5. Case Studies

This document contains large tables and images which may take several minutes to load.

The Heritage Council asked the consultants to examine a number of key aspects of Irish farming which illustrate how agricultural schemes and payments influence the management of the natural heritage, with an emphasis on biodiversity and wildlife habitats. In each case study, the consultants sought to identify the key factors which influence how farmers manage the agricultural environment. These factors may include agricultural schemes and payments, which are the focus of this study, but may also include such aspects as price and market supports, taxation policies, and technological development.

The following case studies were carried out:

5.1. Sheep Farming in North-West Mayo

The brief given by the Heritage Council was for a desk study and literature review only, since the Council felt that the situation of overgrazing in the West of Ireland has already received much attention, and a more in-depth examination would be unlikely to reveal further useful information, given the scope and extent of this study.

5.1.1. Brief Description of Case Study Area

The main agricultural activity in the hill areas of North-West Mayo is sheep farming, which has replaced the traditional cattle and mixed farming systems. Sheep farming in the region is based on grazing of commonages, where the sheep spend most, if not all of their time. Very little improved land exists. Commonage is owned jointly by shareholders, who have a share of the commonage which entitles them to graze a certain amount of livestock, depending on their share. The most important agricultural payments are the Ewe Premium (supplemented by the Rural World Premium) and the Compensatory Headage Scheme (see Chapter 2 for details of these schemes). Sheep farmers in North-West Mayo and other western counties are dependent on the above agricultural payments for most of their income.

Much of the area is remote and hilly, and large areas of semi-natural, unreclaimed land remain. Most of this is commonage. Blanket peat predominates over most of the region, interspersed by small areas of mineral soils in lowland areas and on the coast. A high proportion of the commonage and unafforested hill land is proposed for designation as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). Extensive commercial forestry plantations cover the remaining areas of blanket peat.

Dúchas has acquired a substantial land holding in the Owenduff catchment (7,935 ha), which is eventually expected to form a National Park. Dúchas also owns several blanket bog Nature Reserves, including Glenamoy (403 ha), Knockmoyle Sheskin (1,863 ha), and Owenboy (596 ha).

The following actors were interviewed:

Siobhán Sheil, Chief Environmental Officer, North-Western Regional Fisheries Board;
Philip McGinnity, Salmon Research Agency;
Gerry Gunnin, Executive Officer, National Rural Development Committee, IFA;
Denis Strong, Wildlife Ranger, Dúchas;
Catriona Douglas, Research Scientist, Dúchas Head Office, Dublin;
Patrick Warner, Dúchas Head Office, Dublin.

5.1.2. Literature Review: Environmental Impacts of Overgrazing

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) survey of water quality from 1991 to 1994 (Bowman et al. 1996) mentions overgrazing as a ‘relatively recent problem causing grave concern ... by unsustainable populations of sheep in the west of Ireland’. ‘Considerable areas of upland commonage have been denuded of vegetation and the ensuing peat and soil erosion had led to siltation of lakes and rivers, the development of algal/peat complexes on river beds and increased peat staining and turbidity of waters’. The hydrology of river catchments has been altered due to the loss of vegetation and erosion of peat cover, which severely reduces the ability of the peatlands to damp fluctuations in flows. Rivers and streams are thus more prone to drying out and flooding than before, leading to increased stream bed erosion, siltation and substratum instability. The EPA report concludes that ‘the ensuing environmental disruption causes a loss of biodiversity, damages salmonid productivity, reduces amenity value and jeopardises tourism.’ The impacts of overgrazing on aquatic systems, including research undertaken by the Salmon Research Agency, are in considered in detail in Bowman et al. (1996); they are summarised thus:

• Scouring effect
• Increased instability of substrata
• Peat siltation
• River bed peat/algal mats
• High bacterial counts (from sheep faeces) and eutrophication (from nutrients in sheep faeces)
• Increased peat staining and reduced light penetration affecting primary production
• Impacts on water balance in catchments

The Salmon Research Agency, based at Lough Furnace, near Newport in Co. Mayo, has carried out some research on the impacts of overgrazing on the aquatic environment in the Burrishoole catchment, which includes Lough Feeagh and Lough Furnace. The results are summarised below:

The EPA's State of the Environment in Ireland (Stapleton, 1996) reports that ‘gross overstocking of sheep arose as a result of EU-funded livestock headage payments ...’, which resulted in extensive overgrazing problems in Ireland. ‘Overgrazing particularly affects peatlands, heaths and coastal habitats, with the loss of characteristic and rare flora and fauna. It is most noticeable in the ... mountainous regions of Counties Donegal, Mayo, Galway and Kerry’.

In an unpublished report commissioned by the former National Parks and Wildlife Service - now called Dúchas - it was found that out of 66 lowland blanket bogs surveyed in Co. Mayo, 38% were overgrazed and several had been almost denuded of vegetation cover (Douglas, 1994).

MacGowan and Doyle (1996) found that overgrazing on western blanket bog results in a ‘decrease in vegetation cover, a depletion of bog species, invasion of species alien to the bog habitat, a serious deterioration in the condition of the vegetation that remains, and erosion of peat surfaces’. They describe overgrazing as a social problem since farmers in the affected areas depend on sheep for their livelihood. They go on to state that ‘it is clear that headage payments should be related to the carrying capacity of the blanket bogs’. Their opinion was that grazing could be maintained in areas as yet suffering minor damage, but some areas are so severely affected that withdrawal of sheep is unlikely to lead to a restoration of the bog vegetation in either the short or medium term.

In Irish Wildbird Conservancy (IWC) News, it was reported that important habitats for many of Ireland's upland bird species have been severely damaged as a direct result of excessive sheep stocking densities. Bird species affected most were red grouse, dunlin, golden plover and hen harrier (Murphy, 1995).

Feehan and O'Donovan (1996) stated that the ‘introduction of EU headage payments for sheep has led to stocking rates on blanket bog of up to ten times the normal carrying capacity of the land, which has resulted in rapid and widespread erosion of the vegetation and the underlying peat. In the more vulnerable parts of Kerry, Donegal and Mayo the bog has been churned up into deserts of black slime.’

Bleasdale and Sheehy Skeffington (1992) have shown that excessive grazing pressure on blanket bog in Connemara can result in a loss of species diversity and a change from heather-dominated plant communities to grass-dominated communities, particularly purple moor grass (Molinia caerulea) and mat grass (Nardus stricta).

In a study of sheep overgrazing in the Nephin Begs, Weir (1996) states that sheep numbers increased dramatically in Ireland, related directly to the introduction of the Ewe Premium in 1980. In her research areas of North West Mayo, sheep numbers rose by 150 to 300 per cent. The study involved comparison of aerial photographs from the 1970s and 1995 in the Lough Feeagh area (near Newport, Co. Mayo) which showed that erosion increased dramatically in the Burrishoole catchment and surrounding areas. The study concluded that this erosion was related directly to overstocking of sheep.

The Irish Peatland Conservation Council has listed a number of peatland sites damaged due to overgrazing in its Conservation Plan (Foss and O'Connell, 1996). The peatland sites damaged in Co. Mayo, listed as Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) by Dúchas, are set out below.

Among the sites listed is one which is partly in State ownership, the Owenduff/ Nephin complex, planned as the 'core' of a possible future National Park. The three sites which have no NHA code were listed as Areas of Scientific Interest (Wildlife Service, 1989) but which, having been re-surveyed, were found to have lost their conservation value due to overgrazing.

Geerling and Gestel (1997), in their study of erosion in the West of Ireland, presented the following findings:

I.	Of the total area of south Mayo and Connemara (including the Sheefreys and Mweelrea complex) surveyed 12% was degraded or very seriously degraded due to overstocking of sheep.
II.	Of the uplands, 27% was degraded or seriously degraded. Several sites hardly had any plant cover.
III.	Many sources indicated that this stage of extensive damage was reached during the last 10 to 15 years.
IV.	Since 1980, sheep numbers in the West of Ireland have more than doubled.
V.	Areas not seriously degraded did not show up on aerial photographs, and therefore a greater area is probably affected by overgrazing than the above figures indicate.
VI.	The maximum stocking density is recommended as 0.58 sheep per ha In the study area, sheep farmers currently have about 2.1 ha on land classified as pasture or rough grazing. Thus, stocking densities are well above recommended levels for sustainable grazing.
VII.	Land degradation under high stocking rates leads to a severe decrease in sheep sales, but the total income for sheep farmers is hardly affected since headage and premium payments are made on a per ewe basis. This makes high ewe stocking attractive, even though this leads to land degradation.

In 1996, a study was commissioned by the Regional Fisheries Boards of the North, North-West, West and South-West Regions to survey the extent of overgrazing along the western seaboard. This study was due to be completed by the beginning of 1997 but is still awaiting final completion (Siobán Sheil, pers. comm.).

5.1.3. Operation of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS)

The main policy instrument used to counteract overgrazing is the REPS, introduced in 1994. A Supplementary Measure of the REPS was made available in all commonage areas designated by the Department of Agriculture and Food as Degraded Areas. The entire western half of Co. Mayo is designated as such. Apart from adhering to the code of practice in the basic REPS, the main conditions of the supplementary measure were to avoid grazing on degraded commonages from November 1 to April 30 each year for the five years of the scheme, have a sheep quota, and be an owner or leaseholder of a share of commonage identified as 'Degraded'. The payment was about £22 per ha. Farmers were also offered the option of a 'headage payment' for removing sheep from degraded commonages of £31 per livestock unit, plus a reduced area payment of about £11 per livestock unit removed, for a maximum of 40 ha However, the 'headage payments' were restricted to 30% of livestock units on which livestock premiums were paid, or 45 livestock units per farmer, whichever was the lesser. Until 1996, the incentives were insufficient to persuade sheep farmers to enter the scheme, since there were better incentives under the competing Ewe Premium and Compensatory Headage schemes.

In 1996, the Department of Agriculture responded by making the REPS incentives more financially attractive, and a number of management options were made available (DoA, 1996). Farmers who participated in the Degraded Areas Supplementary Measure had to either (a) not exceed the carrying capacity of their share of the commonage or (b) not exceed the carrying capacity of the commonage from May to October and remove all stock from November to April. Farmers received a headage payment of about £160 per ha for each livestock unit removed from the flock below their quotas in 1995. If they received a headage payment, they also received a reduced area payment. There were four management options available, with different payment rates, and a group incentive, designed to encourage two or more REPS participants. According to a Department of Agriculture and Food press statement at the time, a farmer with a 200 ewe quota who reduced to 100 ewes, would have been £3,500 better off under scheme. However, only 216 farmers participated in the Degraded Areas measure up to March 1997, covering a total area of 7,606 ha, most of which are in Mayo.

5.1.4. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the REPS (up to February 1998)

This is an evaluation of the REPS as it has operated from 1994 to 1997, and does not include the recently introduced measures described in Chapter 5.1.5 below. The poor uptake of the REPS Degraded Areas measure since its introduction was due to concern among sheep farmers that incomes might be adversely affected if they were to reduce sheep numbers below their quotas. The Ewe Premium was seen as a guaranteed payment from the CAP Guarantee Fund, whereas the REPS was only scheduled to run for five years from 1994-1999. In comparison, forestry premium payments could be made for a maximum of 20 years. In addition, it is well known that self-regulation of commonage is notoriously difficult. Where a number of shareholders own and graze stock on commonage, disagreements may prevent a cooperative approach to grazing management. Some shareholders may not have wanted to join the REPS, which meant that the remaining shareholders would have felt at a disadvantage if they reduced stock numbers to comply with the REPS and the non-participating farmers did not. This problem was exacerbated by Ewe Premium and Headage Payments which are paid per animal, and not paid to sustainable stocking rates. A group incentive in the revised REPS of 1996 was an attempt to address this difficulty, but it appears not to have had the desired effect. Interviews with Dúchas, the Salmon Research Agency, the North-Western Regional Fisheries Board and several REPS planners confirm that overgrazing remains a problem in Mayo and that there are no signs of rejuvenation in badly affected areas, except for several very small areas which were fenced to exclude sheep.

According to Denis Strong, the Wildlife Ranger for North-West Mayo, the overgrazing situation as of February 1998 remains serious, and there were no signs that the REPS Degraded Areas measure has resulted in any noticeable improvements. A number of exclosure experiments on state-owned land were conducted by Dúchas in the Nephin range, beginning in 1994. The exclusion of sheep in nine plots measuring about 5 metres by 5 metres has apparently resulted in a dramatic recovery. A baseline study of each of the exclosures was conducted by a research student, and the results can therefore be monitored. One such plot, which had 75% bare ground recovered in about two years to the extent that 75% of the plot had become re-vegetated. No botanical details were available at the time of writing.

The opinions of several REPS planners are that, if anything, the situation of overgrazing in North-West Mayo has deteriorated. Until the introduction of cross-compliance (see Section 5.1.5) larger sheep farmers, which own most of the sheep grazing the commonages, have been uninterested in the REPS. The reason appears to be that de-stocking is not attractive to them. These farmers are usually industrious and have spent time and energy building up their flocks, and sheep farming is a full-time occupation. Voluntarily reducing their flock size would mean that they would effectively make themselves redundant. Most of the sheep farmers participating in the REPS in West Mayo up until 1997 were either not grazing commonages or had very small numbers of sheep. Finally, most sheep farmers grazing commonages in North-West Mayo have very little enclosed land for sheep in winter. Most of the sheep belonging to the larger farmers are reported to be grazing the commonages in winter, mainly because there is nowhere else for them to go.

The proposed cross-compliance measures in Degraded Areas/SACs (see Chapter 5.1.5) are accepted by sheep farmers in the area with a certain amount of trepidation, according to the IFA. Sheep farmers feel vulnerable to any policy changes because at present, about 100% of their income is through Ewe Premiums and Headage Payments; sales of produce are only sufficient to meet their costs. Their sense of vulnerability is accentuated by the 40% drop in Ewe Premiums in 1996/7. This is perhaps the starkest example of the dependency of farmers on agricultural payment schemes over which they have little control. It is therefore somewhat easier to understand why there has been so much reluctance among sheep farmers in Mayo to embrace the REPS.

5.1.5. Revised Measures to Counteract Overgrazing (April 1998)

Environmental cross-compliance was introduced for the first time in 1998 by the Department of Agriculture and Food, in liaison with Dúchas, to counteract overgrazing. From 1998, sheep farmers who graze sheep in degraded commonages which are also designated as SACs will only receive Ewe Premiums and Compensatory Headage Allowances if they agree to enter the REPS or the SAC scheme administered by Dúchas. The REPS measures for SACs/NHAs have been revised, with improved annual payments (see Chapter 2.2.2). The catalyst for this relatively radical departure from existing policy is the designation of proposed candidate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the EU Habitats Directive. The directive stipulates measures which the Government must put in place to protect SACs against environmental damage (see Chapter 1.3).

