Inclusive of amendments of 30 September 2008, of 15 May 2009,16 June 2009 (Indicators), 15 July 2009, 12 November, 23 December 2009,

11 January 2010, 18 October 2011, 10 November 2011, 7 February 2012 & 5 March 2012 (Indicators), 4 April, June and July 2012 & April 2013.

IrelandCAP Rural Development Programme

2007-2013

Available through

CAP RURAL DEVELOPMENT DIVISION,4 centre,

Agriculture House, Kildare Street,

DUBLIN 2.

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Contents Page

1 & 2 Title of Rural Development Programme and coverage of the RDP 5

3 Analysis of situation 63.1 - Introduction 6

3.1.1 - General socio-economic context 7

3.1.2 - Performance of the agricultural, forestry and food sectors 13

3.1.3 - Environment and Land Management 18

3.1.4 - Rural Economy and Quality of Life 26

3.1.5 - Local Action Groups (LEADER) 28

3.2 - Strategy chosen to meet strengths and weaknesses 33 3.3 - Ex-Ante Evaluation 43

3.4 - Impact from Previous Programming period and other information 44

4 The Priorities (including summaries of responses to the Ex Ante Evaluation and SEA) 48

4. 1 - Justification of the priorities chosen having regard to the Community strategic guidelines and the national strategy plan. 48

4.2 - Expected impacts deriving from the ex-ante evaluation with regards to the priorities chosen 56

5 Information on the Priorities, Axes and Measures 735.1 - Axis 1: Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural sector 75

Vocational training and information actions 76

Setting up of young farmers 80

Early retirement of farmers and farm workers 83

- Farm modernisation of agricultural holdings (FIS) 87

Farm modernisation of agricultural holdings (TAMS)

Adding Value to Agriculture and Forestry 98

91

2

5.2 - Axis 2: Improving the environment and the countryside 100

Payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas

101

Natura 2000 payments (linked to REPS 4) 105

- Natura 2000 payments (linked to AEOS) 112

Agri-environmental payments (REPS 4) 118

- Agri-environmental payments (AEOS)

- Non Productive Investments (linked to M214) 188

166

5.3 - Axis 3: Quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy 190

Diversification into non-agricultural activities 191

Support for business creation and development 194

Encouragement of tourism activities 197

Basic Services for the economy and rural population 200

Basic Services for the economy and rural population (The Rural Broadband Scheme) 202

Village renewal and development 210

Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage 212

Training and information measure for economic actors operating in the field covered by Axis 3

215

5.4 - Axis 4: Implementation of the LEADER Approach 218

Implementing local development strategies 220

Implementing co-operation projects 224

Running the Local Action Group 226

6, 7, 8 Financial Plans

Annual contribution from the EAFRD 234

Overall EU co-funded expenditure 234

EU co-funded expenditure by axis and measure 237

Additional national financing per axis and measures 2383

9 Competition State Aid appraisal 239

10 Complementarity with other CAP instruments and EU policies 242

11 Designation of competent authorities and responsible bodies 246

12 Monitoring and evaluation system 247

13 Communication plan on information and publicity 248

14 Consultation process and outcome 252

15 Equality between men and women and non-discrimination 260

16 Technical assistance operations 267

Appendix 1:Statistical Tables 1 to 11 on rural areas, agriculture and food; map of rural and urban density 270

Appendix 2: Natura 2000 areas 279

Appendix 3: Agri-environment costings (REPS and Organic Farming) 305Appendix 3A: Agri-environment costings (AEOS and Natura 2000) 332

Appendix 4: National legislation 344

Appendix 5: Supplementary information on state aid 348

Appendix 6: Verification of costs 371

Appendix 7: Organogram of management and control structure for the RDP 373

Appendix 8: Glossary of abbreviations 374

Appendix 9: Ex-ante evaluation of RDP 2007-2013 376

Appendix 10:Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of Draft RDP 2007-2013 453

4

1. Title

Rural Development Programme, Ireland, 2007-2013.

2. Geographical area covered by the plan

The programme covers the total territory of Ireland.

5

3. Analysis of the situation in terms of strengths and weaknesses, the strategy chosen to meet them and the ex-ante evaluation

3.1 Introduction

This programme is based on the EU framework for rural development and on the national rural development strategy formulated in line with that framework. The programme for Ireland sets three main priorities:

Improving the competitiveness of the agriculture sector Improving the environment and the countryside by support for land management Improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of economic

activity.

The first two priorities are directed primarily at the agricultural sector. Their competitiveness and environmental focus reflects the multifunctional nature of the sectors. This theme is also evident in the AgriVision 2015 Action Plan for the agri-food sector. That plan is based on the vision of ‘an industry attaining optimal levels of efficiency, competitiveness and responsiveness to the market while also respecting and enhancing the physical environment’. The measures in this programme are fully consistent with that vision.

Agriculture is not the only contributor to rural development. Forty per cent of the population consider themselves rural dwellers, with most unconnected to farming. The third EU priority – quality of life and diversification – recognises this. It is relevant to all rural dwellers including farmers, particularly in view of the growth in part-time farming. The challenges in the wider context include the provision of alternative and suitable employment opportunities for people living in rural areas and a range of services that people now want and expect locally. In this programme, actions centred on the wider rural community such as the development of rural enterprises based on local natural resources, tourism, village enhancement and environmental initiatives will be delivered in a manner that addresses these challenges and complements on-farm measures. The measures are consistent with the 1999 White Paper on Rural Development and its commitments relating to the economic and social well-being of rural communities.

The Rural Development Programme for the period 2007-2013 was launched in July 2007. Following on from the “CAP Health Check” agreement in November 2008 and the approval of an Economic Recovery Package at EU level, the RDP was revised to reflect the new priorities identified therein viz climate change, renewable energies, water management, biodiversity, measures accompanying restructuring of the dairy sector, innovation, and broadband infrastructure in rural areas. Additional changes were also introduced to the programme, particularly a more focussed and targeted approach to competitiveness issues, so as to ensure the continued effectiveness of the programme in the face of a difficult economic and budgetary environment.

A final introductory point concerns the format and the analysis used in this programme. The format is based on that prescribed by EU legislation. The analysis is based heavily on, and to a large extent repeats, the position set out in Ireland’s rural development strategy. This reflects the fact that Ireland is adopting a single-programme approach for its whole territory.

6

3.1.1 General socio-economic context of the geographical area:

Definition of the rural areaThe basis and rationale for the definition of rural areas as outlined in the National Strategy Plan (NSP) is the National Spatial Strategy (NSS), which was adopted in 2002 as part of the National Development Plan 2000–2006. The NSS is a twenty-year planning framework designed to foster more balanced physical, economic and social development across regions and areas. Infrastructural and economic investment under the NSS is targeted on the development of key gateway and hub cities and towns in the different regions. Priorities identified in the NSS for rural areas include the provision of appropriate community infrastructure, the provision of economic opportunities and further the development of leisure and cultural facilities.

The National Rural Development Programme will complement the NSS by focusing on areas outside the regional urban targeting of the NSS. These areas account for 72 per cent of the national population (see Table 2a, Appendix 1). A number of small-to medium-sized towns that do not meet the OECD definition of rural areas, i.e. less than 150 persons/km2 (see map, Appendix1) will continue to be included in rural programming. Many of these towns are located in close proximity to the Greater Dublin Area and so experience significant threat from urban sprawl. The remainder are located in key regional areas where population stabilisation is a priority.

The five broad categories of rural areas identified in the NSP demonstrate the different rural characteristics and needs. But to complete the picture of rural Ireland another category must be recognised, viz. peri-urban areas. These are areas close to, and under the influence of, main urban centres. Features include high population densities and levels of commuting to work with relatively low reliance on farming.1

The five broad rural area types in Ireland as described by the NSS:

1 Areas that are strong – mainly in the South and East where agriculture will remain strong, where currently over 30 per cent of the labour force is engaged in primary agriculture, but where pressure for development is high and some rural settlements are under stress. Many of these settlements are peri-urban in nature and have the highest population densities in this area type of over 40 persons/km2.

2 Areas that are changing – including many parts of the Midlands, the Border, the South and West where population and agricultural employment have started to decline and where replacement employment is required. These areas are characterised by having the lowest level of self-employment outside agriculture at 13 per cent of the available labour force.

3 Areas that are weak – including more western parts of the Midlands, certain parts of the Border and mainly inland areas in the West, where population decline has been significant and the ratio of those aged 65 and over exceeds 15 per cent of the total population of the area.

4 Areas that are remote – including parts of the west coast and the islands. A feature of these areas is that they represent the highest proportion of part-time female workers at 29 per cent of the total female population at work.

1 Irish Rural Structure - Report prepared for the NSS 2002 by NUI Maynooth and Brady Shipman Martin

7

5 Areas that are culturally distinct – including parts of the west coast and the Gaeltacht, which have a distinct cultural heritage. Due to their widespread distribution across the other areas, socio-economic needs vary from isolation to peri-urban pressure.

Table 3.1: Rural area typology and profile

Area type per cent of rural popn

Popn density

persons/km2

Elderly dependency

ratio

per cent Labour force at work in manufacturing

Females at work part-time as per cent of total females at

workPeri-urban 29 41 193 19 25Very strong 26 28 174 22 24Strong, adjusting

14 15 246 14 24

Structurally weak

16 15 266 20 20

Marginal 8 17 261 21 29Highly diverse areas and culturally distinct areas

7 16 240 11 27

Analysis of age and gender population structureThe most recent national census of population2 recorded an increase in the national population from 3.6 million in 1996 to 4.2 million in 2006, or an increase of 17 per cent. The rate of growth was greatest in urban areas and along the east coast. This growth was accompanied by a continued concentration of population clusters along newly upgraded transport corridors between major cities and surrounding regional towns.

Table 3.2: 2006 Population by gender and age structure (percentage)

Age group

Under 15 years

15—19 years

20—24 years

25—64 years

65 years and upwards

Total

Male 10.5 3.5 4.1 27.1 4.9 50.1Female 9.9 3.4 4.0 26.5 6.1 49.9Total 20.4 6.9 8.1 53.6 11.0 100.0

The demographic profile of the country as a whole is strong when viewed in age terms. However, this profile differs between regions (See Table 1, Appendix 1).

The Central Statistics Office (CSO) has projected a national population of 5.7 million by 2026. This would represent an increase of 35 per cent over the population recorded in 2006. However, regional disparities in this growth are predicted, with above average increases in Dublin and the Mid-East and below average increases elsewhere.

2 Central Statistics Office 2006, Census of population

8

In and out migration and problems arising from peri-urban pressures and remotenessBased on a recent data set, the CSO estimates that all regions apart from Dublin and the Mid-East will lose population to internal migration. However, all regions will experience gains from external migration. Under the same scenario the natural increase in population will account for 52.5% of the overall population increase in the West compared to 54% in the greater Dublin region and 73% in the Midlands.

External migration plays a significant role in terms of regional population. CSO projections are for an inward migration of 0.6 million people in the 20-year period to 2026. Again, while these numbers will disperse throughout the eight regions, nearly half will concentrate in the Greater Dublin region, with lowest numbers gravitating towards the Mid-West and Midlands (See Table 2, Appendix).

Areas of weak population structureA further priority is the need to halt population decline in more remote rural areas. In the period 1926–2002 significant rural areas at local administration level in 18 out of 26 counties experienced a population decline in excess of 50 per cent. Recent research into population patterns in Ireland shows that some 30 per cent of rural dwellers can be described as living in areas experiencing weak population structure and a consequent diminishing economic base.3

Rural economy and employment patternsIreland’s regions are predominantly rural – characterised by medium-sized and small market towns, villages and open countryside. One of the most fundamental challenges facing rural economies is the impact of restructuring in agriculture and traditional industry and the associated need for diversification and growth in the non-farm rural economy GVA/person in the BMW (Border, Midlands and Western) region was down from about 77% of the state average in 1996 to 72% of the state average in 2006. This compares to 110% of the state average in the S&E (Southern and Eastern) region in 2006. Although the region accounted for a little over 25% of the people at work, it contributed less than 20% of the GVA4. Research by the ESRI (Economic and Social Research Institute) notes that the “difference between the ‘poorest’ and ‘richest’ counties increased over the period 1995 to 2002, suggesting that there was income divergence during the ‘Celtic Tiger’ era”. However it also notes that the operation of the fiscal system reduced income disparities across counties – the gap in income is significantly reduced once subsidies and taxes are taken into account.5

Employment in the secondary sector (e.g. manufacturing and construction), which is predicted to decline in coming years, is particularly important in rural areas – it accounts for 32% of employment in rural areas compared to 28% nationally. The downturn in construction combined with a decline in traditional manufacture impacts significantly in rural areas. These sectors represent considerable proportions of full-time employment and are also important outlets for the growing numbers of part-time farmers. This underscores the need for training and education amongst those in vulnerable sectors.

Rural tourism, which has traditionally been a mainstay of rural employment, also faces serious challenges. The tendency for tourists to concentrate in the greater Dublin and Eastern region highlights the need for regionally balanced tourism6.

3 Kearney, B. 2005, Update on Rural Areas since publication of the White Paper on Rural Development 19994 CSO County Incomes and Regional GDP 20065 Morgenroth, E. (2009) “Who is Paying for Regional Balance in Ireland”, ESRI Research Bulletin 2009/1/36 Tourism Action Plan Implementation Group

9

Off-farm employment patternsA growing feature of farming patterns is the increase in the number of ‘part-time’ farmers. In 1991, some 73.4 per cent of farmers described ‘farm work’ as their sole occupation, with the remaining 26.6 per cent having another (either major or subsidiary) occupation. The trend towards what is generically entitled ‘part-time farming’ is illustrated by CSO data for 2007, which indicates that farming was the sole occupation for 66,600 or 52 per cent of holders. 47% of farmers had another either major or subsidiary occupation while 1% were farmholders who did not work on the farm.

The most recent Census of Agriculture, carried out in 2000, showed that just under 5 per cent of farms (6996) were involved in non-agricultural activity on the farm. The breakdown of this figure is outlined below7:

Forestry 2,849 farms Farm tourism 1,240 farms Recreational activities 374 farms Home crafts 173 farms Other 2,871 farms

Relevant indicators in relation to the rural social economy include the following:

The national take-up of DSL broadband is approximately 5% in rural areas compared to a national average of 13%. National figures are below the EU average.

The services sector accounts for 55% of GVA in rural areas compared to 65% nationally.

Agricultural structures The total land area of Ireland is approximately 6.9 million hectares, of which 4.3 million hectares or 62 per cent is used for agriculture and approximately 710,000 hectares for forestry - about 10 per cent of total land. Seventy nine per cent of agricultural area is devoted to grass, 11 per cent to rough grazing, 7 per cent to cereals and 3 per cent to other crops (potatoes, sugar beet etc).

The principal changes in agricultural area in the 2000 – 2007 period were a decrease in the total amount of land used for agriculture including a 3% decrease in the area devoted to pasture and a 3% decrease in the area devoted to silage production.

As regards the age structure, 7 per cent of Irish farmers are under 35 years of age and 51 per cent of Irish farmers are over 55 years of age. Figure 3.1 provides a detailed description of the age profile in Irish farming in 2007.

7 Some farms reported 2 or more types of gainful non-agricultural activity

10

Figure 3.1

Given trends in the general economy (to 2007) and the attraction of alternative employment – as evidenced by the growth in part-time farming – there is an ongoing need to promote agriculture to young people. This can be done through a combination of incentive measures and an overall increase in the competitiveness and profitability of farming.

In 2007, the total number of farms was 128,200 (CSO, Farm Structures Survey 2007). Since 2000, there has been a decline in the number of farms in all size categories, but most notably in the smallest size group. Average farm size increased marginally to just over 32 hectares, with one-fifth of farms less than 10 hectares and 63% less than 30 hectares. Overall, the rate of decline over the period is estimated to have been 1.4% per annum, which is a slight reduction on the rate of decline over the previous 7-year period and at a lesser rate than in several other European countries. Figure 3.2 below provides a detailed description of farm size in Ireland in 2007.

11

Figure 3.2

One of the major obstacles to increasing farm size is the low level of land mobility, with only 6,146 hectares of agricultural land sold in 2004, combined with an average sale price of €16,261 per hectare of land in 2004. Official data on land sales in not available for the last few years however recent reports on land sales suggest that the volume sold remains at very low levels while land prices are contracting. Figure 3.3 shows the decline in sales of agricultural land as land prices have risen.

Figure 3.3

12

In order to overcome this difficulty, many farmers have turned to leasing, with about one-third of all farmers or 32% of farms having leased approximately 17% of the total agricultural area in 2007. To encourage older farmers (over 40 years of age) to lease out farmland to other farmers, an income tax exemption exists for land leased for longer than five years. The 2000 Census of Agriculture data highlighted a high level of farm fragmentation, with only 28 per cent of farms in a single parcel of land, while 18 per cent of farms consisted of five or more parcels. At farm level, land mobility, consolidation and early transfer of land and flexible quota management are important aspects in facilitating structural change.

3.1.2 Performance of agricultural, forestry and food sectors

The agri-food sector continues to be one of the most important and dynamic indigenous manufacturing elements in the Irish economy. It is estimated that the agri-food sector8

accounted for approximately 6.7% of Gross Value Added (GVA) at factor cost in 2006. The primary agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors together accounted for approximately 2.5% of GVA. . Due to its very strong export orientation and low import content, it is responsible for a significant proportion of the country’s net foreign earnings. A report completed in May 20089 examined the net inflow of funds to the Irish economy associated with the biosector (Agriculture, forestry and fishing as well as their downstream industries). The net inflows are the net value of exports i.e. the inflows to the economy associated with exports less the associated outflows in importing materials and the repatriation of profits by foreign companies. In 2005, the net foreign earnings of the biosector amounted to 32% of the total earnings from primary and manufacturing industries which was double the sector’s 16% contribution to exports that year.

