JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD debate -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 2006

River Shannon Callows: Presentations.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Jim Kelly and Dr. Ciarán O'Keeffe from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; Mr. Michael O'Donovan from the Department of Agriculture and Food, and Mr. Michael Silke, Mr. Paddy Halligan, Mr. Martin Gavin and Mr. Gerry Gunning from the IFA who are here to discuss the difficulties being experienced by farmers in the River Shannon callows. Each group will make a presentation to the committee, after which we will have a question and answer session. We will hear first from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to be followed by the Department of Agriculture and Food and the IFA.

Before asking Mr. Kelly to commence, I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses. 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 House or a official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Jim Kelly

My presentation deals with the subject matter under three main headings: the site, compensation and the history of the discussions we have had with the parties involved.

The River Shannon callows has been designated as a special protection area for birds under the EU birds directive. It is a flood plain of approximately 6,000 hectares in five counties, Roscommon, Westmeath, Offaly, Galway and Tipperary. There are two important bird habitats: wet meadows where the corncrake breeds, and damp pasture which is used by waders such as snipe, lapwing and redshank. In addition, there are substantial wet grasslands which do not host breeding waders. In former times the corncrake would have been attracted more to drier meadowland further away from the river. However, over a number of decades, a combination of overall intensification of farm practices and, in particular, the change from hay making to silage cutting has resulted in the species only being left in the more extensively farmed flood plain, or callows area.

The numbers of corncrakes and waders have declined drastically in the past 20 years. A prescription for corncrake friendly farming was drawn up using best current knowledge. This involves the late cutting of the meadow and cutting from the inside of the field to allow baby birds escape. We know less about the reason for the decline in numbers of the waders and a prescription is still the subject of research.

Under the terms of the EU birds and habitats directives and the legislation that transposes them, the European Union (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government compensates landowners for losses or costs incurred as a result of designations such as this. All such payments are subject to the polluter pays principle, which means compensation is not payable for ceasing any activity damaging to the favourable conservation status of the site. At all times the Department has held the position that landowners will be compensated for all proven costs incurred or losses sustained as a result of complying with the prescriptions. No individual landowner in the callows has chosen to avail of this option. Under its new farm plan scheme, wherein a landowner will enter into a five-year agreement with the Department, this option will remain open. In the meantime, we will continue to endeavour to agree standard rates of payment per hectare which, if agreed, can form the basis of compensation payments for those who opt for the new scheme.

In practice, compensation may be paid to an individual landowner for losses incurred in three ways. The rural environment protection scheme, REPS, is administered by the Department of Agriculture and Food. Under REPS III, a measure is available to farmers who, as part of their REPS plan, adhere to the corncrake prescription requirements. The corncrake grants scheme is a voluntary scheme operated by BirdWatch Ireland and funded by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The third option is the more formal farm plan scheme which has been made available by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the details of which were published yesterday. Entry into this scheme would clear the way for top-up payments to be made to farmers who have participated in the corncrake grant scheme since 1999.

I wish to outline the history of the discussions. Numerous meetings have taken place between the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food and farming representatives in recent years to seek to agree prescriptions for the Shannon callows and to assess losses and costs to landowners arising from the implementation of the prescriptions. It was hoped, at different stages, that final agreement was imminent but it has not worked out. As part of wider discussions under Sustaining Progress on the review of the 1997 habitats regulations, it was agreed that a technical group of officials from both Departments would meet the representatives of the landowners to discuss compensation issues. Unfortunately, the group was unable to progress matters. A significant attempt was made to resolve the problem when a task force comprising Teagasc experts and experts from a firm of farm planning consultants nominated by the landowners was commissioned to present a report on the losses incurred by farmers in the callows resulting from the prescriptions. The report was delivered in September 2002. Since then, the task force has reviewed some figures included in the original report, on request, in the context of detailed changed circumstances. However, its findings have not found favour with the farming representatives.

It was proposed in May 2004 that the habitat prescription for callows land would be agreed in principle and that compensation would be payable to those who participated in the corncrake grant scheme before 1 January 2005. The level of compensation to be paid amounted to the difference between the corncrake grant scheme payments and the cost findings of the independent study backdated to 1999. The significance of the date of 1 January 2005 is that it was the commencement date for decoupled or single farm payments. Under the single farm payment system, many of the compensable items which were costed into the independent study are no longer payable. Farming representatives have given us their views on what they see as being compensable but we have been unable to agree on standard rates payable for the post-January 2005 period.

A major stumbling block to the resolution of this issue has been the insistence of farming representatives that farmers should simultaneously benefit under the REP scheme and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's farm plan scheme. A further issue is that payments under the corncrake grant scheme or the new farm plan scheme should not exceed payments under the REP scheme. This is primarily because payments under the two former schemes are related to actual costs and losses incurred only, whereas payments under the latter scheme are enhanced by an incentivisation component to make it more attractive as a voluntary scheme. Agreement on figures produced by the independent group, duly discounted to take account of single payments, would allow farmers other than those who have opted for the REP scheme to be compensated for actual costs and losses arising from the implementation of the necessary management prescriptions.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Kelly. I ask Mr. Michael O'Donovan of the Department of Agriculture and Food to make his presentation.

Mr. Michael O’Donovan

Fixing appropriate compensation levels for farmers on foot of restrictions arising from designation is primarily a matter for the national parks and wildlife service. As Mr. Kelly has outlined the current situation comprehensively, I will confine my comments to the aspect of this issue with which the Department of Agriculture and Food is primarily involved, which is the rural environment protection scheme.

The farmers who are seeking compensation in this instance are involved in the scheme, which is 80% funded by the EU. Any part of their holding that is within the designated special protection area qualifies for the "measure A" rate of REP scheme payment, which is a higher rate that is paid in respect of special areas of conservation, special protection areas, natural heritage areas and commonages. An additional payment is made to farmers in the Shannon callows if there are corncrakes on their land. Farmers may also apply to the national parks and wildlife service for a further top-up. Farmers are entitled to the basic REP scheme rate in respect of non-designated land. The "measure A" rate of €242 per hectare is payable in respect of up to 40 hectares of designated land. They are entitled to a further €100 per hectare if there are corncrakes on their designated land. I acknowledge that we are talking about a relatively small area of each farm.

The Department introduced a special facility in September 2004, whereby REP scheme farmers in the Shannon callows area who believe their REP scheme payments do not compensate them fully can apply to the National Parks and Wildlife Service for additional compensation on the basis of accounts which show quantified losses. Prior to the introduction of this special arrangement, such farmers were obliged to choose between the REP scheme and the national parks and wildlife service's compensation scheme. They could not opt for a combination of payments under the two schemes as they are allowed to do at present. As Mr. Kelly has said, no farmers have applied to take advantage of this arrangement to date.

Farmers' representatives have been urging for some time that farmers in the Shannon callows region should be allowed to include their non-designated lands in the REP scheme and to include their designated lands in the national parks and wildlife service scheme. The Department of Agriculture and Food has resisted this proposal for a number of reasons. The REP scheme is co-funded by the EU whereas the national parks and wildlife service compensation arrangements are entirely funded from the Exchequer. The cost to the Irish taxpayer is, therefore, less if the land is included under the REP scheme.

I wish to make a wider point about the REP scheme, which was introduced 12 years ago. It is recognised by the European Commission as a successful agri-environment scheme. The Commission, which regards the REP scheme as one of the best in any member state, praised its whole-farm approach. As it involves the farmer taking on the full set of undertakings for the entire holding, the scheme can be measured and controlled effectively by the Department of Agriculture and Food. If the holdings in the Shannon callows area were to be divided between the REP scheme and the national parks and wildlife service scheme, a precedent would be set for other areas. It is possible that it would compromise the integrity of the REP scheme, as far as the Commission is concerned. As I have said, it would cost the Irish taxpayer more money.

As members are aware, the Department of Agriculture and Food is putting proposals together for the fourth REP scheme, which will run from 2007. All stakeholders have been invited to make submissions as part of that process. The IFA's submission again proposes to divide the farms in the Shannon callows area between the REP scheme and the national parks and wildlife service scheme. Notwithstanding the Department's reservations, which I have outlined, about the principle underlying the proposal, it is being considered again in the context of the fourth REP scheme, which will be part of Ireland's 2007-13 Common Agricultural Policy rural development plan, to be introduced under Council regulation 1698/2005. In the last week, the Department has been given a draft copy of the Commission's rules for the implementation of the regulation. The structure for the new rural development plan that is envisaged in the Council regulation is quite different to that relating to the current rural development plan. The Department cannot definitively say - leaving aside whether the proposal is desirable or not - whether or to what extent it can accommodate the IFA's proposal to allow farms to be divided between the two schemes.

