Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegates from Wicklow Uplands Council: Mr. John Medlycott, vice chairman; Ms Cara Heraty, co-ordinator; Mr. Declan Byrne, land use adviser with Teagasc in County Wicklow; and Mr. Pat Dunne, chairman of the council's vegetation management working group and an upland farmer from Glenmalure. I thank them for attending the meeting and assisting us in our consideration of this issue. I advise them that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of that evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are further asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I apologise on behalf of the Chairman who is unavoidably absent and attending the funeral of a long-standing friend. I invite Mr. Medlycott to make an opening statement.

Mr. John Medlycott:

I thank the joint committee for affording us the opportunity to make a presentation. We convey the apologies of the regional manager at the Wicklow Mountains National Park, Mr. Wesley Atkinson, who had to be in Glendalough today for the visit of Ms Michelle Obama and her daughters. It is a shame he cannot attend because his participation emphasises the inclusive nature of the work Wicklow Uplands Council is doing with a range of interest groups. He has given us a good deal of help in preparing our presentation.

Wicklow Uplands Council, established in 1997, is an independent voluntary organisation which provides a forum for interested non-statutory organisations and individuals to have their say in the decision-making process affecting the sustainable development of the local environment in the spirit of Local Agenda 21. The council endeavours to promote the sustainable use and enjoyment of the Wicklow uplands in partnership with the people who live, work and recreate there. Our logo which members can see on the screen comprises two hands reaching across to form a mountain. This symbolises our commitment to working together with all interested parties to achieve a sustainable environment. That type of co-operation sometimes leads to difficulties, but we operate on the principle that consensus is all.

I will now hand over to our co-ordinator, Ms Heraty, who will speak about our study to identify the best management of upland habitats in County Wicklow.

Ms Cara Heraty:

I thank the joint committee for inviting us to present the recommendations made in our report. I will be referring to the PowerPoint presentation on the screen. The objective of the study was to use good science and collaboration to identify best management of upland habitats in County Wicklow, with the optimal balance of farming and biodiversity. The study was financed by Leader funding provided by County Wicklow Partnership.

As Mr. Medlycott remarked, the handshake in the hills in our symbol represents our modus operandi of consensus. We only move forward when consensus is achieved. After two very well attended public meetings hosted by Wicklow Uplands Council in 2011, a working group was established to tackle the issue of vegetation management in the Wicklow hills. A grassroots approach was followed, encompassing representation by upland farmers, recreational users, Teagasc, staff from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the council itself and the Irish Uplands Forum. There was very strong upland farmer participation in the working group, with 11 farmers involved, and 30 meetings were held over a period of two years. Each participant put in 60 hours, which is indicative of the commitment shown by local participants. The group also liaised with staff of the Forest Service, the Heritage Council and Wicklow County Council. In addition, there was consultation with farmers in the Comeragh and Cooley Mountains who experience some of the same issues which I will detail in the course of the presentation.

I will give a quick overview of what I will talk about. We will identify the need for support in managing the hills in the form of a sustainable uplands agri-environment scheme, or SUAS. We will identify how this will help to meet Government targets and commitments and fulfil the key recommendations from the report, and we will speak about how controlled burning is instrumental and some of the issues around that. Specifications for the proposed scheme will then follow.

I will discuss management issues in the Wicklow uplands. One of the key things is a decline in traditional hill farming in Wicklow. In general, upland habitats are considered to be in poor ecological condition. Uncontrolled wildfires are common, not just in Wicklow but across the country. Uncontrolled vegetation, including tall heather and gorse, poses a threat to public safety and public and private property, including forest, which covers a large part of County Wicklow.

On access by recreational users, Wicklow is Dublin's playground and there are a lot of associated pressures which local people, including landowners, have to manage, as well as the National Parks and Wildlife Service and statutory bodies. There are associated issues, such as dog control. There is a huge deer population in Wicklow and control of deer is also a major management issue. This is set against a background of the designation of much of the Wicklow uplands as national park areas. We have the largest national park in the country, at 21,500 ha. A special area of conservation comprises 32,500 ha and special protection areas are a subset of that at 28,600 ha.

The chart provided shows the decline in ewe numbers in Wicklow upland DEDs between 2000 and 2010. Seven upland DEDs were selected and a marked decline can be seen. We realise the national figures for sheep numbers are increasing, but these numbers support our case and show sheep numbers are in decline in the hills.

The green area in the next chart shows commonage in County Wicklow. It is the most recent chart. Based on the latest figures, we estimate that about one fifth of the area of the Wicklow uplands consists of commonage. Areas above 200 m are marked in orange. This shows that any proposed upland agri-environment scheme must take commonage into account. The next slide shows the special area of conservation in the Wicklow uplands. It is a massive area, comprising well over half the uplands. It also highlights what a special area Wicklow is.

We hope our proposals will help to meet some Government targets and commitments, including improving rural employment. The scheme should encourage young farmers to farm the hills and serve to support rural economies, keeping them alive and thriving. It will also assist in achieving growth through Food Harvest 2020, given that sheep numbers and farmers are in decline in the Wicklow hills. It is an area on which we can improve. One of the major commitments that could be met is to halt the deterioration in the status of all species and habitats covered by EU nature legislation and to achieve a significant and measurable improvement in their status by 2020. It is the first target of the 2020 EU biodiversity strategy.

There is great opportunity for interdepartmental co-operation between the Departments of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and Agriculture, Food and the Marine. What we propose would also reduce the risk of fire to forestry plantations, which is a major problem in Wicklow, especially as the reconstitution grant is no longer available. Some 21% of the county is covered by forest.

I will summarise the key recommendations of the report. It highlights the need for support for upland farmers through an upland agri-environment scheme. Controlled burning should be supported through the scheme, as it is in neighbouring countries; I will show this to the committee in the next slide. There is a need for the dates for the Irish burning season to be brought back in line with the UK and Northern Ireland. This is outside the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, but we ask for the support of the committee in lobbying the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, to change the dates. We are also in contact with the Minister.

We propose that local learning management groups, as per the Cooley Mountains model, be established. A project in County Leitrim has undertaken a similar approach and there is a local burning management group for the management of grouse in Boleybrack Mountain. There is a need for research on sustainable grazing levels, the associated economics of upland farming and the factors influencing it. We are looking for practical trials of management techniques to monitor the effect on biodiversity. A parallel study area should be run alongside an uplands agri-environment scheme. There is a lack of data and we do not want to wait for a scheme to happen because farmers are in decline. Once they are lost it will be very difficult to get farmers and sheep back on the hills. That needs to happen in parallel with any scheme.

Ireland is out of line with neighbouring countries in terms of controlled burning dates and permissible burning dates. Farmers in Ireland are allowed to burn from 1 September to the end of February. Those dates were reduced by six weeks with the amendment of the Wildlife Act in 2000. We are out of line with all of our neighbouring countries. People in Meath look at Carlingford Lough and see that their neighbours in Northern Ireland can burn until 14 April. This is the case across the board in Scotland, England and Wales. In some cases the date is 31 March. The majority of other countries distinguish between upland and lowland areas, something Ireland does not do. In addition, in neighbouring countries the licensing systems allow for derogations, which provide flexibility to burn outside legal burning dates. We ask that such a measure be considered.

