Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Oct 2001

Vol. 542 No. 5

Other Questions. - Rural Environment Protection Scheme.

Richard Bruton

Question:

101 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the reason, in the context of commonage framework plans, it is proposed that sheep numbers may not be increased on farms that include commonage land; the reason this proposed restriction would apply even in cases where the farmer is participating in the rural environment protection scheme and where the REP scheme plan allows more sheep to be maintained than the present number; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24811/01]

In the context of the REP scheme, commonage land is subject to a 1998 agreement with the European Commission following which the scheme was revised in 1999 to include a new supplementary Measure A. The objective of this measure, which is called Measure A in the new REP scheme, is to provide a comprehensive approach to the conservation and regeneration of designated target areas including commonages.

It is important to recall that in 1998 there was so much concern about overgrazing on commonages in the west that the EU was threatening to put a stop to all REPS payments on commonages in Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo, Galway and Kerry. In spite of this difficulty, my Department secured an agreement that allowed us to pay up to £190 annually per hectare on commonage to REPS farmers, not just in the six western counties but in every part of the country. Conditions attaching to these payments include an overall reduction in sheep numbers on commonages, to deliver environmental sustainability and, where necessary, regeneration of the commonage areas. This is to be achieved by the drawing up of a commonage framework plan for every commonage.

As the preparation of framework plans for each commonage was a major exercise, an interim national framework plan was put in place to give immediate effect to the 1998 agreement and to allow for payments to be made to individual farmers. Under this interim plan, ewe numbers may not exceed 70% of the 1998 figures in the six western counties where the overgrazing issue was deemed to be most serious. Under the 1998 agreement any reductions in ewe numbers in other counties are determined by approved REPS planners when drawing up REPS plans. Quotas frozen under the interim framework plan will be revised to conform with the actual level of destocking that may be required under individual framework plans.

Farmers in the six western counties who had joined REPS before the 1998 agreement on supplementary Measure A would have had their REPS plans drawn up and stocking densities calculated at individual farm level. However, the Measure A agreement requires the commonage overgrazing problem to be addressed globally and it is for that reason those farmers too, if they submitted amended plans after 1998 or applied to join the new REP scheme, became subject to the 30% interim destocking. Any quota frozen in their original REPS plans would, however, be taken into account in calculating the 30% in their cases. When all the commonage framework plans are completed and implemented, all existing REPS participants will be required to adjust their stocking levels to conform with the framework plans where this is a requirement of their REPS contract.

The payment of £190 per hectare that my Department secured in 1998 includes compensation for reductions in stock. Therefore, farmers could not benefit from a destocking payment while at the same time increasing their stocking intensities. Under the terms of the 1998 agreement with the Commission, farmers with commonage were to have the choice of joining REPS or taking part in a national compensation scheme to be operated by the Department of Arts, Heri tage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. Proposals for the latter scheme are with the EU Commission.

Will the Minister of State do a little exercise? Will he get a tape recorder, switch it on, read the answer he has just read to the House and sit down and listen to it. It is pure gobbledegook. Will the Minister of State agree that what he is saying to sheep farmers is that they can do anything they like with their sheep numbers as long as they reduce them? Is the Minister of State in a position to indicate what will happen where there is a conflict between a REPS plan, validly drawn up, and the requirements of the framework programme? Which one will prevail in such circumstances?

What the Deputy has suggested is an impossibility. It could not be a validly drawn up REPS programme unless it takes the interim framework plan into account. Such a conflict cannot, therefore, arise because one of the conditions of the EU scheme is that one must comply with the framework plans and the interim framework plan. In those circumstances, what the Deputy suggested is an impossibility.

Do I understand that the interim framework plan is a measure cobbled together by the Government – while it is preparing to implement the EU's framework plan – in order to put these controls in place on sheep numbers?

The Deputy is correct. This matter came to a head in 1998 when the European Union not only threatened to stop REPS, but also headage payments and premiums on sheep. A deal was struck with the European Union to the effect that there would be a payment of £190 per hectare – approximately £70 per acre – in respect of commonages. At the centre of this matter was the issue of destocking, because farmers are required to carry out precious little other work on commonages. It was also further agreed with the European Union that, until the framework plans were completed, there would be a temporary scheme to destock sheep for which the required figure was fixed at an average of 30%. I understand the average across the framework plans for the six western counties is approximately 28%. The requirement was, therefore, quite accurate and it secured and maintained payments that farmers would otherwise have lost. Most farmers would agree that the benefits that accrued from the action taken at the time far outweighed the disadvantages involved.

There are two Deputies offering. I understand that on Question Time last week there was an objection from a Member to taking two supplementaries together as it was not provided for in Standing Orders. However, if the House is agreeable, the Chair has no objection to taking supplementaries from Deputies Connaughton and Penrose and a final reply from the Minister of State.

Why are farmers who live many miles from mountain areas on which sheep are kept and who have commonages subject to the same laws as those that apply to hill sheep farmers? These individuals are not involved in the cull and do not live near mountains, but are still subject to the commonage clause. That is nothing short of a disgrace.

Does the Minister of State agree that REPS II is choking on a froth of bureaucracy and that it is far too rigid in nature? Will he admit that he is disappointed by the uptake of REPS II and that he is not surprised by this? Is the fact that less than 70% of the farmers who participated in REPS I will participate in REPS II a result of the level of payment being too low or is there another reason for this significant decrease?

The matter to which Deputy Penrose refers is the subject of a reply to a later question. However, I will provide him with a brief answer. There have been 12,500 applications for REPS II which are being processed as speedily as possible. It is expected we will receive the greatest ever number of applications – 15,000 – for REPS this year. The Deputy's information is incorrect because there has been a high level of uptake on REPS II.

I agree with Deputy Connaughton because, at times, the fixation with commonages baffles me. However, the Department is obliged to comply with the rules laid down in agreements with the European Union. The agreement which applies here specifies "all commonages." We are trying to deal with the issues raised by the Deputy, one of which is that small areas of commonage used for common access to water are impinging, in many peculiar ways, on the REPS plans of the farmers who own them. We have drawn up draft proposals to deal with that issue. I have spent a great deal of time grappling with the issue of REPS regulations and their unforeseen effects. People did not fully understand the implications of the regulations when originally drawn up. I have spent more on this issue than on any other.

The Minister of State will have to spend a lot more time on it.

The Deputy is correct. I will be making announcements to that effect in the coming months.

Top
Share