Food – production, exports and structureIn 2007 goods output at producer prices was € 5.7bn, the main contributors were milk (29%), cattle and calves (26%), forage plants (16%) and pigs (5%).

In terms of self-sufficiency, Ireland is self sufficient in beef (820%), pigmeat (163%), sheepmeat (303%), poultrymeat (101%), butter (1054%), cheese (354%) and milk powder (1088%). In the case of cereals, Ireland’s level of self-sufficiency is 90%.

Agri-food exports for 2007 were in the region of €8.6 billion. Beef, dairy products and ingredients account for over 45% of this amount. Trade with other EU-1510 countries accounts for approximately 75% of Irish agri-food exports. Within this, the UK is Ireland’s single biggest market representing over 46% of sales. Increased trade liberalisation as a consequence of both recent CAP reforms and the Doha Round of World Trade talks will lead to a more competitive environment for Irish agricultural exports. Given the importance of beef and dairy product exports to Ireland’s total agri-food exports, issues such as the competitiveness and scale of these sectors will continue to be critical factors.

8 The Agri-Food sector is taken to include primary production (agriculture, fishing and forestry) together with the food and beverage, and wood processing sectors (excludes tobacco)9 http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/publications/2008/NetContributionofAgri-food2Funds_NewEstimate.pdf10 Defined as Member countries in the European Union prior to the accession of ten new member countries on 1 May 2004.

13

Sectoral analysis

Dairy Sector

The dairy industry is one of Ireland’s most important indigenous industries and comprises a vital part of the agri-food sector. In 2007 milk accounted for the largest share of Ireland’s gross agriculture output at 29%. It is an export driven sector with 85% of dairy products exported representing one quarter of all food and drink exports. In 2007 the value of these exports reached a record €2.36 billion11 with the UK and Continental Europe accounting for 35% and 26% respectively of these exports.

With the removal of milk quotas in 2015, the industry must play to its strengths of grass-based production to ensure low cost production and to market its green image. This can be achieved through maximising the intake of grazed grass in cows’ diets. Equally the industry’s weaknesses must be tackled through achieving greater scale in milk production, processing and marketing to reduce the costs per litre while also examining Ireland’s overall product mix.

Sheepmeat

Ireland’s sheep meat sector is an important traditional indigenous industry. Export markets in 2007 were valued at €200 million. Annual sheep slaughterings amount to approximately 3 million. According to the June 2008 CSO livestock Survey the Irish sheep flock stood at 5.09 million head, with the breeding flock numbering 2.71 million head.

During 2008, Ireland exported an estimated 41,500 tonnes of sheepmeat which was valued at approximately €166 million. France is the main market for Irish sheepmeat exports, accounting for approximately 51 per cent of total exports in 2008. The UK is also a substantial export market, accounting for 30%.

The challenge now is to sustain a viable industry in Ireland and to have a level of production capable of ensuring a strong and competitive processing industry. This requires an efficient and profitable production base. The Sheep Industry Development Strategy published in 2006 identified a range of measures which would assist in developing a sustainable sector. Efficient stock control and handling facilities are central to reducing labour input and improving farm efficiency.

Poultry/Eggs

The poultry industry was valued at €253m in 2007. Exports of processed poultry continue to account for over 60 per cent of the total in value terms. The UK continues to be the key market for Irish poultry, accounting for almost 80 per cent of total exports. Challenges for the industry included the high cost of feed and high level of imports into the EU at 200,000 tonnes of cooked poultry per annum. Irish producers must operate against a significant cost disadvantage against third country competitors.

11 Bord Bia

14

There are 247 egg producers in the country and, taking account of packing and ancillary activities, around 830 people are employed in the sector. The farmgate value of egg production is estimated at €40m annually. About 85% of the eggs consumed here are home-produced. A critical mass of output is required to support a viable egg packing industry and to service the requirements of the multiple retailers’ central purchasing practices.

Egg producers have shown themselves to be efficient and progressive. Irish eggs enjoy an excellent salmonella status and most are participants in the Bord Bia Egg Quality Assurance Scheme which requires strenuous standards on quality, traceability etc. Ongoing investment will be necessary to ensure compliance with new animal welfare requirements and evolving consumer demand.

Beef

The beef industry is one of Ireland’s most important indigenous industries and comprises a vital part of the agri-food sector. In excess of 100,000 Irish farms have a beef enterprise with the national sector comprising over one million suckler cows (in 65,000 herds) and the surplus progeny from the dairy herd.

Ireland is the largest exporter of beef in Europe with exports valued at €1.57 billion in 2007. The Irish beef industry has achieved significant diversification across the EU marketplace, with the EU market now accounting for 97 percent of our exports, up from 50 percent in 2000. The industry has made significant progress in the last 5-10 years in moving from frozen to fresh output and in terms of increasing its sales to continental EU markets by 70 percent.

Despite this rapid transformation it is vital that the sector continues to respond to change with farmers facing challenges on many fronts not least those concerning profitability and sustainability. In this regard there is a significant variation both in output, with decoupled farm payments comprising over 50% of gross farm output, and in returns per hectare. Further challenges include the threat of increased competition, reduced levels of support and environmental constraints.

Pig Sector

The Irish Pigmeat industry is worth around €360m annually and is the third most important sector in agricultural output after beef and dairy with 7,500 jobs supported in production, slaughter, pork processing, feed manufacture and services. The domestic market accounts for over 57%of Irish pigmeat output.

A report prepared by the Teagasc in 2008 highlighted the key challenges facing the sector. In order to remain competitive, the industry requires a highly skilled, trained workforce and must achieve high levels of efficiency. Investment is required to produce pigmeat to the highest standards of quality and safety, and to meet new EU animal welfare requirements, while adequately remunerating pig producers.

Organics

Within the agri-food sector the organic sector in Ireland is comparatively small by EU standards. At present there are just over 1,450 organic operators in Ireland, with just under 45,000 hectares of land under organic production methods, just over 1 per cent of our agricultural land. The market for organic food has grown strongly in recent years. At the end

15

of 2003 the Irish organic market was estimated to be worth €38 million. The current estimate, based on research carried out by Bord Bia (the Irish Food Board) is €66 million.

Processing sectorMost food companies are in the small-and medium-sized category. The industry as a whole has a reasonable geographic spread and is an important source of employment throughout the country. Approximately 44% of food and drink manufacturing units are in the Border, Midlands and West (BMW) region compared to less than one-third of the rest of the manufacturing sector. The meat industry is most strongly represented in the border and mid-east area while the dairy industry is primarily concentrated in the southern regions, particularly the south-west.

Tables 3–10 in Appendix 1 set out in more detail the position summarised in this section.

Looking to the futureFor the agri-food sector, the overall objective is to develop a competitive, consumer-focused sector that contributes to a vibrant rural economy, society and environment. It is clear that further major changes in international and EU policy and in market trends are in prospect and, indeed, under way. These changes will create more competitive EU and world commodity markets and more complex and innovative food product markets. An already demanding and tough marketplace will become even more so. These trends will be intensified by the increased trade liberalisation that will emerge from a possible WTO agreement.

To prosper in this new environment will require change in the agriculture and food industry at every level. In particular Ireland must:

Take advantage of the 'freedom to farm' for the market arising from the decoupling of direct payments

Focus on the requirements of the consumer at every stage in the value chain, especially in ensuring the highest standards of food safety

Continue, and accelerate, the process of structural change at farm and processor level to achieve the most competitive structures possible

Ensure that the knowledge base and technical skills of the sector are developed to place it in a world-leading position

Match the above capabilities with an entrepreneurial focus on exploiting market opportunities

Encourage the agriculture sector to embrace techniques designed to mitigate climate change and minimise gaseous emissions to the atmosphere

Identify the likely future impacts of climate change together with those impacts that are now probable, and prepare a strategy to assist the Irish agriculture sector to adapt to these impacts.

ForestryIreland’s forestry sector comprises not only an expanding growing sector but also a vibrant forest industry and a modern harvesting and transport sector. The growing sector comprises many small-and medium-sized enterprises that service Ireland’s woods and forests including forest nurseries, consultants, self-assessment companies and forest contractors. Over 90 per cent of all new planting is now undertaken by farmers, which is significantly changing the structure of forest-ownership in Ireland, with some 16,000 private plantations now established. Forestry has provided an alternative enterprise for farmers who are diversifying from the traditional patterns of agriculture and will continue to do so.

16

The processing sector includes conifer sawmills and hardwood sawmills that rely on the growing sector as a source of raw material. Included here also are the panel mills which utilise a combination of small round-wood, recycled wood and wood waste. Finally there is the harvesting and transport sector, which forms the essential link between the growing and processing sectors.

The following summarises forestry’s contribution in economic and employment terms:

The sector accounts for 0.3 per cent of GDP. Over 2,000 people are currently employed directly in forestry (not including the labour

input from the 15,000 farmers who own private plantations). A further 6,300 people are employed in downstream industries such as saw milling

and manufacture of wooden board products. Over 17,000 people are either directly engaged in growing and using forest products

or are engaged in related sectors. An additional five jobs created within forestry will lead to an additional three jobs

elsewhere in the economy. Labour productivity in forestry measured in gross value added (GVA) per person

employed amounted to €49,047, and to €54,691 for the wood-processing sector. The gross fixed capital formation in forestry amounted to €33.8m (including logging)

in 2004.

Turning to the future, the overall aim is to develop the sector to a scale and in a manner that maximises its contribution to national economic and social well being on a sustainable basis, and which is compatible with the protection of the environment. A current target is to increase the area under forestry from 10 per cent of land area to 17 per cent. This is under review and is unlikely to increase. In any event, the afforestation programme will have two related objectives: (a) the production of timber and (b) the delivery of public goods. The programme will be underpinned by the MCPFE12 criteria for Sustainable Forest Management and so will be designed to deliver economic, social and environmental goals. Allied to that, a study is underway to identify the most appropriate lands suited to growing trees, and its outcome will be taken into account.

While forestry will not be supported under this programme, it will receive complementary assistance through exchequer funding under the National Development Plan. Forestry will be financed outside the programme, as a higher level of funding will be possible under this approach, and it is considered that this will enhance the likelihood of achieving the current target set for increasing the land area under forestry. Support for forestry under the National Development Plan will be very much in line with the aims of the programme. While there will be assistance for increased competitiveness, the focus will be on the environmental contribution of afforestation. In this context the following factors are relevant:

Forestry, and in particular well-planned forestry, can contribute positively to biodiversity. Existing Guidelines describe practical measures to achieve biodiversity objectives. These include the need to identify existing habitats and fauna of particular interest; the importance of species selection; and the incorporation of open area and retained habitat in the forest. The pattern of Irish forestry is changing to one of smaller forests with greater species diversity, embedded in a mixed landscape of cropland, pasture, wetland and upland. This is yielding a mosaic of different habitat types. Taking

12 Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe

17

account of recent research on biodiversity, the NDP will develop this trend and will address ways to support forestry with enhanced environmental objectives such as the extension of wildlife corridors, riparian planting and a scheme based on provision for forest-environment payments.

Forestry has a significant role to play in combating climate-change, with a target set in Ireland’s National Climate Change Strategy of 1.01 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestered per annum by 2010. The latest estimates indicate that the level of sequestration in Kyoto-eligible forests, which are mainly those newly established since 1990, will actually reach some 2.1 million tonnes of CO2 per annum during the first Kyoto commitment period 2008-2012. Forestry also represents a secure and renewable source of energy, which can help reduce our dependence on imported oil, and which has the added advantage of being carbon-neutral.

Based on the level of afforestation established since the mid-1980s, the contribution of forestry thinnings to the national energy supply chain will increase from 0.8 PJ (Peta Joules) in 2006 to 2.6 PJ in 2020. This is indicative also of the potential future contribution of forestry to energy needs.

3.1.3 Environment and land management

Irish agriculture is predominantly extensive and grass-based. farms involved in cereal production account for just under 10% of all farms and less than 7% of the total utilisable agricultural area (UAA); most of the remainder is devoted to cattle and sheep farming. At the commencement of the RDP, seventy five per cent of UAA could be categorised as disadvantaged, and 77 per cent of farmers qualified for less favoured areas (LFAs) payments.

As Ireland had opted for full decoupling of direct payments from production with effect from 1 January 2005, a general reduction in stocking levels was forecast. Current forecasts suggest that cattle numbers will fall from 6.211 Million in 2005 to 5.813 million by 2013 – a fall of 6.4% (see table 3.3 below). Therefore, a sector which is already predominantly extensive will now put even less pressure on the environment and biodiversity. However, a minority of farmers, mainly in the dairying and tillage sectors, are likely to become more intensive in response to market opportunities.

Table 3.3 Estimates of trend in cattle numbers (source: FAPRI-Ireland)

‘000 head 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Total cattle 6,211.50 6,191.80 6001.60 5902.20 5890.29 5852.13 5824.75 5829.67 5813.18

Of which dairy cows 1,121.80 1,101.10 1087.10 1087.50 1063.31 1061.95 1083.74 1078.60 1074.58Upland and lowland ewes 3,283.40 3,017.90 2,931.50 2,662.80 2,648.84 2,734.40 2,782.37 2,755.66 2,736.45

The position in relation to the various environmental elements is set out below.

Water qualityIreland’s water quality compares well with that of most other EU countries, although there is evidence of slight or moderate pollution in certain rivers and lakes. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has presented the most recent overview of conditions in the state’s rivers and water bodies in the national report on water quality for the period 2004–2006. It showed a substantial increase in the proportion of channel classed as unpolluted in the current

18

for the period 2004-2006 compared to an earlier period (2001-2003) and a small increase in the polluted waters.

The national implementation report on the Phosphorus Regulations published by the EPA in 2005 concluded that of the 496 lakes with updated trophic status information available, 401 (80.8 per cent) currently comply with the targets set. The EPA considered that agricultural activities were the source of the nutrient enrichment affecting most of the non-compliant lakes but pointed to other sources such as sewage discharges in the other cases.

Ireland is currently on target with regards to meeting its commitments under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). There have been some local improvements in water quality as a result of the implementation of local authority programmes under the Phosphorus Regulations, although the improvement has not been universal. Local authorities will play a key role in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Ireland, including in the development and implementation of measures. The River Basin Management projects, which have been established to facilitate implementation of the Directive, will help provide local authorities with the information necessary to protect and improve water quality within their functional areas.

The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) was transposed into national law in 2003. Implementation is being led by the competent authorities, namely the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and local authorities. River Basin District (RBD) projects have been established by local authorities to support implementation of the Directive. In December 2004 a Characterisation Report was issued for each RBD. In December 2006 programmes of monitoring became operational (led by the EPA). In July 2007 local authorities published a summary overview of the significant water management issues in each RBD. In December 2008 local authorities published for public consultation a draft River Basin Management Plan for each RBD. In December 2009 local authorities will adopt and publish the final River Basin Management Plan (including objectives for all water bodies and programmes of measures to meet those objectives) following consultations and amendments as appropriate. All elements of the programmes of measures will be made operational by the relevant public authorities in December 2012 at the latest; and in June 2015 and every six years thereafter the local authorities will review and if necessary update the River Basin Management Plan and the programmes of measures.

Draft Management Plans for Freshwater Pearl Mussel are also currently being prepared by local authorities, in accordance with Article 13 (5) of the Water Framework Directive. The objective of the plans is to restore the freshwater pearl mussel populations in 27 rivers, or stretches of rivers, that are within the boundaries of Special Areas of Conservation.

In 2003 Ireland decided to adopt a whole-territory approach to the implementation of the Nitrates Directive and the necessary regulations were made, identifying the whole national territory as the area for which an action programme would be established and applied in accordance with the Directive. The Directive itself was transposed into national law in February 2006. A revised farm waste management scheme, introduced in March 2006 following the receipt of the required EU state aid approval, provides grant aid to farmers towards investment in, inter alia,additional waste storage if they need it to comply with the Regulations giving effect to the directive. A further scheme provides grant aid, on a pilot basis, for new technology to process animal manures and to spread them in a more environmentally friendly way. Both schemes closed for applications at the end of 2006.

19

The whole-territory approach was designed to ensure a comprehensive approach to the reduction and prevention of pollution from all agricultural sources, from phosphorus as well as from nitrogen.

In relation to the farmyard and the prevention of pollution arising from it, under the Regulations all farmers are legally obliged to:

Minimise the amount of soiled water produced on the holding and take all reasonable steps to ensure that rainwater from roofs, unsoiled paved areas and water flowing from higher ground is diverted to a clean water outfall and prevented from entering onto soiled paved areas, etc

Ensure that storage facilities for livestock manure, other organic fertilisers, soiled water and effluents from dungsteads, farmyard manure pits and silage pits are maintained free of structural defect and are of such standard as is necessary to prevent run-off or seepage into ground or surface water

Ensure that new storage facilities meet the above criteria Meet the minimum manure storage capacity requirement for livestock manure produced by

cattle of 16, 18, 20 or 22 weeks, depending on location. A general requirement of 26 weeks applies for pig and poultry units.

In addition to storage and prevention of pollution, the Regulations place exacting requirements on all farm holdings in terms of the land spreading of organic and chemical fertilisers:

Limits on application of fertilisers determined by soil type and crop requirements Timing and method of land spreading, including closed periods for application of organic

and chemical fertilisers Specific buffer zones for wells, watercourses and lakes within which the spreading of

fertiliser is prohibited.

In November 2006 Ireland secured a favourable decision from the EU Nitrates Committee on an application for derogation arrangements to allow farmers, under appropriate conditions and controls, to operate at a level up to 250kg NORG per hectare.