We have a picture of what we would call a good burn. There is a difference between good and bad burning. The picture shows a light, low-intensity burn which probably happened quite fast. The seed layer was not destroyed and the vegetation has the capacity to recover quite quickly. That is the type of burning we are talking about. The next picture shows what we would call a bad burn. It is a black, high-intensity burn. The soil layer has been affected, which causes plasticisation and disintegration of the soil. Often the seed layer is also affected. That is something we should not do.

I will discuss the key principles of the sustainable upland agri-environment scheme which we would like to see established as soon as possible. The priority objective is to enhance and improve the condition of upland habitats through hill farming. The scheme must be tailored to recognise the commonage system of management. As we showed, they comprise such a large area that they have to be included. Payment for production of biodiversity, as per the Burren Farming for Conservation programme, should be on a sliding scale. One of the main principles is that one should be paid for work done or production of biodiversity. Payment should be additional to any additional scheme such as AEOS. Farmers should be supported by an advisory service. Flexibility is key. All of the upland farmers want some flexibility in how they achieve the end product and how they farm. Government administration of an overall scheme with local administration and promotion by specialists in upland ecology and agriculture are also key.

On the eligibility criteria for the scheme as proposed by our group, eligible land will be unenclosed land and associated lowland with which it is farmed. Lowland areas sometimes help to support upland areas. Sheep are often brought down to those areas. We seen no reason they should not be included. The area should contain at least one of the following upland habitat types on at least 10% of its upland: dry heath; wet heath; blanket bog; upland acidic grassland; white grass; flushes; and montane heath or rocky slopes. We propose that for the purposes of economies of scale 10 ha should be the minimum eligible area.

This is quite a bit higher than the Burren Farming for Conservation scheme, but the uplands are an entirely different environment. Eligible farmers must be active farmers and participation should be based on agreement to farm according to a farm plan prepared in consultation with the farmer. This plan should be reviewed after year fours, informed by an audit of the habitat's condition. There should be an initial assessment of habitat condition followed by a review of other farm plans and lengthy consultation with the farmer. A short colour-coded plan using aerial photography should be used to identify actions for annual implementation.

I will show the committee a photograph of upland and associated lowland on Pat Dunne's farm. The photograph also shows Pat Dunne's farm and the start of the zig-zag route which is the main access route to Lugnaquilla, the highest mountain in Leinster. Pat informs us that this route is like a highway with the numbers of people using it every weekend. The photograph shows the path that Pat manages and maintains as part of the walk scheme. Another photograph shows an area of white grass or Molinia which we are informed is no good either for farming or for ecology or biodiversity. It is a result of undergrazing, which is the biggest issue in Wicklow. I know the commonage framework plans dealt with overgrazing, but undergrazing is the issue in Wicklow. The area in the photograph is to the left of the fence line. Pat Dunne informed us that the area to the right, which is grazed, appeared green three weeks in advance of the area to the left. This shows the benefits of grazing. Along the forestry on the right-hand side there is an area of heather which has regenerated because it was left without any grazing. This means that encouraging heather growth or the management of existing heather can also be an option.

I have listed the proposed measures that the Wicklow Uplands Council is recommending through the scheme as per REPS. Five measures have been identified. The first measure is to manage designated land and other areas of Annex 1 habitat. This would mean payment for production of biodiversity on a sliding scale. Measure two is enhancement of habitat diversity through particular actions; measure three is enhancement of particular species; measure four, is support for sustainable upland farming, recreation and the management of cultural heritage, including protected monuments; and measure five is to co-operation on commonages and the establishment of local burning management groups and deer management groups. This is an issue we have discussed more recently so it is not in the report, but we are continually adapting and developing. Under Article 36 of the rural development plan, if the Government decides to allocate funding, money is available under Pillar 2 for co-operation measures such as those I have listed. This article has never been switched on by the Irish Government and we call for that to happen as soon as possible in order to facilitate a top-up payment for the extra work required. We are asking for payment for work done and additional work is required for co-operation. We all know the difficulties with commonages, and there is additional work for local burning management groups and also the deer management group, one of which has been in existence in Wicklow for the past ten years.

I will summarise the scheme and payment rates. I will not deal in detail with particular payment rates because these change all the time. I will list the actions. Measure one is to reach particular targets for habitat condition; measure two is to implement changes to the grazing regime, remove bracken and furze, engage in targeted burning according to a ten-year plan or for fire breaks, engaging in swiping and felling of tall heather or gorse, and reduce areas covered by Molinia. Measure three is to improve the status of species, for example through the use of small-scale fencing around rare species, a few of which are in Wicklow, and to engage in targeted management to improve habitats for upland birds. Measure four is rush control in enclosed land associated with upland farms and drain maintenance in enclosed land, and inspection and management of hill access routes. We had also included the installation of stiles and regular inspection of infrastructure, but the walk scheme, as I understand, was recently extended for five years. This may be something that could be omitted from our proposals.

With regard to the cost breakdown, the average payment would be similar to the Burren Farming for Conservation programme at approximately €8,000 per year, based on an average-sized farm in Wicklow. We have 350 to 400 eligible farmers with land in fee simple and commonages. The cost of local scheme administration is estimated at €140,000 per year. Farmers are to pay a proportion of the cost of the management plan and possibly contribute to capital actions to improve the condition of habitats. We are talking about a contribution of 25% if the measure one payment could be increased. The total cost of the scheme for County Wicklow is estimated at €3.7 million to €4.2 million per year. We recommend that funding for this scheme be negotiated under pillar 2 of CAP. I thank the committee members for their attention.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Heraty for a very informative presentation. We will now take questions from members.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegation and thank them for the very comprehensive presentation. There has been much work and research done on the area. I come from Donegal, which is also a county of hills with lots of commonage grazing and hill grazing areas. We have had our own difficulties, particularly with destocking on the hills and the dreadful fires in May 2011, when large parts of the county were burned. Houses were almost lost and we came very close to loss of human life. Thankfully, that did not happen.

I will be as brief as possible. County Wicklow has extensive Natura land, including SACs and SPAs and the national park. The combined SACs and SPAs amount to 60,000 ha, which is a very large expanse of land. We have had difficulties in Donegal with the designation of SPAs in particular and the total lack of consultation with landowners and farmers prior to decisions. I ask if the council has any view on the designations made in Wicklow or the manner in which those designations have taken place. It is the responsibility of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. This may be a tangential point but I ask if the council is of the view that designations should be the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, given the affinity between landowners and that Department, rather than of a Department that has no direct link with landowners.