Sheep farmers feel vulnerable to any changes to agriculture payments, especially since these comprise most, if not all of their income. The Irish Farmers' Association supports the cross-compliance measures only because a package of measures was sufficiently financially worthwhile for the sheep farmers affected. Agreement was reached between the IFA and the Department of Agriculture and Food that the new REPS package would run for 15 years, in order to give some confidence to farmers that compensatory measures would continue to be available. REPS annual payments for farmers in NHAs (of which SACs are a sub-set) have also been increased significantly: farmers can now receive £190 per ha up to 40 ha and there are extra payments up to 120 ha The SAC scheme will be available for farmers who do not wish to join the REPS, and they will have to show that losses will be incurred by the restrictions imposed by the SAC designation. These restrictions are set out in the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997. It is estimated that about 3,000 to 4,000 farmers could be affected, but accurate figures are not available for Co. Mayo.

At the time of writing, Dúchas is planning to survey degraded commonages in the West of Ireland. It is not yet clear if the commonages to be surveyed all lie within SACs or if every degraded commonage will be surveyed. The survey is part of the overall approach to management of SACs. The commonages will be categorised as either severely overgrazed, moderately overgrazed or not overgrazed, and REPS planners will base their management prescriptions on this categorisation. Dúchas will appoint and train ten teams of two consultants, one agriculturalist and one ecologist, and monitor their performance (Frank Rath, Dept. of Agriculture and Food; Pat Warner, Dúchas, pers. comm.).

The issue of training for REPS planners is important in this context, since the REPS does not set out precise stocking rates for sustainable grazing; this is left up to the REPS planner, but within certain limits as specified by the commonage survey. Previously, REPS planners who lacked ecological qualifications prepared REPS plans. However, according to the Department of Agriculture and Food, REPS plans for degraded commonages which are also part of SACs will need to be signed by an agriculturalist and a qualified ecologist.

It will only be possible to evaluate this latest official policy measure to counteract overgrazing after at least several years, and if a decision is made at Departmental level to re-survey the affected areas. The effectiveness of the measure will depend on the stocking rates prescribed by REPS planners, the input of qualified ecologists and regular monitoring to ensure that the measures prescribed for each commonage are being adhered to.

5.1.6. Proposed Policy Changes

The EU's Agenda 2000 proposes that Compensatory Headage Allowances be paid on an area basis rather than on a per animal basis. This is a significant policy change from a system first introduced in 1975, and which is considered an important socio-economic measure for disadvantaged farmers. The Agenda 2000 proposals are being debated in 1998 and it is not yet clear if the Government will accept the proposed change. If the proposal is accepted, it should provide a further disincentive to over-stock hill areas with sheep. The new Compensatory Allowances proposed under Agenda 2000 can take into account the costs to and income foregone by farmers resulting from their obligations under environmental legislation. (Agenda 2000 is discussed in more detail in Chapter 9).

5.1.7. Conclusions

5.2. Land Reclamation and Intensification in the Burren Region - NHAs, SACs and the REPS

 5.2.1. Description of Case Study Area

The Burren area is a classic example of a limestone karst landscape. It is characterised by a scarcity of soil cover, a scarcity of surface streams and a rugged topography. Karst features in the Burren also include small-scale surface solution forms, dolines, dry valleys, poljes, turloughs, swallow holes and extensive cave systems and underground rivers. The Burren uplands cover an area of 367 km2 consisting of a rocky limestone plateau largely between 120 and 240m with intervening coastal and drift covered lowland areas. Bordering this area to the East are even more extensive Burren lowlands with considerable expanses of fen, bog, alluvium and drift, calcareous-oligotrophic lake systems and large areas of limestone pavement (Bohnsack, 1996).

The Burren is a cultural landscape which has evolved out of the cultural interaction between man and the environment over a period of almost 6000 years. The region is probably the best limestone karst site in north-western Europe. It is internationally renowned for its floristic, geomorphological and archaeological interest and diversity. Traditional low-input and predominantly pastoral agriculture over many centuries has helped to maintain one of the most important and extensive dry grassland areas as well as what is probably the most important oligotrophic, calcareous system of freshwater lakes in Europe.

In the early 19th century, sheep herding, and to a lesser extent, cattle herding were the predominant farm types. Potatoes, oats, wheat, barley and flax were grown on the small areas of tillage land available. The Great Famine led to large-scale depopulation of the region, and the dominance of cattle herding, which had been more important in pre-historic times, reasserted itself in the Burren.

An unusual variant of transhumance, called ‘winterage’, is practised in the region which involves moving cattle to the uplands in the winter months. Despite the high rainfall on the uplands the permeable limestone remains dry even in the wettest of winters, while the drift-lined valleys tend to become water-logged and susceptible to poaching. The relatively mild winters and free drainage ensure almost year-round grass growths. Winter grazing maintains the species-rich limestone grasslands by controlling competitive grass species which reproduce vegetatively. Flowering and seed-dispersal can take place during the summer months prior to winter grazing (Keane, 1990).

Today, agriculture and tourism are the primary industries in the region. Between 1971 and 1991 the numbers of people employed in the agricultural industry have fallen by between 40% and 50% (Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, 1996). Some key statistics in relation to farming for the Ballyvaughan Rural District, which incorporates most of the Burren upland region, are shown in Table 5.2. The figures highlight the importance of agricultural land use in the region in socio-economic terms.

Land use in the Burren today is dominated by largely grass-based beef cattle rearing and fattening. Up to the 1940s mainly Shorthorns (dual use) were kept. A subsequent shift to dairying established Holstein Friesians in the region. Aberdeen Angus, Herefords and Whiteheads became important breeds as beef cattle. A consumer preference for less fatty meat appears to have encouraged the replacement of these breeds by heavier continental breeds, which are not as well suited to the winterage regime as the breeds which were previously common (Bohnsack, 1992). Sheep rearing has become more important again as an outcome of the EU sheepmeat regime.

Conservation designations

In the 1970s some 3000 hectares of the region were designated as Areas of Scientific Interest (ASI) but there was no statutory protection offered to these sites. Grant-aided developments were screened and grant-aid could be refused on environmental grounds.

In 1995 seven proposed Natural Heritage Areas (pNHA) were designated, covering roughly half of the region and including limestone pavements, calcareous grasslands and heaths, woodlands and scrub on limestone, fens, turloughs, calcareous-oligotrophic lakes and coastal and marine habitats. In order to protect the ecological integrity of the aquifer and wetlands systems of the eastern Burren, large tracts of more intensively managed surrounding agricultural lands were also included. As was the case with the ASIs, the NHAs did not have a legal status and substantial delays in the amendment of the Wildlife Act 1976 prevented the formalising of the consultation processes on grant applications and planning applications between the grant-aiding bodies and the NPWS. Again, applications for grant-aided developments were screened but there was no screening process for developments that were carried out without national or EU grant aid.

In 1997 a sub-set of the pNHAs - most of the areas not included were coastal areas - were listed as proposed Candidate Special Areas of Conservation (pCSAC) under the European Habitats Directive. With the enactment of the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 199738 the sites were given a level of legal protection. The designation covers habitat types and species listed in the Annexes of the EU Habitats Directive. The Burren region hosts extensive areas of 'priority habitat types of community importance' such as limestone pavements, orchid-rich calcareous grassland and turloughs.

Additionally there are some 1300 hectares in state ownership as statutory Nature Reserves and in the Burren National Park.

5.2.2. Interviews

The following actors were interviewed:

Mr. Adrian Browne, Department of Agriculture and Food, Farm Development Service, Ennis, Co. Clare;
Mr. Michael McGrath, Teagasc, Ennis, Co. Clare;
Mr. Maurice Harvey, Chairman, Irish Creamery and Milk Suppliers Association (ICMSA) Rural Development Committee, Ennistymon, Co. Clare;
Mr. Michael O'Donoghue, Irish Farmers Association (IFA) and Burren REPS farmer, Tubber, Co. Clare;
Mr. Hugh Robson, Irish Organic Farmers & Growers Association (IOFGA) and Burren REPS farmer, Carron, Co. Clare;
Dr. Enda Mooney, Deputy Regional Wildlife Officer and Congella McGuire, Ranger, Burren National Park, Corofin, Co. Clare;
Mr. Mike Fitzsimons, Shannon Regional Fisheries Board, Limerick;
Ms. Sinead Keane, Botanist and former REPS Planner, Ennis, Co. Clare;
Mr. Patrick Carrucan, REPS Planner and farmer, Fanore, Co. Clare;
A local REPS farmer.

5.2.3. Environmental Impacts of Reclamation and Intensification

Land reclamation

A clear distinction has to be made between small-scale scrub clearance without subsequent intensification of agricultural management - which can be desirable from the ecological point of view in preventing the encroachment of scrub on calcareous grasslands of high conservation value - and large-scale bulldozing with heavy machinery with subsequent intensification. It is the latter that is being addressed here.

In their study of land reclamation in the Burren, Drew & McGee (1994) differentiated between 'limited' and 'intensive' reclamation. While 'limited' reclamation involved the removal of stone walls and hedgerows in order to increase field size, 'intensive' reclamation comprised clearance and levelling of fields, spreading of top soil from adjacent drift patches or drumlins, re-seeding with rye-grass, clover and timothy, and increased fertiliser applications. Land reclamation often affected better agricultural land, which had been invaded by scrub, but it also impacted upon limestone grassland on very thin and patchy soils, which had been used as rough grazing or winterage. Between 1981 and 1991 alone some 1370 ha or 3.65% of the entire Burren were reclaimed, with some 70% of the reclamation being intensive. Between May 1994 and early 1996 a further 59 sites were reclaimed with a total area of approximately 256 hectare. Of these, 31 sites were located within the proposed NHAs. Almost three kilometres of hedgerows and dry-stone walls were removed during this process (Drew, 1996). The reclaimed sites identified in the surveys by Drew & McGee (1994) and Drew (1996) are shown in Figure 5.2.

The direct effects of intensive land reclamation involve an irreversible (in the human timescale) change in soil structure and floristic and faunistic diversity as well as a loss, in some cases, of geological and archaeological material.

Reasons for land reclamation

Based on the results of the interviews and the literature review, there would appear to be a number of different reasons or combinations of reasons which lead to the decision to carry out land reclamation.

Changing farming practices

Farming practices have changed. Under the traditional winterage system cattle were not given supplementary feed and by the spring were browsing on the scrub, thus keeping it in check. Additionally, the cattle outwintered were of hardier breeds and were older animals than is the case today. Goats were kept on most farms and helped to control the scrub. While there are still large numbers of goats in feral herds in the region their distribution is not as dispersed as it would have been when they were kept on individual holdings.

Less manpower

The size of farms has increased considerably in recent decades. Less manpower is available for the management of farmland, rendering manual control of scrub impractical. Also, scrub control with handtools is regarded as being inappropriate since roots are not removed and re-growth occurs.

Farm improvement schemes

The removal of scrub was one of the measures grant-aided under the Farm Modernisation Scheme (FMS) and according to Drew & Magee (1994) some 273 ha of land in the Burren was improved under the scheme between 1974 and 1983. The FMS was supplemented by the Programme for Western Development (PWD) and it has been estimated ‘that 70% of land reclamation undertaken in the Burren was carried out under the PWD’ (Casey, J. Department of Agriculture and Food, Ennis, pers. comm. to Drew & Magee, 1994). Land reclamation was also one of the measures grant-aided under the Farm Improvement Programme (FIP), introduced in 1986, but figures on land reclamation in the region which may have been grant-aided under this programme could not be obtained. According to A. Browne there has been very little grant-aided reclamation in the Burren and he recalls only about five cases in the past three years. This would indicate that most of the work in recent years has been carried out privately without grant-aid.

Economic factors

The cost of reclamation varies, depending on the intensity of the measures carried out. Figures of £800/ha (mid-eighties), more than £1000 (late eighties) and £1700/ha (recent) were quoted. Mr. M. Harvey expressed the view that reclamation in the high Burren is not justifiable on economic grounds. A case which was repeatedly cited in the interviews was that of a landowner from outside the area who bulldozed a large area of orchid-rich limestone grassland in the north-eastern Burren. Several interviewees speculated that the cost of this reclamation could be recovered in part by writing them off against taxes in the owners' other areas of activity. According to Mr. P. Carrucan the most likely factor encouraging reclamation would appear to be the fact that it creates additional forage area which enables farmers to keep higher numbers of stock which in turn increases headage and premia payments under the relevant schemes and may compensate for the cost of reclamation in the long term.

Two potential factors which might have influenced land reclamation are described below. These were discussed locally in the context of the preparation of the Draft Strategy for the North Clare Area commissioned by the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht in 1995. These factors were raised with the interviewees, but it was not possible to determine the extent of their impact upon decisions to carry out land reclamation.

Extensification Premium

The EU Extensification Premium for suckler cows and male cattle may have encouraged some of the land reclamation in recent years. The annual premium is £30 per head is conditioned by a stocking density of max. 1.4 LU/ha42 forage area. In order to qualify for the premia a farmer whose stocking density is above these levels has four options: (i) de-stock, (ii) forego any premia on the excess animals, (iii) declare tillage areas as forage areas or (iv) increase the forage area. Areas with rocky outcrop are assessed on a percentage basis of their grass cover and bare rock areas, scrub and woodland are excluded from the forage area. The reclamation of scrubland and limestone pavement could therefore theoretically increase the eligible forage area for area aid purposes, thus reducing stocking density. However, the area aid system was only introduced with the 1992 CAP reform and can therefore not be held accountable for earlier reclamation. Furthermore, much of the 'intensive' reclamation has been carried out by owners of very large holdings where the reclamation even of several hectares would not alter their status with respect to the Extensification Premia.

Anticipation of restrictions in SACs

There has also been speculation as to whether some of the reclamation in NHAs was carried out in order to pre-empt forthcoming restrictions under the new SAC designations.

Intensification

Reclamation of the kind outlined above generally leads to intensification. Improved grass mixtures and increased inorganic fertiliser applications facilitate the substitution of silage for hay, earlier cutting dates as well as the achieving of higher grass yields. This in turn enables farmers to increase stocking densities in the low-lying pastures. The increasing numbers of livestock on the upland winterage are accommodated by longer winter grazing periods and supplementary feeding of silage, hay and concentrates, leading to higher nutrient inputs on the uplands. Alternatively, only parts of the herds are outwintered and the remainder housed for the winter, generally in slatted houses. This new trend gives rise to further problems as there is very little grassland in the region on which slurry application can be made without the significant risk of groundwater pollution. The overall livestock density in the region increased from c.0.45 LU/ha to c.0.52 LU/ha between 1980 and 1991, due to an increase in numbers of cattle (+11%) and sheep (+52%). These increases are not spread evenly across all farms and stocking densities have increased significantly on some of the more intensively managed holdings (Bohnsack, 1996).

