I mean, the something that's very important to note before we go on is that if if you agreed with the ESB, you planted your forest in accordance with what was agreed at at the twenty or sixty meter setbacks, whatever it happened to be, and your forest has grown up, it develops a a wind edge on those sides of the ESB corridor that are facing into the the open area, if you like.

And so that is a crucial point because the the edge trees have have effectively grown up being subject to to the wind. And now I suppose we'll get into it. If there's changes made to the widths, it's gonna affect that edge boundary on the forest. Absolutely. And I suppose that's the big risk. And you know, initially prior to these revised heads of a bill, there had been while

The the previous bill had never been published. The general, I suppose, thought was that the corridor width was going to be increased throughout for all of the medium voltage power lines in Ireland would be increased from 20 meters, potentially 55 meters. And that is a very significant increase in width. And and you know.

speaker-0 (23:27.298)
What that means is effectively number one, of course, that that there's you know, if you have a long length of medium voltage lines running through your property, there's a considerable area of your forest going to be removed if and I, you know, predicated if that was to be the case. But also the wind firm edge was was a big issue in relation to I suppose potential wind blow or s or

leaving the crop open to potential wind flow in the future, because your points are well made, because those wind firm edge trees will have been removed. And that's something I suppose that we have articulated to DEC to the Department of of Climate, Energy and the Environment. And it's something that when we see the new draft heads of a bill, we're going to articulate again depending on on

You know what you know, what's in that. My understanding, Dermot, and you know, this again is just from conversation, is that I know the ministers welcomed the revised heads of a bill. It's revised in that the approach taken will be more a risk based management approach. And my understanding is that blanket increase in width of forestry corridor may no longer be proposed.

But again, we'll we'll have to look at the detail of the bill whenever we get it. Yeah, and I I suppose we we don't need to go back into what mi what precipitated all of this. But of course it was the huge storms in December twenty-four and january twenty-five, caused huge amounts of wind blow that took down power lines in rural parts of Ireland and left many homeowners, farmers.

And indeed, forest owners living in these rural parts of Ireland without power for several weeks in some cases. So there was a political backlash, I guess, don't and the ESB themselves found themselves under severe criticism for not reconnecting power. And that has kind of driven on this change in policy. Because up until now, everything was working fairly well. There probably had been isolated incidents of wind blow affecting power lines, but the scale of that storm was unprecedented and

speaker-0 (25:52.916)
it left that we were scrambling for electrical crews from across Europe to help us get our power back going. So I mean that again is is why the existing scenario is proposed to be changed in the first instance. So maybe we'll move on to that. We we don't know much, but we do know that something is about to change and and I suppose we'll we'll move into it from there, Donald. Just if I may, on that storm, I mean

As you'll be aware, the highest wind speeds ever recorded in Ireland were, I think, recorded in Galway, County Galway at at the time. So it was a catastrophic event. It was certainly a you know a a once-off in relation to a rotation of a forestry. And absolutely, unfortunately, I think there were 800,000 or so people were left without electricity. It was very significant. And you know.

for in some of the cases, you know, forestry was was the issue. And DSB, you know, drafted their what's called a winter resilience plan in relation to addressing this. But I suppose it's very important to address it in a you know in a constructive and workable, practical way that that you know that doesn't affect landowners' rights, but also helps

build the resilience of the ESB network. And we don't the Irish Timbergrowers Association certainly doesn't have an issue with with improving the resilience of the network. But what we do have to do is build build that resilience in a practical and and workable way. And where landowners' rights and where landowners' assets are affected, then appropriate reimbursement and compensation must be paid.

Because your your points are well made in relation to, you know, when growers planted the lands, when landowners planted their forest, they followed all the rules. And and, you know, in following the rules, they shouldn't now be penalized. So any of their lands that are taken out of forestry, or where existing forests, as you point out, are put at risk because the edge trees are moved, there must be adequate compensation for that. Or indeed where

speaker-0 (28:12.664)
You know, future grants or premium payments are affected. That must also be addressed by any reimbursement or compensation issues. And my understanding, well, it's it's more than my understanding, I I note from the minister's press release that the compensatory measures will actually be addressed in this revised heads of a bill. So it is critical, I suppose, that that that landowners get the opportunity.

