Mr. Fergal Monaghan:

I acknowledge what many of the speakers have said this evening about the public good that farmers are delivering. They have been delivering public goods and ecosystem services by maintaining landscapes and supporting biodiversity for centuries. This has not been adequately recognised in the past.

We are setting out to create a framework that recognises the role of farmers in the delivery of ecosystem services and public goods. That covers a wide range of parameters. The role of some of the uplands as carbon sinks has been mentioned. They also have important roles in flood regulation and as scenic assets and have a cultural value. That owes a lot to the efforts of current and past generations of farmers. What we are seeking to do in this programme is to create a mechanism for farmers to access some of the value of these public goods that they are providing to the community. This scheme has to be above and beyond the green low carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS. It is a results-based scheme. We are operating under the restriction that we cannot make a flat area payment, which creates its own difficulties. GLAS, the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, the agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, and traditional agri-environment schemes made per hectare payments, which were easy to understand.

It was easy for people to appreciate what was on offer. Our approach is different. We pay on the value of the habitats which the farmer is delivering on the farm. We also recognise that the hen harrier is a high-level indicator of the value of those habitats. If we want to deliver benefits for the hen harrier, we have to do it by delivering the prey base and habitats that it requires. If the hen harrier does well, it is because meadow pipits, red grouse, curlews and a host of other upland species are doing well. If they are doing well, it is because the land is being managed by farmers in a manner conducive to their welfare. This programme is not a programme for land abandonment, it is a programme for active farming and for farmers who wish to access a market for public goods, which previously has been closed to them.

In terms of the programme's operation, we held extensive consultation meetings with farmers across the network. We have taken on board some of the issues which were raised at those meetings in the design. An example of that would be the application process itself. The application to the hen harrier programme is a single page form. It is just a name, an address, a herd number and a signature. There is no requirement for a plan or any investment by the farmer to access the programme. We intend to accept approximately 80 farmers per month for at least a year. The first 80 farmers, approximately 7% of the total, were selected earlier this week. Together they farm just over 4,000 ha of special protection area, SPA, land. They were selected from the 566 applications we received in December. The remaining December applicants and the January applicants will go into a pool or master list and a further 80 will be selected from that list later this week. That process will continue for at least a year.

We accept that there is a transaction cost in any programme. The farmer's time, his or her engagement with his or her adviser and the associated fees all have a cost which must be met. We factored that into the design of the programme and the costings for the various components in it. In addition, we have taken a step to reduce the cashflow impact of advisory costs. We have made the application process relatively risk free in the sense that no upfront investment is required by the farmer. The farmer is only required to engage an adviser once he or she has a contract from the hen harrier programme in his or her hand. The farmer engages an adviser to assist him or her with the process of assessing the habitats on his or her farm, which is subject to some seasonal limitations. It will occur in June and July every year and the farmer will be paid in October. To address the cashflow implications of the transaction cost, we have reduced the gap between those costs being incurred and being reimbursed to as a narrow a timeframe as is feasible.

As I said, we are trying to put a value on what the farmer is delivering. This is a results-based scheme. We have just completed the first phase of adviser training. We held two courses, in Athlone and Limerick, and provisional approval has been given to 88 advisers. Their details are up on our website if members would like to inspect them. Those advisers will have to do a further three days of phase 2 training in late May, which gives a total of five days training and a final exam. This is a more detailed course of training than has been required by traditional agri-environment schemes in the past. The reason for that is that the adviser's role in the process is central. The adviser helps the farmer to self-assess the value of the habitats on his or her farm. That value is expressed on a scale of one to ten. The adviser and farmer come to a decision on that score by reference to a score card that we have developed for the principal habitats that are likely to be found.

So there would be criteria such as invasive species, vegetation structure and vegetation diversity. There would be negative factors like burning, dumping or unsustainable practices. Those positive and negative factors together determine the score out of ten that the farmer receives for a particular field. I missed one step in that the project team determines at the beginning of the process the potential points on offer for each field. When the farmer and the adviser assess their lands, that determines the percentage of the available points the farmer earns. If a farmer gets seven out of ten, we are as interested in why they did not get eight as we are in the fact that they got seven because the reason they did not get eight is a pointer to the farmer about what they can do to bring their score up. Certainly during the design phase, I can say that on the vast majority of fields that were visited by the project as part of the design phase, it was feasible to go up at least one score in a single growing season. One of the things that sets this programme apart from schemes like REPS and GLAS is that the payment is not constant. The farmer has the capacity to improve their score and improve their payment.