Chairman

I ask Mr. Michael Silke of the Irish Farmers Association to make a presentation.

Mr. Michael Silke

I thank the joint committee for inviting representatives of the Irish Farmers Association to address it. I am joined by Mr. Paddy Halligan, who is representing County Roscommon, Mr. Martin Gavin, who is the chairman of the IFA's committee on special areas of conservation, Mr. Gerry Gunning, who is the executive secretary of the committee, Mr. Tom Turley, who is representing County Galway, and Mr. John Claffey, who is representing County Offaly.

As Mr. Kelly stated, the Shannon callows region extends throughout the counties to which I referred, as well as north Tipperary, Westmeath and very small areas of a number of other counties. We have come before the joint committee because we believe farmers in the area have been given a raw deal in the past ten years. I will explain the reasons. The River Shannon callows is a unique area and a well known nature reserve for many endangered species, some of which are internationally threatened. Unfortunately, I did not see Ivan Yates on television last night but I was asked several times today what farm representatives were doing to ensure a scheme was introduced for the callows which took account of the interests of farmers and remunerates them for the work they did.

There are approximately 600 intensive suckler, sheep and dairy farmers in the River Shannon callows which has been designated a special protection area for birds by the European Union. Farmers in the area are experiencing great difficulty as a result of the restrictions placed on their activities. The rules applying to corncrakes mean we are locked out of our land for eight months of the year. Members need to understand the conditions they face, which are not as the officials, Mr. O'Donovan and Mr. Kelly, have described. The first cutting date is 10 August. In most instances, regardless of whether one is participating in the REP scheme, one is statutorily bound not to cut one's hay before this date, otherwise one's single farm payment is under serious threat. For the past three years I have not cut my hay on the callows before 1 September because the weather did not permit cutting before that date. It is not a question of checking the calendar on 10 August and deciding to cut one's hay on that day. We are not stupid and know hay can only be cut when the weather permits which may not be until 15 September. By August the good weather of June and July is over and wet weather might have resulted in saturation until later months of the year. This is the difficult position in which we find ourselves.

I have been forced to replace my hay on the River Shannon callows several times in the past ten years. I lost it in two of the past eight years and it cost me a bomb to replace it. I receive a few euro from BirdWatch Ireland for participating in its voluntary scheme. As an IFA representative, I have encouraged farmers to participate in the scheme because the corncrake is under major threat. I did so on the basis of a commitment from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that the final compensation agreement would include provision for retrospective payment of the difference between the payment made under the BirdWatch Ireland scheme and the new departmental scheme.

Mr. Kelly indicated that the Department had announced details of its national scheme yesterday. This is welcome news, although it has taken ten years to produce. The Department still does not have a scheme in place for the River Shannon callows. On 9 June last year, after seven tough years, we shook hands with Mr. Kelly and a number of other officials form the Department of Agriculture and Food at the end of a meeting in the belief we had a deal. The Department scuppered a deal a few days later. That is how matters stand between us and the Department. No deal has been reached and the scheme announced yesterday is not worth tuppence to farmers in the callows.

I will not dwell on the details of grazing as others wish to speak. To take one simple statistic, however, an acre of hay on the River Shannon callows will produce 12 bales. To buy 12 bales costs €240 and when one multiplies this figure by 2.5, one arrives at the cost of replacing a hectare of hay on the callows. If we join the REP scheme, we receive the basic REPS payment of €242, plus a further €100 for leaving the hay until 1 September. What good is €342 when one has lost one's hay? Mr. O'Donovan has stated there is an anomaly and farmers can obtain more funding. This involves dealing with BirdWatch Ireland and a great deal of bureaucracy and red tape. The fact that no farmer has applied for this money indicates precisely what is the position on the scheme. It is akin to promising that one will win the lotto if one buys a ticket. One knows in one's heart and soul that the chances of winning are several millions to one.

Waders are also a threatened species and are found on much of my land. Irrespective of whether one is participating in REPS, one may not engage in a number of activities. We always chain harrowed and rolled our land in spring after the winter flood but are no longer allowed to do so. We are no longer allowed to fertilise our land, nor may we spray it for noxious weeds. Instead, we must spot-spray, carrying a knapsack sprayer on our backs for weeks on end. This is a joke. All we in the River Shannon callows have is additional work. We are the slaves of the new age. We cannot spread slurry or oral dose our cattle as we are our now required to use much more expensive injectibles because, we are told, the oral dose will result in the cattle expelling worms from their guts on to the land, with the result that some of the protected birds will be killed. We cannot top the land until after 1 July which, with not being allowed to chain harrow and roll it, has major implications because the grass becomes strong and unpalatable and lacks nutritional value as a consequence. We cannot plant, drain or reseal the land. It is wrong, therefore, for any official from the Department of Agriculture and Food or the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to tell a blatant lie by indicating these restrictions do not apply. If I break any of the restrictions outlined, I lose part or all of my single farm payment.

As a consequence of unpalatable grass which lacks nutritional value, farmers experience serious problems with fertility in their suckler cows. We also have a major problem with thrive in our weanlings. I assure the joint committee that I will take €300 per head less for my weanlings in the market than farmers from outside the River Shannon callows. If I put two cows on my hectare of land for the summer, I take a loss of €600 on my two weanlings later in the year. That is my contribution to the protection of the finest habitat in western Europe which we are told we are lucky to have. As a farmer who has played ball until now, I question whether it was correct to do so.

Farmers in the River Shannon callows are fast becoming the species which needs to be protected. We are being used by the Departments as the species selling REPS in Europe. Mr. O'Donovan should note that his Department has used us since the initiation of REPS in 1992 to sell the scheme all over the Europe. We are the meat in the sandwich. Nationally, 40% of farmers outside the River Shannon callows are in REPS, whereas less than 20% of farmers inside the callows are in the scheme. This bears out my argument on the significance of the restrictions imposed on us and the lack of anything approaching fair compensation for our losses.

We have major problems with animal housing and excess slurry arising from having to keep cows in sheds much longer than is usual because we are not permitted to put them out on our land. In addition, we have a longer feeding period and are being locked out of the land from which we traditionally got our feed. If REPS is a fair scheme and the Department of Agriculture and Food is acting correctly, it is news to me. While it is the best scheme ever introduced here, it is administered in a most unfair manner. I would be pleased to take questions.

Mr. Gerry Gunning

As Mr. Silke highlighted, this is a long running problem, to which we have failed to find a solution. Opportunities to put together a package for the River Shannon callows have been missed during the years. The difficulty with the area is that it is unique and the restrictions on farming in it are much greater than elsewhere. These restrictions are listed in our submission which the Chairman will have received.

If a farmer in a non-designated area were shown this he would ask how one could farm in such a way? A package must be put in place. This could be done through the REP scheme, the national parks and wildlife scheme or, alternatively, a combination of the two. In the case of the national parks and wildlife scheme there has been an analysis from Teagasc and other independent analyses. It would be useful to look at the submission we made to the Departments last April or May which focused on the point made by Mr. Silke, the labour input required of farmers to protect the environment. This was not recognised in any offer of compensation that has been put to farmers in the area.

We have an opportunity to find a resolution. We must take a positive approach. The costings, labour input and all the restrictions must be taken into account in whatever package is put in place.

Mr. Tom Turley

To go back on a few points that were made, Mr. Kelly stated that no agreement had been reached. I was party to an agreement on the Shannon callows area reached on 9 June 2005 after six long years of hard negotiations. This has since been disputed but we shook hands across a table, as gentlemen normally do, and we were all delighted leaving the room that some form of deal had been agreed, albeit that it was a long way from dealing with all the costs which have to be borne by farmers who farm this area.

Mr. O'Donovan referred to the splitting of the scheme. Effectively, what we want is a national compensation scheme for our designated land and to be allowed to join the REP scheme with our non-designated land. We were told during the course of three REP schemes that Brussels would not accept the splitting of the scheme. At a recent forum on the new REPS 4, a direct question was put to Mr. Fox, the departmental official who chaired the meeting, as to why we could not split the scheme - he was accompanied by a representative from Brussels - and it transpired that the Department of Agriculture and Food never put to Brussels our proposal to split the scheme.