To review this and make submissions on the revised draft heads of a bill in that regard. Yeah, Donald, we should also just mention, I was talking to you a couple of months ago about this, and we hoped we'd have much more clarity at this stage. But at that stage, the ESB had actually already started approaching landowners individually and starting to try and to do deals on an individual basis. And I was approached myself. I know other people who are.

active forest owners and actually engaged in the industry. And so it was a little bit of a curveball that the ESB would move ahead and and approach people individually because you know the the default situation in Ireland has been when the ESB knock on your door, you try and work with them, you try and do what they want. And there's a a I wouldn't say a deference to authority, but we we like to be practical. We like we like to work with the ESB. But in this case

And maybe you'd talk on this, Donald. They weren't acting from a place of legislation. They were acting, I suppose, from a point of view of what they'd like to achieve as opposed to what they were legally entitled to do. And I think some landowners may have been caught by that. That's a critical issue. And indeed, Dermot, it was so important that in a recent Irish Timbergrowers newsletter, I I wrote an article on on you know the the current legislation and indeed the pointing out

To our members, and indeed any others who who might be reading it, that that at this point in time there is no legislation that allows the ESB extend the corridors from the 20 meters to potentially 55 meters. And and that's very clear. What what the under the current legislation, the ESB do have the right to go in and maintain the 20-meter-wide corridor or whatever width corridors are there.

speaker-0 (30:34.834)
or for branch clearance. that they can you know they do have the right to do. But they my understanding from our members is that yes, particularly in the Northwest, the ESB have been approaching forest owners and they have been endeavoring to increase the width of the underlying lines from the 20 meters to 55 meters. And I can be absolutely categoric in that

That while they do have rights to go in and maintain the current corridors under current legislation, they do not have the rights to go in and widen the corridors under you know, on for for any other reason. So that's very important. And you know, Dermot, the point is well made in relation to we haven't seen the the the the revised legislation. We don't know the basis of compensation.

We don't know on what basis the ESB have legislation of legal rights to act. And it that is only they're only draft heads of a bill, they're not currently in legislation. So where I would advise growers as the legislation currently stands, and until new legislation is in place, the ESB do not have

The right to widen corridors from the 20 meters to 55 meters under any proposed legislation. Okay. Well, well then Donald, maybe what we'd do is we'd talk through some of the implications of widening any corridors, just in a general sense, because as you say, we don't know how wide they're going to be and we don't know what the compensation terms are. So we we can't discuss that with certainty, but we can discuss with certainty.

That when an existing corridor in a semi-mature or very mature plantation is removed, it's going to have effects on the stability of the crop. It's going to, if those trees are removed, they have to be harvested. And that has a knock-on effect as to who harvests them, where the timber goes. Is the timber removed? Who sells the timber? Is there even a forest road in place? So maybe we'd we'd talk through some of that because this the there's an assumption here that

speaker-0 (32:56.194)
This is an easy thing to do if we all agree it, but it's just not that simple. So let's take it bit by bit, I suppose, Donald. Maybe we talk about the just the purely silvicultural issue here of wind stability if if edge trees are removed. Absolutely. And I suppose what you're looking at where where trees are removed mid-rotation for a forest, it's it's premature harvesting. And number one.

it it predisposes the crop to to windblow for the for the the reasons you you well outlined dermut but there's also a financial loss to the forest owners both in relation to current sites that are forest but also in relation to potential afforestation sites and over multiple rotations because assuming a corridor is widened whatever way it may be widened at whatever width that that land sterilized for forestry is going to be sterilized for forestry

Yeah, into the future and into future rotations. So you have a financial loss, and you have a financial loss because the trees haven't been allowed to grow to their full rotation and they haven't then they won't reach the sizes and the values that they would have otherwise. So that that's very important and that can be quantified. It's a little more difficult to quantify the the potential wind blow risk, but it can be done and there can be tables for that. And it's something that

We need to agree with with DSB before I suppose I would see it before the legislation goes further. You know, you made a good point there in relation to fencing. And fencing, additional fencing, in my mind, certainly if the proposed corridor goes to the 55 meters, should be part of any reimbursement of cost. That's going to be very important. You know, even in certain situations, stump removal and

you know, restoration of of the corridors. And that's something that, you know, we we'd you know we'd have to, I suppose, negotiate with the with DSB. The increase in in windblow risk, the reduced stability of the remaining crop, that that's a big issue. You know, you you've made the point, Dermot, about addressing any reduced eligibility for for future supports for future grants or indeed past grants, the effect on that. And

speaker-0 (35:21.528)
We we have to see exactly how that so if an area is under, let's say, a current premia and there's an extra width of the corridor taken out, what effect is that going to have on the annual premia payments? And will there be a clawback? And that's something that you know we will be asking both DEC and