We can split the supporting actions into two main groups. There are some capital actions that are there to address infrastructural deficits that are on the farm such as water supply, access or fencing that hinder or impede the farmer's ability to manage the land in a manner that would improve their score. The actions are not an end in themselves. The actions are there to increase the farmer's capacity to benefit from the habitat payment. There should be a margin, particularly when the farmer is utilising their own labour, in respect of those actions but they are not an end in themselves. They are there to increase the farmer's capacity to benefit from other parts of the programme.

There was some comment earlier today about the hen harrier payment. The hen harrier payment represents less than 10% of the €25 million. A total of €2 million has been set aside over the course of the programme to finance this payment. This payment is a local recognition of local achievement. I fully accept the comments some people have made, namely, that it is a matter of luck as to whether a hen harrier nests on one's land. It is possible to qualify for this payment in two different ways. One method is if a harrier nests within a kilometre of a farmer's land and the second one is if at an SPA level, the population is stabilising or improving. As part of the programme, we are carrying out an annual monitoring campaign of the hen harrier population in the SPAs. If 2018 was an exact repeat of 2017, four of the six SPAs would qualify on the second component. That would deliver the hen harrier payment to virtually all the farmers in those four SPAs. In the other two SPAs, many of the farmers would qualify on the basis of the nest local roost. This payment is a new approach. It is a small component of the overall programme but its purpose is to put a value on the hen harrier as a species so that when the farmer is on their land, they see the harrier as a resource. Obviously, the harrier has value in itself but the harrier's presence is an indicator of the proper functioning of the rest of the ecosystem.

None of this possible improvement for hen harriers and other biodiversity would be possible without farmers.

It would be a mistake for a programme such as ours to operate solely on the idea that we can benefit hen harriers in isolation from supporting agriculture.

One of the big risks we have is wildfire risk. We see it every year. We had a particularly bad example in Sliabh Beagh in Monaghan in 2017. Wildfire in Sliabh Beagh destroyed two hen harrier nests directly but probably had an even bigger impact by destroying a large part of the hen harrier prey base. During the breeding season the hen harrier preys largely on the meadow pipit, another ground-nesting bird and one particularly vulnerable to wildfire.

Wildfires do not happen by accident. In the past, there has been too much focus on who actually lit the match and not enough focus on why so much fuel is there. If we are to address that issue under this programme we have to bring cattle farming back onto many of these hills. We have to go beyond the idea of a scheme in isolation and see what can be done in terms of developing a conservation grade for beef so that the older animal that has been delivering conservation grazing is not penalised in the market. We are in consultation with some of the meat companies in that regard at the moment. In addition, we are developing bespoke mineral blocks to address the nutrient deficiencies that occur in a diet of upland vegetation. We are doing this because if we are asking farmers to put cattle on the hills to operate the grazing pattern that we believe would improve their scores, we have to ensure that the market for that type of cattle is supportive and that the particular nutrient deficiencies or challenges occurring in that type of farming can be addressed by the farmer. We are taking a far more holistic approach than traditional schemes.

Earlier, one of the speakers asked about planning permission for fencing. The hen harrier programme is more than happy to assist any farmer in a special protection area with screening for appropriate assessment. If a farmer is putting up fencing as part of the programme and he requires planning permission, we will assist him. We have the skills base to do that and we are happy to oblige.

I would ask everyone to accept that it is a different approach. It is about putting value on what farmers are doing and helping farmers to access that value. It is a pilot project. Earlier, reference was made to the fact that we are only going to take approximately 1,100 farmers into the programme and that a little under 4,000 farmers are in special protection areas. Of the 4,000 farmers in SPAs, almost 2,000 have fewer than 10 ha. Another cohort of approximately 1,000 have more than 19 ha. We are dealing with a wide range of farmers in different categories. Within the figure of 1,100 that we expect to take, any farmer with in excess of 19 ha will do well on the selection criteria. If such a farmer applies in good time we would expect him to be able to access the programme. A farmer with a landholding below 19 ha who is in GLAS is already getting €370 per hectare through that programme.

I have some material with me that I would be happy to pass on to the Chairman for distribution to the committee. I am happy to take any questions from anyone on the committee.