Mr. Jason Fitzgerald:

I will start at the end because it is easier. Under the measures, basically if a farmer were to enforce the nutrient management plan to the last, he may damage the prospect of growing these plant species. Mr. Fergal Monaghan is present and he may elaborate on the point later. Under the scoring mechanism, a farmer is marked on how good his habitat is.

I attended a meeting in Scarriff in County Clare, an area that comes under the hen harrier project. That issue was highlighted from the floor and it was agreed by the speaker that if farmers comply with their green, low-carbon, agri-environment scheme, GLAS, plan, it may produce a lesser score for their habitat. Obviously, the aim in terms of the habitat is to make their land more biodiversity friendly, while GLAS concentrates on lime and pH levels. There is a contradiction between those two.

On the forestry question, it is all or nothing. It is not that farmers want to plant forestry. Some farmers may want to plant a small portion of their ground, but generally they do so because forestry the only mechanism available to get the full value for their land. Certain elderly people would like to plant their land. Some farmers may like to plant a proportion of their land that is unmanageable because it is an area of high rainfall. It varies from farm to farm. If a farmer has an investor coming in or if another farmer wants to buy their land and the farmer wants to get the market value for it, the other farmer is not going to give the farmer the full market value price for the land unless he or she can plant the entire plot of land similar to those outside the designated areas. That is the key point. Certain people might be happy if a certain amount of forestry came back into play. However, it would not address the devaluation issue. Regard must always be had to the person who wishes to buy the land with respect to what he or she is looking for and what that person needs to get to be able to achieve this price.