Water quality problems in the Burren region have been studied by Drew (1990, 1995) Coxon (1995). The characteristics of the karst aquifer and the thin or absent soils over much of the region make the groundwater resources in the Burren highly vulnerable to contamination. Silage effluent and septic tank overflow bacterial contamination were identified as the most widespread form of pollution with up to 80% of the water sources being bacterially contaminated for at least part of the time (Drew, 1995). The increasing use of artificial fertilisers on the plateau was indicated as being potentially responsible for the fact that nitrate levels had ‘increased from 0.14mg/l in 1982 to 1.3 mg/l in 1989 in the waters of a spring close to Ailwee Cave which presumably drains part of the summit plateau of Ailwee Hill’. While these nitrate levels are still low in absolute terms, it is the relative change that gives rise to concern. Seasonal pollution by silage effluent of the groundwater in the Bellharbour-Turlough Valley has also been observed. The number of silage clamps on the Burren had increased ten-fold between 1980 and 1990 (Drew, 1990). Drew (1995) estimated that ‘in 1991 some 1800 m3 of silage effluent was generated in the Burren area of which some 57% reached ground water’ with the corresponding figures for 1992 being 2020 m3 and 66%. During Drew's study period (1991-92) there was a marked concentration of silage clamps in the east and particularly the north-east of the region, i.e., in areas which are wholly reliant on groundwater for both public and private supplies. In recent years, however, there has been a marked shift from silage clamps to round bale silage with a considerably reduced pollution risk.

Lough Inchiquin was categorised as a relatively eutrophic lake with high maximum phosphate and chlorophyll values (Allott pers. comm. cited in EPA, 1997). This lake forms part of the Upper Fergus River catchment which accounts for more than a third of the Burren drainage, including areas such as the more intensively managed.

Ballyvaughan and Turlough valleys (Drew, 1990). The extent to which the eutrophic status of this lake might be influenced by the processes of intensification in the Burren requires further investigation. The water quality of the Fergus River was described by the EPA (1997) as being satisfactory on the basis of the latest available results dating from 1991, and the comparison of results of macroinvertebrate surveys between 1971 and 1991 ‘did not show a major change in this naturally enriched river’. Water quality investigations in the lower Fergus catchment in 1993 have shown that while chemical quality was generally satisfactory the bacterial quality gave rise to concern. In 100% of samples taken from nine springs in the catchment in June and December 1993 and in 65% of samples taken from twenty boreholes E. coli was detected (Coxon, 1995).

5.2.4. Operation of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) in Conjunction with NHA and SAC Designations

Development of the REPS in the Burren

The uptake of the REPS in the Burren was initially relatively slow, due in part to uncertainties which existed with regard to management prescriptions to be applied in the NHAs. Following agreement with the EU Commission regarding payments in NHAs, farmers who wished to participate in the REPS had to sign a form of undertaking in which they declared that they would ‘abide by the conditions set down by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) for the proposed NHA on your land’ (Department of Agriculture and Food, 1995a). Since these conditions where not actually agreed before November 1995 farmers were particularly hesitant to join the scheme before this date. NPWS is now part of Dúchas The Heritage Service.

Management Prescriptions in NHAs

Following intensive negotiations between Dúchas, farming organisations, REPS planners and the Department of Agriculture and Food conditions for the conservation of the Burren NHAs under the REPS were agreed, with separate prescriptions for the ‘high Burren’, i.e. the rocky limestone areas and shallow rendzina soils, and the lowland areas on deeper soils. These prescriptions are additional to and in some instances stricter than the prescriptions of the basic REPS.

The conditions for the ‘high Burren’ include:

• No summer grazing on defined winterage areas
• Sustainable stocking densities, to be set by the planner, to prevent both overgrazing and undergrazing
• No introduction of sheep into new areas
• Supplementary feeding only in areas where it is currently practised and no further increase of numbers of animals fed and amount of feed
• An upper limit on the amount of feed and a maximum period of 9 weeks of supplementary feeding between 15 January and 12 April
• Supplementary feedstuff to be supplied in movable feeders in agreed locations where the impact on groundwater as well as on flora is minimised
• No land improvement without the consent of Dúchas except for scrub control with appropriate tools
• No organic or artificial fertiliser and pesticide use (except for spot treatments of noxious weeds)
• No field storage of farmyard manure and accumulations of manure at feeding points to be removed after the winter
• Silage storage in identified ‘safe’ areas from the point of view of groundwater protection

In the Burren lowland areas on deeper soils the following conditions apply:

• Nitrogen and potassium applications based on general REPS prescriptions and intensive soil sampling
• No phosphate applications where soils are above P index 2
• No slurry and manure spreading within 50 m of lakes or winter-flooded areas and a maximum quantity of 25m3 per hectare per application, with 50-75% to be spread before July and the remainder to be spread before the end of October
• No field storage of farmyard manure and removal of accumulations of manure at feeding points after the winter
• No importing of farmyard manure

Management Prescriptions in SACs

Farmers who have some or all of their lands in SACs are being supplied with a map of the area being proposed for designation, a description of the site indicating the reason for its inclusion, an outline list of damaging activities, and information on procedures for objections and appeals as well as on compensation.

The damaging activities are outlined for each habitat type and each species which is covered by the EU Habitats Directive in a list of ‘Notice of Notifiable Actions’. The notifiable actions not be undertaken without the consent of the Minister. In some instances the notifiable actions go beyond the NHA prescriptions under REPS. Dry limestone grasslands, for example, may not be mown before 30 June and hay-meadows on these grasslands must not be converted to silage production or pasture.

Land owners who do not join REPS will be required to manage their SAC lands in accordance with a plan drawn up by Dúchas. A financial package which will compensate for potential losses of income is currently under negotiation with the EU Commission. Thus far the Deputy Regional Wildlife Manager has not been approached by any farmers requesting this Option.

Where a farmer has a current approved plan under the REPS the Minister only needs to be notified of activities not covered in the plan. The nutrient management regime, stocking densities, grazing periods and the supplementary feeding regime etc. are to be implemented as defined in the REPS agri-environmental plan.

REPS Payments in NHAs and SACs in the Burren

The current payment rate for REPS farms with lands covered by NHA designations is £62/acre irrespective of the size of the NHA Destocking payments of ECU 210/LU removed plus a reduced area payment of may apply under certain circumstances. Additional top-up payments for SAC lands had been envisaged but were not accepted by the EU Commission in the proposed form. Instead, on April 29, 1998 a revised REPS package was approved by the EU which will apply in the NHAs (of which the SACs are a sub-set) (Department of Agriculture and Food, 1998a,b). Under the new package, to be termed 'Supplementary Measure A' the payment rates for NHA lands will be as follows:

• £80/acre for the first 100 acres
• £8/acre between 101 and 200 acres
• £6/acre between 201 and 300 acres

The destocking payment will no longer be available for new plans or plans revised after May 1998 (Department of Agriculture and Food, 1998c). It is expected that farmers in NHAs will have the option to either complete their five year plans or to revise their plans in order to opt for the new package (Irish Farmers Journal, 2.5.98). Until the introduction of Supplementary Measure A, applications under Supplementary Measure 1 (NHAs) will continue to be accepted. The new NHA payments will only be made on the proposed or designated NHA lands. It is the consultants' understanding that the Supplementary Measure A payments will be additional to other Supplementary Measure payments, except for Supplementary Measure 6 Organic Farming.

5.2.5. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the REPS, NHA and SAC Designations

Overall evaluation by interviewees

The REPS was regarded as a positive programme by all interviewees. Certain aspects of the scheme and its implementation were criticised and some suggestions as to the improvement of the scheme were made by the interview partners. While opinions varied as to whether the scheme will achieve its environmental objectives there was unanimous agreement that the REPS with the associated NHA and SAC prescriptions has raised the level of awareness and stimulated discussion in the farming community about the environmental problems associated with farming activities in general and in the Burren region in particular. To the wider community it has also highlighted the role of farmers in the management of the cultural landscape and its natural resources.

The economic importance of the scheme for the viability of farm holdings in the region was also stressed by most interview partners and the fact that payments are made up-front rather than in arrears was highlighted as being an important factor in attracting smaller farms with little disposable income.

The high value of payments which are available for the first 40 hectares of any holding in the Burren under the REPS have given rise to a general increase in land prices in the region. Several of the interviewees considered it a negative impact, that these high land prices make it difficult for farmers to enlarge their holdings above the 40 hectare limit on which REPS and NHA payments are payable.

Most of the interview partners felt that there was a great need for an improvement in the provision of information to farmers. Various suggestions for improvement were made including the appointment of a special agricultural advisor who would concentrate on the agri-environmental designations in the Burren or the development of a special advisory body consisting of representatives from the Department of Agriculture and Food, Dúchas and REPS planners which could provide advice on a case-by-case basis.

The fact that, as yet, supplementary payments are only made with respect to one supplementary measure - whichever the highest in monetary terms - was regarded by the farmers and planners interviewed as a weakness of the scheme. It was pointed out, for example, that organic farmers in the scheme forego the NHA top-up payments while still incurring the costs of implementing the obligatory NHA prescriptions. The same is true for the keeping of rare breeds or the provision of access to monuments and historic sites which were considered by the interviewees to be unattractive options for Burren farmers with lands in NHAs. It was suggested that a menu-type approach to the implementation of the REPS supplementary measures be taken in order toadequately reimburse the farmers for each of their chosen undertakings.

Land reclamation is now essentially banned in areas designated as pCSAC. Scrub may be cut but must be allowed to re-grow except where specified otherwise in the REPS agri-environmental plan. There was a unanimous agreement between all interview partners that there should not be a blanket ban on scrub clearance in the Burren.

Uptake

It is difficult to establish exactly how many holdings in the Burren are managed under the REPS as the region is not an administrative unit. Additionally, there are many farmers in the county and in other areas of the country who own or lease winterage areas in the Burren. If these farmers participate in the REPS they will be listed under the address of their main holding. There are 7,500 holdings in Co. Clare of which 5,000 are expected by Mr. A. Browne to join the scheme in the long-term. Almost 2,000 farmers have joined the scheme so far. In the Burren there are roughly 700 holdings plus large tracts of winterage areas owned by individuals from outside the region. According to the Farm Development Service (FDS) approximately 375 farmers in the Burren had joined the REPS as of January 1998 and 232 of these were claiming supplementary payments under the NHA measure. The number of REPS farms with lands in NHA, however, is higher than this figure indicates as registered organic farmers with lands in NHAs do not draw the NHA supplementary payment. While there were only ten registered organic producers in the Burren on the eve of the introduction of REPS, there were 33 in the region in late 1996, farming an area of between 2,000 and 2,500 hectares. Current figures are not available but according to Mr. H. Robson the majority of the 150 IOFGA registered organic farms in Clare are located in the Burren. Only a very small number of farms are registered with the other two organic farming bodies. Figures from the Farm Development Service (Adrian Browne, pers. comm.) indicate, that only 15 farmers in the Burren claimed the top-up payments under the REPS supplementary measure 'Organic Farming' in the period 1994-97 but the FDS indicated that there was some doubt as to the accuracy of this figure as it was difficult to extract the relevant data.

The main reasons which prevent individual landowners from joining the REPS were given as follows:

• Stocking rate on holding is too high
• Major pollution control work is needed, but grants under Control of Farmyard Pollution Scheme are not available
• Unresolved land ownership issues
• Holding is so large that REPS payments do not cover the cost of required works
• Land held in the Burren forms part of a larger holding elsewhere

Improvements in environmental quality

Since the NHA management prescriptions only affected landowners who joined REPS they did not prevent land reclamation and the ensuing intensification of land management on non-participating holdings. The deliberate removal of habitats - as defined in the Agri-Environmental Specifications - prior to the application to join the scheme and after 1 June 1994 renders applicants ineligible (Department of Agriculture and Food 1995c, 1996). It appears that some REPS planners have advised farmers that they can remove habitats, field boundaries etc. before joining REPS. According to Dr. E. Mooney there have also been incidents of this nature in the Burren.

The SAC designations affect all landowners, not just farmers in REPS. Dúchas is using its powers under the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 to file prosecutions against landowners who breach the regulations by carrying out notifiable actions without the consent of the Minister.

Before the peculiar winterage tradition in the Burren was recognised in the NHA management agreements, the focus of the REPS had been on the promotion of slatted houses. According to the Farm Development Service (FDS) there have been 173 applications under the Control of Farmyard Pollution (CFP) scheme, approximately half of which have been implemented to date. At least 50% of these applications were made for cattle housing and of these most were for slatted houses. Concern was expressed by interviewees about the spreading of slurry on Burren soils. It appears that at least on some farms not enough land is available for the spreading of slurry without posing a risk to groundwater resources. The NHA management agreements were not drawn up purely on the basis of conservation objectives but represent a compromise between farming and conservation interests. Particularly contentious issues were the stocking densities, winter grazing periods, the amount of supplementary feeding and the siting of ring feeders.

Planners should refer all plans dealing with NHAs to Dúchas for comment (Heritage Service, 1996). Dr. E. Mooney stated that he has ‘only been consulted on some plans, usually during the planning stage’. A number of interview partners expressed concern about the lack of integration of environmental expertise into REPS plans drawn up by agriculturalists.

The stocking rates are determined by REPS planners. The planners interviewed stated that a stocking rate of 0.5LU/ha is a good guideline but that some winterage areas can sustain higher stocking levels than this. Due to the variation in the types of winterage areas it is impossible to set blanket stocking rates for winterages. The overall stocking rates have been adjusted downwards on quite a number of farms and lower stocking rates on winterage areas are often achieved by housing part of the stock. Four of the interview partners stated that the 9-week supplementary feeding period was too long. At least in some situations the regime amounts to complete feeding rather than supplementing the forage on the winterage. One interviewee cited examples of very rocky commonage areas in the Bell Harbour/New Quay area where cattle gathers more or less permanently around feeders and does not return to the upland areas.

Very high soil phosphorus levels were noted on a number of applicant REPS farms, particularly along the coast, while on upland areas and good summer grazing areas on the hillsides readings were generally low. A positive impact on water quality can be expected from the, in some cases substantial, downward adjustments of fertiliser applications. M. Fitzsimons expressed the view that the water quality in the region has improved since the introduction of the REPS but remains concerned about run-off into the groundwater of slurry accumulating around feeding sites.

Compliance checks by the Department detected mostly minor transgressions in relation to the maintenance of stone walls, tidying up of farm yards or stock-proofing of boundary walls. C. McGuire has observed that hedgerow management on some REPS farms is not being carried out according to the Agri-Environmental Specifications. Dr. E. Mooney felt that the compliance with REPS Measure 4 'Retention of Wildlife Habitats' is not being sufficiently enforced by the Department of Agriculture and Food.