Air qualityThe EPA’s fourth state of the environment report, ‘Ireland’s Environment 2008’, brings together the most recent information on the quality of Ireland’s environment. It assesses the factors that affect the environment and discusses protection policies, both national and international. In this report the EPA states, ‘Ireland is one of the only countries in Europe to have had no exceedances of any ambient air quality limit values in recent years. None of the current EU or national air quality standards have been breached, and levels of pollutants have remained stable for the past five or more years’.

Agriculture accounts for most ammonia emissions within the Irish economy, coming primarily from animal manure and nitrogen-based fertilisers. The Regulations giving effect to the Nitrates Directive lay down fertiliser limits which will give farmers an economic incentive to use nutrients as efficiently as possible, both through more careful selection of spreading periods and by using spreading technology that reduces exposure to the air. Reductions in ammonia emissions from organic wastes are taking place due to declining numbers of animals. The downward trend in livestock populations in Ireland means that the ammonia

20

emissions ceiling of 116,000 tonnes set by the EU’s National Emission Ceiling Directive 2001/81/EC is likely to be achieved without further major changes in farming practice. Ammonia emissions from Agriculture in 2007 amounted to 103.04Kt.

The main air quality issue of concern to agriculture is ammonia emissions associated with the animal housing and the storage and spreading of animal manures. Elevated concentrations of atmospheric ammonia in the vicinity of large intensive units can result in higher levels of ammonia deposition locally and can also result in increased longer-range transport and deposition. Particular attention is paid to the issue of possible ammonia deposition in Natura site areas through the involvement of the relevant environmental authorities in planning decisions related to livestock installations in or adjacent to these areas.

The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is conscious of the dual environmental benefits (i.e. reducing both GHG and ammonia emissions) of efficient slurry spreading techniques e.g. early spring spreading of manure or the use of trailing shoe or other technology. Accordingly, the Department will, where possible, promote the use of these approaches amongst farmers.

Climate changeUnder the Kyoto protocol Ireland has agreed to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 13% above 1990 emissions levels. Agriculture remains the single largest contributor to the overall emissions, where emissions of methane and nitrous oxide account for almost 26.8% of the national total of CO2 equivalents. However this is significantly down from 1990 when agriculture contributed 35.9% of the total.

A new National Climate Change Strategy (NCCS), published in 2007, acknowledged the continuing fall in emissions from the agriculture sector. For the Kyoto period, 2008 – 2012, the strategy projected a reduction of 2.4Mt CO2 eq compared to 2005 emissions levels, from 19.6 Mt to 17.2 Mt. This was based, primarily, on the expectation that decoupling of farm support payments from production would result in a reduction in animal numbers with an attendant fall in mineral fertiliser use.

Recent projections by EPA (Mar 0913), based on updated FAPRI livestock activity analysis, suggests that although emissions in 2007 were 5.1% below 2005 levels, the reduction in emissions anticipated in the NCCS will not be as great as originally forecast. This can be explained, to some extent, by the relaxation of the milk quota regime, which led to farmers not reducing cattle numbers to the degree initially expected. The EPA now forecasts a reduction in the order of 1.4Mt, with average annual emissions for the Kyoto period projected to be 18.2 Mt CO2eq. Nevertheless, by 2012, emissions from the sector will be 8.5% lower that 1990 levels compared to a National target, which is 13% above 1990 levels.

To date, national policy has focused primarily on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions, i.e. reducing or limiting emissions in line with Ireland’s commitment for the purposes of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. While mitigation action is important in terms of delaying and reducing the impact of climate change, some degree of climate change is already probable, due mainly to current and historic levels of greenhouse gas emissions (the main foreseeable impact at this stage is some water shortages in the south-east of Ireland). Even if significant progress can be made in reducing 13EPA report “IRELAND’S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION PROJECTIONS 2008-2020” March 2009 http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/air/airemissions/GHG_Emission_Proj_08_12_30032009.pdf

21

global greenhouse gas emissions in the short to medium term, current and historic emissions will continue to cause changes in the climate system for the foreseeable future. The need for action on adaptation is therefore beyond question and Ireland recognises this.

The Irish authorities have put in place a significant programme of climate change research in the areas of mitigation, adaptation, basic science and observations. Specific objectives for the investment in climate change adaptation research include the provision of analyses of projected climate change and its impacts for Ireland and development of analytical capacity in this area. The Community Climate Change Consortium for Ireland (C4i) Project was established in 2003. Its main objective is to consolidate and intensify the national effort in climate change research by building a capability for carrying out regional climate modelling in Ireland and to provide assistance to Irish scientists utilising climate model output for their analyses. The C4i Project is funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (under the National Development Plan), Met Éireann, Sustainable Energy Ireland, and the Higher Education Authority. C4i has enabled the development of a regional climate modelling facility in Met Éireann. The new capacity will contribute to national efforts in climate change research, will support the community of environmental scientists and will assist policy-makers in planning to adapt to climate change. A report “Climate change - Refining the Impacts for Ireland” detailing regional climate impacts has been conducted under the auspices of the National University of Ireland. C4i has recently published “Ireland in a Warmer World” outlining scientific predictions of the Irish climate in the Twenty-First Century. http://www.met.ie/publications/IrelandinaWarmerWorld.pdf

Increasing attention is being given to the occurrence of extreme events. The impacts of extreme floods, storms and heat waves have been observed globally in recent years. They can be more damaging than gradual or average changes, which are more easily predicted by climate models. New approaches to statistical and probabilistic analysis of extreme events are being developed to better inform decision making on associated risks and likely impacts.

Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and severity of flood events, as current predictions for Ireland indicate increased rainfall in the winter and more frequent storm events. There is very strong evidence that sea level is already rising and will continue to do so, increasing the frequency and depth of flooding of coastal and estuarine areas.

The 2004 report of the Flood Policy Review Group recognised the need to devise a clearly defined and comprehensive policy approach to flooding nationally and a precise definition of the roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders involved. The report identified climate change as one of the important elements that need to be addressed when assessing future flood relief measures in Ireland. Following the report, the Government appointed the Office of Public Works (OPW) as the lead agency to implement flooding policy in Ireland. Since the 2004 Policy Review the Office of Public Works (OPW) has developed and implemented a wide range of integrated and comprehensive work programmes to ensure effective management of flood risk into the future including programmes to maintain drainage works carried out in the past and construct new flood relief schemes.

Heavy flooding in Ireland will be addressed in line with the EU Floods Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks, which entered into force on 26 November 2007. Catchment based Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) are currently being developed by the OPW in partnership with local authorities, the EPA, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other relevant Departments in accordance with national flood policy

22

and the EU Floods Directive. These plans will be co-ordinated with the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

Ireland has already carried out preliminary assessment on three river basins at risk of flooding with a view to developing a template for flood risk management plans for river catchments. In accordance with the terms of the new Directive, significant emphasis will be placed on the role of flood plains and sustainable land use practices. Climate change adaptation will also be considered in the first implementation cycle, starting in 2011 with the preliminary flood risk assessment.

Under the Research Stimulus Fund programme, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has committed €15.5m to climate change research projects since 2005 designed to improve the understanding of the impacts of climate change on agricultural production at the farm level. This research programme uses mechanistic models to determine the yields of crops and grasses in Ireland under selected climate change scenarios. While the principal objective will be to determine how climate change will affect agricultural production at the farm level in Ireland it will also examine the implications and alternatives for Irish farmers. The outputs from this modelling will be used by the Rural Economy Research Centre (RERC) to further investigate impacts of climate change and identify sustainable alternatives at farm level. In relation to forestry, COFORD is funding a joint Ireland-UK project involving the use of ecological site classification (ESC) to model the impact of likely climate change scenarios on Irish forests, and how our species selection and other practices should adapt to future climates. This and other relevant research will be revisited at the mid-term review of the Rural Development Programme.

Soil qualityThe total land area in Ireland is 6.9 million hectares of which 4.3 million hectares is used for agriculture and 0.7 million hectares for forestry purposes. Ninety per cent of agricultural land is devoted to grass and 10 per cent to arable agriculture. Dry lowland mineral soils account for about 62 per cent of the agricultural area, while moderately wet mineral soils account for 20 per cent and wet impermeable mineral soils for around 17 per cent. Some 50 per cent of the land area of the country is generally classified as good agricultural land.

Of the total arable and grassland area, 36 per cent is farmed under the Rural Environment Protection Scheme, another 47 per cent is farmed extensively outside REPS, 7 per cent is farmed intensively (mainly dairying) and the remaining 10 per cent is used for arable agriculture.

The percentage of farmland classified as extensive has relatively low stocking rates and fertiliser inputs. Most of the farmers in extensive production were in receipt of the high rate of payment under the Extensification Premium Scheme in 2004. The REPS and extensive farms are principally involved in beef and sheep production with a small proportion of mixed-dairy and dairy enterprises. The 7 per cent of Irish farmland farmed intensively mostly involves dairy and mixed-dairy production.

REPS is designed to reward farmers for carrying out their activities in an environmentally friendly manner and to bring about environmental improvement on farms. One of its main objectives is the establishment of farming practices and production methods that reflect the increasing concern for conservation, landscape protection, and wider environmental problems. The scheme includes measures that directly or indirectly promote the protection of soil.

23

Grassland represents 90 per cent of agricultural land, and in itself is a good soil protector, promoting high soil organic matter, solid structure, high soil biodiversity, etc. Potential threats to soil are seen typically as falling under headings such as erosion, decline of organic matter and soil compaction. While any of these might present a localised soil risk at the level of an individual farm, they are not widespread risks in an Irish context.

Under Cross-Compliance, farmers in receipt of the Single Farm Payment are required to maintain land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition and this specifically addresses soil protection. Also, Statutory Mandatory Requirement 4, Protection of Waters (Nitrates), contributes indirectly to soil protection.

Above individual farm level, the susceptibility of overgrazed commonages to environmental damage, including erosion, was identified as a potential threat. In response, a comprehensive programme to produce and implement commonage framework plans was put in place along with arrangements for appropriate destocking.

The proposed EU Soil Framework Directive will set out common principles and a common methodology for identifying and addressing threats to soil including contamination, sealing, erosion, organic matter decline, salinisation, compaction and landslides. In Ireland the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is taking the lead in this matter with input from other Government Departments, including the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The two Departments will continue to work closely together on the issue of soil protection.

BiodiversityAt present there are two interlinked programmes of government action designed to protect our natural heritage i.e. Natura 2000. Further detail on these is set out at Appendix 2. The area designated under the Wild Birds and Habitats Directives is some 650,000 hectares of the whole territory, and 15 per cent of agricultural land.

Ireland’s National Biodiversity Plan was published in 2002 and an Interim Review was published in 2006. The Plan envisages a major role for agriculture and forestry and the Interim Review records actions already taken. These include:

The rollout of REPS 3 - the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme – in 2004 (and now REPS 4) which now includes a far greater emphasis on biodiversity and, for example, has specific measures for the conservation and maintenance of hedgerows, with options to rejuvenate existing hedgerows and to establish new ones The implementation by the Department of Agriculture and Food of a co-ordinated programme for the conservation and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture, food and forestry, overseen by a National Advisory Committee on Plant and Animal Genetic Resources The employment of forest ecologists by both Coillte and the Forestry Service of the Department of Agriculture and Food The completion of over 4,000 Commonage Framework Plans, designed to eliminate overgrazing resulting from excessive sheep grazing levels.

Traditional landscapes in Ireland reflect the fact that Irish agriculture is predominantly grass-based and extensive. Though a small proportion of the more intensive dairy and tillage

24

farmers may intensify further, there are a number of factors that will preserve traditional landscapes:

Decoupling, which will encourage farmers to keep their production at existing levels or even to reduce it

The continued high level of participation in the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme and the Less Favoured Areas Compensatory Allowance Scheme

The continued growth of part-time farming.

Any risk to the preservation of traditional landscapes is in fact more likely to take the form of abandonment of land as a result of decoupling and the trend towards part-time farming. That risk will be offset by the obligation under the Single Payment Scheme to keep land in good agricultural and environmental condition, but this will be supplemented in the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme by a requirement for a minimum level of farming activity.

Less favoured areas (LFAs) account for 75 per cent of our agricultural land and a similar proportion of high nature value areas are situated in them. The maintenance of farming in these areas is therefore extremely important from a biodiversity perspective.

A recent assessment (Lynas et al.,2007) of the population status of Ireland’s birds indicates that of the 199 species assessed, 25 were placed on the red list (i.e. of most conservation concern), 85 on the amber list (generally of unfavourable conservation status) and 89 on the green list (of least concern). The number of red-listed species has increased by seven and amber-listed species by eight since the first review in 1999. The roseate tern and the hen harrier are the only red-listed species identified in 1999 to have since improved in conservation status. The corn bunting has become extinct as a breeding bird in Ireland and several of the remaining red-listed species are in danger of extinction in Ireland, including the common scoter, black-necked grebe, quail, red-necked phalarope and nightjar.

Ireland’s existing agri-environment measure, REPS, protects wild bird and animal populations through several of its elements, particularly the requirements for retention and management of hedgerows and habitats, and supplementary measures designed specifically to conserve bird populations, such as measures for protection of the corncrake and for the growing of food for wild birds through the LINNET14 project.

Other REPS measures aimed at enhancing and protecting biodiversity generally also benefit bird populations through preserving habitats and food supplies: e.g. measures dealing with hedgerows, habitats, field margins, and biodiversity options such as nature corridors, species-rich grassland, tree planting and environmental management of set-aside. The emphasis on biodiversity will be retained and increased in the agri-environment and Natura measures in the new programming period.

The following are some relevant indicators in relation to bio-diversity:

1.1m ha of the UAA is classified as high nature value farmland areas which are defined for Ireland as, ‘those areas where agriculture is a major (usually the dominant) land use and where farming systems support or are associated with high biological diversity’.

Just over 1 per cent of UAA is organically farmed. Water quality-gross nutrient balance measured by surplus of nitrogen in kg/ha-is

82kg/ha compared to an EU - 15 average of 89kg/ha in the period 2002-2004.14 Land Invested in Nature, Natural Eco-Tillage

25

Renewable energyA range of policies and measures are being implemented by various Government Departments and agencies to ensure the successful development of a sustainable bio-energy industry in Ireland. On the demand side, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources introduced a Biofuels Mineral Oil Tax Relief Schemes, in order to incentivise the use of biofuels. The schemes have resulted in 18 projects being awarded excise relief between 2005 and 2010. A ‘biofuels obligation’ will be introduced in January 2010 which will require fuel suppliers to ensure that their fuel contains 4% biofuels. Other measures in the renewable energy area include the Greener Homes Scheme, the Renewable Heat Deployment Programme and the Combined Heat and Power Deployment Programme.

To link in with these demand side measures, the Department of Agriculture and Food is working to support the supply side of the market by targeting incentives at producers.These incentives include a national payment of €80 per hectare to stimulate production of energy crops. Farmers can also avail of an EU premium of €45 per hectare under the EU Energy Crops Scheme to grow energy crops intended for use in the production of biofuels and biomass. The new €80 national payment is be paid as a top-up to the €45 EU premium and increases the overall premium available to €125 per hectare. The main energy crops for which the grant is claimed are Oilseed, Wheat, Willow and Miscanthus, which can be used for the production of bio diesel, ethanol and pellets respectively. Some 500 applicants availed of these grants in 2008.

Biomass crops such as willow and miscanthus have considerable potential for heat and electricity generation. Production is undeveloped in Ireland primarily due to high establishment costs, estimated at €2,900 per hectare. A Bioenergy Scheme (BES) was run on a pilot basis over 3 years to the end of 2009 to establish an agricultural sector involved in the growing of miscanthus and willow. The scheme provides aid of 50% of the approved establishment cost up to a maximum payment rate of €1,450 per hectare. The remaining cost is borne by the applicant. In the first two years of the scheme, 220 applicants were grant aided to plant 1,600 hectares of miscanthus and willow. A further 185 applicants have been granted approval to plant in excess of 1,300 hectares in 2009. The minimum allowable area per applicant is four hectares.

The Research Stimulus Fund Programme, administered by the Department of Agriculture and Food, incorporates biofuels research into its research portfolio. The programme facilitates research that supports sustainable and competitive agricultural production practices and policies and adds to a scientific research capability in the agriculture sector. To date, some €7 million in funding has been made available for 12 research projects. The Research covers a broad range of bioenergy topics including the suitability of Irish grassland for biofuel production, anaerobic digestion, second-generation technologies and energy crop production.

3.1.4 Rural economy and quality of life

Structure of the rural economyAs far as possible the data contained in the following sections on the rural economy and quality of life are based on a definition of rural areas used in a recent study on Review of Enterprise Support in Rural Areas carried out on behalf of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.15 The study excluded the Greater Dublin Area (GDA) and the Gateway and Hub towns of the National Spatial Strategy (NSS).

15 Review of enterprise support in rural areas, Fitzpatrick Associates, 2004

26

Education profileSince the educational profile is a key indicator of the human resource potential of an area it is a core starting point.

Twenty one per cent of rural dwellers are likely to leave school after primary level as opposed to just 15 per cent of the ‘urban’ population.16 The disparity in educational attainment continues on to second level where only 17 per cent of the rural population is schooled to third-level education attainment compared to 23 per cent in the urban or non-study area. However, the proportion of rural school leavers actually going on to third-level education is higher in rural areas (48 per cent) as opposed to non-study areas (41 per cent), according to the Higher Education Authority.17 The third-level educational profile of rural dwellers would be even more positive but for the fact that traditionally many students with third-level qualifications often did not have the economic opportunity to return to their rural communities to work and live there.