The aim of the rural environment protection scheme is to protect areas such as the one in which we are living, but it has done nothing for our area. I was in the REPS 1 but I could not afford to stay in it. Neither could I afford to go into REPS 2 with the type of farming in which I am involved - suckler cows, sheep and some tillage. I was again excluded from REPS 3. Although it is not feasible for me to farm under it, I am now being forced into REPS 4 because of the single farm payment, cross-compliance and so on.

We have been told we are service providers to the State and farmers are willing to provide that service. We brought costings to the Department last January prior to the meeting in June. They ranged from €700 to €1,200, depending on the farming system employed and the level of stocking. The costing was done on the basis of inputs, loss of earnings, labour input and extra costs in regard to farming the area in such a way as to conserve wildlife. We made a deal on a sum in the region of €450. We took half the money required on the basis that we were at least getting a deal but it has not happened and I do not believe it will happen.

Our main aim is to split the scheme. Our area is unique. Farmers are beginning to abandon this land and we are losing our wildlife. In the past 12 years we have lost almost 85% of our wader bird population because no scheme is in place to compensate farmers for restrictions placed upon them. Our corncrake is globally endangered. As Mr. Silke outlined, we have participated in a voluntary scheme in spite of getting a great deal of abuse from fellow farmers as to why we went into a voluntary scheme when nothing was in place. We did it on the back of being told that an agreement would eventually be reached and farmers would be compensated for their work in protecting this environment. For hundreds of years farmers, no one else, have created this habitat. No arm of the State was involved. We are still willing to protect this area. No one wants to protect the wild birds more than the people living in the area but we are getting no help from the State. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. Silke

Is there any chance the Chairman would let the Offaly man speak?

Chairman

A Meath man would not refuse an Offaly man.

Mr. John Claffey

I am a dairy farmer who farms in the Shannon callows. Half of the farm is good upland but the other half is in the Shannon callows. We have reared dairy cows, replacements and calves on that land going back to the 1970s. Our family has been farming this land for 300 years. We have always farmed in a traditional way. When the voluntary scheme for corncrakes was introduced we got involved to help the wild bird population. The fact that there was a wild bird population to protect after all these years of farming practice was a sign that the farmers had been farming this land responsibly. The measures that have since been introduced on the land have done great harm in the past ten years because the one-size-fits-all policy of REPS or any other scheme does not suit.

Mr. O'Donovan said that he fears that if the scheme is split it could set a precedent for other areas looking to split the scheme. This is a finite amount of land comprising 6,000 hectares and involving a couple of hundred farmers, and the scheme could be operated on a farm-by-farm basis. A farmer neighbour of mine, 90% of whose land is designated, will be effectively out of business if these restrictions are introduced.

My father always grazed dairy cows on the Shannon callows and on the pastures. We took our silage and hay from the Shannon callows and it was cut in June or July, whenever the weather was suitable for cutting. That silage made top quality feed when it was cut early. No supplementation, including mineral supplements, was needed because the mineral content and nutritional value were so high. Since we had to move our cutting date back to 10 August, however, we have noticed the nutritional quality of the silage is far lower. The costs of making it have gone way up and we have had to introduce blood tests for minerals and create custom-made mineral mixes to compensate for the deficiency.

If we had been allowed to farm the land traditionally, in the way we had always done, and if we were permitted an input into drawing up the restrictions, the corncrake and wader bird populations would be higher. There would be no issue in this regard. This is a unique ecosystem, the finest surviving wetlands in Europe. In any other European country, the authorities would bend over backwards to work in co-operation with farmers on this.

During the five years in which we took part in REPS we noticed a major decline in the quality of the grasses growing on the land. We have also noticed a lack of thrive in our cattle and our dairy cows and a fall in the milk protein from the latter. We left the REP scheme two years ago, a difficult action to take given falling dairy incomes. The REPS payment was important in terms of our bottom line but we had to forgo it. We now face the prospects of enduring these restrictions without compensation. A scheme can be introduced to work with farmers, whether on a farm-by-farm basis or tailor-made for the Shannon callows. This would help to ensure a traditional system of farming survives in this area. Otherwise there will be land abandonment.

Birdwatch Ireland bought Shannon callows believing that it would be more effective than would farmers in protecting wader birds and corncrakes. Some of the agents seemed to believe we were hicks who did not know what we were doing. They gave the impression that we were idiots with no idea about this issue. The traditional system of farming has passed down to me from my father. I know the land like the back of my hand and I know what one can and cannot do on it. I know, for example, that if the flood goes out early and the grasses grow, the cattle should be put down there early. The opposite is true if the flood does not go out until June or July. One puts the cattle out when it is possible and takes them off as required.

One does not abuse the land because to do so will mean it is not fit to be grazed the next year. Farmers are aware of this delicate balance. In the area of the callows bought by Birdwatch Ireland there are now no birds because the grass has not been cut or managed correctly. The vegetation has grown so thick that a wader bird cannot walk through it. We want the scheme to be split such that I could participate in the REP scheme in my upland, where I effectively have no real restrictions. If I had 100 acres of upland, the REP scheme would be fantastic, but as the scheme stands and as the compensation schemes stand, they are just not suited to the ground.

Deputy Naughten

I declare an interest in that part of my family farm falls into the Shannon callows. Quite an amount of the affected acreage in County Roscommon is in my parish. However, this issue affects quite a number of counties, not just County Roscommon.

I thank Mr. Kelly, Dr. O'Keeffe and the IFA representatives for their presentations. I welcome Mr. O'Donovan, who is almost a member of the committee at this stage considering that he is present so often. He is as much an expert on these matters as we are.

I have some questions for the IFA representatives on the Shannon callows and I know my neighbour Paddy Halligan would be well able to answer many of them, but it is important to elaborate on the matter. Traditionally, were the Shannon callows not extremely fertile and used for fattening cattle during the summer months because of their quality and grass content? Given that only 20% of farmers in the callows are in the REP scheme, is it not the case that the remainder have to deal with the restrictions without receiving any compensation? The restrictions are actually reducing the quality of flora and fauna in the callows. I refer to the practices of chain harrowing and rolling, which would have been standard practice, and to spot spraying, which is impossible in the region. It is important to point out that because the callows comprise a flood plain, weeds always come in with the flood waters regardless of the work one does. This has traditionally been an issue.

What happens in the callows in September when there is heavy rain? Mr. Silke said one cannot cut until 10 August, which is correct, and that one sometimes has to cut in September. However, I have known occasions on which the Shannon burst its banks in September such that no crop at all could be harvested. Will the representatives elaborate on this?

What are the specific implications and additional costs for people in the callows on foot of compliance with the nitrates directive in terms of housing, slurry and dirty water storage and land spreading? These issues are more pertinent in the callows than other parts of the country.

Will Mr. Claffey state whether it is the case that after stock numbers were reduced dramatically on the Burren, in line with what was believed to be good farming practice, farmers had to be encouraged to return to traditional stocking practices because the environment was being damaged? Were the farming practices themselves not responsible for the maintenance of the habitats?

The last page of Mr. Kelly's submission differs from the reply to a parliamentary question, No. 629, which I tabled on 14 February.

Mr. Kelly

That was an aide-memoire and I did not want to introduce it here.

Deputy Naughten

It is on record now.

Mr. Kelly

Yes.

Deputy Naughten

The reply to my question states: "Where standard rates of payment can be agreed, these will be available to farmers as an alternative to individual costings." This contradicts Mr. Kelly's submission to the committee. The IFA is seeking standard rates of payment rather than individual costings. Will Mr. Kelly comment on the reply to my parliamentary question rather than on his submission? It is a critical issue that needs to be addressed.

What is Mr. Kelly's view on the agreement between the IFA and the Departments of Agriculture and Food, and Environment, Heritage and Local Government, on 9 June 2005? Is it the case that farmers who are not in the REP or corncrake grant schemes have not received any compensation since 1992 because of restrictions, many of which resulted from cross-compliance and some of which were in operation beforehand? Are farmers being penalised because both Departments cannot agree on a procedure?

Will Mr. O'Donovan outline why the splitting of the REP scheme was not put to the European Commission? I find his point that a split would set a precedent and compromise the integrity of the scheme extremely difficult to accept considering our dealings over recent months regarding the nitrates directive, which has been law since 1 February and which makes every REPS plan in the country illegal. This compromises the integrity of REPS, yet the same reason is now being used not to split the scheme. Will Mr. O'Donovan elaborate on this?