The environmental objectives of the REPS can only be achieved if the agri-environmental plans are drawn up in accordance with the relevant specifications and if they are correctly implemented by the farmers. In this context it must be of major concern that all interview partners stated that in their experience the farmers often do not read their REPS plan and the accompanying Agri-Environmental Specifications. According to the Dr. E. Mooney the same is true for SAC notifications issue by Dúchas.

Monitoring

In November 1995 the Department of Agriculture and Food (1995b) stated that it was ‘essential to research and monitor the environmental impact of REPS in the Burren region by comparing the effects of practices on REPS farms with practices on other farms under the following headings:

• Environmental effects
• Agricultural effects, in terms of inputs and outputs, and
• Socio-economic effects

To date none of these monitoring schemes are in place.

Administration and information policy

A number of criticisms were raised by the interview partners in relation to the drawing up of farm plans, the general administration of the scheme, the information policy directed at farmers and the co-operation and information exchange between the government departments involved.

These criticisms are summarised below.

5.2.6. Proposed Future Policies to Improve the Implementation of the REPS

According to Dúchas a major research project is planned which aims to establish baseline data on pH, soil fertility, stocking rates etc. in the Burren region. The research work is going to be carried out jointly by Teagasc and University College Dublin. The results of this research will be available for use in refining the management prescriptions in NHAs and SACs.

The staffing situation in the Farm Development Service is due to be improved during 1998 with one inspector plus four staff to be allocated to the North Clare region. This should ensure that the backlog with regard to REPS approvals and payments will be cleared.

For the next round of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme the Irish Farmers Association is proposing that REPS payments be weighted towards the smaller producers but that there should be no reduction in the current overall payment on lands up to forty hectares.

The new payment rates for NHAs announced in April 1998 (see Chapter 5.2.4) will increase the overall REPS payments for:

• Farmers with up to 40 hectares of land of which more than 40% is located in NHAs
• Farmers with more than 40 hectares of land of which more than 16.2 ha is located in NHAs

This will provide a further incentive for the uptake of REPS on such farms. The expected additional nature of Supplementary Measure A payments will also make the uptake of other Supplementary Measures (SM), such as the 'Rare Breeds' or the 'Public Access' measures more attractive in the Burren. However, it appears that the payments for SM A and SM 6 'Organic Farming' will remain exclusive of each other. As the SM A and SM 6 (full-symbol) payments will be equal at £80/acre , this will essentially mean that the continuation of organic farming methods on full-symbol holdings with all lands proposed or designated as NHAs will loose the financial incentive provided under REPS. The incentive for conversion to organic farming will remain attractive with £110/acre paid for a maximum of two years.

5.2.7. Conclusions

5.3. Intensive Pig and Poultry Units in Cavan and Monaghan

The case study was undertaken during December 1997 and January 1998 and includes information from a review of the relevant literature, meetings with key individuals responsible for monitoring the impact of intensive farming and a number of interviews with representatives of national and local organisations with an interest in pigs and poultry.

The following were consulted:

Pat Tuite, Pig Advisor, Teagasc, Drogheda, Co. Louth;
Trevor Champ, Central Regional Fisheries Board, Glasnevin, Co. Dublin;
John Denning, Environment Section, Cavan Co. Co; Fisheries Officer, Northern regional Fisheries Board;
Gerry Gunning, IFA;
Pat Duggan, Co-ordinator, Lough Derg & Lough Ree catchment Monitoring & Management System;
Anne Behan, Independent agri-environmental consultant;
Bill Moore, Engineer, Monaghan County Council.Co. Monaghan

An assessment of the impact of agriculture on the environment was based on the Monaghan Agricultural Waste Management Study which was commissioned from Teagasc by Monaghan County Councils Development Team in 1994 (Teagasc, 1994). The brief of the Teagasc study was to assess the impact on the environment of agricultural and agri-industrial waste management and to make recommendations which would permit the continued expansion of farm and farmyard enterprises in Monaghan, while reducing the impact of agriculture on the environment. All of the interested parties were then interviewed to assess the current situation.

5.3.1. Agricultural Enterprises in Co. Monaghan

County Monaghan occupies 129,400 ha There are seven major catchments within the county (Teagasc, 1994). 83% of the total area in the county is utilised by farmers. Grassland accounts for just over 99% of the Utilisable Agricultural Area. Only 1% of land is used for crops other than grassland.

There are a total of 5,315 farms in the county. Of these, 26% are dairy, 64% cattle and 10% sheep farm which accounted for 38% of the Gross Agricultural Output (GAO) in Monaghan in 1994. About 70% of the livestock farms have less than 35 LU. The average stocking rate for the county is 1.39 livestock units per hectare (based on December 1992 figures). These are relatively high stocking rates compared to national figures.

Poultry and mushroom farmers account for less than 10% of all farms, but contribute almost 59% to the county's GAO. Five percent or 302 farmers are poultry farmers, while 35 are pig farmers.

Thirty two per cent of Irish mushroom production and thirty three per cent of mushroom growers are located in County Monaghan. Mushroom growing has developed very rapidly as a farm enterprise over the last ten years and currently accounts for 12% of the County's GAO. There are approximately 183 mushroom farmers in Co. Monaghan. The mushroom industry is a significant producer of waste nutrients in the form of spent mushroom compost.

5.3.2. Analysis of the Teagasc Study Findings

There has been a marked decline in the quality of surface water in the county over the last 10-20 years. By 1990, the unpolluted river channel length had declined to 29.5% in Monaghan while the national average was 77.5%. Nearly 77% of the county's lakes currently are classifies as eutrophic and hyper-eutrophic.

i) Teagasc Environmental Audit of County Monaghan Farms

The annual phosphorus (P) surplus (waste and fertiliser less crop demand) is currently estimated at 28 kg/ha This can be reduced to 13 Kg/ha when the supply from fertiliser is deducted. Unsustainable P surpluses exist in catchments with high concentrations of poultry and mushroom farms. The nitrogen (N) balance for the county indicates fertiliser nitrogen use is in-line with crop requirements. Therefore, the N supply from animal wastes is not perceived by farmers as having a worthwhile fertiliser value. Due to an increase in poultry and pig production, the P load from animal wastes is likely to increase.

Waste management facilities were considered inadequate on a large proportion of County Monaghan farms. There is fundamental requirement for adequate waste storage facilities to provide effective waste management strategies. The survey results indicated an investment of £62 million is required to upgrade all waste storage facilities in the county. The study indicated that the waste management situation in the county was posing a serious risk to water quality in County Monaghan.

The study group made the following recommendations:

It appears that none of the above recommendations have been implemented and that the water quality situation in Monaghan has not improved.

At a recent seminar (Irish Farmers’ Journal, May 2, 1998) David Moore, of the Department of the Environment and Local Government, explained that water quality was continuing to deteriorate at a national level. Water quality in Monaghan is among the worst in the country. Since 1971 river water quality in Monaghan has declined from 83% good quality to 'mere' 31% Class A (unpolluted), 18% Class B (slightly polluted), 49% Class C (moderately polluted) and 2% Class D (seriously polluted). 50% of the lakes are rated poor or eutrophic and 29% bad or hypertrophic. At the seminar Cyril Carty, Teagasc Chief Agricultural Officer, for Monaghan stated that NMP is not practised to any extent on non-REPS farms.

Billy Moore, County Engineer in Monaghan believes that ‘the starting point is the availability of comprehensive data on the output of farm wastes (or by-products) in the county and tracking their disposal... a task force with an integrated, comprehensive strategy fully implemented and monitored is essential for success’.

There are now 700 REPS farmers in Monaghan, representing 40,000 acres, 15% of the utilisable agricultural land in the county. Generally less intensive livestock farmers are involved. REPS is now curtailing the availability of spread lands.

County Cavan - 5.3.3. Background

Cavan is primarily an agricultural county with a well organised agri-business sector (Duggan, 1996). Primary activities include dairying, cattle rearing, pig production, sheep farming, mushroom growing and poultry production. There are approximately 7,000 herd owners in the county farming an average of 50 acres. Agriculture within the county reflects the limiting factors imposed by poor soil conditions. Almost 50% of the farms are located on wet drumlin soils.

Processing of meat, milk and broilers has a combined turnover of c. £300 million annually. Direct employment in these industries is currently approximately 1,400, representing 40% of the total manufacturing employment.

An intensive pig rearing industry has developed in Cavan arising from the need to provide additional wealth in an area where more traditional farming practices are difficult. Pig production in Cavan accounts for more than £35 million annually in farm sales and 1,500 jobs are directly dependant on the industry.

Tourism angling is the mainstay of Cavan's tourism industry. The angling resources include Lough Sheelin, which was once regarded as one of the best trout lakes in Europe, and the river Erne which is ranked amongst the best of cyprinid waters. Efforts are now being made to expand the range of facilities available to attract visitors across a wider tourism spectrum.

5.3.4. The Lough Sheelin Catchment

Blue green algal scums appeared on Lough Sheelin in 1971 due to eutrophication caused by over-enrichment of phosphorus and nitrogen. Research at the time showed that much of the enrichment was caused by slurry spreading on poorly permeable gley soils where rainfall followed spreading, especially in winter (Champ, 1993). The water quality of the lake deteriorated alarmingly during the decade 1970-1980. From 1971 to1980, the number of pigs produced in the area almost doubled (Blackwell and Convery, 1983).

An Inter-Departmental Committee recommended a scheme whereby pig slurry produced in the Sheelin area could be transported to other areas outside the catchment for spreading. A state funded slurry export scheme was introduced in December 1980. Approximately 238,000 cubic metres of pig slurry were exported from the area at a cost of £120,000 in subsidies before the scheme ended in December 1984 (Champ, 1993). In 1985, Cavan Co. Council issued notices under Section 12 of the Local Government (Water Pollution) Act 1977 prohibiting the landspreading of pig slurry in the Cavan part of the catchment between the November 1 and the end of February each year. These notices were later issued to cattle producers in 1987 and cattle slurry could then not be spread on lands between November 1 and January 8. Many of the larger pig producers continued to export slurry from the catchment, and pig production has continued to expand.

The export of slurry from the catchment produced an immediate reduction in phosphorus inputs to the lake. The lake recovered and the mayfly 'hatch' in 1992 was one of the best ever witnessed.

The phosphate loading in the catchment dictates the water quality in the lake. There is a strong relationship between total phosphorus concentrations in the lake and algal biomass. Ecological problems associated with eutrophication are evident when the annual average total phosphorus concentration exceeds 20mg/m3 (Champ, 1993). Cavan County Council continues to use Section 12 notices to control slurry disposal. Many of the farms in the catchment do not have adequate slurry storage facilities. This results in a large proportion of the cattle slurry in the catchment being spread directly after the end of the Section 12 Notice period. With inappropriate spreading conditions at this time, as witnessed in the winter of 1998, this can result in increased runoff from the waterlogged land surfaces into watercourses. The export of slurry from the catchment is only a temporary solution, as this slurry could pose problems in the other catchments if not spread correctly. The situation in Lough Sheelin has dramatically improved but it would be incorrect to say that the problem has been solved. The potential to cause damage still remains.

5.3.5. Role of Cavan Co. Council in Environmental Management

Cavan County Council sought to address the problems associated with pig slurry spreading. It initiated a weekly sampling programme of the inflowing streams to Lough Sheelin in November 1993 (Duggan, 1996). It was found that around 50% of the measured phosphate loss from river catchments occurred during a limited number of discrete high rainfall episodes. There was an increase in phosphorus concentration with increased flow pointing to diffuse runoff of phosphorus from soils. Normally one would expect a dilution effect from increased stream flow. This shows that a significant amount of nutrients are continuing to escape from fields into water courses.

Cavan County Council have established an Environmental Management System to attempt to control slurry spreading. A Geographic Information System (GIS) has been used to combine various data sets in order to identify areas at risk of overloading with nutrients (Duggan & Denning 1996). The County Council are also using the GIS to evaluate applications for planning permissions for new pig units.

Pig producers lodge monthly returns of their disposal of slurry, by townland, with the Council. The Council provides information on areas likely to be overloaded with phosphorus and the pig producers can then react by relocating their slurry spreading operations.

The Environmental Management Scheme has provided useful experience for Cavan County Council on how to begin to address the issue of controlling nutrient loss from agriculture in an integrated way. However, the Environmental Management System has not been subjected to rigorous monitoring. We do not know whether it is proving effective in controlling nutrient loss from farms. The system is based on the developer utilising all of the 'suitable' agricultural land within a 5 km radius of the pig farm. In reality the developer has to travel further. Many farmers refuse to take pig slurry and those that do will still continue to use artificial fertilisers. Our conclusion is that the townland approach is not adequate. An individual farm approach combined with nutrient management planning is required in order to achieve sustainable results.

It has been noted that in reality some applications for planning permission for new production units are claiming manure spreading on land that is already allocated to other units (Irish Farmers' Journal, June 15, 1997). There may also be cases where farmers in the REPS are not declaring the full amount of pig slurry they receive, as this may put them over the REPS limits for organic nitrogen. Agreements between farmers and pig units should be referenced on the basis of herd number (and REPS number, if applicable). This will avoid confusion over the final destination of pig slurry.

5.3.6. IPC Licensing

The EU Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) was adopted in October 1996 (EPA, 1996). The EPA has been pro-active in adopting a licensing system for intensive pig and poultry units in Ireland. IPC licensing will apply to established units with more than 1,000 sows from March 1998 and to those with more than 700 sows from June 1998. The EPA has published guidance notes on BATNEEC (Best Available Technology Not Entailing Excessive Costs) for both the pig and poultry sectors. The EPA's Guidance Note precludes the spreading of slurry and wash water on land where the existing phosphorus content is above 15 mg/kg. Intensive pig units in more sensitive catchments may have to adhere to more stringent requirements on soil P levels and slurry spreading (Irish Farmers' Journal, 09/08/1997). The EPA will take over the role of the County Council in monitoring the larger pig and poultry units. It is hoped that they will be able to place more staff on the ground to monitor the impact of the new licensing system.

5.3.7. Proposed EU Water Framework Directive

The proposed Water Framework Directive will take IPPC, Drinking Water, Urban Waste Water, and Nitrates Directives and legislation relating to biocides and pesticides under its umbrella. There is a requirement within the proposed directive that all surface and ground water attain 'good status' by the year 2010 (Irish Farmers' Journal, September 27, 1997). The strategy and measures needed to reach 'good status' will be at the discretion of the Member States. Strategies will include the preparation of integrated water management planning on a river basin basis.

