Mr. Tadhg Buckley:

That is a key part of it. There is a dual economic impact. There is the income earning capacity from the land but what is often overlooked is the impact on asset values. There are scenarios where land is designated without the consent of the farmer. The farmer is simply informed that their land is designated and it will devalue the value of that asset by up to 90% overnight. I previously worked in the financial industry.

I know farmers who inherited land. Land is valued for inheritance at €X. If it is then designated it loses 90% of that value. As well as this being a massive asset loss, if the farmer then wants to borrow funding, the value of that security has declined. There are dual parts to this. There is the income earning and the asset value. If we rezoned a housing estate in a town and reduced the asset values by 80% or 90%, there would be uproar. This is part of it.

On the economic side, we can look back over the years at the funding that has gone into schemes. For example, the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, in the mid-2000s had 70,000 farmers and a fund of €1.9 billion. If we fast forward, since 2022 we have had the agri-climate rural environment scheme, which is much lauded by the Government and, in fairness, it is an improvement on the previous scheme. ACRES has an ambition for only 50,000 farmers, which is 20,000 fewer than REPS 16 years ago, and its funding in real terms was 19% lower. If we look at CAP funding, we see it is constantly reducing, even in nominal terms, but also very much in real terms. Irish CAP Pillar 1 funding has reduced by well over 20% in the past 15 years in real terms.

One of the key problems I see is when we look at how this will be funded, and Deputy Whitmore's point was very well made, and we establish the gap in terms of income and asset value, we cannot look to the CAP to fund it. The CAP is already declining and it has existing purposes. There are two principles. The first is that it has to have the consent of farmers, and it has been on a voluntary basis in terms of designation and measures. The second is that it also needs to be properly funded. There should not be a loaves and fishes approach, which is what has been happening with the CAP in particular. The CAP was repurposed for eco-schemes and 25% was set aside. That was 25% of existing funding. Some people looked at it and said it was new. It was not. It was recycled funding. This is a key part of it. With regard to its size, we have to look at how we will fund it.