Deputy Upton

I thank the officials from the two Departments and welcome the representatives of the IFA. I apologise for the absence of my colleague Deputy Penrose, who represents Westmeath and has a particular interest in the matter. Unlike Deputy Naughten, I have no personal interest in the issue since I represent a Dublin constituency, but I have some questions on matters raised.

Mr. O'Donovan referred to the additional cost to the taxpayer. We all want value for money but other issues should be borne in mind, including the protection of wildlife. Mr. O'Donovan may disagree with my opinion in this regard but making constant reference to a cost to the taxpayer is not particularly valuable.

It was pointed out that there is an alternative scheme available through the National Parks and Wildlife Service. However, the IFA has made the point that this is encumbered by red tape and bureaucracy, making it very difficult for one to bother with it. The implication, however, is that there is merit in having such a scheme available and having the top-up. If one could go through the hoops required, it would be justifiable. It should be taken on board that there is a need for a top-up or recognition of the value of what is being done in this particular area.

The IFA delegates stated the failure to put in place a package could result in land abandonment, which would have a significant negative impact on the unique environment in question. If this were to be the case, the knock-on effect in terms of single farm payments and the value to agriculture in general would be very significant. Nobody would want to go down this road.

Deputy Naughten referred to the discrepancy in the views on what was agreed at the meeting between the Departments and the IFA. It is important that each view be clarified so we will all know the basis of the discrepancy.

Looking at the IFA presentation, it appears that farming restrictions here are substantial and they place heavy burdens in terms of the ability of farmers to farm the land and achieve a valuable output from their activity. The list on the first page is substantial and it would be interesting to hear the views of the two Departments on those restrictions.

Deputy Crawford

I am not involved in the Shannon callows as I live Cavan-Monaghan, but I know Aghabog. I assure the committee that anyone who has been working on it for years knows what it is like to make hay in September. I remember in 1963 trying to make hay in September with my late father and brother. Anyone who does not know about farming does not realise the damage that will do to farm income. There is no food value in it, it is fibre but it contains no nutrition. There is no point even talking about cutting it in mid-August and getting quality silage; it cannot happen. I used a knapsack sprayer on potato ground when it was too wet to use a horse and cart in the mid 1960s. There are not many doing it today because the situation is totally different and it is not practical.

People being asked to deal with this situation for the sake of bird life must be properly compensated. I cannot see at this time of peace talks here, there and everywhere why we cannot find a means of coming to grips with this. I worked within the IFA structures for 23 years and with the Department and it is incredible that at a time when money is plentiful this cannot be agreed. I ask the Department officials to do a deal on this. As a farmer with experience of difficult land structures, I know these men are on the margin. They are not rich farmers. If they are to survive and, as a result, the birds are to survive, they must get realistic compensation.

Listening to a colleague talking about his experience on a dairy farm, I know the current regulations, not just in the callows but nationally, will have an effect on this country that no one at Department level has a clue about. It is only in the last few weeks that ordinary farmers have realised the extraordinary limitations they will face. They will have to farm by the calendar rather than by common sense.

In January and February of this year there was no problem putting out slurry. Anywhere it went out, it was clearly taken up by the grasses and it shows now. I know the Department has a job to do and there are regulations in place but I worked in the Department for seven years and they are not irresponsible if the proper case is made. This has been going on for too long and these people deserve a break.

Deputy Callanan

I welcome the IFA delegation, especially my colleagues from Galway. I congratulate Mr. Michael Silke on being elected vice president of the Connacht region IFA. I also welcome the officials from the two Departments.

Can the two delegations go back and work together to come up with a reasonable scheme? I know the Shannon callows area well and have seen square bales being washed along with the water. People bale the hay and then it is gone. It is an awful sight but it happens almost every third year. Late cutting in September makes it almost impossible to get hay in the area. The quality is not great as a result. It is not good feed for any stock but that is what these people must use. The plan to split the two schemes seems to be the only option. If there is a better alternative, that is great, but the two sides must come together and devise a scheme.

Deputy Finneran

I also welcome the IFA representatives and those from the Departments. There has been much interaction between the two Departments in recent weeks and not everything is resolved yet.

Today we are talking about a specific problem for counties which border the Shannon callows. Some of us have first-hand experience of the Suck callows and we still farm there and face exactly the same problems.

I am bothered by the lack of progress on two payments being made on the Shannon callows. It is mind boggling. The Department of Agriculture and Food for some reason dug its heels in and decided on a scheme that another Department administered. It also failed to consult at European level. Department officials decided that another Department cannot be involved in a scheme without even asking the European Union to adjudicate. That is extraordinary.

This reminds me of some years ago when I was convenor of the committee dealing with departmental customer relations. I was informed by the Secretary General of the Department of Agriculture and Food at a meeting that it would be inappropriate to have an independent appeals body to deal with farm grants, that it would remove it from the people in charge of the Department who considered themselves to be the only people competent to deal with the matter. We invited representatives from the Commission to appear before the committee and they said it was an excellent idea. Much of the money came from Europe and some from national sources. They thought it appropriate that there be independent appeals and that body was set up some years ago. Some say it works well others have problems with it but at least it exists and if it does not work well enough it can be amended.

Here we have a simple proposal from farmer representatives who have hands-on information and expertise, Michael Silke and Paddy Hannigan, whom I know well, and Gerry Gunning. They have dealt with this matter for years and know exactly what is involved. I am one of eight sons from a full-time farm, part of whose lands ran down to the River Shannon and my two brothers and I still have up to 50 acres in that area. We do not receive any compensation, 30 acres do not qualify as either a special area of conservation or natural heritage area which is extraordinary. We have our own view of that - if Bord na Mona was not there the land would certainly have been designated a long time ago but we can discuss that another day.

Today we are talking about the failure of a sensible proposal put forward by the IFA and farm representatives in the callows region, in south Roscommon, Galway, Westmeath and Offaly to compensate on a two-tier basis for a major loss to the farming community in that area. No one has yet mentioned that there were many years when we could not graze at all and it was not safe to graze because of the flooding. We could not risk late grazing because of the fear of disease. The only time we felt safe was when cutting had been done. The start date, 10 August, is late but that may not be the case even a month later.

As Deputy Callanan said, it is time for the two Departments to work out a sensible system to compensate the farmers. The Department of Agriculture and Food cannot and should not take this unto itself. There are other players, including the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the EU Commission. They resisted doing things in the past and were proved incorrect, and the actions became feasible later. They should belatedly get around the table and resolve this matter in the interests of these people. The only sensible solution is for people to receive their REPS payments on the portion of land that they farm as permitted. They should receive a special compensation package for the callow lands and that area.

We spent the past few weeks wondering how we would get the slurry from the north of my county and from the pig farmers in the northern counties, to the tillage lands of the midlands and south. The same scheme is necessary for these people because they have to house their stock for so long they have extra slurry which it is impossible to put on all the land. There are other issues which we can discuss another day.

As REPS 4 is coming in it is time for a common sense approach. I second Deputy Callanan's proposal. If the two Departments, and the Commission do not sit around the table we should invite the EU officials to a meeting here where we can thrash out what this involves and find out their view on this, if no one else is prepared to ask them.

Mr. Paddy Halligan

Deputy Naughten asked what happens if there is a flood in September, which links with a comment by Deputy Finneran. If there is a flood in September one could not go out on the callows afterwards, even if the flood receded the following day. Flooding, whether in September or November, washes all the sewerage from the town of Athlone onto the callows. We are blamed for killing corncrakes and doing away with wildlife. Nobody ever pointed a finger at Athlone Urban Council which flooded the area with sewerage. It has probably stopped in the past few years but it came out for 20 or maybe 30 years or more.

Deputy Naughten

It is coming down from the north of the county.

Mr. Halligan

Yes. It comes out on the most sensitive area which starts exactly on the edge of the town of Athlone. The corncrake can be found for 20 miles from there, and then the wildbirds.

Last night Ivan Yates appeared on a programme on television which opened my eyes although I have lived there all my life. I have been on the callows many times but have yet to see some of the things Ivan Yates saw last night when he was taking his photographs. Somebody there said one would not see those things unless one looked for them. I probably never looked for them, I was too busy trying to get some hay in from the land. Hay at that time of the year has value only as fibre. It has no nutritional value.

The committee needs to look seriously at the nitrates and phosphorus coming from sewerage. It is flooding thousands of acres in that area which is more than half responsible for the loss of wildlife and much of the flora too.

