Dr. Andy Bleasdale:

Twenty-three years ago when I began to engage with the subject of commonage as a result of my college studies, I did not think I would end up here still discussing the issue. The problem has not gone away and there is a whole set of different problems. To some extent, I rue the day I got involved, but in another perverse way I would like to see the issue through to a solution. This is within our grasp if we can work well together and much better than was the case in the past. There is that opportunity. This is not idle talk; we welcome dialogue because that is the only way to secure a material effect on the ground.

We need to separate the list of legacy issues relating to the commonage framework plans. It comes back to the question of who is driving the agenda. It often came from farmers themselves who wanted to be more active on commonages than they were allowed to be. They approached us with a view to having the commonage framework plan replaced, but it was a question of what would replace it. We cannot allow a free-for-all. As we do not want to maintain the status quo, there has to be a new reality, a new vision, a new partnership that will allow us to plan for better management of the uplands, while protecting payments as best as possible.

Reference was made to the compensation culture. I do not like the word, "compensation" and Senator Michael Comiskey made the first reference to it. These are payments for deliverables, whether they are ecosystem goods and services or sheep production when there is a market for it. It has to be couched in that language because the compensation culture has to be done away with. Farmers are farming. They farm in productive areas to deliver produce and in more extensive areas deliver biodiverse goods and services, both of which should be valued and paid for. We need to do away with the language we tend to use - me included - such as compensation. It should be payment for services. This would make it a more positive product and the farmer feel valued. He or she is not being restricted but rather encouraged to do something positive.

Senator Michael Comiskey referred to commonages being overgrazed. We need to remember that that is still the case. We must not lose sight of the bigger issue when dealing with what we consider to be a bigger problem of undergrazing. Overgrazing is still happening and we need to address that issue. We are not reinventing the wheel in terms of collective management. In our grandparents' time they managed to hammer out solutions and come to agreements, self-regulate and self-determine. It is not easy to turn back the clock, but where that can be progressed, it should be done. I do not think the liaison committees offer the ideal solution; equally, I do not think the collective model is ideal, when it is a case of forcing all farmers on a commonage to sit around a table and stare across at people to whom they have not spoken for 30 years. If there was professional support from a planner or facilitator, he or she would engage with each individual and acquire from him or her the knowledge he or she wishes to impart through the process. The facilitator would pull that information together to plan for sustainable management of commonages in the years ahead.