5.3.8. Catchment Management Planning

The Department of the Environment launched the document Managing Ireland's rivers and Lakes - A Catchment-Based Strategy Against Eutrophication in 1997. The overall approach is to set water quality objectives/standards for phosphorous which will guide actions for maintaining and restoring surface water quality (Department of the Environment, 1997). The initial objective is to stabilise conditions, using water status established during the 1995-1997 phase of EPA monitoring as the baseline, to be followed by the implementation of strategies within catchments for the restoration of polluted waters. However, the time frame for the improvement of interim quality standards is ten years.

The report acknowledges that ‘Account must also be taken of nutrients already in the soil so as to achieve the right balance between crop requirements, nutrient application rates and the prevention of water pollution. The protection strategy places the onus on local authorities to identify those farms where soil P levels are excessive and which, as a consequence entail pollution risks. These farmers may then be required to produce nutrient management plans.’

The protection strategy is based on the assertion that if soil levels are too high then there is a greater risk of pollution. The aim is to define the minimum soil P levels at which intensive agriculture can be conducted without adversely affecting production or the environment.

A catchment monitoring and management system for Lough Derg and Lough Ree is being developed at present (P. Duggan, pers. comm.). The project is a partnership of County Councils, the EPA, Fisheries Board, ESB, Bord na Mona, Teagasc and the Department of the Environment and Local Government. This Catchment-Based Initiative is currently underway to arrest the eutrophication process and return the lakes to a satisfactory state. The project will extend over a three year period. An integrated Water Quality Management System will be established, using GIS as a management tool, to monitor and manage both the lakes and their catchments. Expenditure on the systems will be approximately £2.3 million over three years. 85% of financial support towards the approved cost of the system is being provided through the EU Cohesion Fund. Nutrient Management Planning will be piloted and evaluated in a number of selected areas.

5.3.9. The Nitrates Directive

A voluntary Code of Good Agricultural Practice to Protect Waters from Pollution by Nitrates has been prepared to fulfil obligations arising under the Nitrates Directive (see Chapter 1.3). The code sets out very important limits on the amount of organic fertiliser which can be applied to farmland. In areas with high stocking rates and providing waters are in good condition the maximum quantity of manure and other organic materials applied to land, including that deposited by grazing animals, should be such as to ensure that the nitrogen contained therein does not exceed 250 kg/ha/annum. In all other areas, the nitrogen applied from these organic fertilisers should not exceed 210 kg/ha/year.

The move towards extended grazing in Ireland may lead to increase losses of nitrogen to waterways. Farmers are being advised to extend the grazing season and this may result in extra applications of artificial fertilisers at both ends of the season when nutrient loss is increased. Research at IGER North Wyke (Farmers' Weekly, 15 May 1998) indicated that of the 25t of nitrogen put down on a typical dairy farm in the South West of England only 5t was transferred into animal production. The rest was lost to the environment in drainage water and as ammonia released into the atmosphere.

5.3.10. Teagasc Strategy for the Development of the National Pig Industry (1997-2000)

Irish annual pig output increased from 2.1 million pigs in 1987 to about 3.25 million pigs in 1996. The number of sows increased by 16% between January 1995 and January 1997

(Irish Farmers' Journal, 08/03/1997). At least 186 pig units could be liable for IPC licences issued by the EPA. The Teagasc Strategy (Teagasc, 1997A) outlines how over 2,000 new jobs could be created by increasing pig output by one million pigs to 4.25 million pigs per year. Expansion is recommended because it is one of the few opportunities in farming to increase output. ‘The low density of pig production in Ireland, combined with a high health status and a modern infrastructure for slaughtering and processing makes expansion attractive’ according to the authors of the report. There are approximately 750 commercial farms with an average herd size of 290 sows (Tuite, 1997). More than 93% of the sows are in units of over 100 sows. This is the highest proportion in Europe. For example, in Germany only 16% of the sows are in units of more than 100 sows. At least 90 farms have more than 500 sows each.

Over half of all sows and finishing pigs are now found in just four counties: Cork, Cavan, Tipperary and Waterford. The concentration of sows in County Cavan now is one sow per 4 ha farmed, compared to 1 sow per 16 ha in Cork and one sow per 22 ha in Tipperary. Nationally there is one sow per 26 ha farmed. Virtually every county showed an increase in sow numbers from 1995 to 1997, with the largest increase occurring in Counties Cork and Cavan. The recommendation from the report was that there is a need to promote an increase in pig production in many of the suitable tillage counties in Leinster, where the average concentration is only one sow per 28 ha farmed.

5.3.11. Recent Developments in Fertiliser Recommendations to Farmers

National trends show a steady increase in soil Phosphorous (P) levels between 1950 and 1991 when the average P level increased from 0.8 mg/l to 9.3 mg/l. Since 1991, the level has dropped to about 8 mg/l and appears to have stabilised (Department of Environment, 1997). Recent evidence (Irish Farmers' Journal 28/09/1996) shows that 59% of soils had adequate P levels while 29% were too low and 21% were too high. According to Willie Murphy, Teagasc researcher (Irish Farmers' Journal 30/08/1997), ‘Phosphate is locked by the soil particles and once that happens virtually nothing gets out. However once the top few cms become saturated the P moves down to lower levels. If a saturated soil becomes flooded or if the soil is washed away soon after application the P can find its way into watercourses’.

The EPA guidelines on spreading of slurry and the Code of Good Practice to Protect Waters from Pollution by Nitrates set a number of important minimum standards for soil quality levels and organic N loads (Carton & Magette, 1998). IAE (Intensive Agricultural Enterprise) manure cannot be applied to land where the existing STP (Soil Test Phosphorous) exceeds 15 mg/l (Morgan's test). In areas with high stocking rates, and providing waters are in good condition, the maximum quantity of manure and other organic materials applied to land, including that deposited by grazing animals, should be such as to ensure that the nitrogen contained therein does not exceed 250 kg/ha/annum. In sensitive areas, the nitrogen applied from these organic fertilisers should not exceed 210 kg/ha/year. The mandatory upper limit of organic N, 170 kg/ha/year, for farmers participating in the REPS constrains their potential to receive IAE manure.

The implications for pig slurry and SMC applications are that they will be restricted to grassland farms with stocking rates of less than 1.8 and 1.3 LU/ha and 1.4 and 1.0 LU/ha, respectively if they are to comply with this voluntary Code of Practice.

REPS farmers with stocking rates higher than 1 LU/ha are practically excluded as receivers of IAE manure if they are to remain in compliance with the mandatory 170 kg organic N limit set by the scheme. Therefore, only REPS farmers with organic N loads of less than 110 kg/ha, equivalent to a stocking rate of 1.3 LU/ha, can accept pig manure and remain in compliance. The figure is 90 kg/ha for farmers taking SMC.

The revised Teagasc recommendations have reduced the P requirements for silage and grazing by approximately 50 and 40%, respectively (Carton & Magette, 1998) (see Table 5.3).

Table 5.3 Current phosphorous recommendations for grazing and silage from Teagasc (1997b) and the Department of Agriculture and Food (1996) REPS recommendation

Permitted REPS upper phosphorous (kg/ha) limits for grassland (grazing, silage and hay) assuming all the manure produced on the farm is collected and applied to the conservation ground and all silage/hay produced is fed on farm.

Teagasc have revised their agronomic recommendations designed to achieve optimum yields of grass and efficient use of P fertiliser. Table 5.3 above compares the new Teagasc recommendations and the current Department of Agriculture and Food REPS recommendations.

The differences between Teagasc and Department of Agriculture recommendations are confusing. The Department of Agriculture has chosen, for the moment, not to bring the REPS recommendations in line with those advocated by Teagasc. This may cause farmers in REPS to apply P at levels above those required by crops and risking further losses of nutrients to water resources.

Teagasc's new draft guidelines also recommend that the maximum soil P 'storage' capacity allowed for IAE manure should be 15 mg P/l. Although this is in excess of crop requirements, they argue the soil can act as a store for excess P and that once the STP reaches this limit new spreadlands with lower STP must be located. Teagasc also recommends that only sites ranked as low risk for nutrient run-off should be used for this purpose, and that the timing of manure spreading should coincide with periods of vigorous crop growth.

The Phosphorous Debate

The new Teagasc Guidelines on P requirements for crops have opened up a debate among researchers, farming interests, the Department of Agriculture and environmentalists in recent months.

Those advocating the new guidelines, such as Johnstown researcher Michael Herlihy, argue that soil P levels have some merit (Irish Farmers' Journal 09/05/1998). He states that ‘The threshold of 15ppm is based on the fact that it signifies high availability of P to plants. ‘Do you then keep putting on more P?’ he asked, ‘Despite its limitations, it is a necessary tool for farm management’.

Dr. A.E. (Johnny) Johnston, a researcher from at IACR Rothamsted, in the UK believes that the new recommendations are justified. He explained, ‘In a very well constructed field experiment at Rothamsted, the concentration of P in drainage water from the plots increased appreciably when the Olsen P exceeded about 60 mg P/kg soil’. He says, ‘It is apparent from comparative studies presented at an International Workshop on P at Johnstown in September 1995 (Johnston & Poulton) that 6ppm Morgans P equates with 25 ppm Olsens P and that few crops respond to P levels above this value irrespective of the soil’.

Those opposing the new Teagasc recommendations cite inadequate research into P soil chemistry as their main objection. Bill Shanahan, Department of Agriculture, and UCD researcher, Dr. Austin Morgan argue (Irish Farmers' Journal 09/05/1998) that in certain cases soil P levels should be allowed to be taken above the 15ppm threshold adopted by the EPA and most County Councils.

Dr. Austin Morgan stated that ‘Soil P values should not be used as a risk index for loss of P to waterways’. ‘I know of no data linking soil P value to loss to watercourses. There have been numerous warnings, including from international researchers, cautioning against the use of soil P values from the Morgan test to predict P loss’, he said. Dr. Morgan suggested that there should now be a re-focusing on point sources of pollution. ‘Run-off is the biggest source of P,’ he added, ‘some crops yield higher on index 4 than on a lower index soil’. UCD animal nutritionist Dr. Pat Caffrey warned that dietary intake of P was critical for thrive in young cattle and for good reproductive performance in high merit cows.

Dr. George Smillie, UCD (Farmer's Journal, 17/01/1998), also argues that a variety of soils cannot be characterised in respect of P status and behaviour by a single soil test value. He argues that there is not any objective evidence that soil P loss to water is a significant contributor to P loading of surface water or of ground water under good management (Farmer's Journal 21/02/1998).

The pig industry has proposed a number of measures to the Department of Agriculture in order to increase the opportunities to spread pig slurry on REPS farms (Farmer's Journal 06/06/1998). Their proposals advise the Department to:

It is likely that such a payment, i.e. £10 per acre, would run against the EU principle of 'Polluter Pays'. Farmers will continue to use bagged fertiliser because of the ease of management associated with its use. Farmers in REPS would find it difficult to take significant quantities of pig slurry without further investment in on-farm storage facilities.

The proposal to increase the P limit to 25 or 30 ppm on certain soils would breach the precautionary principle which should be to maintain nutrient levels just above crop requirements.

Research carried out to compare P recommendations in Ireland and the UK found that that much more fertiliser P is recommended by Teagasc than by Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (MAFF).

Table 5.4 represents results from an analysis of 100 soils, both at Johnstown Castle for Morgan P and at Rothamsted for Olsen P, in order to establish the relationship between the two methods.

The researchers concluded that much more fertiliser P is recommended by Teagasc than by MAFF. When soils are below crucial Olsen P values there is good reason to apply sufficient P to build up soil fertility. However, there is little justification for appreciably exceeding the critical value. There is a concentration of readily soluble P in the soil above which yield does not increase as soluble P increases. Keeping soils much above this critical value is an unnecessary financial burden for the farmer and there may be a risk of greater loss of P by runoff, leaching and soil erosion. The aim should be to maintain soils just above the critical value using either fertiliser or organic manures.

One possible explanation of the Teagasc strategy is that they recommend that the P requirement of soils be met quickly to have a rapid build up of P to the appropriate soil P level, while the UK agriculturalists prefer that the soil P level be built up slowly.

Table 5.4 Comparison of indexes, P values and P recommendations for grazed grassland and sugar beet between the Morgan's method and Olsen's method for analysing soils.

The Phosphorous Campaign

Note: These figures are based on Teagasc 1994 recommendations (recently updated *1997) and MAFF 1995 recommendations (Poulton et al, 1995).

Figures in brackets ( )* represent the latest Teagasc recommendations amended in the Autumn of 1997 (see Table 5.3).

The amount of phosphorous applied as fertiliser and animal manure is 46,000 tonnes more than is needed for efficient farming in Ireland (Teagasc, 1997C). The Teagasc phosphorous campaign was launched in late 1997 with the aim of eliminating this excess over a five year period. The campaign is being run in partnership with the farming organisations, local authorities, fisheries boards and the Department of Agriculture and Food.

The strategy advises farmers to pay special attention to three areas:

• Slurry spreading
• Phosphorous levels in soil - P should only be applied based on soil test results
• Leakage from farmyards - this could account for up to half the P losses arising from farming

The precautionary principle suggests that urgent programmes are required to eliminate surplus P inputs to catchments - current P usage runs at twice the level required by crops (Bowman et al., 1997).

It is a matter for serious discussion whether the differences between Teagasc and Department of Agriculture are justified today, especially if there is an unnecessary risk of increased phosphorus losses from agricultural soils leading to eutrophication of water bodies (Johnston, 1998). Because of the stringent requirements for angling, many believe it would be wise to adopt the precautionary principle and not allow soils to become so enriched as to pose a threat. This precautionary approach is being adopted by the Department of the Environment (DOE) as part of their Strategy to improve the water quality in our rivers and lakes (DOE, 1997).

5.3.12. Conclusions

5.4. Intensive Tillage Farming in North Kildare

The case study was undertaken during December 1997 and January 1998 and includes information from a review of the relevant literature, meetings with key individuals responsible for implementing the schemes, interviews with some of the participants and a number of interviews with representatives of national and local organisations with an interest in the scheme. The following were consulted during the course of the work, together with the farmers interviewed in the study area:

Ivan Whitten, Teagasc Tillage Advisor for North Kildare;
Michael Somers, Teagasc Advisor, Kildare;
Val Swan, NPWS wildlife, Kildare;
Gerry Gunning, IFA;
Four intensive tillage farmers from North Kildare, taken from a list of names provided by Teagasc in Kildare.

5.4.1. Summary of interviews with farmers

The farmers were interviewed informally on their farms and the interviews were structured around 8 topics. These topics are listed below together with a summary of the farmers' views. The main characteristics of the farms and farmer interviews are outlined in Table 5.5.