Mr. Silke

Deputy Naughten referred to the quality of hay and grass on the callows. Ten years ago I cut my meadow from mid-June and brought home an excellent crop with high nutritional value. I had the option of cutting or grazing my after grass upto the end of the year. Now I am locked out of my land until 10 August. No farmer has gone into the callows on that date for the past three years. Every bit of the callows in my area has been cut after 1 September because of weather patterns and so forth. Birdwatch Ireland can bear me out. As the saying goes, one cuts hay while the sun shines.

One may not leave one's hay in the corncrake area of the callow but is required by law to cut it and take the crop away, irrespective of whether it is any use. I would love to be able to take the corncrake grant if it was good enough, and leave the hay there because I do not want that kind of farming. I am a commercial farmer and barely exist. I will not exist for much longer if this continues. I would take my money and walk away but there will be no corncrakes there.

There are no corncrakes on the land that Birdwatch Ireland holds because it is growing into sedge and was not cut when it should be. Birdwatch Ireland must hire contractors or farmers to do that. There is a major problem if the habitat is not properly maintained. We are required by law to do so.

We are serving the State, not ourselves. No one should be under any illusion about that. We are cutting a crop of rubbish which we must then take home. At home this year I had 850 round bales in the Shannon callows . Feeding that to my cattle has almost killed me because I have been obliged to spend so much - I could provide the bill from Liffey Mills, Banagher, County Offaly - on the molasses that I had to pour on my hay every day. That is the dirtiest job imaginable but members would probably not understand the significance of it. I do not believe that farmers will continue to do that in future. I certainly do not intend to continue doing it. That is why I want to ensure that we get matters right.

The quality of grass deteriorates enormously if cattle are not put on it at the right time. As everyone knows, the new grass grows early in the year. Traditionally, we chain-harrowed the land, rolled it left and right and then fertilised the whole lot. We were able to top the grass on any day once it became "stemmy" but we are no longer able to do that until after 1 July. This results in a massive decrease in the quality of grass - there is no question about that - but we are statutorily bound to leave the grass until after 1 July. We cannot top the grass or roll it or chain-harrow it before that date. That is the reality.

Deputy Upton asked about the other restrictions that are in place. We are subject to a raft of restrictions on matters such as spot spraying and oral dosing. I will not list them all but they are in place.

Under the nitrates directive, we will be statutorily bound to house our cows in future. Up until now, I could get away with being twice as intensive on my upland because of the restrictions I suffered on my designated land. However, I will no longer be able to get away with that because I will not be permitted to allow my cows to run over my farm. I will need to build for the cows some serious housing, which will involve savage costs. If I am to survive, all those issues that have not been taken into account will need to be re-examined. That is a major issue for us.

Deputy Naughten

I do not wish to delay proceedings but I want to ask Mr. Silke to elaborate on this matter, about which Mr. O'Donovan, as an expert on the nitrates directive, will probably know. The grass that Mr. Silke takes off the callows is of no fodder value and is basically manure. Under the nitrates directive, he cannot store that grass on land because it must be stored on a concrete base where the water run-off and so on can be managed. That would not have been the case before 1 February. Simple issues of that nature arise in the Shannon callows that do not arise elsewhere. If farms become fragmented, more dirty water storage will be required for cattle crushes and so forth. Have those implications been considered? Perhaps Mr. O'Donovan can also respond to that point when he gets an opportunity to do so.

Mr. Silke

As far as I can see, those implications have not been considered. All the major problems I outlined are coming down on top of us. As someone else mentioned, perhaps the best thing for us would be to get the hell out of farming and look for alternative employment. I just do not see us continuing in farming in a few years' time if the current situation continues. REPS is not a farmer-friendly scheme. We were unable to join it for ten years. With respect to Mr. O'Donovan, the reality is that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government did not want to see or hear from us. We traipsed after the Department for six years and took every insult that was thrown at us. We shook hands on a deal on 9 June but the Department reneged on it. I do not know whether any other options are open to us. These guys in the Department are trying to sell a scheme that fails to protect one of the finest habitats in western Europe but we are the real victims. As I said in my presentation, we are the new slaves.

I do not want to get too technical but serious problems also exist in respect of grazing days. These are all tied into the difficulties I have just outlined.

The points Deputy Crawford made about cutting hay in September tie in with what I said. One issue that nobody has mentioned is the loss of our aftergrass as a feedstuff for our stock. That is a serious loss.

Deputy Finneran said that all the parties should have got together. It is right to use the past tense. We should have all got together ten years ago to put a proper scheme in place. If people had taken the issue seriously, they would have done so but that was not the case.

I travelled to Brussels on two occasions to attend meetings in respect of splitting the schemes. As IFA county chairman in Galway for the past four years, I was inundated with people from Galway, Offaly, north Tipperary, Roscommon and elsewhere who wanted to talk to me about the scheme because they knew I was involved in the discussions. On both my visits to Brussels as part of an IFA delegation, the very senior people to whom I spoke at the Environment Directorate-General and the Agriculture Directorate-General said they had no difficulty with splitting the REPS to allow us to have a national scheme. I felt then that a national scheme would stand up. I am glad to hear about today's announcement but we still have no scheme for the Shannon callows. The people in Brussels had absolutely no problem with splitting the scheme. They could not understand why Ireland had a problem with putting a proper scheme in place. The problem is in Ireland, not Brussels. No one should be under any illusion about that.

Mr. Martin Gavin

As we mentioned in our presentation, land abandonment will be the result. It is worth explaining how we see that happening. The first page of our submission lists the restrictions with which farmers are obliged to live. As Mr. Silke said, farmers need to consider whether they want to leave farming behind. If people's single farm payments are under threat of being wiped out, they may have no option but to farm elsewhere. The single farm payment is not tied to the land that a farmer owns, so he or she could take his or her single farm payment to land elsewhere in the country. Why should farmers threaten their livelihoods by farming this type of land? Why should they not buy or rent land on which they farm without having their single farm payment threatened?

During the previous partnership talks, we got some agreement on special areas of conservation but we failed to reach agreement on the Shannon callows. However, we were able to make a great deal of headway on the issue of river margins. Although we were told there was no way the Department could go below the designation of 30 m from the river bank, we had that reduced to 2.5 m as part of the agreement. That just shows how the Department can move. We have no difficulty living with restrictions. We are subject to severe restrictions on good farming practice but we are happy to live with them. The possibility of land abandonment and the need to protect people's livelihoods are two important points that need to be taken seriously.

Mr. Gunning

Deputy Naughten asked about the nitrates directive. As Mr. Silke mentioned, the Shannon callows area will come within the 18-week storage period under the directive. However, farmers in the designated areas will be obliged to concentrate their efforts on their non-designated land, so the restrictions will mean that, in some instances, the storage period might be of the order of 26 weeks. Obviously, that will impose huge costs on those farmers. Our submission lists restrictions but the list is not exhaustive because there are further restrictions involved.

One issue we have highlighted strongly in our submissions to the Department is the labour involved. It costs farmers time to farm in a way that is environmentally friendly, but different problems arise in different designated areas. For example, next Monday we will speak to people in west Mayo about issues of destocking in many hill areas. However, despite the fact that the Shannon callows area has more restrictions than any other designated area, we have still not come to an agreement. As Mr. Gavin mentioned, the partnership talks made great progress on many fronts, such as the bog compensation deal and river margins but the issue of the Shannon callows is still outstanding. We ask the committee to support the need to bring a satisfactory conclusion to this matter.

Mr. Claffey

I wish to comment briefly on what Deputy Naughten said about the comparison between the Shannon callows and the Burren. Ten or 12 years ago the REP scheme was introduced in the Burren against local knowledge and the wishes of farmers there and the system of farming changed. There is a history of farming in the Burren for up to 5,000 years, as no doubt there has been in the River Shannon callows. On my land, 100 yards from the floodline, there is an old ring fort which indicates that up to 5,000 years ago farmers were using hay from the callows and that there was summer grazing. That is the traditional style of farming which has probably not changed in all that time. Is there any other part of Ireland which has a traditional way of farming or way of life which dates back that far? Farmer input is needed for the system to be sustainable, in the Burren and on the Curragh. On the television programme "Ear to the Ground" last week there was an item on sheep wandering off the Curragh. It was noted that the sheep were needed to keep the grass down as that was useful for horses.