Employment profile in rural areasGeneral employment trends in rural areas were identified in the National Strategy Plan and these are examined here in some further detail. Data presented are based on the location of the workers rather than where the work is located. There is an expected heavy reliance on employment in sectors based on natural resources (Table 3.6). The share of employment in traditional manufacturing at 17 per cent in rural areas is significantly higher than the 12 per cent figure recorded for non-rural areas. The high proportion of employment of rural dwellers in the construction industry is noteworthy for two reasons. In the first instance, the vast majority of this construction is urban based and so involves significant commuting from rural communities. Secondly, the current very high level of construction activity is unlikely to be sustained in the medium term. Proportionally, the lower levels of rural employment occur in service sectors such as financial services, real estate, transport etc.

Table 3.6: Employment by sector, rural and state, percentages

Sector Rural study area per cent

Rest of state per cent

Manufacturing 16.9 11.9Wholesale/retail 12.6 12.5Natural resources 11.9 1.6Construction 11.1 6.7Health/social work 8.8 7.8Utilities 7.4 5.9Education 6.6 6.0Public administration 5.2 5.6Other industry 5.0 6.4Hotels/restaurants 4.9 4.5Real estate/business 5.9 10.7Financial/banking 2.5 5.2

16 CSO Census of Population, 2002 as quoted in Review of enterprise support in rural areas, Fitzpatrick Associates, 2004

17 Higher Education Authority, College Entry in Focus, fourth survey, 1998 as quoted in Review of enterprise support in rural areas, Fitzpatrick Associates, 2004

27

Source: Census of Population, 2002

The size as well as nature of enterprise also differs markedly between rural and urban areas. Forty-three per cent of all employers are located in the GDA and Cork, with 57 per cent distributed throughout the rest of the state.18 Employer scale is considerably smaller in rural areas where some 65 per cent of enterprises meet the definition of micro-enterprise, i.e. less than 10 employees. Rural areas are dominated by small-scale enterprises with a significant focus on more traditional sectors (see Table 7 Appendix 1).

Micro-business formation and tourism

Micro-enterprise support structuresWhile there are a number of national enterprise support agencies, including at national, regional, sectoral and local levels, main support for small-scale micro-enterprise is channelled through those discussed in the following section.

County enterprise boardsThe county and city enterprise boards (CEBs) were established in 1993 to provide support to micro-enterprises. There are a total of 35 boards, with typically one operating in each city or county area.

The role of the CEBs is to develop indigenous enterprise potential (including indigenous tourism enterprises), stimulate economic activity at local level and promote micro-enterprise formation. To this end the boards are engaged in the following activities:

The development of enterprise plans for their respective counties or administrative areas

The promotion of an enterprise culture in their areas The provision of business information and advice, counselling and mentoring support The offer of financial and other assistance to individuals, small enterprises and local

community groups to assist commercially viable projects The development of management skills in micro-enterprises.

CEBs also assist a more broad range of enterprise types than some of the other enterprise agencies. CEB financial assistance, for example, is not restricted to manufacturing and internationally traded services enterprises, as is the case with Enterprise Ireland.

3.1.5 Local action groups (LEADER)The objective of LEADER, the EU Community Initiative for rural development, is to foster the development of rural areas through the implementation of innovative, locally-based, bottom-up development strategies designed by local groups/bodies made up of a range of local actors (statutory and non-statutory). Such groups typically operate in small towns and rural areas with a population of up to 100,000, which are seen to represent a natural rural ‘region’ in socio-economic and geographic terms.

Under both LEADER+ and National LEADER, groups are permitted to provide supports to ‘innovative small firms, craft enterprises and local services’, including tourism, subject to general eligibility and the ‘de minimis’ rules. Local sectoral agreements are in place with the CEBs. LEADER activity includes:

Support, guidance, and the provision of an advisory service 18 Revenue Commissioners, 2003 as quoted in Review of enterprise support in rural areas, Fitzpatrick Associates, 2004

28

Provision of a range of assistance types for start-up enterprises Expansion of existing enterprises including the adoption of new technologies Development of innovative products and local services Provision of a range of assistance types for adding value to local products including

support for business networks, collective marketing, local branding initiatives, improved quality and development of processing facilities.

Other organisations such as Údarás na Gaeltachta and the Crafts Council of Ireland offer a range of supports targeted at territorial and sectoral levels.

Tourism profileIn most rural areas, tourism is an integral component of rural enterprise and both should be developed in an integrated fashion where possible. Tourism-generated employment is difficult to disaggregate since it is often included in outputs for other sectors such as transport and catering etc.

Data indicate that the regional spread of overseas tourism closely patterns that of agriculture in rural areas. Available data on GVA estimates for tourism and agriculture from 200019 show that 63 per cent of total national tourism revenue was earned by areas outside Dublin and the mid-east. This corresponds to earnings from agriculture by the same rural areas of 88 per cent. Earnings from services by the same areas were much lower at only 45 per cent. This is a clear indication of the importance of both agriculture and tourism to rural areas.

While tourism earnings by rural areas indicate a degree of spatially balanced tourism, there is a serious challenge posed by the concentration of tourism in a limited number of areas. Five of the top counties for tourism including Dublin, Galway and Kerry attracted 69 per cent of all overseas tourism revenue in the period, while the bottom five counties, including some in the weak or transitional rural typography categories, earned just 2 per cent of all overseas revenue. This is a stark contrast and underlines the need to prioritise a balanced development of tourism in all rural areas.

Countryside Recreation StrategyThe rural focus must encompass the totality of the countryside as a provider not just of tourism opportunities but also of a diverse recreational facility for the rural and urban community.

Countryside recreation applies to those sporting, recreational and holiday pursuits based on use of the resources of the countryside and which contribute to healthy, active lifestyles. The term countryside includes land, water and air. Recreation in this context applies to sporting and recreational activities that operate in the countryside as defined above. It does not refer to sporting activities, which take place in the countryside on confined courses or pitches specifically designed and constructed for those sports, e.g. golf, football, show jumping etc.

A national Countryside Recreation Strategy has been adopted. The purpose of this strategy is to define the scope and vision for Countryside Recreation as agreed by Comhairle na Tuaithe. It sets out the broad principles under which sustainable countryside recreation should be managed. These principles include: mutual respect between users and landowners; respect for the countryside environment; and an approach to access management which recognises the

19 Fáilte Ireland and CSO

29

unique nature of land ownership in Ireland. It also seeks to define the roles that various organisations should play in the development and implementation of that strategy.

Alternative employment opportunitiesOne of the most fundamental challenges facing rural economies is the impact of restructuring in agriculture and traditional industry and the associated need for diversification and growth in the non-farm rural economy.20 There is a heavy reliance on traditional sectors (natural resources, manufacturing and construction), which account for almost 40 per cent of rural employment.

Trends in population growth and the experience of the Western Development Commission (WDC), both with its Western Investment Fund and Look West initiative21 indicate that businesses and people are willing to relocate to rural areas and contribute to the rural economy. The extent to which this can happen is largely dependent on job opportunities, business prospects and quality of life issues.

Several recent studies22 and evaluations reinforce the urgent need to position rural areas to compete effectively for inward investment and to address their industry and enterprise structure. This can be achieved through supporting innovation in indigenous industry (both high-tech and traditional) and encouraging business set-ups in rural regions to enable them contribute to the knowledge economy. Sectors based on natural resources such as tourism, agri-food and the marine need to be the focus of creative and innovative strategies.

Provision of services in rural areasIt is clear from the earlier sections examining the broad socio-economic situation of rural areas that an integrated series of responses are necessary, across a range of Government Departments. It is also clear that while the National Spatial Strategy is directed towards strengthening regional balance, a corresponding support for the surrounding rural economy is essential if it is not to lose people and economic activity to the nearest gateway town or city.

At government level the need for a focused, integrated response to the needs of rural areas is recognised and a dedicated chapter on support for the rural economy is included in the National Development Programme 2007–2013. The NDP recognises that a number of critical issues will impact significantly on the development of the rural economy over the coming years. The National Rural Development Programme will form a complementary component within a broad government response.

Enterprise development With the decline in primary, traditional and manufacturing sectors, and an increased dependence on the construction industry, sustainable employment in rural areas is an issue that needs to be addressed. The following sectoral niches offer potential in this regard:

Development of rural micro-enterprises – The development of micro-enterprise is a key area for sustainable employment opportunities in rural areas. What is needed is a steady stream of micro-enterprise start-ups over time.

20 WDC submission to the consultation on Ireland’s National Development Plan 2007–2013, April 200621 The WDCs Look West initiative promotes the Western Region as a location for business and living22 Enterprise Strategy Group (2004), Ahead of the Curve: Ireland’s Place in the Global Economy; National Economic and Social Council (2005), NESC Strategy 2006: People, Productivity and Purpose; NUI Maynooth, UCD and Teagasc (2005), Rural Ireland 2025: Foresight Perspectives

30

Development of indigenous Irish firms in more traditional sectors – Some traditional manufacturing sectors are becoming more innovative and competitive and these firms can contribute significantly to regional economies.

Development of the knowledge economy, hi-tech industries – Knowledge-based industries are not always location dependent – though experience has shown that some have a preference for locating near large centres of population close to third-level establishments and good infrastructure. There are a growing number of Irish high-tech firms that are important to the future of Ireland’s knowledge economy and they should be encouraged and facilitated to establish in regional locations, where possible.

Development of infrastructure Broadband – Given the competitiveness and productivity issues currently facing the Irish economy, it is essential that Ireland be among the leading countries in regard to access to broadband infrastructure.

The importance of broadband to facilitate access to high speed online internet services is well documented and universally accepted. Online access is equally important, if not more important, to rural businesses and homes. Access to online services such as banking, revenue, and other e-government services, as well as wide ranging information services, can give rise to significant time saving and convenience for rural dwellers. Access to web 2.0 entertainment services and social networking sites is also becoming more important as use of such services becomes main stream, particularly with the rise in immigration over the past decade. Other online services are expected to experience increases in demand, particularly video based services (e.g. “RTÉ player”), Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), educational content and services, health service and business services.

Broadband access is also crucially important to rural businesses to ensure that their services are advertised and traded on the web. Currently, services account for 43% of Ireland’s exports. By 2025, the ESRI estimates that 70% of Irish exports will be services. The vast bulk of those services will be traded digitally and Irish rural businesses will need to ensure that they have an internet presence to compete in export markets.

Transport infrastructure – It is equally important for rural communities that weaknesses in road and rail infrastructure are addressed in the next NDP. While there have been significant improvements in recent years, such as the Rural Transport Initiative targeted at rural communities, many rural areas need further investment so as to maximise their growth potential.

Tourism development Promoting a wider regional spread of business is a key objective of tourism policy, and a range of programmes and initiatives are being put in place to help address this challenge. However, the international trend towards shorter and more frequent holiday breaks favours urban locations with good access and diversified product offerings. Moreover, recent developments in the provision of tourism accommodation have resulted in hotels gaining market share at the expense of small, rural-based accommodation.

Encouraging rural tourism providers to adapt to changing consumer trends and to work together in networks to enhance the variety and depth of the tourism experience in the regions will be important. The Tourism State Agencies, for their part, are in the process of reconfiguring their structures at regional level in order to deliver more targeted services locally, to identify wider infrastructural support measures and to ensure coherence in sub-

31

national marketing activity. The further development of niche tourism such as Eco-tourism must also be explored and progressed. International air access and the enhancement of local transport are very important in this context, as is the upgrading of the regional airport network.

Services Provision of, and access to, health care is a key issue in securing the quality of life of rural communities and in the economic and social development of rural areas. At the same time, rural areas, especially those with dispersed population, pose unique challenges for the management and utilisation of services. There is also a need to improve significantly community support structures for vulnerable groups such as the elderly, particularly those living in isolated areas.

Equally important in this context is access to education. The ability of young people to avail of education and training without having to leave their areas has important consequences for the population profile of rural areas. The availability of a well-educated and flexible workforce facilities economic diversification and attracts income and job-creating opportunities to rural areas.

LEADER

Population and territory covered by LEADER+ and NRDP during 2000–2006 programming period

Ireland has participated in all three LEADER programmes to date. Under LEADER I, seventeen Local Action Groups (LAGs) were appointed to implement the programme. Under LEADER II, these, as well as 17 new LAGs (and three ‘collective bodies’), were appointed. This effectively extended the programme to cover all rural areas of the country.

Under LEADER+, 22 LAGs were appointed, each of which ran LEADER II in their particular areas. In rural areas not selected under LEADER+, a national rural development programme (NRDP) was introduced. This programme, which is similarly based upon the LEADER model, is also co-financed by the EAGGF, and operates under the Regional Operational Programmes of the National Development Plan 2000–2006. A further 13 LAGs are involved in running this programme.

For the period to 2006, national rural policy was framed within the terms of the White Paper on Rural Development 1999. The White Paper defined rural as all areas outside the five main urban centres, viz Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford. The remit of the 35 LAGs implementing the two LEADER-type programmes extended to cover this complete rural area, which accounted for approximately 99 per cent of the national territory and displayed an average population density of less than 40 persons/km2.

Average size of the geographic area covered by individual LAGs was just under 2,000 km2

embracing a population average of 70,000 persons. The smallest LAG covered a population of approximately 3,000 but this was an exceptional circumstance as the LAG was specifically dedicated to implementation of the LEADER programme on the islands only. The lowest population density covered by an LAG, excluding the islands, was nine persons/km2. Conversely, the most densely populated LAG contained 164,000 people in a pre-dominantly peri-urban location, with a population density of 96 persons/km2. Overall, 10 out of the 35 groups serviced populations greater than 100,000.

32

Three umbrella organisations were funded under the NRDP programme in 2000–2006. Irish Country Holidays and Irish Farmhouse Holidays operated in the rural and agri-tourism sectors, while the community organisation Muintir na Tíre provided a support service to 1,400 community groups nationwide.

33

3.2 Strategy chosen to meet strengths and weaknesses

Ireland’s vision for the agriculture sector is based on a well-founded belief that the sector can compete with the best in the world when that objective is pursued with sufficient focus, determination and skill.

The report of the Agri Vision 2015 Committee identified a number of issues that were crucial to the Irish agri-food sector and on foot of this made a number of recommendations to address these concerns. The report itself indicated that the broad thrust of the Committee’s recommendations would among other things:

Facilitate and encourage market-driven development of the sector Make explicit and provide adequately for agriculture’s role in the production of

environmental goods Provide an appropriate framework to encourage an approach to rural development that

takes account of the economic and social realities of rural Ireland today.

In response to the recommendations, an action plan was prepared, setting out a new vision for the sector in the light of the major changes impacting on it. The measures in this programme are very mindful of the action plan, which in turn is fully in line with the EU objectives for rural development and the national rural development strategy. Ireland considers that the EU priorities of competitiveness, environmental sustainability and quality of life/diversification are totally consistent with its national aims and that this programme has an extremely important role in their achievement.

Prior to considering appropriate support measures, it is desirable to assess the current and future environment for agriculture and the wider rural economy. This is done by means of the SWOT analysis set out below – it is ordered by the axes or priorities prescribed at EU level.

Strengths and weaknesses

Strengths

Axis 1 (Competitiveness) The agri-food sector is an important and dynamic indigenous manufacturing

sector and contributes significantly to the inflow of funds into Ireland. The sector produces high-quality/high-value products. It provides a secure supply of quality raw materials for the food industry. An established advisory network exists. Both the dairy and beef industries have a comparative advantage in

production.

Axis 2 (Environment) Ireland’s excellent rural landscape contributes to its clean, green image. There is an increasing recognition of the multifunctional role of agriculture. A high level of participation and success in the agri-environmental schemes

benefits both farmers and society in general through the preservation of the environment, improved water quality and the protection of biodiversity.

A decrease in livestock numbers and the consequential fall in fertiliser usage arising from full decoupling will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions

34

from the sector. Ireland’s disease free-status gives it a competitive advantage in high-value

European markets. There are high compliance levels with EU traceability, labelling, animal health

and welfare and hygiene standards. The potential exists for alternative land uses such as forestry. The countryside is a source of considerable natural resources and biodiversity.

Axes 3 and 4 (Quality of life/diversification) The LEADER approach to rural community development is fully established

and covers all of the rural territory. The population is highly educated, with a dynamic age and economic profile. A good base exists for enterprise development of natural resources. Infrastructure at the macro level is rapidly improving. There is a strong tourism and cultural identity.

Weaknesses

Axis 1 (Competitiveness) Certain areas/sectors of Irish farming suffer from low productivity due to their

age structure and low education levels. High agricultural land prices can result in entry barriers to younger/new

participants. In turn high land prices may impact negatively on land mobility, preventing

farmers from achieving economies of scale and impacting negatively on their commercial viability.

Ireland needs to maintain and improve its relative competitiveness to ensure that each sector maintains its export markets.

Axis 2 (Environment) Although the problem is low by European standards there is always the threat

of pollution damage from agriculture and pesticides. Post-decoupling the possibility of land abandonment exists in certain rural

areas. Relatively speaking there is a declining importance of agriculture in rural

communities. Land has been lost to urbanisation and infrastructure. Agriculture accounts for a high proportion of greenhouse gas emissions

Axes 3 and 4 (Quality of life/diversification) The level of ICT uptake and broadband usage by rural communities is low.

While the National Broadband Scheme will result in broadband access for most homes and enterprises in Ireland by 2010, there will remain 12,000 rural premises that will not have access to broadband

Out-migration from remoter rural areas to large towns and cities results in rural isolation.

There is an over-reliance on more traditional employment sectors.

35

Opportunities and threats

Opportunities

Axis 1 (Competitiveness) The decoupling of direct payments from agricultural production offers

opportunities for Irish farmers who are able to respond to the market by improving quality and productivity.

EU enlargement has created market opportunities for Irish exporters. Also globalisation, increased world demand and a favourable macro-economic climate have resulted in a growth in world markets.

The organic sector provides opportunities in niche markets, albeit for a limited number of producers.