I wholeheartedly agree with the council's proposal. The commonage framework directive and destocking on hills have come about as a result of EU policy - for example, the Natura sites, SPAs and SACs. Hill farmers have to undertake restrictive farming practices and they must be compensated, because the overall allocation or the pot of money available to this country under the transfers from Europe, between Pillars 1 and 2, is about €1.6 billion. The reason we are getting that pot of money is that we have a substantial element of restricted farming and SAC and SPA lands. The farmers concerned play an active part in protecting the Natura sites, which means we are in receipt of a bigger chunk of funding from Europe. There has to be a compensation element built in. The current compensation includes the disadvantaged area payment. However, I am always fascinated at the manner in which the disadvantaged area scheme is administered. For example, people with the best land in the country were in receipt of disadvantaged area payments while the guys on the hills were getting only a few euro extra per hectare for the poorest land in the country with all sorts of restrictions on stocking. That was wrong.

There are potentially several ways of dealing with this and I support the delegates' suggestions in this regard.

Agreement is expected to be reached soon on a renewal of the Common Agricultural Policy and there has been a great deal of discussion by farmers throughout the country of what it might mean for them. My colleague, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, and I do not wholly subscribe to the argument that Pillar 2 will offer a solution to all of the difficulties being faced by farmers on marginal land. The largest element of change will come under Pillar 1 which accounts for some €1.2 billion of funding. Pillar 2, on the other hand, will offer only some €450,000, a sum which could diminish between now and the end of the year as a consequence of the current fiasco with the drawdown of Leader funding. That delay could have knock-on connotations for the drawdown of funding under the new CAP.

The difficulty is that we do not yet know what will be involved under Pillar 2. We do know that there will be a rural development aspect, for example, and that suckler cow quotas and the disadvantaged areas scheme will have to be accommodated, but it is difficult to ascertain how much money will be left over for schemes such as the delegates are proposing. Funding for some of their proposals such as measure 1 which suggests a per hectare payment would more suitably come under Pillar 1. Some of the other measures could come under Pillar 2, but there must be an up-front payment, particularly for farmers on lands which could be described as marginal or hilly. That up-front payment should come from the Pillar 1 budget which is three times that of Pillar 2. The Irish Farmers Association has maintained that the Pillar 2 budget is the appropriate pot from which farmers on poorer land in the west and places such as County Wexford and County Wicklow can receive their top-up payment. That is somewhat disingenuous. Why should farmers on marginal lands struggle to obtain funds under Pillar 2 when the owners of large farms are getting the benefit in any case as a result of the restrictive farming practices being undertaken by farmers on peripheral land?

The scheme the delegates are proposing is an excellent one, but I could not support a situation where it would be implemented only in County Wicklow. We would love to steal parts of it for implementation in other parts of the country. I am sure the delegates will take that as the compliment it is intended to be. There is not a huge amount of money involved, with the delegates indicating that some 350 to 400 farmers in County Wicklow would be eligible. There is work for the committee to do in discovering how many might be eligible and the cost of including all of them on a nationwide basis. Hill land is one of our greatest natural assets and farmers are best placed to protect it. They must, however, be compensated for that work and the way to do so is via a cheque in the post. It goes without saying there must be conditions and we must ensure the work is being done and the money spent properly. Identifying the source of income will be key.

My main concern is that this worthy proposal might suffer because of diminishing funds under Pillar 2. I urge the delegates to be careful of this. The argument needs to be made that some of the Pillar 1 funding should be allocated for schemes such as this. That would benefit thousands of farmers, particularly along the west coast from counties Cork and Kerry right up to County Donegal. It would allow people to stay on the land and protect it. We can talk about productivity and so on, but in the absence of such support, we will see in five or ten years time people leaving the land because there is no source of income. They will move to urban areas or leave these shores, leading to a significant rural decline. In fact, this is already happening throughout the country, with young people leaving the family farm because it does not provide a sustainable income.

The delegates' proposal in respect of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2000 is a no brainer for me. It makes no sense to have two burning policies on a small island like ours. I met a delegation from the North last night to discuss wind energy. There is a strong case to be made for an all-island policy in terms of planning and so forth in that area. Likewise, a common-sense approach is required on the issue of burning and it should be possible to work out an island-wide policy. There is no difference between the hills around Maghera and those in County Wicklow or County Donegal; why, therefore, would there be two burning policies? It makes absolute sense to have a co-ordinated approach on issues such as this.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their presentation. I concur with much of what Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill said, particularly about the uncertainty surrounding the framework for Pillar 2 and the level of funding it will provide. The problems experienced by hill farmers in County Wicklow, as outlined by the delegates, are the same as those facing farmers on the west coast, in my own county of Kerry, in west Cork and every area in which hill farmers are struggling to make a living on very marginal land. The types of proposal the delegates have brought forward must be considered as part of a national plan in order to maintain family farm living in hilly and mountainous areas. Ensuring people have a sustainable income which supports their families will have benefits for the wider community in the form of a knock-on effect for local businesses and employment.

In terms of eligibility for the scheme, the delegates have proposed that 10 ha be the minimum eligible area. Did they come across any farmer with a smaller holding than this in the course of their research? They mentioned that under-grazing in some areas as a consequence of restrictions and so on was causing problems in controlling burn-off. I agree that the problem is the existence of two separate burning calendars on the two parts of the island. Will the delegates comment further in this regard?

I acknowledge the effort the delegates have put into their proposals and I am particularly impressed that the committee included 11 farmers. It is vital that stakeholders have a role in determining their own future. Who knows better what needs to be done than those who are at the coalface and whose living is dependent on the outcome? My party shares the concerns expressed by Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill regarding Pillars 1 and 2 of the CAP. Pillar 2 is clearly the poor relation which seems destined to have only the crumbs from the table. If there is to be a support mechanism such as that outlined by the delegates, it must be sufficiently funded to have a real impact in ensuring the sustainability of hill farming across the island.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their presentation and great enthusiasm. What is Wicklow Uplands Council's relationship with Coillte? Does the designation of the area to which they are referring as a national park assist or hinder them in their efforts and, if either is the case, will they explain why?

The delegates spoke about recreational use. Have they anything more to say on that matter? Is it something they view as significant for the future, or do they see it as being less significant because the priority is on the farming side? What is the status of protected species in that area? What work, if any, have the delegates done in that regard?

The delegates spoke about the decline in the number of sheep in the area. Have they done any research into whether there is a market for such sheep, particularly Wicklow upland sheep or hill sheep? Often, it is possible designate food accordingly. Would it help the delegates with their proposal if they were marketing a particular animal? The food lovers among us would always ask that question, and it is a worthwhile one, but I wonder whether the delegates have come down to that level. When one is asking for help, one should outline one's strengths and say that one could do well in that respect. Have the delegates any targets or figures for where they see the increase coming from and how much growth there might be? Everything they are doing is in order to improve things, and I wonder whether they have quantified that.

The delegates said that the scheme should encourage young farmers, which it should, and it should also support the rural economy. Have they any more to tell us about how it might do that? All of us in this committee have an interest in encouraging young farmers. Farming is a difficult enough job at present, with many pressures, and part of the argument is how can we encourage people to enter farming. While the delegates would say the scheme would be good for young farmers, how exactly would it be good for them and have they any idea of the number of young farmers who might be drawn in as a consequence? When seeking funding for or trying to persuade people to support a proposal, having those extra details would be helpful.