The Department of Agriculture as to where exactly growers stand, because again, all of that has to be addressed in any compensation and reimbursement issues. So I suppose there's a lot of even you know, down to growers oftentimes on their land have have legal health and safety issues. They'd have to be addressed in whatever way, if contractors are coming in, who's insured? And that has to be addressed, I suppose, on a on a national scale. So

Yeah, there's some of the there's some of the points that that we we would make, in addition to I suppose the any reports or any work that has to be done by professionals or legal people, the cost of that must be fully reimbursed. Yeah, and and I know, Donald, that you or I can't go into the forest and simply take a a a ten meter swipe of either side of an ESB line or anywhere in the forest without a a felling licence.

a felling license might require additional reports. And of course, cutting the timber doesn't mean you've you've you've even if it is premature, you haven't got it off the site. And it would not be uncommon for many private forests forest owners to wait closer to a final harvest in a clearfeld scenario to put in their road. So we could be talking here about a forest where there is a genuine need to increase the corridor, but there is no road in place. So I mean

Whose responsibility will that be, I guess, is is also a question. Would that be right? Where the corridor is going to be significantly widened, assuming it let's say it is in certain areas under the new legislation, just going to be potentially over longer lengths, it's going to be a lot of timber. That timber has to be removed in some way. There has to be an agreement with DSB exactly how that's going to be removed from the forest and how it's going to be stacked and how it's going to length it's going to be cut in. So there's a whole

speaker-0 (37:40.128)
I suppose standard operating procedure that has to be agreed around how material is going to be extracted from the forest. And you know, the point is well made that there are forests at the moment that might be quite young, that that the road hasn't been put in yet. And that is something that that we as the Irish Timber Growers Association and indeed other growers' organisations and and landowners must address very directly.

with the Department of Agriculture as to if this material has to be extracted, can the road grant be brought forward from just pre-tinning to when the the harvesting is undertaken by the ESB or through DSB? Yeah. It it's all I mean, this is where when we start getting into this end of the possibilities, it ripples into so many other effects.

You you talked about reinstating farmland in the areas that have been cleared. In a practical sense, some f some farmers who've planted forests will continue to take silage from underneath ESB lines and they've maintained the area. Some of them may have put up ESB or electric fence to facilitate grazing. But when we cut down ten or five meters either either either side, we're gonna have stumps there, as you say, stump removal. But even

If the owner isn't an active farmer and doesn't want to re farm that area, that ground is very vulnerable to reseeding and to becoming a mini forest of itself. And so I guess don't i that's another question we have to ask. Who who will maintain these new shoulders? Let's call them shoulders either side of the main corridor. Who whose job will it be to maintain those areas so that they don't grow up beyond the point? Because they'll soon reestablish.

Perhaps without the original crop, but something will grow there. Absolutely critical point. And you know, th this is something that the association has been making representations to to DEC on because because we had initially heard that potentially forest owners would be required to maintain the corridors under the power lines. And this is a huge red flag for us. And you make the point that

speaker-0 (40:05.634)
That responsibility is first of all quite onerous financially. I mean, when when the lines are left, let's say, without, you know, when the trees are removed, you will get natural regrowth in those areas, particularly woody regrowth over the years. And the cost of maintaining those corridors could be hugely significant. Even you know, when we looked at this, Dermot, the potential.

Liability on woodland owners. So let's say, let's say, for whatever reason, trees would you regrow, which will always grow up in these areas, grows up and it hasn't been maintained for and it knocks out a local area, and and there's obviously potential liabilities for that. Where does the landowner stand? And and will he be potentially liable for you know where regrowth on his land knocks out.

ESB lines further, you know, and and this is of huge concern to us. We have again made these points very vociferously, frankly, with deck. And we're, I suppose, waiting to see if they've been taking taken on board in the revised heads of a bill. but it is critical and it's a big issue because the you know landowners could potentially

Have very significant liabilities if that was the case. Yeah, I know. And and I'm gonna keep throwing thoughts that are coming to my mind here, Donald. I mean, you mentioned there is a complicated scheme of payments and supports when you combine forestry and farming. For someone who's not familiar with it. But one of the things is as a farm owner and as a farmer who also has forestry, is that you can claim some of those farm supports.

on the forested area because you're effectively continuing your farming practice only with a crop that's now timber. That's another question then, isn't it? So it normally the ESB corridor that was unfarmed and wasn't planted with trees couldn't claim those farming supports. And now with additional trees cleared, it raises the question will that area be eligible for the farming support? Because if precedent is anything to go by, it wouldn't be.

speaker-0 (42:29.162)
Yes, and that again is is potentially another loss to timbergoers and woodland owners that absolutely has to be addressed in the in the legislation. And as I mentioned, the legislation itself apparently is going to address all the compensatory issues, and that is something that we have asked in the Department of Agriculture recently.

