Mr. Brendan Joyce:

I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to present our case to the committee. The main issue in respect of land eligibility involves understanding traditional farming practices correctly and recognising how this manifests itself in practice. Farmers on commonages, particularly Natura commonages, faced a 30% reduction in stock numbers across the board in the late 1990s as a result of a knee-jerk reaction to potential fines from Europe and without commonage framework plans, CFPs, having been completed. When those plans were completed, it emerged that many farmers should not have been obliged to destock in the first instance. Those individuals were then tied in to the stocking figures prescribed in the CFPs and were not allowed to deviate from them.

The commonage framework plans stocking rates were subsequently used to inform both the rural environment protection and agri-environment options scheme programmes. Despite farmers looking to have their CFP reviewed, this never happened. The CFP also removed cattle from the commonages from November to May, which was another fundamental flaw.

Inspections have been carried out on many farms where farmers received a notification stating:

Where commonage may seem to be eligible, but not the subject of a farming activity, it will be deemed ineligible for payment. This means that [the] area eligible for payment (known as the reference area) of any such commonage will be reduced to take account of the level of inactivity, for the purpose of drawing down payment.

The only criterion for "agricultural activity" available to farmers is the stocking rate laid down in their CFP, REP or AEOS plans. In many such cases, even though farmers have been complying with their agri-environment options scheme plans and have not breached their contracts, they have received a 100% penalty on all payments.

We have invited experts to examine a number of these farms to determine the conditions that exist on the ground. They have concluded that there clearly is an agricultural activity taking place as the vegetation was clearly visible in all stages of its life cycle, which would not be the case without adequate grazing taking place. As well as having good agricultural conditions present, the experts acknowledged the pristine environmental condition of the farms visited. It is clear there is a difficulty and lack of knowledge among inspectors regarding the traditional farming practices that take place on marginal land. In the absence of any criteria as to what constitutes agricultural activity for both inspectors and farmers alike, this is likely to continue.

There are many issues arising as a result of the current inspections process. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has been inspecting these sites at the wrong times of the year, ignoring, for example, that blanket bog molinia, also known as purple moor grass, turns white and dies away during the winter before rejuvenating when the growing season returns. Departmental staff have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the vegetation and habitat types on these sites and how the sites change in appearance seasonally. The Department has incorrectly stated in some cases that certain habitat types, such as raised bogs, were present on these commonages. Departmental staff have overlooked concrete evidence of agricultural activity on some sites and had no regard to the appropriate assessment process in making significant decisions on the sites. The Department did not take into account that livestock are not permitted on commonages from November to April as per the CPF. No consideration was given to the fact that different types of livestock affect sites differently or to the published scientific evidence suggesting that grazing livestock do not range evenly over an upland grazing unit.

Another issue is that although these sites are perfect for Pillar 1 eligibility, the Department seems to want to see management akin to what Pillar 2 should achieve and, to incentivise this, is reducing the reference areas substantially. There is uncertainty as to what some of the criteria actually involve, with references to "areas ungrazed due to low stocking rates", "areas of ungrazed mature heather" and "areas of intense rush or ferns". Why not provide more clarity such as is available to farmers in Northern Ireland, where there is a particular measurement on heather? Is grazed mature heather eligible in Ireland? Why not use a scoring or menu system to grade the presence of ineligible features? We cannot tell what is meant by "land which no longer complies with the definition of eligible as a result of the implementation of the Birds/Habitats Directives". What are the criteria for "sufficient agricultural activity being conducted throughout the parcel"? Is the National Parks and Wildlife Service endorsing the Department's methodology in inspecting for eligible lands in environmentally sensitive areas and the high risk of land abandonment as a direct result of a flawed inspection process?

As to potential solutions, one we would highly recommend is the establishment of a working group to deal with land eligibility.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine inspectors work from a guidance manual. At the very least this document needs to contain more and better guidance for Department inspectors carrying out inspections and for farmers farming on marginal land. I refer to the possible indicators that a working group could consider. I refer to the physical presence of livestock grazing on parcels; a recommended base-line stocking level that complements the positive management of these sensitive grazing areas in lieu of above activity present on the date of inspection, as well as any two of the following: participating in a commonage management plan; visual evidence of grazing activity looking at the ecology present; qualifying for greening on environmentally valuable permanent grassland; heather in all stages of its life cycle; or GPS and dated photographs of suitable livestock present in the parcel. These are many of the options which such a committee would need to investigate. Where farmers are part of a GLAS commonage management plan which is a measure above and beyond requirements under Pillar 1, this should ensure fulfilment of all criteria under land eligibility under Pillar 1.

We invite members of the committee to visit an example of these commonages in Slieve Aughty in south Galway to see at first hand an example of some of the problematic commonages that unfortunately have fallen foul of a flawed inspection process.