Winter cereals were the main enterprise on all of the farms. One farmer had 150 ewes and another had 50 cattle. The cereal aid payments and set-aside payments represented a large proportion of the profit on each of the farms. The sheep premium and special beef premium provided additional income to the farmers with those livestock.

5.4.3. Farm Development

All of the farmers had availed of grants under the Farm Modernisation Programme to re-structure their holdings, including hedgerow removal to increase field size, wetland drainage, and removal of scrub and 'rough' areas to create productive land. Much of this work was carried out in the 1970s. The profitable nature of tillage farming at different times, because of EU support, meant the this type of work continued until the late 1980's. None of the farmers were planning to remove any more hedges or features, mainly because the field sizes were substantial (up to 45ha), with no internal hedges on the farm in two cases. Three of the farmers had received substantial grants in the past to build beef units on their holdings when they were in mixed farming. These units are now either idle or have been adapted for storage of grain, etc.

5.4.4. Habitats on the Farm

One farmer owned over two hectares of raised bog designated as a candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and hoped to receive substantial compensation for losing his right to cut this bog. He also had one hectare of marshy grassland which he had not managed to reclaim and had left it 'wild'. He thought that it was a good area for wildlife. None of the other farms had any habitats on their farms apart from trees, hedgerows or watercourses/drains. The hedges on the farms were all managed by intensive annual trimming.

5.4.5. Afforestation and Early Retirement Schemes

None of the farmers had afforested their land. They were reluctant to plant good quality tillage land. One farmer commented that farmers were foolish to plant for the grants only; when the premiums finish after twenty years, he thought there would be a very poor return, unless there was a high level of management. Most farmers were only planting for the grant, in his opinion, and were not prepared to carry out the management required. All of the farmers said that they would consider the Early Retirement Scheme when they reached retirement age. However, only one of the farmers had a successor willing to take over the farm. One farmer, who was fifty five and could retire, had decided to stay and work the farm with his son for the moment. Labour shortages were a concern among all of the farmers. New housing in North Kildare had provided employment for many young people who would have traditionally done seasonal work on farms.

5.4.6. Arable Farming and the REPS

None of the farmers had decided to join REPS. The main reason given was that payments were restricted to the first 40 hectares, whereas the management restrictions applied to the whole farm. Winter cereal growing requires high use of artificial nitrogen and growth regulators to achieve high yields. Three of the farmers had grain drying facilities and were not prepared to switch to spring cereals as this would result in lower margins. One farmer thought that the scheme paid inefficient farmers to continue being inefficient. The farmers cited the low use of fertilisers and the lack of pollution as being the main benefits of the scheme. The creation of a tidy countryside was also an important benefit. All of the farmers said that they would be interested in planting trees but only one of the farmers had done so in the past. These farmers would only consider creating habitats, such as ponds, or planting hedges on their farms if the full cost was covered by a grant.

5.4.7. Set-Aside Management

The farmer with sheep planted his set-aside with stubble turnips and rape and finished store lambs on this area in the autumn. Two of the farmers had re-seeded their most unproductive areas to grass and cut silage in the autumn. The fourth farmer normally allowed natural regeneration and then sprayed his set-aside with the herbicide 'Roundup' in June. However, this year he will re-seed his most unproductive land as set-aside area in April and manage it by topping. Farmers have to set-aside five per cent of their cropped area under the compulsory rotational set-aside rule in the 1997/98 season (only if they claim on more than 15.13 ha). In addition, they may place an additional 10% of their total arable area into voluntary set-aide. Although set-aside is said to be rotational, farmers can set-aside the same area of land year after year. This means that farmers will re-seed their poorest land to grassland and take a crop of silage from it or just top it through the year, when allowed. Tillage farmers who take most of their land on a conacre basis, i.e. year to year rental, are more likely to use herbicides to manage set-aside. This is because re-seeding to grassland is more expensive when a farmer is not guaranteed to have use of the land in the following year.

Photo 5.4.2. Contrasting set-aside management. Left-hand side of photo shows set-aside managed by topping, providing good grassland habitat. Right-hand side of photo shows set-aside managed by herbicide treatment – this bare ground is of little environmental value. Kildare, Summer 1998.

5.4.8. Nutrient Management Planning

All of the farmers had sampled their soils in the past three years and had followed the recommendations given. They said that by knowing what the land needed, their crops responded well and money was saved by not applying too much or too little fertiliser. Only one farmer had heard of the Code of Good Practice for the Protection of Water from Nitrates.

5.4.9. Outlook for the Future

All of the farmers will stay in intensive winter cereal production for the foreseeable future. Their investment in machinery, particularly grain drying and storage facilities, justified this. All of them were worried about falling prices and labour shortages. However, there was some security in the future because of the rising value of their land for housing in North Kildare. They said that they could sell land in the future, or diversify in order to maintain income levels. Some farmers in the area had already diversified into golf courses and leisure facilities. One farmer summarised the future for tillage farmers: he believed that farmers with less than one hundred and fifty acres would have to go the REPS/spring cereals route. This might also involve part-time farming. Those farmers with greater than one hundred and fifty acres would have to continue to intensify, and were reliant on high inputs and production for good financial returns. Cereal aid will continue to be the main income source whatever the choice.

5.4.10. Integration of the Arable Schemes with Environmental Objectives - an example from the U.K.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), one of the U.K's most influential environmental organisations, supports the imposition of environmental standards on all farming enterprises in receipt of subsidies, as a form of cross-compliance. It argues that there should be cross-compliance on arable areas (in return for cereal aid payments) targeted at some elements of the management of cropped land and the features immediately adjacent to it. This might include retaining existing habitat areas and avoiding the spreading of chemicals, including fertilisers, into hedgerow bottoms, verges and watercourses.

The RSPB believes that management practices, which imply greater costs to farmers, could then be achieved through financial incentives, as would the management of habitats and hedges. It recognises the importance of arable areas for a variety of farmland species and aims to include conservation as part of farming practice and land management. It has put forward recommendations for a scheme for arable farming as one option under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme in the UK (RSPB, 1997).

This scheme would aim to:

• Enhance the value of cropped areas by reducing or controlling the use of organic and inorganic fertilisers and pesticides (payment per ha apply)
• Change crop rotations to include more spring sown cereals
• Leave a greater proportion of winter stubbles; barley stubble would to be left from harvest in the autumn until 31 March the following year (payments per ha apply). Such a measure would not be required in Ireland as many smaller tillage growers have already switched to Spring cereals and the REPS
• Conserve and enhance boundary and small features including hedges, ditches, ponds and field corners (linear area payments apply)
• Introduce new habitats and features such as conservation headlands and grass ridges in the middle of fields, or ‘beetlebanks’ (linear area payments apply)
• Enhance the conservation value of set aside by providing top-up payments for managing non-rotational set-aside for certain birds

5.4.11. Analysis

Intensive tillage farmers have removed substantial, if unquantified, hedgerows and other habitats over the past thirty years. Much of this work was supported by the Farm Modernisation Scheme and the Farm Improvement Programme, and at the time was considered necessary to facilitate the ever-increasing mechanisation of tillage farming. EU price supports also contributed to habitat loss and intensification by increasing the profitability of tillage farming and thus facilitating intensification and specialisation of production. Areas of hedgerow must be deducted from areas qualifying for cereal aid, which we believe could provide a further incentive for their removal. Hedgerow management costs money and since many tillage farmers consider that tall hedges shade crops and reduce yields, these provide further reasons for their removal.

In the absence of available information for Ireland, we must assume that, as in other European countries, increased fertiliser and chemical use has probably resulted in the decline in species diversity in hedgerows. Areas for ground nesting birds have also declined considerably. The hedges remaining on tillage farms are generally short and narrow, comprising mainly of hawthorn, and cut every year to waist height. The case study shows that in the four farms surveyed, set aside is not being managed to benefit wildlife, and this would appear to be a typical situation.

Many arable farms have the potential to support a range of species and wildlife habitats although they are often considered to offer little (Murphy, 1997). Intensive tillage farms contain less habitat area than 'traditional', small, mixed farming systems. However, there is evidence that minor changes to existing farm management can benefit wildlife. There are also opportunities for recreating habitats. These management options could be identified on arable farm in order to re-introduce some habitats and conserve species such as the grey partridge.

Intensive tillage farmers with over 80 ha are not attracted to the REPS due to the profitability of winter cereals and the capping of REPS payments at 40 hectares. There is little point in paying these farmers an area payment for intensive management. A scheme similar to the Countryside Stewardship Scheme (see Chapter 6) could be introduced to provide financial incentives for management of arable farms similar to that outlined in the RSPB recommendations above. A whole farm hedgerow management plan could be prepared for each farm with linear payments for management of hedges, and area payments for conservation headlands and habitat creation and management. In the UK, the Countryside Stewardship Scheme provides a discretionary grant for two metre and six metre sown margins. There is also a large body of research information available in the UK on the management of field margins and set-aside to benefit wildlife which could be applied in Ireland.

Intensive tillage farms can contribute to reduction in water quality through nutrient run-off. The intensive use of nitrates is a particular threat to water quality in the intensively farmed areas of Ireland.

Under the transfer of eligibility rule farmers can now rotate their tillage area around their holding, returning some continuously cropped areas to grassland and ploughing up grassland to grow cereals (Dept of Agriculture, 1996). Unimproved grassland, uncultivated for many years, was sown with cereals and qualified for cereal aid payments. Once tilled, this declining habitat type is destroyed.

In the Agenda 2000 proposals tabled on March 18, the European Commission (DG VI, 1998) proposes to reduce the cereal intervention price and to part compensate for this by increases in cereal aid payments. It is also proposed to fix the reference rate for compulsory set-aside at 0% (European Commission, 1997). Therefore farmers will no longer be required to set-aside land.

Voluntary set-aside will be allowed and will attract the same level of payment as cereals. It is also stated that ‘Member States shall link all direct payments given under the market organisations to environmental conditions they consider appropriate. Money not spent due to the non-respect of such conditions – as well as money saved by Member States who make use of the option to modulate direct payments will be available for re-enforcing a Member States budgetary envelope for agri-environmental measures’. The scale of support still provided through prices and crop specific payments is discouraging uptake of environmental schemes.

There is evidence that a radical reform of the CAP that relies on price cuts to achieve extensification of production could also pose serious environmental threats. Price cuts do not encourage positive management of environmental features.

The loss of landscape features (hedgerows, ponds) and managed habitats (field margins) could be accelerated in the interests of economic competitiveness. The proposed cuts in arable price support must be balanced with positive measures, such as agri-environment incentives and environmental conditions on area payments, to protect these features.

The principal to ‘enable Member States to make direct payments conditional on the respect of environmental conditions’ is wholly inadequate. It will ensure that such conditions remain marginal, as each Member State seeks to protect the competitiveness of its own farmers (Wildlife Trusts, 1997).

5.4.12. Conclusions

5.5. Intensive Dairy Farming in North Kilkenny

The case study was undertaken during December 1997 and January 1998 and includes information from a review of the relevant literature, meetings with key individuals responsible for implementing the schemes, interviews with some of the participants and a number of interviews with representatives of national and local organisations with an interest in the scheme.

The following were consulted:

Patrick Kelly, Dairy Advisor, Teagasc, Kilkenny.
Padraig Comerford, Dúchas, Kilkenny.
Gerry Gunning, IFA, Dublin.
Four dairy farmers in the North Kilkenny area chosen at random from a list provided by Teagasc in Kilkenny.
A private REPS planner, Kilkenny.

5.5.1. Characteristics of Dairy Farming in North Kilkenny

5.5.2. Enterprises on the Farm

All of the farmers had substantial cattle enterprises. Two of the farmers had small areas of tillage. The main payments came from the Special Beef Premium and the Arable Aid Scheme. The payments for the beef enterprise ensures that there was a small profit. Two of the farmers provided a cost analysis of their enterprises. This showed that gross margins for the dairy enterprise of £600 to £900 per acre compared to £40 to £80 per acre on the cattle enterprise. This is not necessarily the case on all dairy farms, as some very efficient dairy farmers are achieving gross margins on their cattle enterprises of £200 to £400 per acre.

5.5.3. Farm Development

All of those interviewed had availed of the Farm Modernisation Scheme and the Farm Improvement Programme to upgrade their housing and reclaim their land in the past. Only one farmer had any unimproved land. This was the land furthest from the farmyard and would have been drained had the grants not run out. Despite the investment in the farmyard in the past none of the farmers had adequate slurry storage facilities. Three of the farmers were feeding cattle out in open yards. All of the farmers had spread slurry in December or January. One had spread all of his slurry on shallow limestone soils, on frozen ground after Christmas. This was followed by four weeks of heavy rain. These farmers said that they had no choice but to spread slurry at this time as point source pollution would have resulted from tank overspill. They said that the profits, or the farm grants, were not available to justify investment in slurry storage facilities.

5.5.4. Habitats on the Farm

One farmer had a natural pond and a small areas of trees, while another had 10 acres of unimproved grassland which he had intended to improve before grants ceased. Three of the farmers had removed substantial habitat areas and hedgerows. Generally, very small areas of habitat remained. All of the farmers expressed an interest in planting trees, but none had done so to date.

5.5.5. Afforestation and Early Retirement Schemes

One farmer was in the process of applying for the Early Retirement Scheme. He had chosen this option because the income from leasing land and quota combined with the pension represented a guaranteed income for the future. His wife also had an independent income source which made the choice to retire easier. All of the other farmers said that they would be interested in availing of the pension when they reached the qualifying age.

None of the farmers had established commercial forestry. Three of the farmers had looked at the scheme but were reluctant to plant their good quality land. One farmer had tried to buy marginal land to plant but considered the current price of this poor quality land too high. None of the farmers interviewed would consider afforestation in the near future.

5.5.6. Dairy Farming and the REPS

All of the farmers considered REPS when it was first launched and three had discussed the scheme with their advisors. None had decided to join at that time. The three farmers who were continuing to farm were again considering REPS. They considered it an attractive option. They intended to reduce the amount of quota leased and reduce their cattle numbers in order to meet the stocking requirements.

5.5.7. Nutrient Management Planning

Three of the farmers had had their soils tested in the past two years. These farmers matched their fertiliser applications to the Teagasc recommendations. All of the farmers spread very high rates of nitrogen on their farms. None of the farmers had heard of the Code of Good Agricultural Practice to Protect Waters From Pollution by Nitrates. This was evident from their poor slurry management practices.

5.5.8. Outlook for the Future

All of the farmers were reluctant to invest further in their farmyards. They preferred instead to cut back on their cattle enterprises. This would ensure that they could qualify for REPS on stocking rates and slurry storage requirements. One farmer was retiring. The remaining farmers intended to focus on increasing the efficiency and profitability of their dairy enterprises in the short term.