As to how this would be affected, but be to be fair to the Department of Agriculture, the at that time the revised draft heads of a bill hadn't been completed. But it is something that is very important for for our organization and indeed other other growers organizations and indeed farmers' groups must make strong points on because the points are well made. Yeah, and Donald, as well as that, can I get you to explain the area-based support skis system that's in place for

Forestry support. So Forest Road, a woodland improvement scheme. That can you explain that when a person goes to make applications under some of these supports, that the first thing that's examined is the total area in active forestry. And then that helps to calculate how much of a contribution the department will make? And that's I suppose that's done on a on a case by case basis. And the department

It's an area, I suppose, that because there's so many different case studies, I'd prefer that what I would say is that the landowners should talk to their child advisor beforehand, or indeed their forestry advisor, because they are very important considerations in relation to a forestation, or indeed in relation to any schemes. Because you know, there across the the board.

Given, I suppose, farming today, it's very important that farmers get the best advice when they're they're maximising their income, I suppose, from the various different departmental schemes. And it's something that I would I would normally refer to Chagask advisors or indeed forestry advisors that have have, you know, have have agricultural background as well.

speaker-0 (44:53.75)
Yeah, well the you're dead right. There there's a there's a whole specialty there. I guess we do know, Donald, of course, that if you go to put in a forest road and your area is five hectares, you'll get one amount of support to build the road. But if it gets reduced to four hectares, then there's a reduction in what the department'll pay you. So that's and like your point is well made in relation to if there is a significant reduction in productive barrier of the forest.

That is something that has to be addressed by by the department because it's, you know, it's quite fair because the the owner could have areas both sides of the ESB lines likely to have that still require servicing for both tinning and felling and you know, road for for that. Okay. So before we finish up on this, this challenge that's presented itself to to forest owners and the industry in general, is there anything else an owner

At this point, who who's hearing this for the first time should do really? What's the best advice we have at the minute, I guess, Donald? I suppose, Dermot, we're the Irish Timber Growers Association is is very actively following this up. And you know, we we would have, as I say, would have had various different communications with the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment prior to this. And

What I'd be very willing to do, so people who are listening to this podcast, I would be very willing to keep you informed so that on your website and your podcast website that we can update them with any information. But as things stand currently, you know, as mentioned, DSB don't have the legal rights to widen power lines under twenty meter lines. And it's something

that really I would welcome Dermot sharing information with your podcast series and with your website to ensure that your listeners are kept up to date with it. Yeah, and I I guess members of the ITGA or indeed forest owners that are members of their local forestry group will also be getting, I suppose, a more realistic picture because it's not that the mainstream media

speaker-0 (47:17.75)
Or ignoring forestry, but they don't always cover the issue in the depth that really matters to someone who has skin in the game here. You know, if I might make a call out, Dermot, on the on the back of your kind invitation to, you know, talk on this subject in your podcast, and that is, you know, politically, oftentimes forest owners don't have a strong voice. And I suppose what we're encouraging our members to do, and I would encourage our listeners to maybe approach

To local politicians on this issue and say how concerned they are about it and how they would like to engage with their concerns. Because I suppose what we're concerned about is what the Irish Timber Growers Association is concerned is this legislation could move very rapidly. And we do need, I suppose, political support from our members and indeed from your listeners to highlight to their local politicians the concern this is creating.