Potential exists to improve the competitiveness of holdings by increasing scale. Forestry provides an alternative enterprise for farmers who are diversifying from

the traditional patterns of agriculture. Increase in milk quotas leading to their abolition in 2015 will provide opportunities

for expansion by efficient producers

Axis 2 (Environment) The increasing recognition of the multifunctional role of agriculture as both a

producer of quality food and a provider of environmental public goods provides an increasingly important justification for the public support of agriculture.

The continued good health and welfare status of our national herd contributes to the development of a sustainable agri-food sector and a vibrant export sector.

Ireland’s green image fits with the direction of consumer preference of high-quality and safe products produced in an environmentally friendly manner.

There is an increasing consumer preference for high-quality and safe products produced in an environmentally sustainable manner.

Following the full decoupling of direct payments from production, the potential exists for alternative land uses, including forestry, renewable energy crops and agri-tourism which are environmentally and economically sustainable and have the potential to mitigate the effects of climate change by delivering further reductions in Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The capability exists to significantly increase carbon sequestration and mitigate climate change through growth in new afforestation.

Potential of renewable energy sources, particularly biofuels and biomass, to fulfil their role as an alternative energy source in Ireland.

Axes 3 and 4 (Quality of life/diversification) Economic buoyancy and improved infrastructure provide improved opportunities to

live and work in rural communities. There is greater access to off-farm employment. Increased scope for on-farm diversification. There are increased options for rural inhabitants to generate additional income from

rural tourism, eco-tourism and other natural resources. ICT and broadband provide the opportunity to overcome barriers of remoteness and to

support high-value-added niche services based enterprise. Broadband access can

36

enhance economic and social inclusion, and underpin the competitiveness of rural areas.

There is an increased capacity to develop community-based renewable energy and other measures to protect the high nature value of the local rural landscape.

Threats

Axis 1 (Competitiveness) The reforms of the CAP under the Luxembourg Agreement and the increasing

liberalisation of the sector present substantial competitive challenges to the Irish agriculture industry, which must be addressed in order to ensure agriculture’s economic contribution.

While other sectors of the economy have been growing strongly over the last decade, primary agricultural output has remained static, resulting in a decline in the importance of the sector.

The afforestation levels have declined in recent years. Increase in milk quotas leading to their abolition in 2015 will also provide

significant challenges for producers and processors in terms of increased scale and reduced costs per litre

Agriculture has a significant role to play in meeting Ireland’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20%, which will rise to 30% following attainment of a global climate change agreement.

Evolving animal welfare requirements place an additional burden on producers in terms of compliance costs.

Axis 2 (Environment) There is an ongoing threat to biodiversity and habitats, leading to a direct impact on

wildlife and an indirect impact on the tourism market. The decrease in the number of agricultural holdings is endangering rural areas,

society and landscape. A potential threat to the environment exists from the overuse of fertilisers and

pesticides. Maintaining and improving water quality levels impacts heavily on biodiversity

and human interaction with water resources

Axes 3 and 4 (Quality of life/diversification) There is an inward economic pull of Gateways and Hubs. Community identity has suffered through increased commuting activity and

outward migration. There has been a reduction in services and enterprise opportunities due to the

disproportionate effect of transport/fuel costs.

In considering this analysis, some important general points also need to be borne in mind:

Farming is an important element of Ireland’s rural and overall economy, providing both direct and indirect employment and forming the mainstay of many rural areas. The sector contains numerous strengths that offer opportunities for it to grow and develop over time. To ensure that the industry develops in an appropriate fashion, it is imperative that the strengths identified are matched to the opportunities that exist in the industry, while efforts are made to address the threats highlighted and to provide further development in areas where weaknesses are identified.

37

The introduction of decoupling has impacted on Irish agriculture. Tables 8 and 9 in Appendix 1 show changes in livestock units and fertiliser use since 1990. Since the introduction of de-coupling in 2001, with the changeover from the headage to the area-based method of payment calculation, the number of cattle has fallen from 6.408 million in 2001 to 6.191 million in 2005, a decrease of 3.3 per cent. For sheep, the corresponding figures are 4.807 million in 2001 to 4.257 million in 2005, a decrease of 11.4 per cent.

As with the farming sector, the wider rural economy also faces into change. It is essential that rural areas are equipped to meet the coming challenges to local community structures and the altered nature of economic activity in the future.

Agriculture has a significant role to play in producing a variety of public goods. Funding for the agricultural sector is increasingly focused on paying for the production of public goods that would otherwise be under-provided. Public acceptance of this role requires continuing assurance to the consumer and the taxpayer of the real benefits it delivers. In this regard, it is important that public goods are enhanced and not merely preserved.

The environment and its protection is central to the role of agriculture and the provision of public goods. Issues such as biodiversity, landscape maintenance and water management are central to the multifunctional role of the agriculture sector. Furthermore, and given the significant levels of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, the increased policy emphasis on climate change has considerable implications for agricultural production and the wider agri-food sector.

The SWOT analysis identified a number of opportunities that exist in the agri-food sector, particularly in relation to the increasing market opportunities that are arising following the recent EU CAP reforms, the further liberalisation of world markets and the increasing demand for good-quality and safe food. Furthermore, the favourable national conditions that Ireland possesses in the dairy and livestock sectors and the potential for alternative industries to contribute to farm incomes present significant opportunities for Irish farmers. Given this increased world demand for high-quality and high-value agriculture products, the continued good health and welfare status of our national herd remains an important strength, particularly given the importance of export markets. Options to develop alternative sources of income both on and off-farm are now available to an extent not possible in the past. Opportunities for economic and social development in the wider rural economy are also very prevalent.

The analysis identified a number of threats that may, if not addressed, impact adversely on the future performance of the sector. The increased competition that the sector is facing as a consequence of trade liberalisation, while presenting opportunities, equally makes it vital that quality and competitiveness issues continue to be addressed by Irish farmers. The inward economic attraction exerted by urban centres, coupled with rising fuel and transport costs, represent a real threat to the economic and social development of rural communities.

Accordingly the strengths and weaknesses identified above will be addressed by implementing the measures set out below. The commentary is to a large extent a replication of that already outlined in the national rural development strategy, reflecting the fact that Ireland is operating one national rural development programme. In developing these measures, account has been taken of their merits and the available funding.

38

Axis 1 (Competitiveness)

Given the competitive pressures impacting on the agri-food sector it is imperative that the sector adds value and is both innovative and consumer-focused in order to continue to prosper. To address competitiveness issues it is important that measures outlined in this plan address key issues such as structural improvement and on-farm capital investment.

Structural improvementA poor age structure and the low level of appropriate education of many farmers have been identified as potential factors inhibiting the development of Irish farming. In order to promote continued structural reform in the agricultural sector and address these issues, thereby improving competitiveness and maintaining farm viability, this programme will put in place a scheme of installation aid to help attract young, trained farmers into the profession. Linked to this support, the programme will also implement an early retirement scheme to facilitate the early retirement of older farmers and farm workers with the aim of creating opportunities for younger farmers to enter farming or to increase/consolidate their holdings.

The changing economic situation has necessitated a review of the approach to funding activities under Axis 1 of the Rural Development Programme. This resulted in the decision to suspend the Early Retirement and Installation Aid for Young Farmers Schemes as part of the Budget 2009. Those who had applied prior to this time will continue to be supported under the programme however, future support aimed at improved competitiveness will be channelled into more targeted schemes focussed on a well defined cohort of producers. The aim is to provide a cost effective and tightly controlled vehicle for productive investment aimed at improved competitiveness.

On-farm capital investmentSupport will be provided for capital improvements in farm structures to ensure that primary agriculture becomes more competitive and market-oriented. A farm improvement scheme will assist farmers with the capital costs of modernisation. Support will be provided for investments that improve the overall performance of agricultural holdings and that respect applicable EU and national standards. The scheme will also provide assistance to producers to meet pig welfare standards and will support investments in alternative enterprises, e.g. horses, deer, rabbits, goats and other equivalent species, in order to assist the further diversification of the agricultural sector in Ireland. Assistance will be provided in the scheme for improvements in dairy hygiene, animal housing and slurry storage.

The above Farm Improvement Scheme was closed to new applicants on 31st October 2007 upon being fully subscribed. This will now be supplemented with the new targeted investment support measures referred to above. These include measures such as support for young dairy farmers to make the necessary investment to adjust to expanding dairy opportunities (with increased quota); support for pig and poultry producers to adapt to new EU welfare requirements which represent a major challenge for these sectors; support for sheep farmers to improve handling and stock control facilities, and reduce labour input; continued aid for farmers planting willow and miscanthus whose existing support schemes were ended in the Health Check; and support for investment aimed at conserving water by maximising rainfall run-off and reducing water costs.

Support will also be provided under the Axis for training linked to the agri-environment measure under Axis 2.

39

The measures outlined above will be complemented by exchequer-funded measures in the National Development Plan (NDP) that address training, sectoral capital investment (horticulture, potato and organic sectors) and improved competitiveness in the forestry sector.

Axis 2 (Environment) The emphasis on a competitive consumer-oriented agri-food sector cannot be at the expense of the environment or the countryside. Agriculture has a critical role to play in the provision of ‘public goods’ that would otherwise be under-provided and therefore it is necessary to provide support for measures that will contribute environmental benefits. Indeed the European model of agriculture emphasises its multi-functional role and that development must be underpinned by sustainability. Ireland endorses that view and considers that the actions foreseen under Axis 2 must underpin those allowed elsewhere in the rural development framework.

The Axis 2 funding is aimed at environmental enhancement, but it also has an economic dimension that is relevant to the other areas. It is important as a platform for actions in other areas such as diversification, agri-tourism etc. The following summarises the measures:

Less favoured areas – compensatory allowances In order to continue the sustainable use of agricultural land in less favoured areas while taking account of environmental protection requirements and maintaining the countryside the programme will continue to implement the Compensatory Allowance Scheme. The scheme will further enhance protection for the environment and improvement of the countryside as well as achieving high standards in food safety and in animal health and welfare.

Agri-environment As highlighted above there is an increasing recognition of the multifunctional role of agriculture as both a producer of quality food and a provider of environmental public goods. There is also an increasing consumer preference for high-quality and safe products produced in an environmentally sustainable manner.

It is important therefore that this programme provides funding to farmers to carry out their farming activities in an environmentally friendly manner and to bring about environmental improvement on existing farms. In this regard, the programme will provide for schemes to support farmers who, on a voluntary basis, make agri-environmental commitments that go beyond the relevant national and EU mandatory environmental requirements (including all requirements of cross-compliance under the Single Payment Scheme).

Ireland has operated the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) for a number of years. As of mid-2009, there are approximately 62,000 farmers participating in REPS. Given this high participation rate relative to the original target of 60,000, and the resulting budgetary implications, REPS was closed to new applicants as of 9 th July 2009. A new targeted agri-environment measure will be launched in 2010 to focus on certain tangible benefits in the areas of climate change, water management and biodiversity.

Natura 2000To contribute to positive environmental management of farmed Natura 2000 sites and river catchments in the implementation of the Birds Directive, the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive, the programme will provide support to farmers participating in REPS.

40

To encourage the protection of heritage farm buildings, support will be provided to participants under REPs.

Organic farmingThe programme will provide support to promote conversion to organic farming, and in particular to stimulate the production of organic vegetables and cereals.

The measures in this Axis will be complemented by support for afforestation and animal welfare by the exchequer under the NDP.

Axes 3 and 4 (Quality of life/diversification)

The local action groups chosen to implement Axes 3 and 4 will determine the scope and combination of measures selected to address local priorities The ranking of priorities and subsequent measures will differ markedly between peri-urban and more remote rural areas. The balance between economic interventions and quality of life supports is strongly interlinked with existing national rural support measures in the Rural Social Scheme and CLÁR programme. Consistent with the foregoing, the following group of interventions will be prioritised for funding.

Rural enterpriseThis measure will focus on the creation of new rural micro-enterprises and development of existing initiatives. Examples include the economic development of indigenous rural resources in artisan food, forestry, marine, rural/agri tourism, cultural heritage and community promoted enterprises. Actions to promote research/analysis and development of rural-sourced products and innovative community services also fall under this heading.

This priority encompasses the need to support further diversification into non-farming activities by farm families, expansion of the rural tourism initiative to include provision of appropriate infrastructure and a clearer focus on the development of local heritage activities.

Development of local infrastructure and services essential to community well-beingLack of adequate cultural and leisure facilities in rural communities is a serious impediment to the development of local rural communities. While the needs of more remote rural communities and peri-urban areas may differ, initiatives will broadly address the provision of amenity and leisure facilities, cultural activities, arts facilities, local sport, community and recreational infrastructure.

41

Village and countryside enhancementVillages and small towns are the focal point for a significant section of the rural community and as such must be a priority for infrastructural development. The focus for improvement will be on the provision of small-scale infrastructure aimed at enhancing the environmental, amenity and surface structural aspects of these communities.

Environmentally friendly initiatives and conservation of areas of high natural and cultural valuePriorities include the restoration of ancient structures, habitations and protection plans for areas of high natural value such as locally important geological or ecological sites. The development of such sites should be addressed in conjunction with the development of local tourism products.

Adaptation of alternative sustainable energy sources appropriate to the specific needs of local rural communities is an important objective under this heading.

Training, skills acquisition and animationPriority will be given to measures aimed at enhancing the training levels and skills capacity of rural dwellers. These measures encompass the need to provide community training in relation to enterprise development, ICT awareness and accessing electronic public services, as well as measures to involve other rural dwellers as appropriate, including migrant and other minority groups in community activity. The enhancement of local capacity and innovative potential will be targeted through encouragement of knowledge transfer between local groups and stakeholders.

The strategy outlined above is founded on the following allocation of EU co-funded resources between the three broad priorities – 10 per cent competitiveness, 80 per cent environment, 10 per cent quality of life/diversification. This allocation bears in mind the following:

The baseline analysis indicates the contribution of agriculture and forestry to the environment. It is important to maximise that contribution and to compensate farmers for the public good aspects of their enterprises. It is hoped to build on the success of current relevant successful measures and to deliver results in the areas of climate change (forestry), water quality (agri-environment) and biodiversity (agri-environment, forestry, compensatory allowances in less favoured areas).

The European model of agriculture emphasises its multi-functional role and that development must be underpinned by sustainability. Ireland endorses that view and considers that the actions foreseen under Axis 2 must underpin those allowed elsewhere in the rural development framework.

The measures under Axis 2 have proven their worth and are already co-funded by the EU. From the financial management and control viewpoint it makes sense to concentrate EU funding on them. There will also be a significant carry-over of commitments to Axis 2 from the current round.

The Axis 2 funding is aimed at environmental enhancement, but it is also however has an economic dimension that is relevant to climate change mitigation and other areas. It is important as a platform for actions in other areas such as diversification, agri-tourism etc.

The ‘environmental’ support for farmers will be concentrated under this strategy whereas the other priorities will benefit from policies adopted outside of the specific EU rural development remit that will make an important contribution to the economic and social well-being of rural areas.

42

Broadband Scheme for Unserved Rural PremisesThere is a need to provide broadband access to the 12,000 rural homes and businesses that are not currently served by any broadband service provider and will not be addressed by the National Broadband Scheme (NBS – a Government funded broadband intervention aimed at bringing broadband services to most of the remaining homes and businesses in Ireland that still cannot get a broadband service).

This scheme will incentivise the provision of broadband services to individual premises in rural areas, which are unable to receive a broadband service, and will address the market’s failure to provide broadband services to certain premises. It will contribute to the policy objectives of enhanced economic and social inclusion for rural areas and will also underpin the competitiveness of the rural areas addressed by the scheme.

This section has given an overview of the support measures. Detailed descriptions are provided in Section 5.

3.3 The ex-ante evaluation

An ex-ante evaluation was carried out by AFCon Management Consultants in liaison with Jim Dorgan Associates and Circa Group Ireland Ltd. It includes an environmental report in line with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council – the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive.

The complete ex-ante evaluation is found in Appendix 9 to this programme. A summary of the report is set out at section 4.2 below, along with responses to the recommendations.

43

3.4 Impact from previous programming period and other information

In 2000–2006, Ireland benefited from both EAGGF Guarantee and EAGGF Guidance. The guarantee element co-funded the four accompanying measures in Ireland’s CAP Rural Development Plan–agri-environment, compensatory allowances (less favoured areas), early retirement and afforestation. The guidance element funded certain measures in Ireland’s two regional programmes. Table 3.7 below summarises expenditure for 2000–2006. The table is limited to EAGGF co-funded interventions.

These measures have had a significant impact on agriculture and the wider rural economy. The following are the main achievements:

Increased emphasis on the environmental aspect of agriculture, with participation in the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme reaching 60,000.

A substantial contribution to the continuation of sustainable farming in disadvantaged agricultural areas. In 2000–2006, 108,000 farmers were supported under the Compensatory Allowances Scheme.

The national forestry estate expanded from 634,000ha in 1999 to 709,000ha at the end of 2005. The target of all new plantings to be 30 per cent broadleaf by 2006 has been achieved.

Under the LEADER programme, 3,100 new jobs have been created and 3,900 existing jobs sustained. LEADER companies have assisted 8,000 enterprises and trained over 30,000 people.