For the future it is likely that dairying will develop along two stocking rate routes (Irish Farmers' Journal 16.12/1997):

With small to medium sized quota, any fall in milk prices makes the REPS a more attractive option. The standard storage facilities on most dairy farms would meet the REPS requirements. Reports on the ground suggest that many of these small to medium dairy farmers have showed increased interest in the REPS in the past three months.

In the Agenda 2000 proposals tabled on March 18, 1998 Commission (DG VI, 1998) the European Commission proposes to gradually decrease support prices and to introduce a new yearly payment for dairy. Member states can make direct payments conditional on compliance with environmental provisions (European Commission, 1997).

The dairy sector is increasingly intensive, delivering few environmental objectives.

CAP price support to lowland dairying encourages intensive production. Stocking rates and nitrogen use are clearly higher than would be at world price level. Farmers will remain resistant to entering environmental schemes because support is still very high in this sector.

5.5.8. Analysis

The dairy farmers interviewed are considered to be reasonably representative of dairy farmers in the county, and were taken at random from a list provided by Teagasc in Kilkenny.

Fifty years ago mixed farming was the norm in North Kilkenny. Stocking densities were low, and although much land had been reclaimed to permanent pasture, the low levels of fertility probably contributed to species-rich grassland. However, the introduction of modern fertilisation practices increased soil fertility, new grass and cereal varieties exceeded the performance of the native flora, while herbicides probably decreased the diversity of both flora and fauna. Intensive dairy farming funded by land improvement grants and EU price support resulted in the removal of hedges and the conversion of many rich habitat areas to improved pasture.

It appears that the dairy farmers surveyed are contributing to point source and diffuse pollution. They have small habitat areas and hedges on their farms which could be better managed to benefit the environment. It appears that the most intensive dairy farmers will not join the REPS because their stocking rates and fertiliser application rates are well above REPS guidelines. There is an opportunity to creating further habitats on dairy farms. However, significant incentives would be required to encourage dairy farmers to create new habitats.

An incentive scheme focusing on the enhancement of landscape and habitat features, similar to Countryside Stewardship in the U.K., might be a useful scheme for intensive dairy farmers (see Chapter 6). There is little point paying these farmers, per hectare, to intensively manage improved grassland, and in any case, could not be justified as efficient use of public money. Instead linear and area payments could be made available for hedgerow restoration and habitat management and creation. The dairy farmers interviewed appeared to have a low environmental awareness, perhaps because they are likely to encounter wildlife less frequently than less intensive farmers. An incentive scheme, properly promoted, would help to counter this lack of environmental awareness.

5.5.9. Conclusions

5.6. Erne Catchment Nutrient Management Scheme

The case study was undertaken during December 1997 and January 1998 and includes information from a review of the relevant literature, meetings with key individuals responsible for implementing the schemes and a number of interviews with representatives of national and local organisations with an interest in the scheme.

The following were consulted:

John Courtenay, Senior Countryside Management Adviser, DANI.
Paddy Drennan, Environment section, Dept of Agriculture.
John Denning, Environment Section, Cavan Co. Co.
Gerry Gunning, Secretary, Rural Development Committee, IFA.

5.6.1. Background

The scheme aims to improve water quality in the Erne catchment by addressing nutrient enrichment of surface water from agricultural sources. Farmers are provided with information from soil analyses about the phosphorus (P) loading in their soils and nutrient and waste plans are drawn up for the farm in order to improve water quality in the long term.
The scheme was introduced because of concern over the growing P imbalance between crop requirements and applications in the Erne catchment. Over the past twelve years, the amounts of P entering the lakes has been steadily increasing, causing an increase in algal growth and deterioration of water quality. According to the specifications for the scheme (DANI, 1997), there is evidence that soils, even when only moderately supplied with P, release enough to cause serious deterioration in water quality.

A field-by-field approach is required, since a P budget, based on a balance sheet for the whole farm, would not necessarily prevent selective areas of land from becoming saturated. The scheme addresses the distribution of organic manures and the usage of P fertiliser only.

The scheme involves co-operative action between the Departments of Agriculture north and south of the border, and farmers, to address farm source water quality problems caused by excess phosphorus. Funding is provided by the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. The initial budget for the scheme was 1.4 million ECU, divided between both sides of the border on a fifty-fifty basis.

5.6.2 Implementation in Northern Ireland.

The scheme is being applied to three catchments: Colebrooke, Ballinmallard and Newtownbutler.

DANI drew up a list of farmers for each catchment who have already had a Pollution Risk Assessment carried out. Those that are judged to be the most intensive and at the greatest risk of nutrient loss are included targeted by DANI. All farmers on this list receive a letter from DANI offering them a chance to join this free scheme. DANI appointed consultants trained to carry out the work to the Department's specifications. These consultants are paid an agreed fee by the DANI for each plan prepared.

5.6.3. Payments to Farmers

The full cost of the preparation of the nutrient and waste management plan is full met through the scheme. This is a voluntary scheme and it is recommended that the farmer follow this plan. A payment of £100 is available at the end of the first year to each farmer who can show that he understood and has adhered to the plan. Training courses lasting five hours are also organised by the consultants and a payment of £50 is made to each farmer who satisfactorily completes the course.

5.6.4. Participation in Northern Ireland

5.6.5. Implementation of the Scheme in the Republic of Ireland

The Department of Agriculture was responsible for implementing the scheme in the Republic of Ireland. The scheme was promoted in the Erne Catchment through the local and national media. Public meetings were heard to advertise the scheme to farmers.

Consultants were appointed to operate the scheme based on agreed standards and payments. The consultants receive a payment for each satisfactorily completed plan.

5.6.6. Participation in the Republic of Ireland

The figures available for the Republic of Ireland suggest that only 30 plans have been prepared under the scheme. This is a very disappointing uptake considering the problems with nutrient enrichment of surface waters in the catchment.

5.6.7. Analysis

The need for a scheme of this type is evident from the decrease in water quality in the Erne catchment in recent years. The contribution from agriculture to excess nutrient loads has been increasing in recent years. The considerable investment in sewage treatment works, with EU Cohesion Funds, is placing the focus on agriculture as the principal contributor to water pollution. Nutrient Management Planning is promoted by the Department of Agriculture, Teagasc and the farming organisations as a way of saving farmers money and benefiting the environment. It could therefore be expected that there would be substantial participation in any scheme to provide this service free to farmers.

The success of the scheme in Northern Ireland has been impressive, with up to one hundred per cent participation by farmers in certain catchments. What are the reasons behind this success?

Farms in sensitive catchment areas are visited by DANI in order to carry out a comprehensive risk assessment. Up to 2,000 farms are subjected to a pollution risk assessment visit each year. If problems are detected then advice is given to reduce the risk of pollution. DANI therefore have a record of the most intensive farmers in sensitive catchments. This enabled DANI to target the most intensive farmers in the Erne catchment. Lists of the target farms were provided to the consultants and DANI advisors also helped to target farmers and encourage their entry into the scheme.

In the Republic, there is no similar system of pollution risk assessment. Consultants were left to target farmers themselves. The REPS has been blamed for the poor uptake in the south. However, those intensive farmers who were the target for the scheme are not participating in the REPS. The amount of REPS work available may have meant that consultants had significant workloads already and therefore were not pushing the scheme. It was also thought that intensive farmers are suspicious of the aims of the scheme. Some may see it as a precursor to mandatory rules on Nutrient Management Planning and therefore are not anxious to participate.

Nutrient Management Planning is being promoted as the future for sustainable farming. However, it appears that many intensive farmers are not prepared to voluntarily use Nutrient Management Planning as a management tool. Research elsewhere (see Chapters 5.3 and 5.6) has shown that many farms are failing to meet minimum standards on waste storage and spreading.

5.7. Corncrake Conservation Scheme

The case study was undertaken during December 1997 and January 1998. It includes information from a review of the literature, meetings with key individuals responsible for implementing the representatives of national and local organisations with an interest in the scheme.

The following were consulted:

Catherine Casey, BirdWatch Ireland.
John Murphy, BirdWatch Ireland.
Clive Mellon, BirdWatch Northern Ireland.
Gerry Gunning, Irish Farmers' Association.

5.7.1. Reasons for Corncrake Decline

Corncrakes were once common throughout the Irish countryside but numbers have been declining since the turn of the century (Casey, 1998). The corncrake is listed on Annex I of the EU Birds Directive (EEC/409/79) and is seriously threatened as a breeding species in Ireland. Agricultural intensification has been the main reason for the decline. There is a very close correlation across Europe between corncrake numbers and various factors of agricultural intensity. In Eastern Europe, and in the countries of the former Soviet bloc, where production is not so intensive, corncrake numbers are still high. The main decline has been due to an early, short and mechanised mowing season. Also significant is the absence of suitable tall vegetation early and late in the season due to the conversion of hay meadows to pasture or intensively managed silage.

A survey of corncrake numbers was carried out in 1988 (Table 5.8). A later survey in 1991 indicated that there was a serious decline in numbers over the period 1988 to 1991. BirdWatch Ireland established a project aimed at protecting the corncrake.

5.7.2. Corncrake Ecology

Corncrakes spend the winter in Africa and return to Ireland in late April (Casey, 1997). The males call to attract females to their territory. The female's nest is normally to be found within 250 metres of the male's nocturnal calling position. Two broods of chicks are normally hatched, with the second appearing in late July. It is known that this second brood is essential for the maintenance of corncrake numbers. Corncrakes migrate south to North Africa in September, arriving in southern Africa in December, and returning North in February and March.

To breed successfully, corncrakes need:

• Tall vegetation (20cm+) throughout the season, including when they arrive in Ireland in April
• Tall grasses such as a hay meadow for nesting and rearing young
• Late mowing (delayed to 1 August), corncrake-friendly mowing
• Late cover, especially for the second brood to fledge, and to shelter adults during the moult

5.7.3. Implementation

Shannon Callows (Counties Offaly, Galway, Roscommon)

The Shannon Callows (3,400 ha) forms one of the most extensive floodplain grasslands in Europe (Casey, 1996). There is an estimated 800 hectares of meadow in the callows within which corncrakes are well dispersed. These meadows are now proposed for designation as Natural Heritage Areas (NHA) or are designated as Special Protection Areas (SPAs).

A project worker employed by BirdWatch Ireland (then called the Irish Wildbird Conservancy) in 1991 undertook vegetation surveys, population monitoring, mowing timing observations and provided management advice to farmers. The response by the farmers to the field worker was very positive and many showed their willingness to co-operate on a voluntary basis. However many farmers were reluctant to delay mowing, with the risk of hay loss that could occur with late summer and autumn flooding. In 1992 the field worker again sought voluntary participation in a management programme to assist corncrake conservation (Donaghy, 1992). There was a limited response with a small number of farmers practising centre-out mowing. An increase in the time taken to cut the field was the main reason cited for not undertaking centre-out mowing.

In 1993 the Corncrake Grant Scheme, funded by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS), the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the EU Life Fund, was introduced in the Shannon Callows (Casey, 1993). Farmers with a confirmed calling male corncrake on, or within, 250 metres of their land for at least seven days could apply for the grant. In practice, as most of the callows are quite well defined units, if more that one corncrake was present, all farmers with land on the callow were deemed eligible for payment. Delayed mowing was carried out on 29.7%, and centre-out mowing on 30.8% of the eligible area.

Two BirdWatch Ireland project officers provided advice to farmers in the 1994 season (Casey, 1994). Although considerable publicity work was carried out, only direct contact with farmers yielded an appreciable number of grant applications. Payments were £50 per ha to delay mowing until 1 August and £10 per ha to mow from the centre outwards. These payments were raised to £80 per ha and £20 per ha, respectively, in June 1994 to help increase uptake. Participation in the scheme increased to over 80% of the eligible land in 1994 and has remained high in the intervening years. In 1995, £150/ha was offered a small number of farmers to delay mowing until 1st September (Williams, 1995). The objective was to provide 1-2 ha of late cover on each of the important callows. As a result, 20.7 ha in 14 sites on 11 callows were left unmown until September 1st. A late cover payment was also provided for a number of farmers in 1996 (Derwin, 1996). Mowing in 35.7 ha was delayed until 15 August and 19.3 ha was delayed until 1 September for higher rates of payment (Derwin, 1996). In 1997, for the first time since the start of the Corncrake Conservation Project in the Shannon Callows, no decline in corncrake numbers was recorded (Casey & Hunt, 1997). In the same year, 202 farmers with 659 ha of eligible land joined the Corncrake Grant Scheme. This represented 84% of the eligible area which was subject to delayed mowing until the first of August. 33 farmers availed of the late cover option with delayed mowing until 15th August on 26.2 ha and 23.4 ha delayed until 1 September.

Co. Donegal

In Co. Donegal, the scheme was introduced in 1992 (Duff, 1992). However, the rate of grant was too low and only those farmers who were already cutting late entered the scheme. In 1993, the grants rose to £70 per hectare for delayed mowing until July 19th and £10 per hectare for centre-out mowing. It was felt that there would be no co-operation unless adequate grants were offered.

In 1994, the grants were increased again, to £120 for delayed mowing and £20 for centre-out mowing (Magee, 1994). The uptake increased to 77.8%. The project officer suggested that the increase in corncrakes on Inishbofin was due to the provision of early and continuous cover. It was also noted that ‘one of the reasons for the shift from hay to silage is because, due to headage payments, farmers are carrying more livestock, especially sheep, and therefore require more winter fodder’. This resulted in more intensive management of grassland and increased silage cutting and the increased stocking rates have decreased the areas of early and late cover for corncrakes. In 1995 there was a big increase in the number of corncrakes on the islands (Magee, 1995). This increase accounted for an increase in corncrake number nationally for the first time since the 1988 survey. The overall numbers of corncrakes increased again in the area in 1996 (Magee, 1996). However, the numbers decreased in 1997 (Derwin, 1997) (see Table 5.8).

Co. Mayo

In 1994 BirdWatch Ireland introduced a similar scheme to that in Donegal in the Moy Valley, Co. Mayo (Gordon, 1994). The scheme gained popularity in 1995, 1996 and 1997 with 51-66% uptake (Gordon, 1995, 1996, 1997). The number of corncrakes remained stable in the area in 1996, with 23 birds recorded. However, the numbers decreased in 1997 (see Table 5.8).

5.7.4. Relationship Between the Corncrake Conservation Scheme and the REPS

Farmers entering the REPS are no longer eligible for the Corncrake Grant Scheme. It was thought that the Corncrake Grant Scheme would end with the introduction of the REPS in 1994. However, the Corncrake Grant Scheme has continued to operate because the number of farmers with eligible land entering the REPS has been small (10 -20%). The Donegal BirdWatch Ireland Project Officer commented that the larger farmers would not delay mowing regardless of the rate of payment because they need the fodder for the numbers of animals they are carrying.

