Dr. Sharon Parr:

I feel I should have spoken before Dr. Moran. How does one follow that? I will roll back slightly on a couple of the questions asked.

There was the question about the farmers who are in the BFCB and those who are outside. What became evident before the BFCB, during the BurrenLIFE Project, was that farmers were looking at what their neighbours were doing. They did not necessarily believe us first off. They watched what their neighbours were doing and what made sense - what worked for the neighbours. Many farmers in the Burren have adopted quite a few of the practices such as the shift away from silage, which has both cost and animal health benefits. They are not yet being supported necessarily through the BFCB but because it makes sense. They are already adopting those practices. They want to get in with help for the other matters, such as the scrub removal, because there are so many hoops that must be jumped through. If those outside a scheme are adopting it and those practices, it makes sense to those on the ground.

In terms of the scoring system, we wanted something that would measure the output and give farmers something at which to aim, and it had to be simple. I did not reinvent the wheel; I cheated. I searched around for something that was relatively simple and discovered it in Canada to do with rangeland health. Essentially, the principles were there.

We looked at what were the problems in the Burren, one of which was under grazing on many of the winterages. In some cases, there was an over grazing problem. We built a score based on that.

We looked at the water issue, with the framework directive coming in and that sort of thing. Water is a big problem in the Burren. Often, with spring droughts, there is not enough of it. Another issue is that, because of the cast environment, contamination due to one's stock drinking from water sources gets straight into our drinking water. We looked at a scoring system that would push farmers to solve those problems, which would benefit both their stock and the local population, and meet the requirements of the water directive.

We looked at other issues such as feeding. Too much feeding leads to under grazing and can have an impact on the flora and fauna. Scrub in the Burren is a major issue. We learned from rhododendron work that had been going on in Kerry through the national parks as well and adapted part of that to it.

We developed a scoring system that sought to address the problems we were having, and that is the case for anywhere one wants to score. What one does is look at the problems of the particular area. It need not be fixed; it can be adapted. Even within our own programme, if we see there is a particular issue, for example, there are areas on the coast where there are chough which require a different height sward and need more summer grazing, we can adjust the scoring system to suit that individual, and it is flexible along the way.

There was another question to do with the farmers casting about for advice. I have been on eight farms in the past four days. I have spoken to more farmers than that. Although there are our 12 advisers to support farmers, many farmers come to us for help before they go to the adviser to sort out various issues, such as whether they can do this or that. Perhaps they come with different ideas that have not been covered through work we have done previously but they want to use us as a sounding board first before they commit to something. Nobody is in the dark, in many ways least of all ourselves because we are constantly learning from the farmers. We are in that position because we are talking to so many of the farmers. Somebody in one area might have an idea which works and we can be a conduit to everybody else to get that idea out. It is not our idea. We do not claim to have invented anything. We are a conduit for the farmers' ideas.