And particularly if they've got power lines running over their their medium voltage power lines running over their forests, they will be affected. And it is important that that their voice is heard. And we're the the Irish Timbergrowers Association very willing to to represent people on this, but the more people that are making, I suppose, their concerns felt with their local politicians, the stronger our voice will be. All of our voices will be as timber growers. Yeah, perfect, Dodo.

just then before we finish up, maybe we'd just go back to Itke and one or two of the other issues you said we'd we'd maybe chat about before we finish. Thanks. Dermel, I've been listening to your podcasts and they've been very interesting. And I suppose a lot of different issues have have come up in relation to forestry. And one of them, for example, was was the carbon farming and and the potential

For ecosystem services. And this was mentioned, I think, throughout a few of your podcasts. And I suppose one of the activities that the association is doing is we were part of the carbon farming framework stakeholder workshops that the department are organizing. And we've drafted a number of submissions on this because we want to ensure that I suppose all growers, not just our members, but all growers benefit

speaker-0 (49:40.002)
From any new carbon farming framework in Ireland and get paid effectively for fixing carbon through the growth of the trees, through the sequestering of carbon in the growing tree crops that they have. And that's going to be increasingly important in addition to ecosystem services. And that's something that we have been making the case with to the department as well. But I suppose there are other issues. One of the big challenges at the moment is to try and

get more land planted and those areas that are currently under forest more actively managed and indeed certified. So we've been looking at at this and how we can how we can improve this. And I suppose one of the I suppose the the decision makers in all of this that that we as a sector need to engage more with is Brussels, is the EU. And recently the

Irish Timber Growers Association have commissioned a report by Dr. Cormaco Carl in relation to how Ireland Inc. in relation to forestry can better represent growers and the sector in Brussels, so that our voices are there as well, so that we're not always entirely decision takers here and that we can represent Brussels, we can represent growers in Brussels.

We're about to launch that report. It's going to be a very important report. I'm very happy I'll share it with you. It'll be launched in the next two weeks. But I suppose it's how we can improve EU engagement in forestry. And that's something that will strengthen all of our growers, if you like, across the spectrum. We're also looking at at, you know, developing more events into the future. We have our field day, in fact, at on Friday of of of this week. I know it'll

it'll possibly have been held. But we're looking next year at at field days. And indeed, you know, you've been quite a catalyst in this. And when the legislation comes out, I would like to organise a day, possibly in the in the North West, around what this new legislation will mean for growers and how they should, I suppose, how how they should address it in their own way. And that's something that I would welcome and

speaker-0 (52:01.42)
you know, we may look at at working with other partners in the Northwest on that. So I I suppose the big issue for us moving forward is is really providing as much information as we can, as we are doing through through your your invitation here to your podcast, but also through our newsletters, through our yearbook. And what I would encourage I suppose is is your your listeners to look at our website that is itga.ie

And just see a lot of information that is available to growers. Two last quick points. The GRUS have had a hard time in the Northwest recently in relation to windblow after those storms that we've already outlined. And it's something that I suppose we talk about the ESB resilience, but we have to build up the resilience of of timber growers throughout the country, but particularly in the Northwest. What we have have done in relation, I suppose, to

To representing growers. One of the big issues is timber price. And we need to improve our information on timber prices so that all growers can have access, like they have to beef prices, like they have to a lot of other agricultural commodities. They can go onto our website or onto any other website and look at what prices are being paid for for timber at the moment, so that they're in a stronger negotiation position with the mill and it improves their entire supply chain.

So that's one thing we're working on. We have timber prices on the website. And for anybody who might be selling timber, it would be worth looking at. It's available to all, not just our members. And there, there's also very important is in a timber sale where there is a contract or an agreement. We have a template agreement, again, available to everybody on a website. And it's something that would be worth looking at. But ourselves with other growers' organizations would like to roll out

more of these services because I suppose the private sector now has more forests in the public sector. We we now have private forestry is now over 50% of all the forests in the country. That's only happened recently. But more important than that, just in 2025, the Central Statistics Office has recently released its figures and have shown that for the first time, more timber

speaker-0 (54:26.07)
Round timber is coming from private forests than it is from state forests. That's very important. I think it's fifth in 2025, 57% of all timber came now from private forests. So we must build up a strong infrastructure to represent growers like yourself and like others. And I suppose from that perspective, I welcome your initiative in the podcasts and and I hope that you continue with going because it's a very

important outreach. It's a very important means of communicating with the twenty-one to twenty-four thousand forest donors that are out there. So I hope that you continue doing what you're doing and we'll in the Irish Timber Growers Association do likewise. So I'd like to really thank you for for inviting me along here. It's a great initiative and and congratulations on it and and well may it go forward. You're you're very welcome. Great to have you and thanks for joining me. Thanks Dermot

Many thanks again to Donald Whelan for his time in explaining all this. Thanks to you, the listener, for your time. If you haven't already done so, please subscribe or rate the podcast as it really helps the show grow. Take care and enjoy the woods.