Ms Cara Heraty:

I thank the joint committee for inviting us to present the recommendations made in our report. I will be referring to the PowerPoint presentation on the screen. The objective of the study was to use good science and collaboration to identify best management of upland habitats in County Wicklow, with the optimal balance of farming and biodiversity. The study was financed by Leader funding provided by County Wicklow Partnership.

As Mr. Medlycott remarked, the handshake in the hills in our symbol represents our modus operandi of consensus. We only move forward when consensus is achieved. After two very well attended public meetings hosted by Wicklow Uplands Council in 2011, a working group was established to tackle the issue of vegetation management in the Wicklow hills. A grassroots approach was followed, encompassing representation by upland farmers, recreational users, Teagasc, staff from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the council itself and the Irish Uplands Forum. There was very strong upland farmer participation in the working group, with 11 farmers involved, and 30 meetings were held over a period of two years. Each participant put in 60 hours, which is indicative of the commitment shown by local participants. The group also liaised with staff of the Forest Service, the Heritage Council and Wicklow County Council. In addition, there was consultation with farmers in the Comeragh and Cooley Mountains who experience some of the same issues which I will detail in the course of the presentation.

I will give a quick overview of what I will talk about. We will identify the need for support in managing the hills in the form of a sustainable uplands agri-environment scheme, or SUAS. We will identify how this will help to meet Government targets and commitments and fulfil the key recommendations from the report, and we will speak about how controlled burning is instrumental and some of the issues around that. Specifications for the proposed scheme will then follow.

I will discuss management issues in the Wicklow uplands. One of the key things is a decline in traditional hill farming in Wicklow. In general, upland habitats are considered to be in poor ecological condition. Uncontrolled wildfires are common, not just in Wicklow but across the country. Uncontrolled vegetation, including tall heather and gorse, poses a threat to public safety and public and private property, including forest, which covers a large part of County Wicklow.

On access by recreational users, Wicklow is Dublin's playground and there are a lot of associated pressures which local people, including landowners, have to manage, as well as the National Parks and Wildlife Service and statutory bodies. There are associated issues, such as dog control. There is a huge deer population in Wicklow and control of deer is also a major management issue. This is set against a background of the designation of much of the Wicklow uplands as national park areas. We have the largest national park in the country, at 21,500 ha. A special area of conservation comprises 32,500 ha and special protection areas are a subset of that at 28,600 ha.

The chart provided shows the decline in ewe numbers in Wicklow upland DEDs between 2000 and 2010. Seven upland DEDs were selected and a marked decline can be seen. We realise the national figures for sheep numbers are increasing, but these numbers support our case and show sheep numbers are in decline in the hills.

The green area in the next chart shows commonage in County Wicklow. It is the most recent chart. Based on the latest figures, we estimate that about one fifth of the area of the Wicklow uplands consists of commonage. Areas above 200 m are marked in orange. This shows that any proposed upland agri-environment scheme must take commonage into account. The next slide shows the special area of conservation in the Wicklow uplands. It is a massive area, comprising well over half the uplands. It also highlights what a special area Wicklow is.

We hope our proposals will help to meet some Government targets and commitments, including improving rural employment. The scheme should encourage young farmers to farm the hills and serve to support rural economies, keeping them alive and thriving. It will also assist in achieving growth through Food Harvest 2020, given that sheep numbers and farmers are in decline in the Wicklow hills. It is an area on which we can improve. One of the major commitments that could be met is to halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and to achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status by 2020. It is the first target of the 2020 EU biodiversity strategy.

There is great opportunity for interdepartmental co-operation between the Departments of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and Agriculture, Food and the Marine. What we propose would also reduce the risk of fire to forestry plantations, which is a major problem in Wicklow, especially as the reconstitution grant is no longer available. Some 21% of the county is covered by forest.

I will summarise the key recommendations of the report. It highlights the need for support for upland farmers through an upland agri-environment scheme. Controlled burning should be supported through the scheme, as it is in neighbouring countries; I will show this to the committee in the next slide. There is a need for the dates for the Irish burning season to be brought back in line with the UK and Northern Ireland. This is outside the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, but we ask for the support of the committee in lobbying the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, to change the dates. We are also in contact with the Minister.

We propose that local learning management groups, as per the Cooley Mountains model, be established. A project in County Leitrim has undertaken a similar approach and there is a local burning management group for the management of grouse in Boleybrack Mountain. There is a need for research on sustainable grazing levels, the associated economics of upland farming and the factors influencing it. We are looking for practical trials of management techniques to monitor the effect on biodiversity. A parallel study area should be run alongside an uplands agri-environment scheme. There is a lack of data and we do not want to wait for a scheme to happen because farmers are in decline. Once they are lost it will be very difficult to get farmers and sheep back on the hills. That needs to happen in parallel with any scheme.

Ireland is out of line with neighbouring countries in terms of controlled burning dates and permissible burning dates. Farmers in Ireland are allowed to burn from 1 September to the end of February. Those dates were reduced by six weeks with the amendment of the Wildlife Act in 2000. We are out of line with all of our neighbouring countries. People in Meath look at Carlingford Lough and see that their neighbours in Northern Ireland can burn until 14 April. This is the case across the board in Scotland, England and Wales. In some cases the date is 31 March. The majority of other countries distinguish between upland and lowland areas, something Ireland does not do. In addition, in neighbouring countries the licensing systems allow for derogations, which provide flexibility to burn outside legal burning dates. We ask that such a measure be considered.

