Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for coming in today and making their presentations. Reading through them, the issue of GLAS has been well aired.

The reality is that while the majority of farmers in GLAS could earn approximately €5,000 from the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, the average is €4,000. I expect it is similar for people in the hen harrier situation. The witness also said that nearly 70% of all farmers have come into this scheme. I expect the reason they are in it is there is no option. It is a scheme that is there and away they go. What else are they going to do? It is not a reflection of how great the scheme is.

The impact is geared at the survival of the hen harrier. We also have to look at the survival of the farmer. That is one of the issues that is plainly being brought to bear. The farmer is being put in a secondary position in this regard. It was said farmers could earn between €3,000 and €4,000 in the locally led scheme and that a farmer with more than 40 ha could earn up to €6,000 or €7,000. "Could" and "do" are two different things. I am sure the witness will be able to give us figures on what farmers are getting.

The other issue is in regard to forestry and it is often raised here. Afforestation seen in many places is Sitka spruce and is very dense. There is little undergrowth. It goes up to a certain stage and there is very little wildlife in it because it does not produce anything else and it becomes a complete blanket. Are there options for different types of forestry which would not be as dense and would allow perhaps more accommodation for wildlife, in particular for the hen harrier? Agroforestry is something we have mentioned several times. I understand the Minister is looking at providing grants in respect of that. It will mean that farmers can farm and have forestry on the same land. That would be a better option in many cases. Could options like that be considered?

The witnesses have not said anything to reassure farmers they are going to get a better deal from this. That is what we need to know. Is there something in this for people who have had their land designated? As it stands, I imagine that if a person had gone into his or her local bank manager two years ago before this scheme existed and asked what designated land was worth and asked that question again now, there would probably be very little difference. It would still be considered designated land and therefore the designation has devalued the property. The only way to bring balance back is to have a scheme which clearly does compensate for that designation. This scheme, while it goes some way toward that, does not go near far enough. The only way that can improve is if some of these other measures are looked at in respect of other forms of compensation that farmers can get.