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief because the previous three speakers have done an extremely good job of summing up and posing some questions. Well done to the delegates on their collaboration, which was impressive. It is not easy to collaborate different points of view and they all come from different areas. Along the lines of what Senator O'Keeffe said, I do not come from a hill farming area; rather, I come from the valley beside the shore, the land of milk and honey, and I need some education. I would be interested in particular to hear from Mr. Pat Dunne about the reality of being a farmer in that area. To return to Senator O'Keeffe's point, how can we incentivise young farmers to enter or stay in this area? I am one of those people who visit this area on a Sunday and I idolise and enjoy it. I was very taken by Senator Ó Domhnaill's visualisation of what will happen in five to ten years if we do not sit down and consider this. I feel empathy for the delegates because we have two pillars in the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan, and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, whom we need to get into a room to engage properly on this. It is pity the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht has responsibility for burning policy and that it does not come under the remit of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Scotland, England, Wales and the Northern Ireland have the burning dates that were given but there must have been some reason a decision was made here to designate another period in line with the Wildlife Act. Perhaps that decision was wrong, but I would like the delegates to clarify that. I would welcome the alignment of the periods and I am desperately keen that we encourage the delegates to be careful of our wildlife and to protect all species.

The slide showing the trend in ewe numbers is shocking. In some areas the number of ewes has more than halved. How and why has that happened? Can the delegates educate us about how we can bring those numbers back up to the level pertaining in 2000? What exactly has happened? The decline in the ewe numbers has been dramatic.

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates from Wicklow Uplands Council for their presentation. It was very interesting. It was equally interesting to hear from the delegates we had in regarding the equivalent scheme in Burren. We have to consider this matter in a way that supports rural Ireland, which is facing many pressures. Senator Mary Ann O'Brien, Senator Ó Domhnaill and others referred to the vision for this area in five to ten years' time. We brought in an EU directive which had a vision regarding the destocking of our hills five to ten years ago and we can now see the effect it has had on sheep numbers in Wicklow. We got that wrong. Some of the plants on the hills, especially the ferns, have grown wild, and their growth has not been controlled because sheep are the best animals to do that.

It is hard to get sheep back on a hill, because they have to be bred and trained to live on that hill; that is a long-term aspect in regard to restocking, and I agree with the delegates on that. I did not see anything wrong with the farming practices that were in place ten, 15 or 20 years ago but bureaucracy went mad in terms of what we did in destocking our hills. When the sheep were removed from the hills, I know there was increased biodiversity, with certain plants regenerating and taking over, but was there much of increase in the population of wildlife such as deer on the hills?

As a Kilkenny man, I know Wicklow well as it is nearly a neighbouring county. What percentage of the land in Wicklow is defined as upland? I remember when I was campaigning for election to the Seanad that I did not realise the time it took to travel from east to west Wicklow across the hills, as shown on the map of Wicklow in the presentation. It is a long drive to cover that large area late at night. I understand the position of the farmers in the area. I would say this is the largest upland area in Ireland and it has been a big challenge for farmers in the area to cope with, especially in the past two years when we have had wet and cold winters. The delegates said that 300 to 400 farmers were involved. How many of those farmers would be totally reliant on the upland area?

The delegates stated that the scheme should look after active farmers. We are engaged in the negotiations on the Common Agricultural Policy, which are possibly the most important negotiations for this country for next seven years, and one of the stumbling blocks we find when we meet any group, whether it be EU representatives, Department officials or farm organisations, is how to define an active farmer. I would interested to hear the delegates' definition.

On the issue of burning policy, to which the previous speakers referred, I know that such burning cannot be done willy-nilly or at any time of the year but I do not agree with farming by dates, which, as we have seen in the context of the nitrates directive, has had a detrimental effect. We have an extension under the nitrates directive until the end of September this year because of the pressures farmers are under due to fodder crisis. The Department - whether it be the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht or the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport - should examine the situation and stop trying to ensure that farmers farm according to dates directed by the EU.

The delegates said that under the proposed scheme there would be an average payment of €8,000 to between 300 and 400 farmers. That would amount to approximately €3.2 million, which would have to come out of Pillar 2 funding - that is, approximately 5% of the budget for Pillar 2. We know the budget will be €313 million, which the Government will have to match, and hopefully it will match it to the tune of 50% or 55%. Even leaving aside payments under other schemes, nearly 5% of the budget for Pillar 2 would go to County Wicklow. Senator Ó Domhnaill said the scheme should be supported under Pillar 1. The Senator's party is proposing that people farming upland areas such as this with a flat rate payment and equalisation would be the beneficiaries from Pillar 1 under what is being proposed by Commissioner Cioloş.

Reference was made to Food Harvest 2020 and achieving goals. If we are to achieve the goals set, we must stock hills to the maximum and get the maximum return. I accept that it is challenging to farm in such areas because of the weather. One cannot have sheep on a hill unless one has a good dog and the sheep are trained. One must have a lot of co-operation between neighbours, especially on commonage land. I would welcome comments on the points I have made.

It is important to define “active farmer” and ascertain how many of the 400 farmers mentioned are totally reliant on uplands. It was said the average payment would be €8,000. Given that such farmers are in the AEOS also, they are starting with €12,000 and then there are Pillar 1 payments, flat-rate payments, which would not be too bad if they were along the lines suggested by some.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Reference was made to the Burren scheme. Did the delegates have any communication or correspondence with the group there when it was compiling its scientific plan and drawing up proposals? The Burren group was before the committee in recent months when it made an interesting presentation. Am I correct in saying reference was made in the presentation to a funding scheme not drawn down under Pillar 2? I would like to hear more about it.

Ms Cara Heraty:

I will deal with the first question on the National Parks and Wildlife Service. There was a difficult period in County Wicklow, as in the rest of the country, when the designations were first made. I am pleased to say that during the years the relationship with the National Parks and Wildlife Service has dramatically improved in County Wicklow. We co-operate with it on a number of projects, one of which involves the protection of rural and upland environments and collecting material illegally dumped, together with Coillte and the local authorities. We work with the service on some very successful projects.

To clarify, the area of special protection is a subset of the SAC. We are not talking about an additional 32,000 ha; it is a case of 32,000 ha of SAC, of which the SPA is a subset.

From attending various presentations by the National Parks and Wildlife Service and as a member of the national working group that has been exploring a scheme for the uplands of Ireland, it is clear that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is moving from desk-based to evidence-based management plans. The designation phase is now complete and according to the commitment to the EU 2020 biodiversity strategy, we must at least maintain and improve the condition of upland habitats. In some cases European Court of Justice fines have been imposed. That is why there is a response on issues such as the freshwater pearl mussel. We know that the National Parks and Wildlife Service's priorities include such issues as the restoration of raised bogs, restoring the freshwater pearl mussel to eight rivers and sustainable management of uplands. Another priority is grassland management in EU grassland habitats. From discussions with staff at national level, farmers are recognised as being key to the delivery of the plans, not just because they own some of the areas which are designated but also because the staff and resources are not exist available within the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The service recognises the value of farmers, sometimes through holding grazing rights, even within national parks, and that they have a key role to play in improving the condition of habitats. Currently, there is a huge gap in terms of the optimal stocking rates for production of biodiversity in the various types of habitat. That is why in our report we recommend the parallel study to identify this and carry out some research. We would love to work with Teagasc and the National Parks and Wildlife Service on the study in the future.