It has been noted that where farmers are entering the REPS there are problems with corncrake management. Few REPS planners are setting out detailed corncrake management prescriptions in their farm plans (Gordon, 1996). Farmers participating in the REPS have been observed cutting their meadows early in the season or else grazed their fields into the early summer. Although REPS plans within the NHA are supposed to be referred to Dúchas, it has been discovered that this does not always happen in practice.

The Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands (AHGI) and the Islands launched a programme for management of SACs and SPAs. Landowners will be legally required to manage their land in accordance with management plans prepared by Dúchas. As compensation, landowners may choose to follow either of two routes: (a) if they join the REPS, an extra £30 per acre will be payable over the NHA/SAC area. The extra £30 supplement will only be payable on the SAC/NHA land. Amounting to £80 per acre over the area of callows designated as NHA/SAC.

It is envisaged that Dúchas will prepare individual management plans for each SAC/NHA Until these plans are prepared REPS planners are relying on the notifiable actions associated with each habitat type as management prescriptions. Extra payments will not achieve the management required on their own. The new scheme will mean extra restrictions for farmers who have a corncrake on their callow land over those without one, for the same payment. The presence of a corncrake will be seen as a penalty by some farmers. Considerably more monitoring of farmers would be required, over that operating in the present REPS scheme, if farmers are expected to adhere to the seasonal management requirements, such as centre-out-mowing.

It is proposed that the mandatory aspect of this scheme will be enforced through cross-compliance with livestock compensatory payments. If this measure is approved by the European Commission, participation in the REPS should increase substantially (see also Chapter 5.1). This proposal has been agreed by the IFA as it considers that more farmers will benefit from the scheme than will be disadvantaged.

It is expected that an SPA designation for the Shannon Callows should cover most or all of the area regularly used by corncrakes. In North Donegal and Mayo/West Connaught, where corncrake location year-to-year is less predictable, coverage by SPAs is more problematic. The islands of Tory and Inishbofin, off the Donegal coast, have been designated as SPAs, but Donegal mainland sites are not yet covered by SPAs.

In Mayo, the Mullet Peninsula contains several SPAs, but these are intertidal and wetland sites, and the main corncrake areas on the peninsula are excluded. The core corncrake area around the Moy Valley is designated as an SPA. It seems likely that, at least in Mayo and Donegal, interim specific corncrake conservation schemes, such as the Corncrake Grant Scheme will have to be maintained at least in the short term, to ensure that the recovery in corncrake numbers seen in recent years is not jeopardised. There is some scope that Dúchas will designate all of the core corncrake areas as SPAs.

The REPS scheme is unlikely to provide a suitable mechanism for conservation of the corncrake in the future unless farmers implement all of the required management practices. It has been demonstrated, through the work of BirdWatch Ireland, during the past six years, that considerable research, monitoring and expert advice is required if species on the brink of extinction in Ireland, such as the corncrake, are to be safeguarded. Such schemes must suit local circumstances and specific ecological needs. The environmental effectiveness of any scheme is related to the quality of technical advice delivered as part of the agreement package. This expertise is lacking in the REPS package at present.

5.7.5. Conclusions

References

An Foras Forbatha (1981): Areas of Scientific Interest in Ireland. Dublin
Bleasdale, A.J and Sheehy-Skeffington, M. (1992) The Influence of agricultural practices on plant communities in Connemara. In: Feehan J (Ed.) Environment and Development in Ireland. Proceedings of a conference held in UCD in December 1991. The Environmental Institute, UCD, Belfield, Dublin.
Bohnsack, U (1996): Agriculture and Nature Conservation in the Burren Region, Ireland. Ecology and Farming (9), 1996, 14-18. IFOAM, Tholey-Theley, Germany
Bohnsack, U. (1992): Proposals for an interim management plan for the Burren National Park, Co. Clare, Ireland. Unpublished Project Report, University of Hannover, Germany; Report to the Office of Public Works, National Parks & Wildlife Service, Dublin, Ireland
Bowman, J.J., Clabby, K.J., Lucey, J., McCarrigle, M.L. and Toner, P.F. (1997) Water Quality in Ireland 1991-1994. EPA, Ardcavan, Co. Wexford.
Carton, O. T. & Magette, W. H. (1998) Teagasc Manure Management Guidelines With Special Reference to Intensive Agricultural Enterprises. In: Draft Guidelines for Nutrient Use in Intensive Agricultural Enterprises, Carton, O.T. (Ed.). Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford. January 1998.
Carton, O.T. (Ed.) (1998) Draft Guidelines for Nutrient Use in Intensive Agricultural Enterprises. Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford. January 1998.
Casey, C. & Hunt J. (1997) Corncrake Fieldwork on the Shannon Callows 1997. Unpublished Report, BirdWatch Ireland, Monkstown, Co. Dublin.
Casey, C. (1993) In Action for Corncrakes Workshop 1993 Proceedings and Action Points. Unpublished Report, RSPB, Sandy, UK.
Casey, C. (1994) Corncrake Fieldwork on the Shannon Callows 1994. Unpublished Report, IWC, Dublin.
Champ, W.S.T (1996) Effects of Water Pollution on Fish. A paper presented to the Tindel School, Carlow.
Champ, W.S.T. (1993) Lough Sheelin: A 'Success' Story. In: Water Of Life. The Proceedings of a Conference on the Inland Waters of Ireland.
Coxon, C.E. (1995) Groundwater vulnerability and protection issues in the lower Fergus catchment, Co. Clare, - in: Hydrogeological aspects of groundwater protection in karstic areas (COST Action 65 Final Report), Luxembourg, European Commission, D-G XII, 162-169.
Department of Agriculture and Food (1995a): Circular 46/95 Reps and Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs). 28.6.95
Department of Agriculture and Food (1995b) Circular 84/95 Re: Conditions for the Conservation of the Burren under REPS - attached conditions. 27.11.95
Department of Agriculture and Food (1995c) Circular 9/95 To each approved REPS Planner. 21.2.95
Department of Agriculture and Food (1996). Rural Environment Protection Scheme Agri-Environmental Specifications booklet, page 16, Revised 15 May 1996. Department of Agriculture and Food, Dublin.
Department of Agriculture and Food (1998a): Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) new package worth over £3 billion. Press release 22.4.98.
Department of Agriculture and Food (1998b): New REPS package approved by EU STAR Committee. Press release 29.4.98.
Department of Agriculture and Food (1998c): Circular No 24/98 of 18 May 1998 re: Supplementary Measure 1 (Natural Heritage Areas) and Supplementary Measure 2 (Rejuvenation of Degraded Areas).
Department of Agriculture, Food & Forestry & Department of the Environment (1996). Code of Good Practice to Protect Waters from Pollution by Nitrates. Advisory Booklet.
Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. 1996. EU Arable Aid Payments 1996/1997 Handbook. Department of Agriculture, Dublin.
Department of the Environment (1997) Managing Ireland's Rivers & Lakes. A Catchment Based Strategy Against Eutrophication. Department of the Environment, Dublin.
Derwin, J. (1996) Corncrake Fieldwork on the Shannon Callows 1992. Unpublished Report, BirdWatch Ireland, Dublin.
Derwin, J. (1997) Corncrake Fieldwork in North Donegal 1997. Unpublished Report, BirdWatch Ireland, Dublin.
DG VI (1998) Agenda 2000 Fact Sheet: Towards a greening of the Common Agricultural Policy.
(DoA) Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (1996) Rural Environment Protection Scheme: Agri-Environmental Specifications, Revised 15 May 1996. Department of Agriculture and Food, Dublin.
Donaghy, A. (1992) Corncrake Fieldwork on the Shannon Callows 1992. Unpublished Report, IWC, Dublin.
Douglas, C. (1994) Overgrazing in Ireland: some impacts. Unpublished report. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Dublin.
Drew, D & E. Magee (1994): Environmental Implications of Land Reclamation in the Burren, Co. Clare: a preliminary analysis. -in: Irish Geography 27(2) (1994) 81-96
Drew, D (1990): The Hydrology of the Burren, County Clare. -in: Irish Geography 23(2) 69-89
Drew, D (1995): Assessing the risk of groundwater contamination due to recent agricultural practices in the Burren karst, western Ireland. - in: Hydrogeological aspects of groundwater protection in karstic areas (COST Action 65 Final Report), Luxembourg, European Commission, D-G XII, 157-162.
Drew, D (1996): A Survey of Recent Reclamation in the Burren. Unpublished report. Heritage Council, Dublin 1996.
Duggan, P (1996) Rural River Phosphate Loads. Presentation to Local Government Computer Services Board Sanitary Services User Group Meeting, Green Isle Hotel, 25th. November 1996.
Duggan, P, and Denning, J. (1996) Environmental GIS. Paper Presented at Geographic Information System User Group Meeting, Royal Hospital Kilmainham, 15 April 1996.
Duggan, P. & Champ, W.S.T. (1991) Lough Sheelin Reviewed. In: Environment and Development in Ireland, Feehan, J. (Ed.). The Environmental Institute, University College Dublin.
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (1997): Hydrometric Area 27 Fergus Assessment URL: http://www.compass.ie/epa
European Commission (1997) Agenda 2000: For a Stronger and Wider Europe. Press release IP/97/660. DOC 97/9. 16 July 1997.
Farmer's Weekly, 15 May, 1998. Extended grazing carries risks as well as benefits.
Feehan, J., and O'Donovan, G. (1996) The Bogs of Ireland: An introduction to the Natural, Cultural and Industrial Heritage of Irish Peatlands. The Environmental Institute, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin.
Foss, P.J., and O'Connell, C.A. (1996) Irish Peatland Conservation Plan 2000. Irish Peatland Conservation Council, 119, Capel St., Dublin.
Geerling, G.W., and Gestel, C.B.L (1997). Erosion in the West of Ireland. Reports Environmental Studies No. 149. Department of Environmental Studies, Faculty of Science, University of Nijmegen and Foundation for the Conservation of Irish Bogs, Wijnbesstraat 57, 6543 TK Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Unpublished.
Gordon, T. (1994) Corncrake Fieldwork in Mayo & West Connaught 1994. Unpublished Report, IWC, Dublin.
Gordon, T. (1995) Corncrake Fieldwork in Mayo & West Connaught 1995. Unpublished Report, IWC, Dublin.
Gordon, T. (1996) Corncrake Fieldwork in Mayo & West Connaught 1996. Unpublished Report, BirdWatch Ireland, Dublin.
Gordon, T. (1997) Corncrake Fieldwork in Mayo & West Connaught 1997. Unpublished Report, BirdWatch Ireland, Dublin.
Heritage Service (1996): Environmentally Friendly Farming in the Burren and other limestone pavement areas. Advisory leaflet No. 2. National Parks and Wildlife Service. Department of Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht.
Heritage Service (1997): Proposed Natural Heritage Areas (pNHA) and Proposed Candidate Sites of Conservation (pCSAC). Co. Clare (sheets 36 and 42) and Co. Galway ( sheets 36 and 42).
IFA (Irish Farmers' Association) (1997) Safeguarding Water Quality with the IFA Nutrient Management Code. IFA advisory leaflet prepared in association with Teagasc.
Irish Farmers' Journal. SAC package gets Brussels approval. 2 May, 1998, p.4.
Irish Farmers' Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, Page 44, 3 January 1998.
Johnston A. E. & Poulton P. R. (1995). Defining Critical Levels of Available Soil P for Agricultural Crops. International Workshop on P. Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford.
Keane, S. (1990): Vegetation and Land Use Studies in the Eastern Area of the Burren, Co. Clare. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis. University College Galway, Ireland.
MacGowan, F., and Doyle, G.J. (1996) The effects of sheep grazing and trampling by tourists on lowland blanket bog in the West of Ireland. In: Giller, P.S., and Myers, A.A. (eds) 1996 Disturbance and recovery in ecological systems, 20-32. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.
Mackie, K. (1993) Corncrake Fieldwork in North Donegal 1993. Unpublished Report, IWC, Dublin.
Magee, E. (1994) Corncrake Fieldwork in North Donegal 1994. Unpublished Report, IWC, Dublin.
Magee, E. (1995) Corncrake Fieldwork in North Donegal 1995. Unpublished Report, IWC, Dublin.
Magee, E. (1996) Corncrake Fieldwork in North Donegal 1996. Unpublished Report, BirdWatch Ireland, Dublin.
Mc Guire, C. (1991) Corncrake Fieldwork on the Shannon Callows 1991. Unpublished Report, IWC, Dublin.
Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht (1996): Burren National Park Study - Draft Strategy for North Clare Area. Stationary Office, Dublin
Mollan, C. (Ed.). Royal Dublin Society Seminar Proceedings Number 5.
Murphy, J. (1995) Sheep, forestry and turf saving take toll on upland birds. IWC News, Vol. 82, Spring 1995.
Murphy, J. (Ed.). 1997. Irish Farming and Wildlife: A Management Handbook. Birdwatch Ireland, Dublin.
Poulton, P. R., Tunney, H. & Johnston A. E. (1995). Comparison of Teagasc (Ireland) and MAFF (England & Wales) Fertiliser P Recommendations. Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford.
RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) (1995) Environmental Land Management Schemes in England. Comments by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. RSPB, Sandy, Bedfordshire.
SRA (Salmon Research Agency), (1994) 1994 Annual Report No. 38. Newport, Co. Mayo.
Stapleton, L. (1996) The State of the Environment in Ireland. Environmental Protection Agency, Ardcavan, Wexford.
Teagasc (1994). Monaghan Agricultural Waste Management Study. Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford. Unpublished.
Teagasc (1997A) Development of the National Pig Industry (1997-2000). Teagasc, 19 Sandymount Avenue, Dublin 4. April 1997.
Teagasc (1997B) New Phosphorous Fertiliser Recommendations. Explanatory Leaflet. Teagasc, Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford.
Teagasc (1997C). Phosphorous and Farming, Comment. Today’s Farm Magazine. Volume 8 No. 4 November/December 1997, Page 4.
Tuite, P. (1997) Sow Numbers Increase by 16%. Article for Irish Farmers' Journal w/e 8th March 1997.
Weir, G (1996) Sheep overgrazing in the Nephin Begs. MSc. Thesis, Environmental Sciences Unit, Trinity College, Dublin. Unpublished.
Wildlife Service (1989) Index to Areas of Scientific Interest. Wildlife Service, Dublin. Unpublished.
Wildlife Trusts (1997). Agenda 2000: CAP and Rural Policy Reforms. Discussion Paper. Wildlife Trusts, UK.
Williams, G. (1995) In Action for Corncrakes Workshop 1995 Proceedings and Action Points. Unpublished Report, RSPB, Sandy, UK.
Personal Communication:
Burke, Mary; Chief Chemist, Clare Co. Council, February 1998