Jim O'Keeffe
Ceist:94 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the position in relation to commonage here; the total area involved; and his policy approach to the division thereof. [5039/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraWednesday, 18 February 2004
Ceisteanna (25)
Freagraí ó Béal (9 píosaí cainte)
The area of land held in common throughout the country is estimated to be in excess of 500,000 hectares. For the most part, this land is privately owned and, as with other privately owned land, decisions affecting its structure are a matter for the owners or shareholders. The Department provided for some time a commonage division and re-arrangement service, but this was discontinued in 1998 following a review of its operation.
I am interested to know why the practice was discontinued. What was the policy behind that decision? I am surprised there is so much commonage. The Minister's figures seem to suggest there are more than 1 million acres of commonage. What is the Government's view on commonage and disease control? Is the existence of such a large amount of commonage considered helpful from the point of view of disease control or is the inevitable inter-mixing of animals considered to be a factor in that regard? Is the Government adopting a policy of neutrality on the issue of division?
I presume the Deputy is aware that much of this work was carried out by the Land Commission for a long number of years. It provided technical and legal assistance free of charge to farmers who wished to divide commonage land into individually held plots or to carry out a voluntary exchange of plots of land to improve the layout of their farms. The experience in my constituency was limited, but it was a headache for the Department and people, including public representatives, in the west, for example.
In 1998 the Department took the decision to withdraw from voluntary commonage division but to complete, where possible, cases which were already in hand. There was a combination of factors which led to the decision to terminate this service. These included a lack of staff resources for commonage division work which resulted in an unsatisfactory level for other farmers, and participation in REPS, which will answer the Deputy's question about disease control, because it was considered to be a more environmentally acceptable solution to the problem of overgrazing than the division of commonage. The demand for commonage partition reduced considerably following the introduction of REPS because commonage land attracted special payments. Much commonage is not suitable for division due to the nature of the terrain and the need for sheep, in particular, to graze over an extensive terrain.
Approximately 80% of commonage is mountain commonage and is mainly located in areas known as special areas of conservation. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has responsibility for these areas. Due to their status as wild, remote and long-established natural places for flora and fauna, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government does not wish SACs to be harmed or converted to damaging or intensive agricultural usage. The operation of the commonage division or "plottery" arrangements is not contingent on the involvement of the Department of Agriculture and Food.
It has always been open to shareholders to arrange privately for the division of their commonage where all were in favour of it. There were good reasons for the Department to exempt itself from being involved. Given the utilisation of resources, Department policy is to allow shareholders to make their own arrangements about commonage division. The level of personnel required and the expense which a wholesale scheme of sub-division would impose on the taxpayer are also important considerations.
I take it from the Minister of State's reply that this is an extension of the Government's principle of neutrality because it is allowing the issue to remain as it is. Perhaps that is the right approach. There are advantages from the point of view of REPS and mountain sheep grazing. However, I am concerned about disease control. Does the Minister of State accept there may be a problem with disease control when cattle mix on commonage? How can that be addressed?
It is usually sheep which graze on most of the commonage of which I am aware.
I accept that, but it is not always only sheep.
That would be exceptional. Cattle are controlled in the normal way. The Department has strict controls. I dealt with a case recently where two farmers from the same family tried to operate together in a commonage area with cattle and the Department imposed strict regulations.
As regards REPS, the number of sheep on commonage has been significantly reduced. There is an attractive package for farmers if they avail of REPS. However, part of the deal is that they must take the sheep from the mountains. The position has improved considerably from what it was some years ago. That reflects other factors, such as the level of controls imposed.
The CMMS measures and other tracking and traceability systems mean there is not a problem with cattle. I am not aware of any cases where it has happened. The opposite is so in the cases I have dealt with in the Department.
My experience of commonage issues relates to Ring commons in north County Dublin, otherwise known as the Bog of the Ring. Is it possible to take any action against dumping on commonage, which is a problem, or illegally fencing it off in the hope that such action will not be contested? Is the Department aware of that issue? Does it have advice for people who can legitimately use the commonage areas but are thwarted from doing so either by illegal dumping or fencing?
I am not aware of the matters to which the Deputy refers, but I understand his point. That is a matter for the local authority and Dúchas. If the Deputy gives me the details, I will be happy to follow the matter up with these organizations.
A section of the Land Act 1939 makes provision for fencing, but it is a very complicated process. If the Deputy gives me the details I will come back to him with a response on that matter.