Mr. John Medlycott:

In the context of the national park, it is regrettable that because of the Obama visit to Glendalough, Wesley Atkinson is not present. He would have answered Senator Susan O’Keeffe’s question about the relationship between our organisation and the national park in County Wicklow because if there was a difficulty, it is clear that the manager of the national park would not be presenting with us. It is one of the more important aspects of what we have managed to achieve.

Mr. Pat Dunne:

A number of issues were raised. Understocking has been a huge problem in County Wicklow. We never had an overstocking problem in County Wicklow, apart from in a couple of isolated places. Even when the commonage framework plans were drawn up, at the time it was generally recognised in County Wicklow that we did not have an overstocking problem.

As to the reason for understocking, it is simple; there is not a sufficient return from hill farming. I am one of the few full-time hill farmers left on the Wicklow hills. Most people have off-farm income because they need it. It is as simple as that.

Senator Susan O’Keeffe asked a question about young farmers. I have four sons, two of whom are keen to farm the hills, but, unfortunately, there is not sufficient income for them to do so. That is the reality. There are several similar situations in my area where other young fellows are mad keen to farm because there are good hills in parts of County Wicklow, but they must have an income to be able to provide in the future for a wife and children, whatever the case may be. As it stands, that is not possible. I would not be able to do it if I had a mortgage to pay. Most of my family have gone through college at this stage. As I have only one fellow left, I do not have the huge commitments someone with a younger family would have. That is the reality.

Burning dates was one issue that was raised. It has been a huge problem in County Wicklow since the system was introduced and it was introduced without any consultation. We were just told that was the case and that was the end of the story. We have campaigned for a long time through the Wicklow Uplands Council to try to have the dates changed back to where they were but to no avail. We have met various people and nearly all feel the same way about it. We would like to see sensible burning dates and a proper rotational burning system which would ensure massive and dangerous burning similar to what happened in Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill’s place in County Donegal would not happen. We had this a few years ago in the Sally Gap area of County Wicklow where thousands of acres were burned. It did not make the same headlines because there were no houses close to it and there was no health risk, as such. This spring there was a big burning in Ballycroy National Park in County Mayo where 15,000 acres were burned. If one goes back to the days when farmers managed the hills and they burned a little every year, there was never any big burn because if a fire happened to start, it ran into an area that had been burned the previous year and it did not go any further. That system worked for generations. Because I am out on the hills for a good deal of my time - I also do a good bit of hillwalking with a walking group - I am aware that the number of grouse has declined dramatically since the burning dates were changed. Where I used to see ten and 12 packs of grouse on the hills when out gathering sheep, I am now lucky if I see two or three grouse, such is the decline in numbers.

We all have to work together. During the years burning dates, sheep farming and grouse management always went hand in hand. I believe this was a mistake. I am not sure the people who pushed for the change in the burning dates realised the consequences of doing this, but the position must be brought back into line with that for our neighbours in the North of Ireland and across the water.

Ms Cara Heraty:

We submitted a freedom of information request to obtain the reason for this and it was linked with an application made by groups regarding lowland hedgerows. The distinction between upland areas was not identified at the time and the knock-on effect on us may not have been given due consideration.

Mr. Pat Dunne:

A question was raised about the CAP-----

Mr. John Medlycott:

Let me make one more comment in terms of the reason the burning date is so important. If we have the very fine weather that we had a fortnight ago and a very good summer, members can be quite certain that there will be a major fire in County Wicklow. That will destroy not just the heather and the mountains but also the wildlife and everything else. With the heather at the height it is at now, there is potential for major destruction and it could be a catastrophe.

Mr. Declan Byrne:

To pick up on sheep numbers, the figures Ms Heraty has displayed are for the numbers of sheep in the different district electoral divisions, DEDs. This hides a much larger problem in County Wicklow in that while the sheep are there, the farmers do not put them out on the hills. They may still have the same numbers, but they are not putting them out on the hills and if they are, it is for a very short period. The problem is much more severe than what has been highlighted. Unfortunately, we do not have figures, but anecdotally, from talking to farmers, we know that many still have sheep, but they are not putting them out near the hills. That is a much bigger problem.

On the reason sheep numbers fall, the main reason is that they are not making money. The national farm survey shows that, without direct payments, hill farmers are losing money. That is the bottom line. Why would they keep more sheep to lose more money and endure more hardship? That is the reason sheep numbers are falling.

In terms of incentives for young farmers and so on, we have had various discussions among ourselves, but one of the issues in hill areas is that young farmers do not have access to the hills because of the way the schemes - the single farm payment and the area aid scheme - have been structured. Farmers already have their payments based on the land area they are farming. They need to keep these areas on their area aid or single farm payment scheme forms to receive their payments. Therefore, young farmers starting out do not have access to the hills. If we could free this a little, that would be one possible avenue by which to encourage young fellows to take up farming. The other big one is if there was a profitable sheep enterprise. If there is no money in it, they will not stay.

Someone brought up the issues of under-grazing on the hills and heather management. Traditionally in County Wicklow the heather is grazed and when it becomes too strong, we have to burn it to generate young growth.

I deal with farmers from Teagasc and so on, but the pattern of sheep grazing on the hills is very important. This also leads to the problem with burning. We no longer put sheep on the hills for the winter months. The winter and early summer months are the time of the year when sheep graze on the heather. These are the periods in County Wicklow, in particular, when sheep are not being put back on the hills and unless we can do something to address this, the heather getting strong and having to continue to burn it will still be an issue.

Some years ago a trial was undertaken by the National Parks and Wildlife Service on Djouce mountain. It carried out a controlled burn and swiping operation. It achieved great results, but because sheep were not put back out at the appropriate time to graze on the heather, it was fit to be done again. Using sheep is the most effective way of controlling the problem. Unfortunately, even if one is actively farming with sheep, one still needs to burn the heather as part of a long-term control plan.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Dunne want to continue?

Mr. Pat Dunne:

A question was raised about CAP payments, which I know is a contentious issue. We do not have any control over them, but obviously hill farmers would love to see as much money as possible coming to them under the CAP. However, what we want is not a payment - I have stressed this point on several occasions - for simply owning land. It is a payment for works done. If one happens to own an area of mountain land and is prepared to go out and get the vegetation on it into good condition for livestock, wildlife, biodiversity and recreational users, one will be compensated or paid in a meaningful way for doing this rather than receiving a flat, across the board payment per hectare.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That brings us back to Senator Pat O'Neill's question about the active farmer.

Mr. Pat Dunne:

That is what makes our scheme different from any other. It is akin to what has been done in the Burren.

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The definition under the disadvantaged areas payment scheme is of stocking rates. Is Mr. Dunne proposing in his scheme that a certain stocking rate be defined for an active farmer?

