Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 18 Nov 1997

Vol. 482 No. 8

Other Questions. - Special Areas of Conservation.

Michael Ring

Ceist:

20 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food whether farmers whose lands are in environmentally sensitive areas will have to join the REP scheme to secure their headage and premia schemes; if so, the number of farmers who will be affected; the numbers affected for each county; the restrictions, if any, of this measure for farms exceeding the one hundred acre limit; and if he will give details of the improved REP scheme package being made available to farmers in 1998 for environmentally sensitive areas. [19535/97]

I presume the Deputy is referring to special areas of conservation and overgrazed areas. Under the terms of an agreement reached with the farm bodies in February this year, farmers with lands designated as special areas of conservation or overgrazed areas must farm in accordance with an approved agri-environmental plan. Farmers will have the option of participating in either a REP scheme operated by my Department or a national scheme operated by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands.

The proposed package for SACs and overgrazed areas will provide for payment of ewe premia and headage to farmers in these areas dependent on their following an approved agri-environmental plan under either scheme. The introduction of this requirement is conditional upon the satisfactory completion of current negotiations between my Department and the European Commission on the revised REPS package.

It is estimated that there are approximately 10,000 farmers in the SACs and overgrazed areas combined. The designation process for SACs is not yet complete and, therefore, it is not possible to give a breakdown by county.

It is a condition of REPS that the participating farmer includes all his lands and carries out his/her farming activities in accordance with the agri-environmental plan and in compliance with the scheme conditions.

The improved REPS package is under negotiation with the European Commission. I will make an announcement as soon as agreement is reached on this package.

Has the Minister reached an agreement with the EU concerning farmers who lease commonage? It is an ongoing problem and the largest percentage of unpaid farmers is in Mayo. Will it be compulsory for farmers in NHAs and SACs to be in a REP scheme to receive headage payments? Will the people who have genuine commonage which has been in their name or their family name for generations receive their REPS payments?

Anyone in a lease under the old system will continue to be paid. The EU agreement is not yet finalised. It will be compulsory to be in the REP and headage payments schemes. That is part of an agreement with the EU. Europe is insisting on cross compliance and it has been agreed by member states. It affects about 10,000 farmers, of whom 300 are already in the REP scheme. The improved package will mean substantial payments to encourage farmers into cross compliance which will help in every area. The Deputy's last question referred to leased commonage.

I am talking about those with genuine commonage in their name.

I am aware that there are problems in this area. For example, in my area of Slievenamon, there is no official title or right to commonage but families have been there for three and four generations drawing subsidies.

Rightly so.

I do not disagree with the Deputy. Unfortunately, an EU audit in August this year raised a question. We have to look carefully at the situation. It has to be recognised that the REP scheme alone will involve an increase of 43 per cent, from £101 million to £145 million. This shows the trend. This is supplemented by £11 million from the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and a further £3 million in turbary rights on bogs. A huge amount of money is coming in. It is important that people are encouraged to enter cross compliance and that we get this money for them and for those areas for which there is no other source of income. Hopefully, at the end of the REP scheme agreement we are finalising with the EU, there will be a good deal of detail and money for people going under cross compliance. Environmentally it will be a perfect situation.

I am a great supporter of the REP scheme. It increases farmers' incomes and reduces stock numbers in overgrazed areas which is environmentally beneficial. Deputy Ring's question referred to the improved REP scheme. However, I do not think the new scheme will be an improvement.

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle:

The Deputy should ask a question.

Will the new REP scheme stipulate that the amount of hill commonage a farmer is allowed to use against his lowland commonage will be 2:1? Is the Minister of State aware that this would be very disadvantageous to hill sheep farmers, particularly those in Connemara and Mayo, who have a lot more hill than lowland commonage? This can be as much as 5:1, 6:1 and even 10:1. Where farmers are reducing their stock numbers on commonage, will the new scheme mean that the stocking base rate will be taken as an average of all those with shareholdings in a commonage whether or not they ever had stock on that commonage? The present scheme stipulates that those with stock on the commonage can be allowed a stocking rate for the commonage and can reduce accordingly. Are these changes proposed? If they are proposed, is the Minister of State aware that they would have serious repercussions for the REP scheme in the overstocked areas of Connemara and Mayo?

I disagree with the Deputy that the new REP scheme will not be an improvement. I have already announced some of the improvements to the tune of 43 per cent for my own Department, £11 million from the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands.

That is for extra numbers. There will not be enough money for the new people.

If it is based on the foundation on which the Deputy got his figure of 2:1, I will give him 9:1 that he is wrong. The Deputy's information is incorrect on both counts.

In refusing applicants entry to the REP scheme the Department of Agriculture and Food has used terms such as "environmental gain", which refers to farming in commonage areas. However, farming of any importance cannot take place, especially on the west coast, without the inclusion of such areas under a REP scheme. How can the Department refuse applicants on the basis that no environmental gain will accrue? What will an applicant have to do or refrain from doing to maintain environmental gain? Is it a new cliché introduced by the Department to refuse payment to an applicant under the REP scheme? The Minister of State may be familiar with the case in question.

While I do not wish to discuss specific cases, not even the farming organisations accept the case in question. The Deputy does not appear to accept it either.

What about the environmental gain aspect?

Applicants will join the scheme on the basis that they will stop overgrazing in many areas that are being destroyed and will give plants and grass a chance to regenerate. Last August the EU audit ascertained that, before money was provided under the REP scheme, nothing was being done in commonage areas because there were no water courses requiring protection and no stone walls, fences or ditches to be restored. In view of this, the best approach was to get into the SAC areas, where payments are made to bring down the animal population of the overgrazed areas. Substantial payments have been made in compensation for not overgrazing in areas.

I agree with the comments made by the Minister of State regarding the environmental aspects of the case. Some farmers in the designated regions under the agri-environmental scheme are worried about the rules and regulations, which, if fully implemented, would result in an environmentally friendly countryside without farmers. This may have arisen because the Department of Agriculture and Food did not draw up these rules and regulations. Will the Minister of State assure farmers they will be able to undertake their normal duties while complying with the provisions of this scheme?

The money under the REP scheme is provided to help participants farm in an environmentally friendly manner. Conditions apply with regard to fertilisers.

What about the agri-environmental scheme?

Both schemes are related, which is why money is being made available. Some assume it is money for jam; it is not. The money is made available to undertake work necessary to farm properly and to keep costs down. Some of the money will be a help towards the incomes of applicants. It is not applicable to those engaged in intensive farming but to those who need alternative enterprises, or who may not be able to afford to farm intensively because of the condition of their land. It is a growing scheme. There are currently 30,000 farmers in the REP scheme; we hope there will be 43,000 in the scheme by the end of 1999. We are looking for a ten year extension for the scheme from Brussels, which will allow us develop a major plan. There is no point in allowing people slip out of the system after five years — they should be paid for a further ten years. It is well known that Commissioner Fischler is very enthusiastic about environmental farming.

Has the issue of lease commonage been sorted out by the Department of Agriculture and Food, and has it been agreed by Europe? In Mayo there were 70 cases of farmers who leased commonage and did not get paid.

I thought Deputy Cooper-Flynn clearly announced to everyone in Mayo that that had been done.

I am asking the Minister of State for the answer.

It has been agreed.

Deputy Cooper-Flynn also announced that 100 per cent of the headage payments had been made when they had not.

She did not.

The Minister of State, without interruption.

The Minister of State referred to £3 million for turbary rights. Will he elaborate on that?

Under the new national scheme to be operated by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, £3 million will be available this year for payment of turbary rights.

Barr
Roinn