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

Is the delegation saying it wishes to carry out a plan, agreed with the NPWS, to protect the hen harrier based on payment on a flat-rate basis per hectare and on all hectares equally?

The next issue I am curious about, but in respect of which we do not have the relevant witnesses present, concerns how long a programme would have to be to ensure the hen harrier's protection and the development of its habitat. Would the relevant actions need to be carried out indefinitely to protect the hen harrier? I have a funny feeling that if BirdWatch Ireland or the technical people were to advise us that a long-term scheme were required, the farmers would not exactly object. It could suit both the hen harrier and the farmer. We need some expert witness who could tell us, from an ornithological point of view, the optimum duration of the scheme that would be necessary. I suspect that what bird experts would recommend would certainly be better than a five-year scheme. I have a funny feeling they would state that five years was insufficient when trying to re-establish a species as scarce as the hen harrier. May I take it that what goes for the hen harrier goes for the corncrake and other species in similar circumstances, in that, if a NPWS scheme existed for the hen harrier, it would be logical to recommend it for the corncrake and other equally scarce species?

My understanding is that I could have a farm with 100 ha of hen harrier land and 20 ha or 30 ha of non-hen-harrier land and, depending on what is on the non-hen-harrier land, it would be possible for me to obtain a full GLAS payment without ever touching the hen harrier land. My understanding of what the witnesses are saying is that if they join the NPWS scheme at the same time as GLAS, the only clawback from payments on the NPWS scheme would be for GLAS elements relating to hen harriers. If they could get all of the GLAS elements for the parts of their farms that did not relate to hen harriers, such as walls, it should not stop them getting the full NPWS scheme payments also, but if part of the GLAS payment was a hen harrier payment it would have to be clawed back because one cannot receive two payments for the exact same thing on the exact same hectare. Is this the principle being put forward by the witnesses? We need to be clear on what they are saying.

I seek clarification on what the witnesses stated about forestry and wind turbine development being generally permitted, as promised when the designation was originally put on the land in 2008. Do the witnesses have evidence of this or was it just a verbal understanding? I keep asking questions about this, and I understand the forestry interface with the hen harrier has been examined for a long time and no one is in a hurry to come down in favour of stating that forestry does not interfere with the hen harrier. There is no end in sight to this debate. I am particularly curious about the witnesses' statement that as late as 2008 there was no conflict. One would not get planning permission now for wind turbines in an area designated for hen harriers. If there was evidence of the National Parks and Wildlife Service stating in 2008 that wind turbines would not necessarily interfere with hen harriers, it would be very useful.

In 1997 and 2001 it was a matter of principle that all farmers with designated land should have the choice of a continuous NPWS scheme or a GLAS scheme on the basis I have outlined, and I believe this should be the case. If we do not face up to this problem, resentment will build up against unjust and unfair designations of special areas of conservation and special protection areas, which is likely to boil over. The farmers have been custodians, and there would be no hen harriers or fancy heathers in rural Ireland if it were not for the way we have traditionally farmed in this country. Many farmers are asking themselves why they did not dig up the whole shagging thing before the rules came in. They are asking themselves why they kept it all so pristine. If we want to have buy-in, farmers must be put in a position whereby designations are not seen as a tremendous burden on them and a huge disadvantage. Otherwise, we will build up legitimate resentment to designations. This is not in the interest of the species we are trying to protect, because without the goodwill of the farmers it will get harder and harder to protect very scarce species.

I had reason to be in the national roads development office in Galway yesterday. We must maintain a balance between protecting the environment and the right of people to live in rural Ireland. This balance seems to be getting lost. The people paying the price are those who protected the habitats for hundreds of years.