Mr. Pat Dunne:

Under the commonage framework plans to be introduced, stocking levels will be set down. That issue will have to be worked on. There is a lot of work to be done on the plans. I believe each commonage will have to be looked at in a separate way to see what stock is needed to keep the vegetation in proper condition. We want a payment for work done, not just because somebody happens to own ten, 20 or 50 ha of land. We want people to be paid for work done rather than just owning land.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we continue, I will call Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry; I was at another meeting and could not attend earlier.

There is a great deal of sense in the various points the delegates have raised. I would like to address my colleagues and the delegates on the single farm payment issue. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has produced figures for me based on productivity, excluding tillage farmers. What they show is that the farmers receiving more than €400 or €500 per hectare are less than twice as productive as those receiving less than €250 per hectare. If the minimum payment was fixed at €200 for those now receiving under €250, it should be less than €400 for those now receiving €500 or more.

That brings me to the issue of what is an active farmer. A farmer rang me last night. Like many farmers around where I live, he farms 2,000 ft. above sea level. If one does not have to be active to do this, one does not have to be active to do anything. It is not easy to get a tractor to the top of the mountains where he is located. I think we will park the issue of what is an active farmer. As I said, on the production aspect, there is no factual basis to the argument being made by the Irish Farmers Association on production because the figures provided by the Senator's own Minister give the lie to it. Unless the Senator wants to take up the figures with him, I have to go by whatever figures he gives me and they are the production figures.

To return to the issue of hill farming, it seems everybody wants to have a slice of the hills and to have the hill farmer keep the hills in the way they want them kept, but it seems nobody wants to pay for keeping them in the way they want them to be kept. The hill walker wants to walk on the hills and I am all for hill walking. I was a great promoter of hill walking through Comhairle na Tuaithe which I set up. However, I recognise that people walking the hills of Ireland are walking on private land. The ecologists want to have a slice of the hills and want us to keep them in a fancy way to preserve all the heathers, the grouse and everything else. In return for grants, the agriculturalists also want to have access to the hills and want to know what we are producing on them. We should put down a clear marker. If we want people farming on the hills, they will have to be paid. They have to have a livelihood, directly or indirectly, from which there is no getting away. If we close one door to them, we will have to open another because the public good demands that the hills be kept in good order.

I was very interested in the delegates' comments on sheep and the manner in which the nature of hill sheep farming had been changed by some of the great ideas people had come up with such as taking sheep off the hills in the winter, feeding ewe lambs near the bottom during the winter and so on. When I was Minister, I recall coming to Dublin with the late Michael O'Toole who worked for a long time for Teagasc in respect of something about which some of the hill men might not have known. I spent three hours trying to persuade Dúchas and the National Parks and Wildlife Service that the rote destocking of hills and the changes it was forcing on the way hill sheep farmers did their business would change the grazing pattern on the hills and create both under and overgrazed sections on the same hill.

I am interested in teasing out this issue. I am not from the hills, but I have been working with hill sheep farmers for a long time. At one time I was a hill sheep farmers' co-operative manager and at peak, we rented 1,000 acres of land. While I did not engage in day-to-day farming - I had people to do this - I still had ultimate responsibility for it. It appears as though sheep are no different from cats and I always used to define what we were doing as the cat-at-the-back-door syndrome. I have a cat at home which will sit on the window until it receives one's attention. Moreover, it knows to go to the back door when it is hungry and it gets to feed there. Of course, the cat's nature was not to do this. It's nature was to forage widely over a territory to get its food until human beings changed the nature of the cat. The cat kept coming to the back door because after a while, it twigged that this was where the food was. My understanding is that if one continues to change the nature of how one feeds sheep, by bringing them inside in the winter or whatever else, they get it into their heads that that is where the food is and the way in which they graze the hills will change radically. Will it be necessary to go back and start breeding new sheep that will not be kept in and not fed on the low part of a hill? Will it be necessary to let nature take its course if the objective is to have the whole of the range of the hill grazed in a much more even pattern? This seems to be becoming an increasingly major issue in that no matter how much one destocks, if one continues to follow this pattern, one will continue to have the same worn section where the sheep will continue to graze.

The second question is whether, as the people from the Burren have advocated, farming and prescriptions for hill sheep farmers should be based on the outcome, not the inputs. In other words, the tendency is for Departments to tell people they can keep so many sheep, can put so many of them on a hill in the winter or can keep them in for this or that number of days, irrespective of the weather. We actually take the farmers and their inherited knowledge spanning hundreds of years out of the equation and substitute it with rote and prescriptions on a piece of paper. Should we instead tell them that we seek to have the land kept in a particular order but that we do not care how they do it because they know their job? Should we tell them that we do not care on what dates they put sheep up and down on a hill because what we will measure is the condition of the hill and the way they leave it?

Third, I am interested in the delegation's suggestion this payment should be given, as well as an agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, payment, which raises a series of questions. On a recent visit to Brussels I found that they were not clear on it, but perhaps the Minister might provide clarity tomorrow in this regard. My understanding had been that to comply with good farming and agri-environmental conditions, one would be obliged to comply with the commonage framework plan. Put in simple English, my understanding, although those in Brussels seem to think otherwise, was that to receive one's single farm payment, one would be obliged to comply with the commonage framework plan. My understanding of the next round of the AEOS was that it was much more likely to comprise the kinds of thing the delegates have listed than its past format which, in the main, was a payment for destocking hills. That is how we worked it in all cases. The people in County Wicklow were very lucky because they experienced less destocking than those in the west. I refer to how the process was worked out and what they actually were getting on average. Therefore, with regard to the double payment principle in the European Union, I wonder how practical this really is. However, I agree that the delegates must be paid.

My final issue pertains to active and inactive farmers. My understanding is that farmers in County Wicklow have collops or, in other words, certain rights to put certain numbers of sheep on hills as opposed to the position in the west where one has an undivided share of a hill and everyone owns it. It is only a subtle difference, but I presume that were I to take a hill in County Wicklow on which, for example, there were 100 shares, 33 might be completely dormant and not claimed for in any area aid application, that a further one third might be held by farmers who claimed but did not keep sheep on the hill, while the remainder would keep sheep on it. In this example, the second group actually would claim the hill as being part of their farm because it is part of the farm under the area aid scheme, while they farm the low land. One must recognise that there are farmers who will farm their farms but who will not feel up to all of the additional work the delegates have laid out. The same problem in respect of maintenance arose when the waymarked way scheme was being devised, as some farmers could not maintain their section of the waymarked way. They might not have been in a physical condition to so do because all of us will age and succession can be a problem on farms. It does not mean that they cannot farm, but they cannot do this kind of work.

