Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 396: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the main differences between the REP scheme and the proposed national compensation scheme for commonage farmers who are not in the REP scheme but are affected by de-stocking regulations; if the amount of livestock units was taken into account when the destocking of sheep on mountains for commonage framework plans was being drawn up. [43635/06]

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Adherence to the grazing restrictions prescribed in a commonage framework plan is a requirement of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition and therefore a condition for receipt of Single Farm Payments.

In the Owenduff/Nephinbeg Special Protection Area (SPA), it is a condition of the Notifiable Actions for the SPA that farmers be in an approved agri-environmental plan. This is necessary because of the poor condition of the peatland habitat of the SPA generally and the lack of recovery in the commonage area, specifically, since the commonage plans were initially prepared.

The REPS scheme, which is administered by the Department of Agriculture and Food, is a per hectare payment for commonage lands, regardless of the restrictions, whereas the NPWS farm plan compensated the farmer for the actual loss suffered in farming in the required way. In the case of destocking, payment in the NPWS scheme is for destocked sheep.

In the destocking calculation, all livestock (including cattle) are converted to ewe equivalents. In the case of commonages, sheep are required to be destocked first in all cases and farmers cannot voluntarily destock cattle instead of sheep. However, in the rare cases where cattle destocking is an environmental requirement of the farm plan, compensation will also be paid for this destocking.