44

Table 3.7: Expenditure 2000-2006

Programme Sub-Programme/Measure/Sub-MeasureExpenditure 2000-2006

€m

EU Element €m

Guarantee Funded Rural Development Programme

REPS 1,379.8 1,050.4Compensatory allowances 1,337.6 736.9Early Retirement 515.7 292.8Forestry 468.5 350.8

Total CAP Rural Development Plan (Agriculture) 3,701.7 2,430.9

BMW + SE Regional Operation Programmes*

Measure: General Structural Improvement

Installation Aid for Young Farmers 21.915 12.703

Farm Waste Management 82.363 50.628

Improvement of Dairy Hygiene Standards 18.079 10.282

Measure: Local Enterprise DevelopmentWoodland Improvement 26.628 17.779

Measure: General Rural DevelopmentArea-Based Rural Development Initiative 37.250 26.000

Total 186.235 117.392EU Community Initiative Measure: LEADER+ Programme 75.000 48.750

Total 3,962.935 2,597.042* BMW = Border, Midland & Western Regional Operational Programme* SE = Southern & Eastern Regional Operational Programme

The CAP Rural Development Plan and the Regional Programmes were subject to mid-term evaluation in 2003. A separate evaluation of the LEADER+ Initiative was carried out in 2003/2005. The following summarises the results.

CAP Rural Development PlanThe overall view of the evaluators, AFCon, was that the plan was progressing satisfactorily although its late start-up and the 2001 foot-and-mouth situation had delayed matters.

In the case of the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS), the evaluators recognised its significance from an agri-environmental viewpoint. They noted, however, that the participation level was lower than anticipated and that changes might be needed to increase the scheme’s effectiveness.

On the Early Retirement Scheme the evaluators felt that the relatively low uptake had lessened its impact. This was seen as disappointing as, in their opinion, this was the one measure in the plan that promoted structural reform in the agricultural sector. Among other suggested changes, the evaluators considered that index linking of future pensions would make this scheme more attractive.

45

The evaluators pointed out that the forestry measure was a very long-term and ambitious policy aimed at transforming national land use in a significant way and at a significant budgetary cost. They suggested that the measure be carefully reviewed to ensure its continuing relevance and cost effectiveness.

With regard to the Compensatory Allowances Scheme, its value and importance to less favoured areas was recognised, although questions were asked as to whether the scheme should apply to participants over 66 years of age in particular.

As a result of this evaluation, changes were made to REPS and participation levels have increased to around the 60,000-farmer level. The suggestion to index link early retirement pensions was not pursued, as this was not an option under the governing EU legislative framework. Regarding compensatory allowances it was decided not to introduce an upper age limit as this could be construed as discriminatory. A review of the strategy for the forestry sector took place in 2004 and has been under detailed consideration in the meantime. The forestry measures in the National Development Plan have been informed by that consideration.

Regional programmesIn the case of the rural development measures the evaluators (Farrell Grant Sparks and Fitzpatrick Associates respectively) focused on the larger measures – installation aid and farm waste management.

The evaluators recognised the importance of installation aid as a means to encourage the entry of young educated/trained farmers. They did note, however, the slow uptake of the scheme but appreciated that this was linked to the negative impact of the 2001 foot-and-mouth situation.

The importance of the farm waste management scheme from an environmental point of view was appreciated. As with installation aid, the scheme had a sluggish start but the evaluators underlined its increasing importance due to its linkage with the implementation of the Nitrates Directive.

Revised terms and conditions for the Farm Waste Management Scheme were introduced in 2004 – these concerned a consolidation of the grant rate to 40 per cent for all farmers, an increase in the income unit ceiling from 200 to 450, and the investment ceiling was raised to €75,000 per holding. Increased support rates (involving top-up state aid), among other changes, are on offer from 2006. These changes have had a very positive impact on uptake.

The foot-and-mouth situation impacted particularly on the rollout of the Area-Based Rural Development Initiative. The evaluators felt that the Initiative would, however, make up lost ground and achieve its objectives in the second half of the programming period. This was indeed the outcome.

46

LEADER +The aims and objectives of the EU LEADER Initiative were fully reflected in and delivered by the national LEADER+ programme, particularly in relation to the development of local strategies.

The implementation of a themed approach to territorial development and subsequent project selection methodology was consistent and resulted in good physical progress across measures. However, financial expenditure lagged slightly behind and was slow under certain measures, particularly the agriculture one. Subsequently, financial expenditure picked up markedly across all actions and is well on target for the end of the programme.

The programme strongly targeted specific groups, notably women and young people – two priority groups at EU level. In line with the experience of initiatives in other areas, the inclusion of young people in LEADER actions continues to provide a challenge.

Since the publication of the mid-term evaluation in 2003, a Network Support Unit has been appointed and this has resulted in an increase in activity at group level and sharing of knowledge. Recommendations in the mid-term report concerning the development of more measure-based indicators have been taken up and introduced. Finally, all funding for the programme was committed by December 2006.

The following supplementary measures are also relevant in considering impact on rural development in 2000–2006.

Rural Social SchemeThe Rural Social Scheme (RSS) was introduced by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in 2004. The aims of this scheme are to provide income support for farmers and fishermen who are currently in receipt of long-term Social Welfare payments, and to provide certain services of benefit to rural communities. Appropriate activities include environmental maintenance work; social care, and up-keep of community facilities.

Programme impact

The RSS is providing significant additional resources to maintain and improve local amenities and facilities in rural communities.

Communities are benefiting from the skills and talents of local farmers and fishermen. The initial 2,500 places allocated to the scheme have been filled and extra places are

being provided.

CLÁR programmeThe CLÁR programme is a targeted investment programme for rural areas that experienced a decline of more than 35 per cent in population since the foundation of the State. Districts in 23 counties qualify. CLÁR contains a range of measures to accelerate the development of physical, community and social infrastructure. These include village, community and schools enhancement, electricity conversion, broadband, roads, water supply and sewerage disposal.

47

Programme impactThe programme has had a significant influence on leveraging on other funding. Of the total funding of €151.7 million, committed to the programme from 2002 to spring 2006, 47 per cent was provided by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, while the remaining 53 per cent was leveraged from other public and community sources.

48

4. Justification of the priorities chosen having regard to the Community strategic guidelines and the national strategy plan as well as the expected impact according to the ex-ante-evaluation

4. 1 Justification of the priorities chosen, having regard to the Community strategic guidelines and the national strategy plan

Ireland’s priorities under the National Strategy Plan are fully consistent with those set at EU level. From the agri-food perspective, Ireland’s objective is to develop a competitive consumer-focused sector that will contribute to a vibrant rural economy, society and environment. In overall terms this will be achieved by encouraging the optimum level of efficiency, competitiveness and responsiveness to the demands of the market while respecting and enhancing the physical environment.

This approach is closely aligned with the focus at EU level that, in the case of agriculture, is to develop a competitive and sustainable sector. Insofar as competitiveness is concerned, the emphasis in the programme will be on improving human potential through restructuring measures (early retirement and setting-up support). It will be backed up by support for on-farm capital investment. The restructuring support will help new entrants to the sector while that for capital investment will assist farm modernisation and adaptation to the needs of the market.

As noted in Chapter 3, the changing economic situation has necessitated a review of the approach to funding activities under Axis 1 (competitiveness) of the Rural Development Programme. This resulted in the decision to suspend the Early Retirement and Installation Aid for Young Farmers Schemes as part of the April Budget 2009. Those who had applied prior to this time will continue to be supported under the programme however, future support aimed at improved competitiveness will be channelled into more targeted schemes focussed on a well defined cohort of producers. The aim is to provide a cost effective and tightly controlled vehicle for productive investment aimed at improved competitiveness.

In the context of sustainability, the EU strategic guideline pertinent to the environmental objective stresses three issues – water quality, biodiversity, and climate change. Ireland attaches particular importance to these matters and will build on the success of current measures – agri-environment, Natura, disadvantaged areas – to underline and support the public good aspect of agriculture. As explained in the National Strategy Plan, the bulk of funding under this programme will be devoted to this priority and the reasons advanced therein merit repetition:

The baseline analysis indicates the contribution of agriculture to the environment. It is important to maximise that contribution and to compensate farmers for the public good aspects of their enterprises. It is hoped to build on the success of current relevant successful measures and to deliver results in the areas of climate change, water quality and biodiversity. The European model of agriculture emphasises its multi-functional role and the important development being underpinned by sustainability. Ireland endorses the European view and considers that the actions foreseen under the environmental objective must underpin those allowed elsewhere in the rural development framework.

49

The measures under the environmental objective have proven their worth and are already co-funded by the EU. From the financial management and control viewpoint it makes sense to concentrate EU funding on them. There will also be a significant carry over of commitments under this axis/objective from the current round. The Axis 2 funding is aimed at environmental enhancement, but it also has an economic dimension that is relevant to the other areas. It is important as a platform for actions in other areas such as competitiveness, diversification, agri-tourism etc. The ‘environmental’ support for farmers will be concentrated under this programme whereas the other priorities will benefit from policies adopted outside of the specific EU rural development remit that will make an important contribution to the economic and social well-being of rural areas. With over 62,000 participants in 2009, REPS has been the main platform for delivering agri-environment outcomes – and will continue to support such activities on a large cross-section of Irish farms. While this is closed to new applicants from 9th July 2009, it will be supplemented by a targeted agri-environment options scheme that focuses on water quality, biodiversity and climate change.

For Axis 3 the objective is to provide sufficient economic activity in rural areas to offset declines in traditional economic sectors and improve recreational and village infrastructure to enhance quality of life for rural dwellers. These priorities were identified and quantified in the National Strategy Plan and the measures to deliver on them are specifically selected to complement rural social and structural deficits prioritised for wider government action in the NDP. The measures were also chosen to maximise value add impact on existing complementary programmes in the DCRGA such as Community Development Programmes, Small Farm Holders Initiative, Rural Social Scheme, CLÁR infrastructure programme and Department initiatives supporting the Gaeltacht and the Islands.

Health Check and European Economic Recovery Plan FundingUnder the Health Check agreement and the European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) additional EU funding of €146m has been made available for investment under the Rural Development Programme in Ireland. Of the €146m allocation an amount of €119m will be sourced under the Health Check fund with the balance of €27m from the EERP. To meet the requirements of the new challenges of:

Climate Change adaptation and mitigation, Renewable energies, Water management, Biodiversity, Innovation relating to previous four measures, Measures accompanying restructuring of the dairy sector and Broadband internet infrastructure in rural areas

Ireland entered into consultation with approximately 80 designated consultees on how best to meet these new challenges in accordance with the objectives of the Health Check and the EERP. Having reviewed the various proposals received and consulted with the Rural Development Monitoring Committee it was agreed that the total modulation fund and half of the EERP fund should be allocated to an agri-environment measure, titled “Agri-Environment Options Scheme” (AEOS). This investment amounts to €132.9m being €119.5m (Health Check) plus €13.4m (EERP). The balance of the EERP fund of €13.4m is allocated to a broadband measure. Having considered the range of challenges Ireland has opted to prioritise biodiversity, water management, climate change and broadband. The table below sets out the level of priority and allocation of funding to meet these challenges.

50

New Challenges

Amount ofAllocation

As % of Total Funding of €146.3m

Biodiversity €89m 61 %Water management

€25.6m 17.5 %

Climate Change

€18.3m 12.5 %

Broadband internet infrastructure in rural areas

€13.4m 9 %

Total €146.3m 100%

Apart from the allocation of the Health Check and European Economic Recovery Plan funds Ireland is addressing the challenges relating to dairy restructuring, renewable energies and water management with the introduction of a new scheme titled “Targeted Agricultural Moderniation Scheme [TAMS] under measure 121 of Axis 1 of the RDP.

Under the scheme [TAMS] six new incentives will be on offer to meet the challenges of maintaining competitiveness in the agri-sector and with a linkage to animal welfare and environmental requirements.

Main Priority: BiodiversityThe emphasis on biodiversity has been maintained in order to consolidate the benefit already achieved in this area. The first National Biodiversity Plan (2002-2006), published by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG), identified over 90 actions deemed necessary to help halt the loss of Ireland’s biodiversity. Thirty-nine of those actions fell within the remit of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, under broad headings such as agriculture, forestry and conservation of genetic resources. An interim review published in 2006 recorded actions already taken. These include:

The rollout of REPS 3 (and now REPS 4) which includes a far greater emphasis on biodiversity and, for example, has specific measures for the conservation and maintenance of hedgerows, with options to rejuvenate existing hedgerows and to establish new ones;

The implementation by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of a co-ordinated programme for the conservation and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture, food and forestry, overseen by a National Advisory Committee on Plant and Animal Genetic Resources;

The employment of forest ecologists by both Coillte and the Forestry Service of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;

The completion of over 4000 Commonage Framework Plans designed to eliminate overgrazing resulting from excessive sheep numbers.

In May 2008 the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) published a major study that it had commissioned, examining the social and economic aspects of biodiversity in Ireland. It considered various major sectors including agriculture, forestry, climate change and infrastructure development. By comparing the value of ecosystem services provided by biodiversity and the cost of biodiversity protection policies, this report established a marginal value of biodiversity in Ireland of at least €2.6 billion per year.

51

The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) within the DEHLG has been working extensively on the second National Biodiversity Plan. They carried out a wide-ranging consultation process and circulated relevant stakeholders (such as DAFF) suggestions taken from submissions of interest, which responded with their observations. DAFF participates in discussions with DEHLG on progressing these issues. Work on this Plan is a current priority for the NPWS, which expects publication of the Plan by early 2010.

Traditional landscapes in Ireland reflect the fact that Irish agriculture is predominantly grass-based and extensive. Any risk to the preservation of traditional landscapes is in fact more likely to take the form of abandonment of land as a result of decoupling and the trend towards part-time farming. That risk will be offset by the obligation under the Single Payment Scheme to keep land in good agricultural and environmental condition, but this will be supplemented in the agri environmental measures with a requirement for a minimum level of farming activity.

Although DAFF is not the primary responsible authority for the preservation of diversity in bird species, it works closely with DEHLG and organisations such as Bird Watch Ireland on this issue. Ireland’s agri-environment measures protect wild bird and animal populations through several of its elements, particularly the requirements for retention and management of habitats. There are also supplementary measures designed specifically to conserve bird populations, such as measures for protection of the corncrake and for the growing of food for wild birds through the LINNET23 project.

Other REPS measures aimed at enhancing and protecting biodiversity generally also benefit bird populations through preserving habitats and food supplies: e.g. measures dealing with, habitats, field margins, and biodiversity options such as nature corridors, species-rich grassland and tree planting.

The emphasis on biodiversity has been retained and increased in REPS4 which was introduced in 2007. Furthermore, under the proposed new Agri-Environmental Options scheme (AEOS), a specific measure relates to the conservation of wild bird habitat for the corncrake, for which farming practice developed by Bird Watch Ireland must be followed. And the action on LINNET (Land Invested in Nature, Natural, Eco-Tillage) should encourage the small-scale production of cereal plots as a food source for farmland bird populations.

To continue in line with the original RDP for the period 2007-2013 which already prioritises actions associated with biodiversity, water management and climate change, through its Axis 2 measures the new AEOS offers support to continue and consolidate the success of previous investments in these areas. Though the existing Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS 4) was closed from July 2009 the benefits of this scheme and of the previous REPS scheme will still accrue as the contractual scheme arrangements with the existing beneficiaries, of which there are approximately 62,000, will remain in force over the coming years.

Priority: Water managementIreland’s water quality compares well with that of most other EU countries although there is evidence of slight or moderate pollution in certain rivers and lakes. Rising population levels and continued socio-economic development have led to an increased demand on the water supply, both from domestic and commercial users. While ongoing investment in water

23 “Land Invested in Nature, Natural Eco-Tillage”

52

infrastructure throughout the country is required, there is also a need to develop innovative solutions for improved water management at a decentralised, local level, including at individual farm level.

Various sectors in the economy have responsibilities in maintaining the quality and management of water and in recognition of the agricultural sector’s contributory role it is proposed under AEOS, under a proposed operation titled “Provision of Alternative Water Sources for bovines” to safeguard water quality. This action will require, among other things, that bovines be denied access to drinking points on lands adjacent to watercourses. The farmer must fence off any access to drinking points on the watercourse and install water troughs with piped water. The troughs must be in a suitable location well back from watercourse.

Priority: Climate ChangeUnder AEOS the selection of these measures is also influenced by the ongoing discussions on climate change. The projected impacts of climate change are set out in the EU Commission Staff Working Document accompanying the White Paper on Climate Change Adaptation, Adapting to Climate Change; the challenge for European agriculture and rural areas [Brussels 1 April 2009, SEC (2009) 147]. This paper alerts us to the possibility of reduced capacity to produce food in many regions due to drought, flooding and soil erosion, while conditions for food production could, in the medium term, improve in others - including Ireland. The Report acknowledges that overall net effects on farm activities will vary across the EU and between farm types within the same region. Given the absence of prolonged extreme weather conditions in Ireland the proposed schemes of trailing shoe technology, green cover, min-till and arable margins are regarded as a most suitable to our agricultural and environmental needs.

Agri-Environment Options Scheme (AEOS) - General Agri-environmental payments play an important role in supporting sustainable development in rural areas and in responding to society’s increasing demand for environmental services. This measure is intended to encourage farmers to continue to apply agricultural production methods compatible with the protection of the environment, the landscape and its features. This scheme builds on the success of previous actions both under the 2000-2006 Programme and this Programme with an increased emphasis on pro-active biodiversity management, water management and climate, and with the objective of further addressing the new challenges.

Structure of the SchemeThe structure of the scheme allows farmers to choose options which best suit their holdings. From a suite of possible actions an applicant may propose a set of actions which will attract payment up to a pre-determined maximum amount. This suite of actions reflects Ireland’s decision to prioritise biodiversity, water management and climate change. Under this particular measure emphasis is placed on the biodiversity challenge followed by water quality and climate change. The Department will determine the set of actions most appropriate to the applicant having regard to the imperative to obtain the maximum environmental benefit. Selection Criteria will be used to limit uptake to farming prescriptions which represent the best and most appropriate value for the funds available.