This goes back to a wider vision I had of rural Ireland. It is a more communautairevision than the individualistic way we approach everything today. The vision was that in a rural community such as west Wicklow and the mountains, for those farmers who would not feel up to doing such work, one would employ the young farmers on the rural social scheme to do the work for them. One would get the work done through the rural social scheme, which would mean that the young farmers would have the guarantee of a fixed income through the aforementioned scheme for 19 hours work per week. Moreover, they would also have a profit from the hill farm because nowadays, if one is participating in the farm assist schme, one is working 100% for the Department of Social Protection. Unfortunately, the European Union has not got this far in its thinking on farm subsidies and so on, but my idea was that taking together the rural social scheme, the fact one could build one's family home on one's farm - it would be a little cheaper to build than a house one might buy - and one's farm, one could have a good, comfortable lifestyle for a family. In this way, one would not be dependent on 100% of the people being capable of doing all of the additional work the delegates want to have done. The idea is to do this work for those who cannot do it for themselves by using young farmers. Young farmers would be given a supplementary income in order that they would be encouraged to stay in their home place and farm the land. Do the delegates envisage this as being part of their vision?

My final point is that I saw an area being changed utterly. I acknowledge that it is hard to be a full-time farmer on hill land, unless one has an awful lot of it, but we must have that land farmed. We changed that area with the concept of having a modest job and the farm income supplementing each other to give a family income. This created stability and kept families intact, thereby allowing them to rear children and live in comfort. How would this fit into the delegates' vision of a future for farming in County Wicklow? It is a little more complicated than the direct payments because it also states the social welfare code or rather, through these work schemes, the rural social scheme has a valid part to play in creating sustainable, viable farming in upland areas.

Mr. Declan Byrne:

The Deputy has raised many issues. He asked the reason the systems of sheep production changed. The biggest reason was that what people were doing was not making money. The nature of sheep production has changed. Years ago, when people were actively farming the hills, there was no such thing as spring lamb. Now everyone is pushing for spring lamb. In County Wicklow we had a market for the Suffolk Cheviot cross ewe lamb, but, again, that trade has died off and it is not as profitable as it used to be.

The Deputy has asked the reason farmers began to bring sheep down off the hills and feed them away from them.

They were taking grass on the flatlands in Kildare and putting sheep away for the winter because it was easier and more profitable for them to do so. That is what happened. As a result, it is difficult to get the sheep to graze on the hills. Unless someone is putting sheep out on the hills every year, they stand inside the gate and wait to be fed. That is the problem.

Before we came in here I spoke to Mr. Dunne about it. He is one of the few farmers left in Wicklow who puts ewes with lambs to the hill. From an economic point of view, we were wondering whether he should do it at all. I do not know whether he should because then his lambs are smaller and it is less profitable. Leading on from that, Mr. Dunne asked should we change our ewe type completely and opt for a different type of ewe that is hardier and that we could leave on the hills. Maybe that is a solution. These are the issues we were looking at and we have had many discussions at our meetings about them. Definitely, that is something that has to change. As I stated earlier, the timing of the sheep grazing the hill has a significant impact on what they do to the heather and it is important to take sheep back down at the different times of the year. Someone mentioned earlier the branding of Wicklow lamb. Perhaps there should be some such scheme, but we must get the sheep with the lambs onto the hills during the summer and get the ewes back out for the winter grazing. If that involves a change in ewe type or a change in product we are selling, that will have to be worked on. We do not have the answers to this. We ourselves came up with these questions but we do not have the answers. We were looking for a study to get some answers to this.

Mention was made of measuring the condition of the hills and paying farmers on that basis. That is the system which works in the Burren. Unfortunately, we in Wicklow can draw up what we think are the best plans and tell farmers what will happen if they go out to do so, but that might not happen at all. The reason what happened in the Burren worked so successfully is they started with a great deal of research behind them and the schemes were built one on top of the other. This built up confidence among the planners drawing up the plans that they knew what would be the result if they drew up a plan and told a farmer to do something, and farmers were also confident that such would be the case. Farmers would not buy into extending such a scheme over the whole of the uplands areas because they would be afraid someone would come out to assess it. Definitely, it is something towards which we could work in the long term, but farmers would want some guaranteed payment at the start and maybe work towards being paid in the future on the basis of the condition of the hills regardless of how they do it.

Everyone keeps coming back to this question of Pillars 1 and 2. In talking among ourselves here, we have a big fear with compensating farmers under Pillar 1. In the past, under Pillar 1 a farmer had to comply with GAEC. There were minimum stocking rates for the sheep and the hills had to be kept in a certain condition with regard to invasive species, heather, overgrowth, etc. There has not been much policing of this in that one can tell a farmer that he or she must hold a number of sheep between a certain range, but who will go out to the hills to count them to see whether the farmer is putting them out or not? That is a big issue. The other aspect, with a great deal of heather on the hills, is that if one tells farmers they will lose their single farm payments if they do not control the heather on that hill, the danger is they will set fire to it and burn the whole hill. The following year the hill will start to green up again and they will be laughing. They will be fine for the next few years because there will be vegetation on the hill and they will qualify for the payment.

What we are talking about in the scheme here separately is that we tell the farmers exactly what we want. We want a long-term approach to this. It is not a simple overnight answer. For burning, we are talking about it on a 15 to 20 year rotation. We are talking here about telling farmers to get back out on the hills with sheep at certain times of the year and for that we need a specific scheme for compensating the farmers. We are telling them exactly what they have to do in order to get that funding whereas if one were talking about paying it out under Pillar 1, there would be very loose regulations where the gain for the hills would be questionable. We would probably end up with a system such as REPS where farmers got the funding but there was no advantage on the hills. That is our big fear and that is why we are proposing that there would be funding set aside specifically for these upland schemes. That is our issue in that regard.

The active farmer question is a tricky one. I was involved in a group talking among ourselves about these hills and other matters and it is difficult to come up with a definition of an active farmer who qualifies for the payment. In our scheme, we were talking about taking a collective approach in which those on the entire commonage would join the scheme together. Within that, as Deputy Ó Cuív stated, some farmers may not want to put any sheep to the hills. Others may want to put more to the hills. I was involved with the new agri-environment options scheme, AEOS, before Christmas and we had a situation on a commonage where one farmer was told he had to put an extra 100 sheep on the hills to qualify for AEOS payments while his next door neighbour was told he had to take 150 off it. If we take a whole of commonage approach, if farmers want to decide among themselves that one will put up more than another that should be the way it goes. Our definition of active farmers then would be someone who is contributing towards our scheme in terms of controlling and managing the hills for the future if that involves the farmer putting sheep to the hill. If that involves the farmer getting somebody else to put his or her share of the sheep up to the hills, maybe the farmer is also an active farmer in that he or she is contributing towards the hills for the future. It is a grey area. As I say, one must look at individual farmers. If one has ten farmers on a commonage and one gets six of them into the scheme who do everything, it all could be completely undone by the other four who do not join the scheme. That is why we are looking at it on a whole of commonage approach.

That addresses most of it. As for who gets paid, that is also a way to bring in and encourage young farmers. If some of the older shareholders are not interested in putting sheep to the hills, maybe they can encourage young lads to come in to do the herding and put their own sheep up for older shareholders. That is why we are looking at having a whole of commonage approach. That is a new system that has not been tried here previously. It has been done in England. It is a more complex system but merely because it is complex does not mean that it is not more appropriate. That is our view on it.

