Dr. Brendan Dunford:

I thank members for the questions. I will respond in brief to them in the order received and I will then ask my colleagues to contribute because they have a great deal of experience and information. I was first asked where it all went wrong. It did not all go wrong but problems resulted from a series of factors. Many of them were social factors such as the loss of people from the land and hands on the ground doing the work. Farm sizes started to get bigger, the capacity to manage the land changed with fewer people around and, therefore, new technologies were adopted to make the farming system more efficient. Meanwhile, farm incomes dropped and many farmers had to adopt part-time work. The volume of work taking place on the land changed as a result and there was more focus on the green part of the farm rather than the rougher land because that took more time. There was a change in cattle breeds, which required a change in feeding systems. There were many other factors related to the adoption of new mechanical means to manage the land and so on. In addition, there were designations and restrictions that limited certain activities on the land. Schemes such as the rural environmental protection scheme, REPS, and the suckler cow premium scheme resulted in farms being managed in a slightly different way. When there were fewer external factors and farmers farmed the land in a more sustainable way in the sense that they had to operate within the limits of the farm, there was more balanced farming and there was a better system in the context of wildlife, outputs, archaeology, landscape and so on. That balance was lost in an accelerated fashion over the past 40 years, the landscape reacted and these problems emerged. It would be simplistic to say it was down to one factor because it was down to a combination of factors. Schemes such as REPS offered potential opportunities but they were not targeted or proactive enough and, therefore, they were opportunities lost as opposed to being damaging.

A number of farmers are in the programme and many others are not. We have a minority in the programme - approximately 160 - with between 700 and 800 interested farmers. The difference between farmers in our programme and others is that there is not as much happening on our farms. Natural processes take place without the same level of intervention because many of our activities promote higher grazing levels, the removal of scrub, the provision of access and improvement in water facilities. All of these cost money and if a farmer is not in the programme, it will cost him a great deal more, which is not viable. We consider the condition of our farms to be better in general. There is more investment, positivity and a much more favourable outlook. The only evidence we have of that is we have farmers knocking on our door every day wanting to get into this programme because it makes sense agriculturally for them to do so.

Our scoring system is simple, effective and revolutionary. It is simple in order that a farmer scan self-score his field and give an accurate estimate of what the score should be. It is, therefore, empowering for the farmer. Farm advisors score each field and we supervise the scores to make sure there is no funny business going on and this has worked well as for. The farmers are happy with it and we get monitoring data back from it. It an effective system and we give the farmer advice. What is important about our advice is we have an office in the Burren with three people in it and we provide a service to farmers in the programme and other farmers to help them navigate the huge amount of bureaucracy they have to deal with in SAC areas that have many monuments. We have to organise felling licences to remove scrub and permissions from the national monuments service and the national parks and wildlife service. We provide all these services to the farmer and that is an important aspect of having a local office.

With regard to the management, the ecologists do not rule the show. We almost completely defer to the farmer's expertise. We say to the farmer, "This is what we want on those grasslands. We want well raised grasslands, quite species rich but you are the expert and it is completely within your authority to farm it in the way you want. You can put a herd of elephants up there for the summer if you want". We do not care as we will assess the output. We give them simple guidelines about how best to farm the land and it is entirely up to them to farm it. There is no calendar farming. The farmer has complete discretion. If he wants to do something, depending on weather, market conditions, family issues and so on, he has the discretion but we spell out clearly what we want and we pay him accordingly at the end of the year. That is fair and he cannot dispute that. It is empowering for the farmer and it is entirely voluntary.

With regard to it being the ultimate REP scheme. This is different and at a higher level. REPS is important in providing fundamental support to farmers to farm the land and carry out important environmental functions. This goes a level beyond but it is based on a set of simple principles. Results are paid for, guidelines are offered to the farmer but the programme is farmer-led and bureaucracy is minimised. These simple principles can apply anywhere. Mr. Moran has put together a proposal at a national level whereby farmers would have their basic environmental scheme such as AEOS or REPS but if they have high nature value fields on their farm, they could avail of a programme such as this, which would be targeted at the needs of their area, and earn an additional income for delivering another service to society by managing those fields in the right way. It is important in that regard.

We are not at all prescriptive about the walls and the grazing. We do not say to farmers, as REPS provided for in the past, that they cannot graze between 1 May and 1 September. We tell them that they are the experts and we outline what we want and they go ahead and produce it if they want. We do not impose rules on them.

There were a number of questions about stock. Approximately 90% of the farmers in the Burren are suckler farmers. A few on the Galway side have sheep but 90% have suckler cows, 5% have dry stock while the remaining 5% are mixed farming - sheep and cattle. There are many breeds. We let that to the discretion of the farmer because we want to be as sustainable as we can and we want the farmers to produce good food. The market they are in means they use continental breeds such as Simmental and Charolais and so on. Farmers use those breeds and a skilled farmer can use them to manage the land in the way we want without a problem. We advocate that the farmer uses whatever breed he wishes.

Approximately 5% of our area is commonage but this is not as widespread as in Connemara. Mr. Moran might comment on that shortly.

The measures we provide are in addition to those provided for under REPS and AEOS. These schemes provide funding for a series of measures and our funding is over and above that. For instance, we have some farmers who still avail of REPS or options funding but our farm plan provides them with income for work undertaken outside of that. We have to do that because otherwise we would be hauled up by Europe or the Government for double payment. Everything is very clear. We operate at a higher level than those programmes and we pay accordingly.

The most important issue is cost effectiveness. It is incorrect to say this is a costly programme; it is probably the cheapest programme there has ever been in the agri-environment area in Ireland. The rate works out at approximately €78 per hectare within an additional €24 or €25 per hectare from the farmer. It is incredible value for money. The average payment under other schemes is a multiple of that. People have the perception that because it is locally managed, that makes it more costly but the administrative rates are even competitive. I contend that the opposite is the case. This is the best value for money on the face of it and we have the figures to prove it. We also have research papers showing that the additional public benefits generated by this through increased biodiversity, water management, tourism, recreation, etc, is many multiples of what we spend. It is a good deal all around and we are delighted to have the evidence to prove that.