If farmers abandon this area, it will be of no use to wildlife because the eco-system has developed hand in hand with farming practices for 5,000 or 6,000 years. Abandoning the land would be to the detriment of all, and the European Union would probably beat us with a stick for neglecting the finest wetlands still surviving.

Mr. Turley

I thank members for their support. There may be a myth that this is poor land. It is not. I mentioned that I was a tillage farmer. I grow vegetables on that land. Green Isle Foods had a factory in the area for 25 years, near Banagher, and it was recognised as the best place in Ireland, better than north Dublin and the sunny south-east, for growing vegetables. The land is highly productive, yet we are not allowed to plough any of the land which has been designated.

We are now spending €2.5 million on an EU project to regenerate the Burren because of what happened there, namely, the introduction of REPS. We see the same happening in our own area. We are appealing to both Departments and any Senator or Deputy who can help us. As farmers, we want to preserve our way of life. We want to protect and preserve wildlife but are being given no help. We are prepared to live within restrictions provided we are compensated. We want to be able to live in the area. If that does not happen soon, we will lose wildlife. Farmers will be lost first, and when they are lost, wildlife will be lost.

Mr. Kelly

Reference was made to the meeting held last June. It is contended agreement was reached on compensation in respect of a particular wet grassland habitat. Agreement was not reached. There were 20 or 25 people at the meeting and the only ones making that contention are the delegates here representing the IFA. Anyone else who attended the meeting is sure that I gave an undertaking to take away the figure in question and see if it could be agreed. On scrutiny, it could not be agreed because, as civil servants, we are subject to scrutiny when it comes to public expenditure. Any figure agreed would have to be attached to specific costings and the costings did not match the figure I took away from the meeting.

The one difference today is the launch of our farm plan scheme. In launching the scheme yesterday the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche said:

The Department of Agriculture and Food's Rural Environment Protection Scheme continues to be the principal vehicle for delivery of agri-environmental payments to farmers. However, this scheme will benefit landowners who do not wish to join REPS and who farm lands in SACs, special areas of conservation, SPAs, special protection areas, or commonage, and who experience restrictions or undertake measures above and beyond the requirements of good farming practice and the single farm payment.

That is the position of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Dr. Ciarán O’Keeffe

The corncrake grants scheme has been running, I think, since 1993. We are talking about a set of prescriptions which are not yet as tightly bound. We are trying to get agreement on the prescriptions needed to save birds and on the cost to farmers of carrying out these prescriptions as they farm. We fully agree and accept farming is necessary for the survival of wildlife. However, for the past 12 years, 80% to 90% of the land on which the corncrake lives has been included the corncrake grants scheme and farmers have been paid accordingly. The scheme is administered by BirdWatch Ireland but funded by the Department.

Deputy Naughten

Does that apply only to corncrake lands?

Dr. O’Keeffe

No, there are different sets. One is trying to do one thing with the land and something else-----

Deputy Naughten

Do restrictions apply outside it?

Dr. O’Keeffe

Yes. To clarify, corncrake preservation is the most difficult task because it requires a lot of measures, particularly late cutting. People have been paid for many years. They volunteered to enter the scheme, which I appreciate. Moreover, in the past four years many have signed up for late cutting. Where people cannot cut, perhaps because of bad weather, through to September, they receive additional funding to help them cope. There has been a benefit for birds but also for farmers.

In our discussions I do not think we have had a disagreement on the necessity to do certain things. Mr. Claffey has made a point about farmers knowing what is best to do on the farm. We take his point on board. The new national parks and wildlife service, NPWS, scheme launched yesterday recognises this in that it allows flexibility for the farmer to use a particular method on the farm if he or she decides the expected outcome will be good for all. We hope that when we roll out the scheme, the benefit for both sides will be seen.

Mr. O’Donovan

I will try to answer the points addressed to me. My Department has never disputed the fact that the restrictions are very onerous on the farmers involved. We fully agree that they should be adequately compensated. There has never been disagreement on this point. As Mr. Kelly indicated, the disagreement has centre on the level of compensation. Losses vary from farmer to farmer. With the agreement of the farming bodies, independent consultants were employed to help facilitate the negotiations. They came up with figures which were not acceptable to the farmers' representatives.

The question was asked, with regard to splitting holdings between REPS and the national scheme, why we had not gone to the Commission. We receive many competing proposals about REPS and the other schemes we operate but do not bring them all to the Commission which recognises the principle of subsidiarity and would not try to influence us one way or another. Ultimately, putting something to the Commission for approval, assuming it comes within the terms of the regulations, is a political decision.

I understand how important this matter is to those concerned, but it almost seems to be coming across in some of the remarks made that there is something vindictive about the way in which the Department of Agriculture and Food has approached this issue. That is not the case. We acted in what we thought were the best interests of REPS and have offered the facility whereby farmers who believe they are not being adequately compensated under REPS can go on an individual basis - it is not like buying a lottery ticket - with fully costed accounts demonstrating their losses to my colleagues and seek full compensation. I cannot understand why nobody has taken up this offer because the odds are a great deal better than those offered by the national lottery or the EuroMillions lottery.

Deputy Naughten raised the question of precedents when I said we were concerned about the possible creation of a precedent for REPS in allowing holdings to be split between REPS and the national scheme.

There is a hierarchy of payments in REPS. One receives €200 per hectare for the first 20 hectares and diminishing rates on larger areas. I am sure that the entire committee is familiar with that. If one split the holding between REPS and the national scheme, on the designated land of the national scheme the farmer would presumably qualify for whatever rates of compensation were determined thereunder. The farmer would then start all over again with the maximum payment under REPS for the non-designated land. It amounts to a way of maximising the payment to the farmer.

Several farmer representatives have said that the callows situation is unique. In our experience, nothing is unique, and once a loophole has appeared, some way is generally found to enlarge it. Of 7 million hectares in the country, approximately 1 million are designated under various directives. If the principle of splitting holdings between REPS and the national scheme were conceded, even if taken up on just 500,000 hectares - half of designated agricultural land - at a payment rate of €200 a hectare, it would cost the Exchequer €100 million more each year. As Deputy Upton said, this is not just about money, and there is a unique importance to the Shannon callows. However, at the same time, we have an obligation to think about the money.

I am aware I used a phrase in terms of compromising REPS and Deputy Naughten rightly picked me up on it.

Deputy Naughten

Mr. O'Donovan left himself exposed with that one.

Mr. O’Donovan

I was severely compromised by the situation.

It appears that revised recommendations on maximum fertiliser rates from Teagasc, in the view of yesterday's Farming Independent at any rate, will resolve the REPS situation. We will have to see where we go.

Deputy Naughten

It was Mr. O'Donovan who agreed to the first ones.

Chairman

Let him finish.

Mr. O’Donovan

I do not agree to anything. Ministers agree to things, and we simply do what they tell us. I spoke of compromising the integrity of REPS by allowing the splitting of holdings between it and the national scheme. By that I meant that we have a very robust scheme as it stands that involves a set of whole-farm undertakings that we can directly control. If we have a holding split in two and we control only half, the other half will be operated to different specifications and controlled by a different authority, and that will inevitably diminish the value of REPS.

Deputy Naughten touched on the question of additional costs arising for farmers in the callows from the nitrates directive. General discussions on compensation are still ongoing. Agreement has not been reached, and the talks have not concluded. Anything can be put on the table, but I point out that there is a legal difficulty in offering compensation for something that a farmer is required to do by law. I know that we can compensate for designation under the birds and habitats directives, but we cannot compensate farmers for obeying the law, which is what the nitrates regulations will be. They will affect different farmers to different degrees. I remind the Chairman that when we get Commission approval, which I hope is not too far off, there will be substantial grant aid for up to 60% of the area in question to cover investment by farmers in connection with the nitrates directive.

I hope that I have taken up every point raised. If I have missed anything, I am sorry.

Chairman

There may be supplementary questions in any case.

Deputy Naughten

Yes, I have a few supplementaries. I had hoped that Mr. O'Donovan might have clarified the position regarding what was said on the Dáil record on 14 February and what was supposed to have been said on the Dáil record on that day, which was put on the record here. I will read out a critical sentence, since half the issue here concerns the most important question for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Minister's reply, on St. Valentine's Day, states: "Where standard rates of payment can be agreed, these will be available to farmers as an alternative to individual costings". Is that the policy of the Department of Agriculture and Food, or has it been shelved since 14 February in favour of the individual costings under the scheme announced yesterday?