Mr. Pat Dunne:

As a hill farmer, I would certainly agree with many of Deputy Ó Cuív's comments. It is obvious that he knows a good deal about hill farming.

I would make a couple of points in addition to what Mr. Byrne said. The National Parks and Wildlife Service in Wicklow, which was mentioned here on a few occasions, takes in sheep to graze on the Wicklow Mountains National Park. There are 34 or 35 farmers who pay a nominal fee per head each year to put sheep in. The National Parks and Wildlife Service's idea is that it is the best way of managing the commonage and keeping the vegetation right. Likewise, the Department of Defence owns approximately 9,000 acres of land in the Glen of Imaal, which is a shooting range. They take in sheep there per head by the year as well and they tell me that it is the same idea. They take them in there because that is how they keep the vegetation in condition, for health and safety, etc.

There was a question raised earlier about AEOS by Senator O'Neill. I did not pick up on it at the time and he has gone now. He stated that there was €12,000 paid in AEOS. As we all will be aware, the maximum payment in AEOS is €4,000. I was in REPS and I came out of it. I was drawing a payment of €12,336 per year in REPS and when that ran out, I went into AEOS where I am getting €4,000. That is a hell of a difference. One cannot make that up by selling extra stock. It is just not there.

Deputy Ó Cuív mentioned collops in Wicklow. There are some collops in Wicklow. Also, there are equal shares. Some of the mountains in Wicklow are owned outright by farmers. There is a range of ownership issues in Wicklow and there is much work to be done there.

What Deputy Ó Cuív stated about some farmers would not be able to farm the hills or do the work that is needed is quite true. He spoke of a farm at 2,000 ft. above sea level. The one that I farm runs up to the top of Log na Coille, up to 3,000 ft. above sea level. One cannot get a tractor up to it. It is as simple as that. A quad bike can go part but not all of the way. Deputy Ó Cuív's idea of the rural social scheme, RSS, workers is certainly a good one. If farmers are unable to do the work themselves and if there are funds available that would pay a young fellow or a couple of fellows to do the work that is needed to be done, that should be encouraged.

On the scheme, as Mr. Byrne stated, while we think that the whole commonage should be taken into consideration, it has to work somewhat like the basis on which REPS worked. It also must be optional. If there are farmers who do not want to be in it, one cannot force them into it.

Mr. Byrne referred to flat-rate payments across the board. If it works like that, farmers will do the minimum amount possible. One cannot stand over them and make them change. There should be an incentive for farmers to do the work. They should be paid according to a scoring system or otherwise. Such a system is operated in the Burren and it seems to be working very well.

My final point on this matter, which echoes what Deputy Ó Cuív said, is that the most-cost effective way of keeping the mountains in good shape is to keep the hill farmers farming on them. If people have to be brought in to do the work and if they are to be supervised and checked, considerable expenditure will be incurred very quickly.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for my not having been present to hear some of the replies given. I was trying to be in two places at the same time.

Mr. Brown said that various people suggested changing the breed of sheep. He stated this would require research and that he hoped to do this. I would have believed that with all the various organisations involved in farming, research and education, it would not be necessary to start again in this regard. I would have believed somebody would have known the answer. Perhaps I did not understand what Mr. Byrne said.

Mr. Declan Byrne:

Most of the research done on hill farming was completed in the early 1990s. Very little has been done in the interim. The research was mostly carried out in the west on increasing output in respect of the Scotch horny ewe or mountain black-faced ewe. We propose an economic study rather than a physical study. It is a question of selling the concept of change to farmers.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the economic information not available?

Mr. Declan Byrne:

We do not have that. If we had it and could demonstrate the results to farmers, it would represent a big sea change. The traditional choice in Wicklow is the Cheviot ewe. The tradition is significant and I am not running it down. I am just suggesting that a hardy breed may be more suited to certain hills. Perhaps the Cheviot ewe needs to be made more hardy to stay on the hill for longer. Increasingly, spring lamb production is becoming the trend but spring lamb production and hill farming do not go together.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Byrne is saying that if he had research-based evidence of that, it might encourage farmers to engage with the idea of changing their stocking patterns.

Mr. Declan Byrne:

If farmers knew there was to be money available or an incentive to change, it would possibly be a solution. With very few exceptions, if farmers put sheep to the hills at all, it is for just six weeks or a month after weaning. The dry ewes are brought to the hill and are soon brought down. Basically, the sheep farming system is a lowland sheep farming system. What we need to do in the longer term is return to proper hill farming, but this involves a big sea change for many farmers.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has Mr. Byrne applied for funding for that research?

Mr. Declan Byrne:

We tried to obtain LIFE funding for the project. It was to be part of that.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Byrne for the clarification.

Ms Cara Heraty:

I wish to touch on Article 36. There is scope under the draft RDP regulations for co-operative actions. It is a little vague but it would allow for increased transaction costs of up to 30% under Article 36, from 20% under Article 29. I refer to co-operative activities, including, for example, activities between stakeholders and potentially between farmers and NGOs. It is up to Ireland to elect to switch on this article in an Irish context.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is this additional funding?

Ms Cara Heraty:

No. This would come from pillar 2 so Article 36 would be funded under-----

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Within the existing funding stream.

Ms Cara Heraty:

Yes, under pillar 2. It is up to the Government to decide how much to devote to the article or whether to switch it on. It would offer an innovative way for farmers to work together and in partnership, particularly with the collective approaches suggested for commonages and to deal with some of the big issues in Wicklow such as deer management. The collective approach is recognised as the only way forward in that regard. It is estimated that 40% of Ireland's deer population is in Wicklow.

Mr. John Medlycott:

The Chairman had a question about the Burren. All this work started because people such as Mr. Dunne and other members of our board decided we should study the Burren. We have had much contact with Mr. Michael Davoren in the Burren and Mr. Dunford. If it had not been for them and their support for us, we probably would not be present today. There are very strong links.

A question was asked about the selling of Wicklow lamb at an earlier stage. Cheviot sheep owners decided two or three years ago to try to develop a scheme for the sale of Wicklow lamb. This scheme did not get off the ground because there was a big drop in lamb prices that coincided with its introduction. However, the scheme is still in the background.

A question we have not fully answered is the question of young farmers. There are 27 members on our board, one of whom is a member of Macra na Feirme who represents quite a large number of young and active farmers in Wicklow. One of the people most involved in the lamb scheme is a young farmer who lives in the Glencree-Glencullen area. We still have some young farmers in Wicklow, some of whom are operating on a full-time basis.

This report is not just a report produced on behalf of the hill farmers of Wicklow. It is also very clearly produced on behalf of the Wicklow Uplands Council. It is important to understand that the council is not just an organisation of farmers. It represents motorbike users, scramblers, mountaineers, climbers, community groups, etc. Before the report saw the light of day and before its launch by the Minister, Deputy Coveney, a couple of weeks ago in Glendalough, it had the unanimous support of the entire board of the council. When it was discussed at council meetings, nobody was really against it. The reason we are all in favour of it is that we are concerned about protecting and preserving the hills of Wicklow, as implied by Deputy Ó Cuív.

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses. The presentation and discussion were very informative.