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

Forestry is not profitable unless there is a grant available for it. We accept the principle that there is a public interest in growing trees because of all of the benefits. I agree strongly that the preservation of the hen harrier is in the public good. Therefore, if the Department wants farmers to farm in such a way, as happens in forestry, why not pay them to do so? It is a slightly different way of saying the same thing and conditional on something the delegates have already accepted, that they would have to carry out certain actions to achieve something in the public good. We can call it what we want, but it is a payment. It should be made at a flat rate, irrespective of the factors to be considered. What is 100% sustainable is a payment based on natural constraints. All CAP payments are for a period of seven years. There is a time limit on everything - nothing is forever - but the principle of a payment based on natural constraints, in other words, the more constrained farmers are, the bigger the payment, also makes sense to me because they would fall neatly within the parameters of the way the world is, not the way one would like it to be. A parallel argument could be made for the payment of a grant for hen harrier designated land in the same way a grant is provided for forestry. We should be honest and admit that no one would plant a forest without receiving a premium. I am coming at the issue using slightly different wording, but it is the same game. We have a statement on the achievement of a public good and the position is similar in areas of natural conservation.

I believe the delegates would hit a wall on the planning aspect because its application is so wide. Every week, in many areas, planning permission for windmills is refused for a myriad reasons, many to do with natural ecology, archaeology or visual amenity. I could give examples, but none of the people involved are being compensated. I will be straight with the delegates and say I do not believe it will fly. That is not on what I base my argument because it will be slapped down in two seconds. We should not bring forward proposals just because they sound major if they will not work. I would rather get results than make that case.

I see the devastation being caused by curtailment of the activities of those who want to earn a living. People want the environment to be protected, but they are not willing to pay those who have become the custodians of the environment. If we want the environment to be maintained, we must pay those who have become its custodians. That principle, whether in the case of hen harrier designated areas or any other, must be accepted. Otherwise, land will be abandoned in areas of major ecological importance.