We have a picture of what we would call a good burn. There is a difference between good and bad burning. The picture shows a light, low-intensity burn which probably happened quite fast. The seed layer was not destroyed and the vegetation has the capacity to recover quite quickly. That is the type of burning we are talking about. The next picture shows what we would call a bad burn. It is a black, high-intensity burn. The soil layer has been affected, which causes plasticisation and disintegration of the soil. Often the seed layer is also affected. That is something we should not do.

I will discuss the key principles of the sustainable upland agri-environment scheme which we would like to see established as soon as possible. The priority objective is to enhance and improve the condition of upland habitats through hill farming. The scheme must be tailored to recognise the commonage system of management. As we showed, they comprise such a large area that they have to be included. Payment for production of biodiversity, as per the Burren Farming for Conservation programme, should be on a sliding scale. One of the main principles is that one should be paid for work done or production of biodiversity. Payment should be additional to any additional scheme such as AEOS. Farmers should be supported by an advisory service. Flexibility is key. All of the upland farmers want some flexibility in how they achieve the end product and how they farm. Government administration of an overall scheme with local administration and promotion by specialists in upland ecology and agriculture are also key.

On the eligibility criteria for the scheme as proposed by our group, eligible land will be unenclosed land and associated lowland with which it is farmed. Lowland areas sometimes help to support upland areas. Sheep are often brought down to those areas. We seen no reason they should not be included. The area should contain at least one of the following upland habitat types on at least 10% of its upland: dry heath; wet heath; blanket bog; upland acidic grassland; white grass; flushes; and montane heath or rocky slopes. We propose that for the purposes of economies of scale 10 ha should be the minimum eligible area.

This is quite a bit higher than the Burren Farming for Conservation scheme, but the uplands are an entirely different environment. Eligible farmers must be active farmers and participation should be based on agreement to farm according to a farm plan prepared in consultation with the farmer. This plan should be reviewed after year fours, informed by an audit of the habitat's condition. There should be an initial assessment of habitat condition followed by a review of other farm plans and lengthy consultation with the farmer. A short colour-coded plan using aerial photography should be used to identify actions for annual implementation.

I will show the committee a photograph of upland and associated lowland on Pat Dunne's farm. The photograph also shows Pat Dunne's farm and the start of the zig-zag route which is the main access route to Lugnaquilla, the highest mountain in Leinster. Pat informs us that this route is like a highway with the numbers of people using it every weekend. The photograph shows the path that Pat manages and maintains as part of the walk scheme. Another photograph shows an area of white grass or Molinia which we are informed is no good either for farming or for ecology or biodiversity. It is a result of undergrazing, which is the biggest issue in Wicklow. I know the commonage framework plans dealt with overgrazing, but undergrazing is the issue in Wicklow. The area in the photograph is to the left of the fence line. Pat Dunne informed us that the area to the right, which is grazed, appeared green three weeks in advance of the area to the left. This shows the benefits of grazing. Along the forestry on the right-hand side there is an area of heather which has regenerated because it was left without any grazing. This means that encouraging heather growth or the management of existing heather can also be an option.

I have listed the proposed measures that the Wicklow Uplands Council is recommending through the scheme as per REPS. Five measures have been identified. The first measure is to manage designated land and other areas of Annex 1 habitat. This would mean payment for production of biodiversity on a sliding scale. Measure two is enhancement of habitat diversity through particular actions; measure three is enhancement of particular species; measure four, is support for sustainable upland farming, recreation and the management of cultural heritage, including protected monuments; and measure five is to co-operation on commonages and the establishment of local burning management groups and deer management groups. This is an issue we have discussed more recently so it is not in the report, but we are continually adapting and developing. Under Article 36 of the rural development plan, if the Government decides to allocate funding, money is available under Pillar 2 for co-operation measures such as those I have listed. This article has never been switched on by the Irish Government and we call for that to happen as soon as possible in order to facilitate a top-up payment for the extra work required. We are asking for payment for work done and additional work is required for co-operation. We all know the difficulties with commonages, and there is additional work for local burning management groups and also the deer management group, one of which has been in existence in Wicklow for the past ten years.

I will summarise the scheme and payment rates. I will not deal in detail with particular payment rates because these change all the time. I will list the actions. Measure one is to reach particular targets for habitat condition; measure two is to implement changes to the grazing regime, remove bracken and furze, engage in targeted burning according to a ten-year plan or for fire breaks, engaging in swiping and felling of tall heather or gorse, and reduce areas covered by Molinia. Measure three is to improve the status of species, for example through the use of small-scale fencing around rare species, a few of which are in Wicklow, and to engage in targeted management to improve habitats for upland birds. Measure four is rush control in enclosed land associated with upland farms and drain maintenance in enclosed land, and inspection and management of hill access routes. We had also included the installation of stiles and regular inspection of infrastructure, but the walk scheme, as I understand, was recently extended for five years. This may be something that could be omitted from our proposals.

With regard to the cost breakdown, the average payment would be similar to the Burren Farming for Conservation programme at approximately €8,000 per year, based on an average-sized farm in Wicklow. We have 350 to 400 eligible farmers with land in fee simple and commonages. The cost of local scheme administration is estimated at €140,000 per year. Farmers are to pay a proportion of the cost of the management plan and possibly contribute to capital actions to improve the condition of habitats. We are talking about a contribution of 25% if the measure one payment could be increased. The total cost of the scheme for County Wicklow is estimated at €3.7 million to €4.2 million per year. We recommend that funding for this scheme be negotiated under pillar 2 of CAP. I thank the committee members for their attention.