With regard to the scheme announced yesterday, I know of the dealings regarding the Eskers, a namesake in County Roscommon and the difficulty that continued for approximately three years in dealing with individual compensation. That concerned one farmer. Is Mr. O'Donovan telling me that he will be able to sit down with 600 farmers covering 6,000 hectares of land and agree individual compensation packages with them when it took three years to deal with one farmer in County Roscommon? Judging from the experience of the pilots, the National Parks and Wildlife Service proposal put forward yesterday is worthless regarding individual farm plans.

Mr. O'Donovan mentioned the case at EU level. Does the Commission have no difficulty with splitting the scheme? The difficulty is at home, and as he rightly says, whether to take that route is ultimately a decision for the Minister for Agriculture and Food. He has given several reasons, saying that REPS is very robust. If it were so robust, it would not have had to be watered down on 1 February. However, we will park that issue. Part of Mr. O'Donovan's argument is that 1 million of the 7 million hectares of land in the country are designated. That is a difficulty for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It was in no directive anywhere, and the Department was prepared to designate more lands than required by EU law.

We have had great difficulty regarding some of those designated lands, but that should not mean that farmers in the callows should carry the can. That should not be used as an excuse, and neither should the fact that it would maximise the payment for farmers. Mr. O'Donovan has accepted that there are severe restrictions on farmers in the callows. Some of the farmers representing the IFA have said that they are far more severe than anywhere else. To the best of my knowledge of other designated lands, that is true. If this is one of the most unique habitats in western Europe, the additional cost to the taxpayer should not be too important, considering that the lands designated were far in excess of what was required under any EU regulation. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was not worried about the cost to the taxpayer of designating land. We should not use that as an excuse on this issue.

Can Mr. O'Donovan clarify whether the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the Department of Agriculture and Food has examined the specific implications of the nitrates directive on the Shannon callows based on the experience of the birds directive? It seems to me that the answer is "No".

Deputy Hoctor

I welcome the groups. I am particularly interested in this issue, as this area of the Shannon callows takes in the most north-westerly stretch of north Tipperary, including Portland, Redwood, Lehinch and Ballymacegan in my constituency. I apologise for my lateness, and I hope that I am not going over information already provided by the witnesses.

Other designated areas across the country have been mentioned, including the River Blackwater callows in Cork and Waterford, and also the Kilcoole Marshes in Wicklow. In a comparison of the experience of farmers in our area of the Shannon callows with that in those other designated areas, it appears that one is more severely penalised under current regulations. I would welcome further comments on that from the farming community.

Having listened to the debate so far, I wish to appeal to the officials within the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. As elected representatives, we can also act through the political channels to try, in some way, to make farming workable and manageable. Are these not also the words we have been using as regards the nitrates directive? It must be workable and manageable for farmers. We know that farmers were environmentalists long before other people took over that title. If this is not workable and manageable, and if people are not compensated adequately in view of the restrictions being imposed on them, then wildlife will deteriorate and diminish. We all know that this area of the environment is under threat as time goes on. I would welcome comments from the farming community and, in particular, from officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Mr. Halligan

Dr. O'Keeffe stated that people in the Shannon callows who were taking up the corncrake grant were, or seemed to be, happy with it. That is not the case. The reason people were taking up the corncrake grant is that they have our blessing in this regard because they were promised that, when the deal is done, there would be retrospection. They are not just working for the paltry money they get for the corncrake but because they have been promised retrospection.

Mr. Silke

I have one question for Dr. O'Keeffe. If they are happy, why did farmers last spring place bird bangers along the callows? As Mr. Hallligan has said, we sold the scheme to the farmers. We met them in different groups and asked them to remain in the corncrake scheme and said their compensation money would be paid retrospectively. That is why they are in the scheme, not because they are happy.

To address Mr. Jim Kelly's question as regards the payment, with respect, I do not know how many people were in the room that day but it was not 20. Whatever the number, we agreed on two figures that were subject to the approval of Mr. Kelly's superiors. We shook hands and felt we had a deal. The money was to be €450 per hectare in the corncrake areas because we were told by Mr. Kelly's Department that no more could be paid because of an EU regulation which stated that figure could not be breached. The figure for the grazing areas was €390. That is the reality. Mr. Kelly may twist or turn it any way he likes but that is the case and we understood that we had a deal.

If Mr. Michael O'Donovan is so correct, I merely wish to ask him a simple question, namely, why has no farmer taken up the great bonus, under REPS, to which he referred in respect of people in the corncrake area? There is something wrong and if people are not taking up the bonus, that proves it. I do not want to say any more because I could continue with this all day.

The splitting of the schemes was of concern to the Department of Agriculture and Food. There should be no problem there. I can clearly see that the Department believes it will lose control if schemes are split. It will solve the problem, provided the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has a proper scheme in place, which - contrary to what it is saying - is still not the case. I will refer Deputy Hoctor's question to Mr. Gunning, because he is better informed in this area.

Deputy Hoctor

It related to the Kilcoole Marshes.

Mr. Gunning

As already stated, we are involved in a great many areas throughout the country vis-à-vis restrictions. They vary tremendously because of the different habitats. For example, on the Wicklow coastline there is a question of sand dune protection. I understand that a management plan is being compiled to deal with these particular areas. One of the difficulties is that there has been an inordinate delay in getting the management plans out.

Deputy Naughten referred to a situation in south Roscommon. That dates back seven or eight years to the protection of an esker.

Deputy Naughten

It dates back more than ten years.

Mr. Gunning

It is a long-term issue.

We must talk about other specific areas because we could talk about other habitats at length. Mr. O'Donovan mentioned the figure of €100,000. Nothing creates problems more than throwing money at a situation. Our view is that if it costs €100 million, that would be the cost of the restrictions being imposed. Perhaps Government policy is to push them into REPS because that is partly financed by the European Union. It might be fair enough to make that point. Irrespective of who pays, our view is that farmers must be compensated for the restrictions because they are protecting the area, not just for the Irish people but also for other Europeans because it is part of a Europe-wide network under Natura 2000 sites. There are 450 different sites in Ireland and of the order of 11% of the land area is designated. We are, therefore, part of a network. Irrespective of the amount, the costs must relate to the actual restrictions imposed. We have listed the various restrictions.

We have made other restrictions, which we have not brought before the committee today, in which the costs are quantified at the individual farm level. I refer, in particular, to the extra costs of labour to the farmer. The Chairman, who is from County Meath, will appreciate that many farms are one-person units and that there is a good deal of part-time work involved. However, the restrictions in the Shannon callows are obligatory. One must be in either of the two schemes and it is obligatory in the context of cross-compliance under single farm payments. That is the type of scenario under which people in this particular area - a substantial area of some 6,000 hectares, involving about 600 farmers - are obliged to farm. It covers, as outlined earlier, all the counties along the Shannon. We have highlighted the situation and there can be a solution.

Mr. Turley

I wish to respond to a few points. Mr. Kelly said that there were 25 in the room at the particular meeting. There were, in fact, 13 people present. My understanding was that we had an agreement on the day because several telephone calls were made to verify that. Mr. O'Donovan said that they could not run to Brussels with every little idea. We are talking about protecting a wetland that is unique in western Europe. This is not just any little idea a farmer might dream up to decide whether it should be included under REPS. As Mr. Gunning mentioned, we have compiled costings. As stated earlier, it costs a farmer between €600 to €1,200 to participate under these restrictions. They got these costings. They tried to dissect and reduce them but they could not do so. If we take a simple figure of €500 per unit, even in respect of 6,000 hectares, that comes to less than €500,000. It would take €300,000 a year to solve this, which is a pittance to protect the most important wetland in western Europe.

Chairman

We are obliged to conclude the meeting by 4 p.m. because another meeting is due to start at that time. We have ten minutes to wrap this matter up.

Mr. Kelly

As regards the meeting in June, I have dealt with that and the situation is as I said. The figure that we took from that meeting, €390 per hectare for wet grassland, was not something we could agree to when it was scrutinised in terms of the itemised costs involved as per the expert group and so on.

Deputy Naughten

I accept Mr. Kelly's statement that the figures could not be stood over. Did he respond to the IFA and explain why that was the case?

Mr. Kelly

I believe I did.

Deputy Naughten

Would it be possible for the committee to obtain a copy of that response?

Mr. Kelly

I did not respond in writing. However, I would certainly have discussed it further with individuals.

