Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests. I read their submission with interest. We need to move forward and find solutions. We must consider those solutions in the context of both European and national law. IFDL makes a case for compensation. The latter can mean different things to different people. If a payment were to be put in place in the long term to maintain our guests' system of farming in such a way as to maximise the chances of the hen harrier not only surviving but also propagating, would this be acceptable as a way forward? I do not mind how many hectares of land a farmer owns but if one of those hectares is useful to the hen harrier, then all other hectares are also useful. I do not understand the logic of paying a certain amount in respect of the first 40 hectares. If the land is designated, then all of it is designated and if the relevant action must be taken in respect of every hectare, then farmers should get the requisite payment. I would make the case that farmers who are affected should receive payment in respect of every hectare of designated land they own. Rather than putting in place a scheme such as those relating to compensation for not obtaining planning permission for windmills or for not receiving grants, I am of the view that a payment would be made in respect of farmers who follow a prescription plan to maximise the hen harrier population. I am also of the view that this would take into account the losses or costs farmers will incur as a result of not having the freedom to farm in the way they want.

On the GAEC criteria, is Mr. Fitzgerald saying - this would be a sensible proposition - that if it is good for the hen harrier, then, by definition, it should be eligible for the single farm payment. In other words, if it is necessary to provide certain kinds of cover, scrub land or ecological focus areas - whatever the powers that be may wish to call them - then the land involved should not be excluded from the calculations relating to the single farm payment scheme. Is Mr. Fitzgerald stating that it cannot be the case that the National Parks and Wildlife Services, NPWS, may state that it wants the land to be maintained in a particular way and then those responsible for administering the single farm payment scheme saying the land in question does not qualify because it does not meet the criteria relating to forage areas?

On the reintroduction of afforestation, I understand that some work is being done at present to assess whether forestry is good or bad for hen harriers. Is Mr. Fitzgerald saying that afforestation should be allowed even if it is detrimental to hen harriers or is he stating that where it is proven to be neutral or favourable to them, then it should be allowed? Perhaps he will clarify the position in this regard.

I am fascinated by the restrictions which apply in respect of undesignated land. When land is designated, anything one proposes to do on adjacent lands will have an impact on the former. For example, if one were going to do work on an adjacent plot of land which might result in a designated bog being drained, this can be taken into account when a decision in respect of planning permission is being made. Is Mr. Fitzgerald stating that there should be no restrictions on what can be done on adjacent lands even if this might affect the designated land? Is he stating that if there are restrictions, then farmers should be paid compensation? Clarity is required in respect of that matter. As already stated, I am of the view that it is time to move on and find a resolution.

The key sentence in Mr. Fitzgerald's presentation is that which reads, "Non-intensive viable farming needs to be central to the formation of a new hen harrier scheme, which needs to be flexible, workable and reasonable." I have travelled widely and attended many farmers' meetings throughout the country. As our guests are aware, I criticised the Government roundly for its handling of the single farm payment issue and its refusal to level the playing pitch in respect of high nature value farming. Europe will not pay single farm payments to people if we do not protect high nature value farming. One of the best ways in which we could have helped farmers such as those represented at this meeting would have been to increase the single farm payment to a fair level. In fairness to the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Michelle O'Neill, MLA, this has been done in Northern Ireland and farming there has not fallen apart. What is Mr. Fitzgerald's view in respect of the lead-in review of the CAP in the context of ensuring that the single farm payment will take into account that our guests would farm more intensively if they were permitted to do so? Of course, the Government and the EU are telling them that they cannot farm more intensively.

Does Mr. Fitzgerald believe the payment in respect of areas of natural constraint - our guests probably know this as the disadvantaged areas payment - should actually relate to natural constraint?

If the land can produce only half of what it could because most of it is moorland and because of its designation, should the payment for the areas of natural constraint be higher to take into account the natural constraint?

There must be a payment. I am a bit shy of the word "compensation" because I have a funny feeling if it is included we will get a bang on the head and be told to go home, that we cannot pay compensation. In a legal sense, special area of conservation designation does not provide for compensation for the refusal to get a grant or planning permission, if this is what we are discussing. However, a substantial payment for carrying out actions which are good for the hen harrier would be perfectly doable and it is only a matter of political will and the need to put up the money. We need to be clear about what we are seeking because we are more likely to be successful with one approach rather than the other.

As farmers, the witnesses probably have more knowledge of the hen harrier than most. In their view, allowing that hen harrier numbers are small, how long do they think it would take and how long a programme would we require to ensure not only the survival of the hen harrier but its re-propagation to an adequate level? This is the key question. My experience is that four or five year programmes are far too short for nature. Nature does not work in five year cycles. Do the witnesses have any knowledge on how long they think it will take? How long does the scheme need to be to ensure it has the impact on the hen harrier which everybody desires? I am sure the witnesses are not against the hen harrier as long as the hen harrier does not take away their living. How long a cycle would be required before we see a significant improvement in the hen harrier situation? Do the witnesses wish the grant to be available throughout this cycle? Would it be ten or 15 years? Bringing back the corncrake is a long-term project and it will not happen overnight.