I have 14 points and if the witnesses cannot get through them, they can respond to me in writing. I thank the officials for their presentations and the IFA for its submission. We need a sensitive approach because mistakes will be made on both sides. It needs to be practical as otherwise we will be open to fines which will lead nowhere. If it is not practical for the farmer we are all wasting our time. On screening, the four to six weeks is an issue. I would be anxious to have some sort of fast-track environmental impact assessment taking place. We are not talking about wind farms, which someone mentioned earlier; we are talking about basic drainage, etc.
Have the officials thought about training the inspectors, which is critical? An inappropriate person will not bring consistency across the system. I have come across cases where I have had to intervene for people where inspectors did not act professionally. That is the first requirement of any inspector coming on the land. As an active commercial farmer, I speak with some element of knowledge.
I have planted forestry on land that could have been considered wetland. It has changed the profile of that land and as Deputy Ó Cuív mentioned earlier, there is a change in the profile of land as it goes along. I also have land that takes a significant amount of water from the N72. If I blocked it up, it would be fairly dry, but obviously there is a safety issue here. The more that road has been widened, the more flooding is coming in. I am not responsible for it, but it is something that needs to be taken into account. It floods for three to four months each year so there is a change as we go along.
Mallow and many other towns have had flood schemes involving the erection of big embankments, which are very welcome as they stop flooding in the town. However, downstream where we farm we are getting faster waters, more extensive flooding and land erosion. Farming on that land is quite frustrating and it is adding to the issues here. Drainage works will be required in lieu of what is coming down; remediation works will be required.
The submission stated: "The Commission has numerous instances where significant damage to the environment has occurred on wetlands even at a very small scale." Have we examples of a small-scale intervention causing a major problem? It is very easy to say something without giving examples.
On the issue of drainage versus artificial watercourses, I know of many farms where artificial watercourses would have been built up over the years to water cattle. They need to be maintained because they are the only existing source of water. It is not feasible for cattle not to have ready access to water.
I would discourage haste and sudden decisions in the matter. It is good practice and good manners to consult with farmers. An appeals process is obviously needed, as others have said. There may be serial objectors, who may have plenty of time on their hands and basically want to stick their noses in everybody else's affairs. If we get such people, they should also be inspected to check what public funds they are getting. If costs are identified, they will need to bear some of those.
The EU is guilty of some double speak with regard to farm maintenance. Decoupling basically took away the need for productivity - it gave the payment without being coupled to production. The EU is now considering reintroducing set-aside. Those two schemes mean that land falls into poor repair as does drainage. On the other side we are saying that farmers need to get permission if it is 15 years or so out. We need to be aware that too many anomalies are cropping up.
We need to be practical when it comes to the removal of hedgerows. The existing hedgerows are not very useful for people who have 80 ft. or 24 m sprayers which are quite common in our part of the country. Can there be a situation where the removal of a boundary, which may have suited agriculture 200 years ago, could be put back in position with a separate hedgerow that would suit current farming practice? In effect there would be no net loss of hedgerow. We are all anxious to keep the environment right, but we must move ahead with the times. We have machines of such a scale, which we need in order to be able to make a profit.
Another issue not addressed is that of partnerships. Many dairy farms are entering into partnerships. They will need to restructure their holdings, which needs to be taken into account. We need to be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past. I farm on the banks of a river, which is possibly the most fertile land we have. We found that we were not allowed to winter plough. It was even suggested that we might not be allowed to cultivate there. This was done on the back of no scientific data. I am a member of the Teagasc tillage commodity team and we were not consulted on any of this, which is very frustrating.
Recontouring of land happens all the time and I have done it myself. We have recontoured where old quarries had been dug out. This recontouring has been going on over a period of years. One is always filling away and is basically trying to improve it because someone previously dug a great big hole in the ground which needs to be filled. It serves no practical purpose and in many cases these holes are quite unsafe.
Another issue is the field boundaries of 500 m or less than 5 ha. This would be a very unusual field. One would throw more fertiliser into the ditch than one would onto the field with a large machine. I do not want people to leave this room with the idea that we all spread fertiliser with Viscount spreaders. We do not. We do it with 10 tonne Bredal spreaders which are capable of covering a few hundred acres a day. This is modern and practical farming. We need to consider what we are asking.
With regard to recontouring land, I live in an area with a limestone base where some places do not have a huge level of topsoil, perhaps only 1 ft or 2 ft. Does this impact on stone raking and picking stones, which is something we have done for generations to ensure we do not make bits of what machines we have?
Perhaps some clearing of existing vegetation or uncultivated ground should be allowed. I am not a great lover of thistles, ragwort or wild oats contaminating a neighbouring farm. Land which has remained uncultivated for 15 years was mentioned. Many of us have elderly neighbours who entered into a passive farming routine perhaps because of their health and they are well entitled to do so. However, perhaps there may be a future need to tidy it up when their time passes.
Will this be applied to the vast areas of land of the largest landowners in the country, namely, the local authorities? This morning, as I do many days, I drove up the motorway and saw a reservoir of noxious weeds the whole blasted way up the road and this is completely unacceptable. After a few years it will become uncultivated land but it needs to be sprayed. What is sauce for the goose must be sauce for the gander.
With regard to the definition of "wetlands", I do not want anyone to leave the meeting thinking the planning process with regard to flood plains has been a success. It has not. Cork County Council had a major issue because homology contour modelling, which is computer modelling of an area, was asked to decide what was a wetland and what was not. It was used because it was cheap - it cost €37,000 - and it affected a huge area. Anyone in the flood plain has major issues with regard to housing planning and sale value. However, major mistakes were made and the OPW has examined it. We were told the maps were drawn up for a one in 100 years and a one in 1,000 years situation. I do not care if it was for a one in 1 million years situation because water will never flow uphill, but this is what was shown in the maps and I can provide them to the Department later if the witnesses wish. It was an absolute disaster and householders were up in arms. The same issues will arise with regard to landowners. The maps showed water flooding areas which never flooded and showed flooding stopping on a downhill slope. They do not make any sense.
We also had a situation whereby the OPW had one set of maps while Cork County Council had another. The most upsetting point is that Cork County Council obtained its maps from a company which had drawn them up for an insurance company. This causes obvious conflicts of interest because where there is a flood risk one will have insurance claims.
I have raised many points and I do not expect the witnesses to comprehensively deal with them immediately. I will submit them in writing and I would like to receive replies.