Mr. Turley

I wish to comment on the meeting in question and on Mr. Kelly's remark. The figures were discussed. Department of Agriculture and Food officials were present to go through the headings in respect of which we had calculated the costings. There was no heading on which our costings were lowered after that meeting. On the wet grassland, they ranged from €486 per hectare on a low stocking rate of one stocking unit per hectare, to €900 per hectare on a stocking unit of 1.8. These figures were not high by any means and nowhere in those costings could they find fault with them. The officials fully accepted the figures and, on that basis, we reached agreement on the day. Just to get a deal we took a severe beating on the agreed payment. We were not being mean.

Chairman

We are here to listen to the farmers' problems and the response of the departmental officials. I do not want to know what happened at the meetings. We know there is a problem and want to help as best we can. However, I do not want an argument about what took place, who said what and so on. We will send a submission to both Ministers on what happened today.

Mr. Kelly

With regard to the corncrake habitat, a figure of €450 per hectare was agreed at the meeting. That figure is the threshold for State aid. I stress that it is only a coincidence.

Deputy Naughten

Was it the CAP figure that was agreed or the figure of €450 per hectare?

Mr. Kelly

The figure of €450 per hectare per corncrake was agreed at the meeting.

Mr. Silke

We agreed that figure on the basis that the figure €390 on the other side had been agreed. Mr. Kelly knows this. We could not accept the figure of €450 per hectare for corncrake areas. We took it on the basis that it was a package deal.

Mr. Kelly

I would like to deal with the point made about the reply to the parliamentary question. At all times our preference is to agree standard rates, on which there is common cause between ourselves and the farm representatives. However, the farm plan scheme will accommodate those who cannot or will not agree to a standard rate with the representative bodies.

Deputy Naughten

I fully accept that point. If that is the case, why did the Department not write back to the IFA to inform it that the figure of €390 was not acceptable? It seems there was verbal communication with the IFA, but it has not been developed since 9 June, either by written communication or trying to get agreement on the new figure.

Mr. Kelly

There was verbal communication, but between one thing and another, it did not happen. It should have.

Deputy Naughten

Will it happen now?

Mr. Kelly

Absolutely.

Dr. O’Keeffe

The figure of €390 for wet grasslands was mentioned by Mr. Silke. That was the problem. We mentioned that we had two studies carried out which came up with figures that amounted to about 40% of that figure. Teagasc and independent agricultural advisers gave us a much lower figure.

Deputy Naughten

Was that information given to the IFA?

Dr. O’Keeffe

Yes. The Deputy had concerns that the farm plan scheme would not deliver fast enough. The particular case he mentioned was a very difficult one, at a time when we were feeling our way. Therefore, it necessarily took a long time to deal with it. We now have a large number of professional farm planners who create REPS plans every day of the week. They are trained in what we want them to do and we expect them to be very efficient in turning out farm plans. If we can agree a standard rate, that will make it even faster.

There was a question about habitats in other parts of the country. There is no doubt that the callows are unique, given that the corncrake is to be found there with breeding waders. There is a different set of issues which are more easily resolved in some of the other wetland systems such as the Blackwater, where one finds winter waterfowl, frogs and geese which eat grass. This presents a straightforward issue. The situation is similar in counties Wicklow and Donegal.

Mr. O’Donovan

We have not looked in detail at the impact of the nitrates directive in the callows. It stands to reason that the farmers involved will be more affected than the average farmer. All farmers are affected to different degrees by the nitrates regulations. In principle, there is no problem at EU level with splitting townlands between the two schemes. It was a political decision within the Department not to proceed with the proposal but it is on the table again for the consultation process on REPS IV which is far from concluded. The IFA has also tabled it in the national partnership discussions which will resume at some stage. It is on the table, but we have not yet been able to examine fully the Commission implementing rules for the next rural development plan period.

Deputy Callanan

I appeal again to everyone involved to sit down and resolve the problem. It can be resolved. I have listened to the representatives going around in circles. They should get together and resolve it.

Mr. Silke

Dr. O'Keeffe referred to a study which was carried out in 1992 by Teagasc and Mr. Farrelly, in which my farm was used. It was carried out on the back of a premium element built into the cost by Mr. Farrelly and Teagasc. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has tried to take away this element and pay us what is left, 40%. That is most unfair. We came up with a new study - Mr. Turley has a copy - which we presented to the Department. It clearly shows that we are now service providers for the State. It is wrong that those of us who have our land designated and are locked out for much of the year should only be allowed 40% of a figure of around €200 per hectare. The two farmers who live near me and who are participating in REPS are teaching as they are only part-time farmers. They receive €200 per hectare on the first 20 hectares and €125 on the next 20. I am a full-time farmer and farming a habitat for the European Commission, but I will only receive 40% of the amount they are getting. Is that fair? Is the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government being fair with us?

We can give the committee a copy of the study produced independently, off which we can work. Otherwise, I ask the committee to ask the Department to remove the designation from our land. I cannot continue farming if the designation remains. The biggest clown in Ireland will give me €450 per hectare because of the restrictions imposed in my area, yet it will not replace my hay nor get rid of the rubbish that I must remove from the callows. I am forced to spend one week every year saving the hay with fantastic machinery. We must start talking sense and go back to the relevant document and disregard the one the Department wants to maintain. The single farm payment has been introduced, the premium element is no more and we must talk about the losses incurred. I ask the Chairman to take one or other of those two courses.

Chairman

Does Mr. Gunning have anything to add?

Mr. Gunning

Mr. Silke has effectively covered the issues I wanted to raise. The important point is that the scenario has changed. We are now in an era of decoupling and farmers have the opportunity to farm or scale back. Several Deputies have mentioned that farming is necessary to maintain the environment. It is important from a public policy perspective that farmers continue farming in these areas and that the extra cost of farming is recognised in whatever scheme is opted for. There is also the question of flexibility within schemes. REPS is not flexible enough to deal with this matter.

Deputy Naughten

Mr. Kelly and the Department want this matter resolved. We want to have an average figure. I propose that the IFA furnish us with a copy of the document which we will forward to Mr. Kelly. In the context of the single farm payment and the nitrates directive, the Department will review the document and give a response to the committee that we can then consider.

Senator Moylan

I understand the situation well as I live in the River Shannon callows area and know the farmers involved. We are talking about young active farmers whom we want to remain in agriculture. Everyone understands the value of being able to make hay and the diffculties when farmers cannot do so. The farmers in the callows tried to assist BirdWatch Ireland and the corncrake scheme by taking a decision to cut their meadows late. However, at this time, when many farmers are hoping they will get out with early grass, many of them can only look at their waterlogged land.

The situation in the River Shannon callows is unique. I appeal to departmental officials. Whether they had a word of mouth agreement, it is water under the bridge and has gone down the Shannon, as they say. At this eleventh hour can the parties agree to sit down and negotiate a reasonable and proper deal for the farmers concerned who will not be able to stay there as they have stayed on borrowings until now? Unless we are prepared to meet them halfway, we will lose them from farming. I know them well. They are good farmers and if we give them half a chance, it will ensure they will stay in farming.

I am sorry I missed most of the meeting due to my attendance in the Seanad.

Chairman

I thank the representatives. We will forward a copy of the debate to both Ministers and will ask for their observations.

Deputy Naughten

I would like to put my proposal to the floor, if I can get a member to second it.

Chairman

Before doing so, I appeal to all sides to try to resolve this problem. While, of the delegates, I only know Mr. Gunning personally, I know they would not be before the committee unless they had a serious problem. It is good to see a young farmer from County Offaly present. There are not many young people like Mr. Claffey going into agriculture. It is great to see a young man like him fighting the cause of farmers in his area. I hope the matter can be resolved.

Deputy Naughten

My proposal is that we submit the IFA document to Mr. Kelly and that, in the context of the single farm payment and the nitrates directive, the two relevant documents, the Department review its costings and come back to us with a realistic proposal to address the matter. This should be done within a very limited timeframe because the matter has been ongoing for 14 years and we do not want it to continue.

Deputy Hoctor

I second the proposal. With Deputy Naughten's approval, we should also include REPS IV with the single farm payment and the nitrates directive.

Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Naughten

Can we ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food to review the current decision with regard to not splitting the REP scheme and the national scheme? I am sure Mr. O'Donovan will make a good case for it.

Chairman

We will. I thank the representatives for attending and the way in which they responded to the variety of questions put by members. I am sorry I had to be a little short with them, but time is precious as there is another meeting to follow.

Sitting suspended at 4.05 p.m., resumed in private session at 4.10 p.m. and in public session at 4.18 p.m.