Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I wish to make a few points. We have had a good discussion on designated lands. Around 30% of all designated land in the country has been designated for hen harriers. It has been mentioned that out of 540,000 ha or 570,000 ha, 167,000 ha have been designated for hen harriers, which is a significant amount. Obviously, designation comes with restrictions and constraints that mitigate against normal farming practices or ways to make a living from the land. As a result, there is a need for some form of compensation scheme.

I wish to talk about the manner in which designation takes place. I am not sure how the designation of land for hen harriers took place and I do not know whether the IFDL is concerned about such designation. I do know there is a major issue with the designation of special protection areas, SPAs, because it has affected large swathes of County Clare, and also my own area in Donegal, where 5,400 ha of land was designated in 2011 and 2012 for corncrakes without prior consultation.

I also have reservations about the crossover of schemes, with the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht designating lands without the proper knowledge or resources, from an agricultural point of view, to deal with farmers adequately. One Department should deal with land designation instead of two Departments that have competing demands. Very often it is agricultural lands that are designated, and there is very little land in Donegal that is not agricultural land, drawing down a single farm payment or being actively farmed.

Earlier the Chairman mentioned that the designation of land for corncrakes was voluntary, with which I disagree. It is decreed by a statutory instrument, which means the designation has a legal standing. It means that normal farming practices are constrained by between 37 and 41 constraint measures, which include restrictions on building a road to provide access to land; removing or building new ditches; grazing activities at certain times of the year; and the cutting of silage, hay or other forage. In addition, there is a ban on all sorts of reseeding activities. As a result, the ability of farmers to generate income from the land is severely restricted. I appreciate where the organisation is coming from, as it is deals with restricted income from land. Should the taxpayer compensate for same? The jury is out on that matter. Should the European Commission designate land without prior consultation with landowners? I do not think it should. What happens in other member states should happen here. In Portugal, France and Spain, lands are designated only after prior consultation, and an agreement is reached with landowners. If there is intensive farming on some of the lands then other lands may be chosen to avoid using good agricultural lands. We need to examine the type of land that is designated, because there is a food shortage in the world.

Lands across Europe have been designated in order to protect the corncrake. When the poor corncrakes return to Africa they are caught in nets and served as a delicacy in restaurants. People in Africa view the corncrake as a source of food. I am not saying we should not recognise the special attributes of the corncrake, but there is a need to provide compensation. In view of the Common Agricultural Policy, if we are going to designate lands in order to protect species - birds, in this instance - then we must provide the landowners who use the lands to make a living with some form of compensatory payment. The GLAS scheme is an insufficient way to meet the level of compensation required. The tier above the basic GLAS payment is €2,000, which means that a farmer with 50 ha would receive €40 on average, which is drastically different from the proposal put forward by the IFDL today.

The GLAS scheme would not compensate sufficiently. A mechanism must be found. While the money does not grow on trees there must be an agreement between the European Commission and member states on providing a compensatory pot for farmers, particularly those who are dependent on the lands in question.

In terms of future development, particularly wind turbines and the like, I agree with what Deputy Ó Cuív said. Regarding wind turbines in high lands, there are national planning guidelines, but it depends on each county's development plan. In our own county, it would be extremely difficult to get planning permission for wind turbines on nationally designated lands, whether special protection areas, natural heritage areas, or whatever, without the prior removal of those lands, which would be a matter for the National Parks and Wildlife Service to agree with the local authority. Future development in terms of providing an agricultural income from forestry is an issue. There is no question about that. That is a farming activity, in essence, because it is funded under the Common Agricultural Policy.

I agree that we have to find a mechanism. The condition of any compensation would have to be a plan agreed with the landowner to protect the species that are constraining farming activity, whether it is the corncrake, the hen harrier, or any other species. It is a major issue. Given that the farmer had no control over the designation of the land in this country, in contrast with other countries, there is a need for the governing Department to provide compensation. In future designations there must be prior consultation with all landowners, which would best be carried out by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine rather than by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, an official of which has openly said that it does not have the staff or the resources to go and meet with the farmers. If it does not, that should come under a different body. I have been saying that for some time. I am not sure what are the view of the witnesses on that or on the designation process itself.