53

Broadband Initiative‘Building Ireland’s Smart Economy – A Framework for Sustainable Economic Recovery’24

acknowledges that broadband is a key enabling infrastructure for knowledge-intensive services activities on which future prosperity will increasingly depend. Broadband can provide ready access to national and international markets and help with employment creation and fostering an entrepreneurial spirit, which is essential to the knowledge economy. Rural broadband in particular can help to improve the quality of life for rural residents and strengthen rural communities.

Ireland currently has over 1.3 million subscribers to broadband so that penetration levels are approximating EU and OECD averages. There has been a large increase in uptake in recent years. For example in 2008 62 percent of households (with at least one person aged 16 – 74) had a computer connected to the Internet and 43 percent of households had broadband access. These figures have both increased since 2005 from 45 percent and 7 percent respectively. More than two-thirds of Internet connections in 2008 were broadband, whereas in 2005 this was less than 20 percent. 25 However there are differences in the level of broadband access between densely populated (urban) areas and thinly populated (rural) areas. Almost 90 percent of households with an Internet connection in densely populated areas had broadband compared to less than 45 percent in thinly populated areas.

While investment in broadband is mainly a matter for the private sector, there are a number of areas where the State should incentivise or facilitate investment, in line with the Consultation Paper on Next Generation Networks published in July 2008. For example, the Department of Communications Energy and Natural Resources (DCENR), with the support of the Commission for Communications Regulation (ComReg), are running the National Broadband Scheme (NBS). It aims to provide broadband services to the areas of Ireland that are currently not served by any broadband provider, and ensure that every reasonable request for broadband in these unserved areas is met. This is around 10 percent of the population and approximately 33 percent of the area of the country, or around 223,000 residential, commerical and business premises. The scheme is part funded by ERDF.

DCENR carried out extensive and detailed mapping exercises of the areas covered by the existing Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), fixed and mobile wireless broadband operators, as part of the planning and design of the NBS 26. Approximately 12,500 premises, which were not covered by existing broadband service providers, were excluded from the scheme, as the area in which they were located were already deemed substantially covered. However, it has since been recognised that due to local obstacles or technical issues there are also premises that would appear to be in a covered area, but are not able to avail of the coverage from the existing broadband operators. While there is no substantiated estimate of the number of consumers who find themselves in this situation, DCENR expects that the total number is unlikely to exceed the number of unserved premises identified in the NBS mapping exercise. Accordingly, DCENR expects, for planning purposes, that approximately 25,000 consumers might be eligible for the Rural Broadband Reach Scheme (RBR).

Despite the substantial coverage in the local areas in which these premises are located, these premises remain unserved. The unserved premises in question are generally in low population density rural locations, and are dispersed in nature, and the deployment of additional

24Published by Department of An Taoiseach, December 200825 CSO, Information Society Statistics First Results 2008 26 See http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Communications/Communications+Development/National+Broadband+Scheme.htm State Aid decision 475/2007 http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/comp-2007/n475-07.pdf

54

infrastructure to serve these isolated customers would be difficult to justify under normal open market economic criteria.

Broadband Initiative under the EERPThis initiative is proposed to incentivise the provision of broadband services to individual premises which, for such reasons as those outlined above are unable to receive a broadband service from any of the service providers already operating in their areas.

The intervention proposed would be a scheme whereby a grant (to cover the cost of extending a SP’s network to the premise, subject to a defined maximum) would be payable to any service provider that extended its network to cover the “unreachable” premise. The grant would also be payable to any service provider who is currently serving the area but whose initial connection costs are deemed to be prohibitively expensive (e.g. satellite service providers).

The scheme would complement Ireland’s previous broadband intervention initiatives and would, subject to the market responding to the grant scheme, ensure that all premises in Ireland would be served by a service provider. In compliance with the EERP rules, only those areas deemed to be “rural” would be included in applications for EERP funding. Such a scheme will address the policy objectives of enhanced economic and social inclusion for rural areas and underpin the competitiveness of the rural areas addressed by the scheme.

Broadband – Demarcation and State Aid.

Under demarcation the following issues will be addressed to ensure that there is no “double support” and in order to qualify, applicants must: -

be living in a rural location, as defined under the Rural Development Programme,

be located outside of the areas covered by the NBS, and

make a declaration to state that they are not party to a contract with an existing broadband service provider.

be verified as “unserved” consumers by establishing that they are not capable of being served by existing service providers who will be given the opportunity to offer a service to the consumers in question.

4.2 Expected impacts deriving from the ex-ante evaluation with regards to the priorities chosen

This section sets out a summary of the ex-ante evaluation and the responses to the recommendations contained in it. Also included is information on the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and the responses to it. Both the evaluation and SEA extended to measures that are not in this programme but are being pursued separately under the NDP. The information on those measures is, however, retained here, as the measures involved are complementary to the programme.

Summary of ex-ante evaluation

55

The following is the executive summary of the independent evaluation. The full report is found in Appendix 9.

Introduction The ex-ante evaluation of the national Rural Development Plan (RDP) for the programming period 2007–2013 is based on and elaborates on the Ireland Rural Development National Strategy Plan (2007–2013) and Council Regulation 1698/2005 (the ‘Regulation’) on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The draft plan has now been subjected to an ex-ante evaluation and strategic environmental assessment covering:

Analysis of the problems that the proposed programme seeks to address

The proposed response (measures)

The anticipated results and impact of the programme

The extent to which the Community’s priorities have been taken into account in the programme

The quality of procedures for programme management including monitoring and evaluation.

The RDP is a plan that seeks to identify specific problems associated with the rural economy and rural environment and respond to those problems with measures that are appropriate, effective and in line with the requirements of the Regulation. The plan is not a comprehensive rural development plan and does not address each and every rural development issue and especially infrastructural deficits.

Conformity of RDP with Regulation 1698/2005The draft plan conforms to the requirements of EC Council Regulation 1698/2005 and meets the priorities defined under ‘The Community Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development Policy’. It also reflects the priorities defined under the National Strategy Plan for Rural Development and Government priorities for the development of agriculture and food as well as protection of the rural environment. It is consistent with other relevant strategy documents such as the DAF’s document, AgriVision 2015 and the White Paper on Rural Development. The draft plan examines the current-issues and problems facing agriculture and the rural economy (Chapter 3) as part of a lead-in to a SWOT analysis.

Based on the SWOT analysis a range of measures are proposed under each axis that address identified problems. The objectives, rationale and actions under each measure are elaborated, as is the proposed financial allocation. The overall structure and content of the plan follows closely the provisions of the Regulation and reflects the requirement of the Regulation that development policy should accompany and complement the market and income support policies of the common agricultural policy and that rural development policy should also take into account the general objectives for economic and social cohesion policy set out in the Treaty and contribute to their achievement while integrating other major policy priorities as spelled out in the conclusion of the Lisbon and Göteborg European Councils for competitiveness and sustainable development.

Problem identification

56

The draft plan provides significant background analysis of the socio-economic environment underpinning the plan and this informs the subsequent problem identification. The problems that need to be addressed can be summed up in terms of the three axes in the RDP: there is a threat to the competitiveness of Irish agriculture from a number of sources, there needs to be incentives to preserve and enhance the rural environment and countryside, and supports are needed to create employment and generate economic and social activities and infrastructure in rural areas.

The competitive problems arise from two sources. On the one hand, there is a reduction in market aids and supports and a more open EU market for agriculture. On the other hand, demand for land for non-agricultural purposes and alternative employment is raising the cost of the principal inputs for commercial agriculture. These problems are superimposed on fragmented farm structures and a generally ageing agricultural work force.

The decline in price supports for agriculture and the introduction of decoupled payments will tend to reduce agricultural activity and the consequent agricultural load on the environment. Unless action is taken, this may tend to the abandonment of land, which generates other environmental problems. Meanwhile, there will be a core of active farms that generate emissions, and the Nitrates Directive will raise the standards with which farms have to comply.

In relation to rural society in general, many areas suffer from a poor demographic structure and from inadequate infrastructure, social facilities and employment opportunities. Many of these problems are not addressed by the ‘mainstream’ policies of national and local government entities.

ObjectivesAxis 1 The first Axis of the RDP is aimed at improving the competitiveness of farm and forest enterprises through support for restructuring and innovation. This axis includes support for training, installation aid, early retirement, food quality and downstream food and forestry activities. Measures under this axis have the objective of promoting structural changes at farm level as well as investment in key sectors. This is supported by training measures that are seen as essential in meeting the challenges of an increasingly competitive environment. Combined, the measures under Axis 1 respond to identify issues that impact on the competitiveness of the agriculture and food sectors and aim to progress restructuring and investment for the challenging era ahead.

Axis 2 The second Axis of the RDP is directed at preserving, and where possible enhancing, the environmental, biodiversity and amenity values of the countryside. The Compensatory Amounts (CAs), previously paid on a headage basis in the LFAs are now decoupled. Some farmers may respond by reducing agriculture to a minimum, but maintaining environmental standards will be a condition of the payment and this should at least conserve the countryside against abandonment. For the medium term, most farmers will probably continue farming on an extensive basis and the CAs should support them in doing so. On the other hand, major improvement in the management of the countryside is the role of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) and the afforestation measures. The REPs will be improved, which should make it more attractive to farmers, and make it more capable of providing environmental benefits. The forestry measures aim to expand forestry, but subject to conditions that will ensure an enhancement of the countryside. Aid will be given for schemes likely to have a high value in terms of appearance, environment or amenities.

57

Axis 3 The broad objectives of Axis 3 are to improve the quality of life in rural areas and encourage diversification of economic activity in rural areas including diversification into non-agricultural activities. The measures under Axis 3 encompass a range of initiatives that are designed to promote economic activity in rural areas and also stimulate broader community initiatives aimed at improving the overall quality of life for rural dwellers. The measures will be implemented using the LEADER approach that emphasises a ‘bottom up’ approach and area-based local development strategies.

MeasuresThe draft RDP proposes expenditure of €7.055 billion over a seven-year period, of which €2.339 billion will be from the EAFRD and €4.716 billion from the National Exchequer. In line with the requirements of Council Regulation 1698/2005, the plan is structured around three-core objective: improving competitiveness, improving the environment and improving the quality of life in rural areas. This is reflected in the plan with measures allocated among three axes corresponding to the above objectives. The axes and financial allocations are as follows:

Axis 1 Competitiveness envisages total expenditure of €665 million, of which €234 million will be from the EAFRD. Under this Axis issues relating to the competitiveness of the agriculture and food industry are addressed, particularly structural problems. The proposed measures are in the main a continuation of measures included in the RDP but with some changes in approach and design. Most of the funding is allocated to the Early Retirement Scheme (€418) and a complementary scheme of Young Farmer Installation Aid (€63). In total the two measures account for 72 per cent of total planned expenditure under the axis. Other measures planned under this axis are farm improvement – designed to promote investment in modern facilities in key sectors – and support to the forestry sector. Axis 2 Improving the environment envisages expenditure of €5,965 million, of which €1,871 will be from the EAFRD. Measures under this Axis focus on ways of improving the environment but with farmers and farms at the core. The measures proposed are measures included in the current RDP but with modifications and improvements based on the up-to-date problem analysis. The main measure proposed is the continuation of the REPS/Natura 2000 measure for which €2,982 has been allocated, representing 50 per cent of expenditure under the axis. The next most important measure in terms of expenditure levels is the Compensatory Allowances measure, with planned expenditure of €1,799 million or 30 per cent of expenditure under the axis. The remaining measures cover forestry initiatives with a predominantly environmental focus, for which €934 million is allocated, and animal welfare with an allocation of €250 million.

Axis 3 Improving the quality of life in rural measures includes a range of measures that are aimed at having a more sustainable rural economy with an improved quality of life. The measures build on similar type measures implemented under the LEADER programme in previous programmes and have a total allocation of €425 million, of which €234 million is from the EAFRD. While the measures here are primarily aimed at improving the quality of life in rural areas they also support and complement the objectives of Axis 1 and Axis 2.

Impact assessmentAxis 1 The issue of competitiveness is well analysed in the plan but the link between the proposed measures and the identified problems could be strengthened. Seventy two per cent of expenditure is allocated to the problem of age structure and farm size but it is unclear from the analysis if this is the main competitive issue facing agriculture and food. While the Installation Aid Scheme (IAS) is likely to achieve results in terms of attracting young farmers,

58

the continuation of the Early Retirement Scheme (ERS) is problematic and the low uptake in the current scheme is of concern. While the measure is well intended it may be that uptake is opportunistic depending on the individual circumstances of farmers who may have been considering exiting.

The farm improvement measure is generally good and should achieve results, though there may be an issue with deadweight in some areas. Consideration could be given to increasing the allocation to organic farming. In relation to forestry, the measures proposed are directed at encouraging actions that are important for realising the potential of forestry. These are in line with the overall objectives of the Draft RDP and complementary to the forestry measures in Axis 2. However, the issue of whether the low rates of plantation now being recorded are capable of supporting a competitive industry needs further exploration.

Axis 2 With 80 per cent of expenditure under Axis 2 the RDP is primarily a plan to address environmental priorities, especially as some of the measures under Axis 1 and Axis 3 are also environmental in nature. While the measures under Axis 2 are directed towards the environment they contribute significantly to farm incomes and thus to the maintenance of a farming community. The CAs are a valuable contribution to farm incomes in the less favoured areas (LFAs) and as such help attain important Community and national objectives for rural development, including population stabilisation and maintenance of farmland in good environmental condition. However, the reaction of farmers to decoupling needs to be monitored carefully, and on farms where activity declines to minimal levels the scheme may prove to be redundant. As it is the scheme is complementary to the single farm payment (SFP) and consistent with most other policy initiatives such as REPS. It is not consistent with the ERS or with the forestry programme, although the adverse impact in both cases is likely to be small. The proposed REPS measure builds on the success and experience of previous REPS measures but is not just a simple follow-on from the previous programme. It will be implemented against a background of a totally changed CAP Pillar 1 and a new farming regime. Lessons learned from the previous measures have been taken into account in the design of the current measure, which is considered to be attractive in terms of both flexibility and monetary reward.

The national forest programme is consistent with the objectives of the EU in relation to forestry and supports national rural development policy in providing alternative income and employment in rural areas. Forestry also provides important carbon sequestration and alternative energy potential and, when carefully managed, can generate important amenity and biodiversity values. The forestry measures will promote the size of the national forest, which is low by European standards, and will address some deficiencies of Irish forests and enhance some opportunities through targeted interventions. The forestry schemes are complex and expensive but there is no alternative to heavy subsidisation backed up by careful supervision as envisaged in the draft RDP. The major difficulty with the programme at the moment is the low rate of take up which may be aided by the forthcoming increase in the premiums and some deficiency in the management of the existing forest estate. Any additional resources for forestry that might become available should be focused on measures designed to enhance the commercial value of the forests, such as reconstitution and the measures in Axis 1.

Axis 3 The combined measures under Axis 3 represent an attempt to deliver a significant community based rural development programme using the LEADER approach. Unlike the other two axes, which are mainly comprised of existing and well-proven measures, Axis 3 is quite innovative and challenging.

59

The general definition of Axis 3 including the problem identification would benefit from further analysis and a clearer outlining of the problem being addressed and overall objectives. Also the issues and measures covered under Axis 3 and Axis 4 cover only a part of overall public support for development in rural areas and indeed part of the needs. In the context of a new National Development Plan 2007-2013 it would be very desirable to see a document that incorporated all the proposals affecting rural development together, and evaluated together.

The specific proposals under Axis 3 and Axis 4 are generally good but we feel the links between analysis, problem identification and proposed measures to respond to problems could be made clearer.

Community added valueA contribution of €2.339 billion is expected, reflecting approximately 33 per cent of the overall programme cost. However, the added value of community involvement in the programme goes beyond the funding available. The programme is guided by the Community’s overall approach to rural development that seeks to combine objectives of competitiveness, improvement of the environment and improvement of the overall quality of life in rural areas.

60

Implementation arrangements and monitoring and evaluationWhile the proposed implementation arrangements are generally satisfactory and do not require changes, there are significant concerns with the identification and selection of indicators. It would seem that this area of the plan is largely incomplete and that a systematic approach to defining useful indicators and agreeing how such indicators can be compiled is required. In relation to assessing impact in particular the use of special surveys may need to be considered. Specific recommendations

A summary of the RDP, setting out context, problems identified, proposed responses would significantly improve the subsequent reading of the plan. While the programme has quite detailed analysis, the flow from problem identification to proposed response on an overall basis and at Axis level is not as clear as it could be. The draft RTDP provides considerable analysis at section 3.1 but the SWOT analysis and problem(s) identification following could be more comprehensive. Clearly identified problems under each axis should be identified so that the appropriateness of the measures as responses at axis level can be better evaluated. Expenditure on some elements of the Farm Improvement Measure should be reviewed to ensure absence of deadweight. The Farm Improvement Measure and the level of funding should be reassessed at the mid-term stage in the light of the level of uptake. The measure is likely to prove attractive given the emphasis on restructuring at farm level. The actual expected impact of the ERS on competitiveness should be more fully justified. Despite decoupling, CAs probably still work to support farming in the LFAs, thus helping to maintain the countryside. Some of the conditions for qualifying for the payment need to be reviewed. In cases where farmers reduce activity to minimal levels, the CA will probably not have a positive effect on countryside maintenance. The overall objective of Axis 3 and how measures under it contribute to this objective should be more clearly elaborated. Some issues not dealt with under the programme may need to be considered. There is a need to further define indicators of outputs, results and impact for each of the measures proposed in the RDP. This will require a structured approach and co-ordination between the DAF and the implementing divisions.

Response to Ex-Ante Evaluation

The following address the main points: While the evaluation raises issues on specific measures and aspects, it is noted that it endorses the overall approach of the programme and the allocation of funding between the three priorities. It should be noted that the evaluation covered some measures and related funded that will be pursued outside the remit of the programme. This is because they will be financed solely by the exchequer. On the concern about low rates of forestry plantation, it needs to be borne in mind that forestry is a long-term project and that afforestation rates can fluctuate significantly from year to year. The mix of measure in this programme will assist competitiveness and environmental enhancement. They will be kept under review and, where necessary, changes will be proposed in the light of progress and available funding. The suggestion that any additional resources should focus on Axis 1 measures merits caution. There is a need for a balanced approach, bearing in mind the primary aim of achieving and maintaining a sustainable level of afforestation.

61

In relation to the Early Retirement Scheme the aim, of this scheme is to address the issues identified as impeding competitiveness (lack of commercial viability due to small farm size, low-level productivity due to poor age structure, low education level and lack of land mobility) through encouraging the transfer of land to younger, trained farmers or established farmers who wish to enlarge their holdings. An Expenditure Review conducted by the Department of Agriculture and Food in 2004 indicated that the scheme had value, as a restructuring measure, particularly in the more intensive farming areas of the south and east. Take-up of the current scheme was proportionately higher in those areas. However, take-up of the current scheme throughout the country was depressed by uncertainty about the details and outcome of decoupling, and by controversy over the level of pension.

Now that the farming situation has stabilised after decoupling, and a higher rate of pension is proposed for the period of the programme, take-up can be expected to increase again, though not to the levels of the 1994-1999 schemes, which attracted over 10,500 participants. Regional disparities in uptake have been recognised in the programme, with a lower size of holding required in less favoured areas (LFAs). The suggestion that a summary of the programme should be provided has been noted. While the programme has been prepared in accordance with the prescribed template, the intention is to provide a summary once it is adopted. The national rural development strategy is also relevant as it provides an overview of the programme’s context and contents. In line with the evaluators’ recommendation, the SWOT analysis and problem identification at Section 3.2 has been substantially extended. The analysis has been done on the basis of the three axes set out in the rural development regulation. As with all measures, the on-farm investment measure – including the Farm Improvement Scheme – will be kept under review. As regards possible deadweight, this will be borne in mind, although the terms of the farm improvement scheme and its limited grant rates should guard against this. The evaluators’ argument that Compensatory Allowances in less favoured areas may not have a positive effect on countryside maintenance when farm activity is reduced to a minimum level has been taken on board. The measure has been amended to provide for a minimum stocking density of 0.15 livestock unit per hectare. The position regarding Axis 3 and its measures has been elaborated as part of the extended SWOT analysis provided at Section 3.2. In line with the evaluators’ recommendation, the performance indicators for the axes and their measures have been further defined to the extent possible from current information. The managing authority will liase with the implementing divisions and other appropriate bodies to ensure the timely provision of indicator data as the programme progresses.

62

Summary of strategic environment assessment (SEA)

BackgroundStatutory Instrument (S.I.) No. 435 of 2004 transposed the SEA Directive into Irish law. The environmental authorities specified in this instrument are:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) where

significant effects are possible for the architectural or archaeological heritage or for nature conservation

The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (DCMNR) where significant effects are possible for fisheries or the marine environment.

The statutory instrument prescribes the SEA procedures and their related timescales.

Screening of Rural Development Programme

This formal screening considered that an assessment was both necessary and desirable. The programme falls within the remit of Article 9(1) of SI No. 435 of 2004 – which sets out the general circumstances in which an assessment is obligatory. In addition, the EU Commission advised that an assessment was required.

Throughout the consultative process on the rural development programme and related strategy, stakeholders were advised of the need for a strategic environment assessment. The SEA was undertaken as an integral part of the consultation on, and the preparation of, the programme with the ex-ante evaluation and the environmental report carried out in tandem by the SEA/plan-making team.

Scoping of the SEA

In August 2006 the three environmental authorities were informed of the intention to have an independent environmental assessment undertaken on the rural development programme. They were advised of the provisional view that this should cover the issues cited in the SEA Directive (Annex 1 of 2001/42/EC) and with a particular focus on water and air quality, climate change, biodiversity and population.

The DEHLG offered suggestions on the possible coverage of archaeological and heritage issues while the EPA offered general advice on the matters to be covered in an environmental report.

Based on the scoping exercise and internal consideration, it was decided that the scope of the environmental assessment should seek coverage of all the issues cited in the Annex to the SEA Directive without weighting being attached to them.

Evaluation (SEA) report

The environmental assessment was conducted in parallel with the ex-ante evaluation of the rural development programme. A copy of the report is found in Appendix 10. The following material is taken from its Executive Summary and summarises the potential environmental effects and findings:

63

Anticipated environmental effects arising from Axis 1 measures

Axis 1 measures are intended to enhance the competitiveness of benefiting farms and this may increase adverse environmental effects on these farms. While ‘traditional’ lower intensity farming with fewer inputs are now being replaced by more efficient and productive agricultural practices the potential for adverse effects on the environment may increase somewhat. However, the Axis 1 objective of having a younger, better-trained farming community should have positive benefits as they are more likely to be environmentally aware and to have the necessary farm management skills and capability to reduce or eliminate any significant (negative) environmental effects that increased farm productivity might have.

The central theme of the Farm Improvement Measures is to promote diversification of farm activities that are supported in a manner that promotes higher standards for environmental protection, health, safety, and animal welfare. Maintenance of diversification of land use also has an impact of maintaining and protecting established landscapes. These all have potentially positive environmental effects of varying significance.

The programme also proposes to encourage the manufacture of downstream value-added forest products. In principle downstream timber processing can have environmental effects, but the scale of these measures is relatively insignificant. Potential adverse effects, if any, will be controlled by the normal planning process. Other forest measures will be monitored by the Forest Inspectorate. Where production facilities result these will be subject to development consent from the local authority in whose administrative area the enterprise is to be established.

Anticipated environmental effects arising from Axis 2 measures(a) Improving the Environment and the Countryside (primarily nature-conservation

related measures)

The programme plans to continue a range of extensive supports for habitat and species conservation. Measures include the strengthening of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS), Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to the Water Framework Directive which promote and support farming practices that are environmentally sensitive and sustainable. Under the new programme it is now proposed to expand the scheme to include eligibility to intensive farming activities, thereby bringing a greater and wider degree of biodiversity protection, and environmental protection generally, than applied heretofore.

The measures will, as is the intention, make a ‘significant’ contribution to the conservation of natural habitats and to the conservation of the floral and faunal species these habitats support. As such, both the REPS and Natura 2000 measures for the protection of designated sites (a full listing of which is provided in Appendix 2 of the RDP) are environmental protection measures and represent the single most important elements of the Draft RDP as regards the protection of biodiversity. With sufficient resources and application, the measures should be at least capable of arresting the rate of decline in biodiversity in these areas while also providing for the possibility of regaining some species lost to Ireland and strengthening the status of others. The measures will have positive impacts on biodiversity beyond national boundaries in that they afford protection to a range of migratory species and act to conserve the habitats such species use for that part of their life cycle spent in Ireland.

64

(b) Improving the Environment and the Countryside (Afforestation related measures)In promoting afforestation, including broadleaf woodlands, the measures will afford the opportunity for greater diversity of land use and the greater biodiversity that can follow over time. Insofar as the forests and woodlands are also intended to be promoted as recreational assets they have the potential to provide benefits of some significance for encouraging an active lifestyle and consequent benefit to human health.

Climatic benefits will also accrue as tree growth sequesters carbon while also providing substitute materials for a wide range of products including construction products such as timber-frame housing, all in a manner that is essentially carbon neutral.

Forest output will include wood fuel. As elsewhere in Europe, Ireland is making rapid strides towards the use of carbon neutral wood as a substitute for imported hydrocarbons as a fuel source.

The principal potential adverse effects of forestry are in relation to watercourses. Strict adherence to appropriate planting practices such as adequate set back from watercourses are essential for avoidance of siltation, soil disturbance, acidification of waters and nutrient runoff. It is noted, however, that the Code of Best Forest Practice addresses both the issue of water quality protection in particular and also archaeological issues (deep soil disturbance) that might arise.

Anticipated environmental effects arising from Axes 3 and 4 measuresThe overall priority for the Axes 3 and 4 measures is to stimulate economic and social activity in all rural areas. The range of actions to deliver this priority was chosen to deliver the optimum economic and social impact while demonstrating internal as well as external complementarity at Axis level.

The essential objective of the various measures is to make a useful contribution to maintaining a viable rural population while also maintaining quality of life in a valued rural environment. As such, the Axes 3 and 4 measures will make a positive contribution to population and health. Similarly, by supporting the retention and development and of a viable rural community, aspects such as the existing built environment and the rural landscape can be maintained and enhanced. Equally adverse environmental impacts such as significant land abandonment and the loss of material assets that such abandonment represents can be reduced or avoided.

The principal negative impact identified is the inevitable growth of traffic as a consequence of a more vibrant rural community. As a counterbalance to this, however, it is recognised that by rooting jobs and social infrastructure locally the necessity to commute long distances can be greatly reduced.

Environmental impacts associated with the development of the various tourism facilities, recreational buildings, small business premises etc. will all be subject to planning consent prior to construction and as administered by the relevant local authority in each area. This affords the opportunity to apply (as is the norm) appropriate planning consent ‘Conditions’ to reduce any adverse effects.

Alternatives to the programmeAn examination of the Draft RDP suggests that collectively the measures proposed will do much to progress rural development in both an economically sustainable and environmentally

65

sustainable manner. The principal alternative to the Draft RDP would be not to implement the programme (termed the ‘Do-Nothing Scenario’), or to drop substantial elements of it. Of particular concern in the absence of the programme would be the potential for widespread abandonment of farmland and its environs as a consequence of a further more pronounced shift to off-farm income activity in response to the decline in more traditional farm output and income. It is self-evident that the Do-Nothing Scenario would likely result in significant adverse environmental effects across a wide range of environmental parametres (biodiversity, population, climate etc).

Monitoring environmental effects of proposed programmeIt is a requirement under SEA that provision is made for monitoring the environmental effects of a plan or programme over its lifetime. This is central in ensuring that adverse environmental effects are quickly identified, quantified and addressed in a timely and effective manner. This Environmental Report therefore, makes a number of recommendations in respect of monitoring. The principal recommendation is that the Department of Agriculture and Food should establish and oversee a comprehensive, integrated, environmental monitoring programme. That programme should ideally be based on a sophisticated geographical information system (GIS).

66

Consultation on evaluation (SEA) report

The consultation process commenced on 7 November 2006 with notices in the national press and on the Department’s websites. The Northern Ireland Authorities were also informed. The following summarises the responses:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The report examined one/two alternative scenarios. Other possible alternatives might usefully be considered.

The proposed monitoring programme requires detailed consideration. The inclusion of existing monitoring programmes such as national surface and groundwater programmes is recommended. There should be a clear distinction between the programme’s objectives and the environmental ones as per the SEA Directive.

The Water Framework Directive and associated plans and measures should be referred to in the programme. Groundwater, surface water and coastal and estuarine environments also merit mention.

The report refers to the requirements for environmental impact assessments for individual forestry developments. The cumulative impacts of adjoining forestry developments may not, however, be adequately addressed by those assessments.

In terms of the preservation of rural landscapes and traditional agricultural landscapes, there may be merit in a pilot assessment of such landscapes.

The evaluator’s views on some issues are open to question. In some cases, impacts might be positive or negative; flood risk is a realistic threat to low-lying agricultural land.

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

The Department welcomes the provisions promoting protection of the aquatic environment and, in particular, the new measures in REPS and Axis 4 for the protection and improvement of threatened water bodies

In the case of forestry there is potential for significant negative impact on water quality, influenced by the types of trees planted and the soil types chosen. Concerns include acidification, nutrient runoff, sedimentation and dangerous substances

Two key control measures relating to afforestation have the capacity to substantially mitigate against the generation of any significant adverse environmental effects arising from the proposed measures. These are: the ‘Code of Best Forest Practice’ and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 85/337/EEC. Work underway by the Western River Basin District project may result in further controls on forestry in sensitive areas

Forestry plantation needs to take into account all potential impacts on water quality and biodiversity.

67

Department of the Communications, Marine and Natural Resources

There is scope to introduce a more detailed plan for more rivers and lakes to take the opportunity presented by the new Rural Development Programme to introduce voluntary measures designed to improve water quality in a number of areas: specifically, certain salmon rivers and pearl mussel habitats, and the catchments of certain western lakes.

There seems to be a lot of reference to protection of birds and hedgerows under Biodiversity sections yet no reference to the need for protection of aquatic habitats, particularly salmon habitats (protected species) or the benefit that the aquatic riparian corridor can provide as a habitat and continuum for flora and fauna.

Agri/environmental groups

With no targets set for species mix to move from the current model of fast-growing species, the 30 per cent broadleaf planting target has been abandoned.

Proposed ‘Requirements’ on forestry operations impacting on water-quality arising from the scientific identification of, inter alia, phosphate and silt releases are confined to SACs and are voluntary rather than statutory.

Definition of peat soils used by the Forest Service fails to address the organic content of the soils, as recognised in the Nitrates Regulation 2006, affecting environmental impacts and calculations of value of forestry for carbon sequestration.

SEA underestimates or even ignores the environmental impact of the current industrial plantation forestry policy that prevails in Ireland.

There are concerns about choice of location, soils and species. There is no protection for Native Woodland Resources. There is a dependence on monocultures, with a focus on low-quality, fast-growing

species at the expense of high-quality broadleaf plantations and high-quality end-use. There is a high dependence on significant and sustained use of pesticides, herbicides

and fertilisers. No measures are included to ensure equal application of controls to reforestation.

Response to strategic environmental assessment

As legally required the definitive response will be set out once the programme is adopted. The following, although necessarily provisional, provides a clear indication as to that response and as to the manner in which the SEA has been taken into account in preparing the programme: On consideration of possible alternative approaches, it is accepted that the

environmental report limited itself to one/two scenarios. However, two important and related factors have to be borne in mind. Firstly, the regulation provides a set menu of possible support measures under each of its objectives. Secondly, this programme provides for 80 per cent of total co-funded expenditure under the ‘environmental’ objective – the maximum allowable. The combined effect is to reduce the scope for alternatives.

While the restrictions reduce the potential for alternatives at a macro level, it is appreciated that they do not preclude consideration of possible alternatives at measure level to maximise potential benefit. Based on discussions with the EPA and other suggestions, certain measures have been adapted to this end. In the case of agri-environment, the measures proposed under REPS, Natura 2000 and Organic Farming will continue to develop a set of pro-active elements to restore and enhance the environment and biodiversity and to accommodate developments in agricultural policy and emerging environmental issues.

68

A number of issues relating specifically to forestry were raised as part of the SEA consultation process, i.e. water-quality, species selection, use of fertilisers and herbicides, reforestation and soils definitions. All applications are subject either to full EIA screening (if below 50ha) or full EIA (if above 50ha or if demanded). It is also worth remembering that the size of individual plantations is now quite small – less than 10ha on average. Statutory consultation with prescribed bodies is also part of the approval process, with full public consultation in many instances. In addition, the new GIS map-base will be extensively used not just to evaluate proposals against a range of opportunities and constraints, but also to guide the preparation and submission of such applications in the first place. The GIS system will assist in targeting investment in areas of high scenic sensitivity and converting established forests to fit better within the landscape.

On the forestry side, guidelines in relation to preservation of water quality have been drawn up, with specific requirements to be introduced for protection of the freshwater pearl mussel. Any further requirements identified as part of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive will of course be incorporated.

In relation to species selection, it is intended to maintain the target of 30 per cent broadleaf afforestation for the new programming period, with specific schemes promoting this and more favourable rates of premium applying. The native woodland resources will continue to be protected and expanded through a dedicated Native Woodland Scheme.

Use of fertilisers and herbicides in forestry establishment is extremely low by agricultural standards, often requiring no more than one or two applications over a full rotation of 40-100 years. A new Statutory Instrument has recently been introduced to control the use of aerial fertilisation in established forestry.

Reforestation is not grant-aided and forms no part of the programme. Conditions applying to reforestation are stipulated in accordance with the Forestry Acts (which are currently under review).

In relation to soils definitions, the question here is how to define a ‘peat’ soil. The approach used in Irish forestry is well established internationally and, at the Commission’s request, a new paragraph has been inserted into the RDP explaining the situation in more detail.

Initial discussions have taken place with Bord na Móna in terms of a holistic response to the future management of cut-away bogs, in which careful planting of woodlands will play an important role. The potential for easing flood-risk in this fashion (such as into the Shannon) will also be explored. At a ‘local’ level, riparian planting will be encouraged under the new Agro-Forestry scheme and this can have a significant and positive effect on localised flooding and soil-erosion.

The need for an effective and flexible monitoring system is recognised. Given the programme’s emphasis on environmental measures, its objectives and those of the SEA Directive are to a very significant extent compatible. In monitoring progress, use will be made of existing data sources. These will also be utilised to discern possible unforeseen effects and the need for appropriate response. Assessment of ‘environmental’ progress will be an inherent feature of annual reports etc. on the programme. In terms of broader level monitoring, the National Forest Inventory has just completed fieldwork that will provide excellent baseline information not just in terms of productivity, but also in terms of forest health and ecology. In addition to its relevance to the current programme, the monitoring system will also inform any successive programme.

REPS and the Natura measures will involve the collection of environmental data about each holding which will form the basis for detailed individual farm plans. This collection of data will feed into an ongoing analysis of the effects of the measures.

69

The plans and measures adopted under the Water Framework Directive will be taken into consideration as the programme progresses. A new Supplementary Measure in REPS is designed to address water quality issues, in particular lake catchments. Since farming is only one of the factors affecting water quality in these areas, the REPS Supplementary Measure will be complemented by actions under Axis 3.

Following the 2004 report by the Flood Policy Review Group, the Office of Public Works (OPW) was appointed as the lead agency to implement flooding policy in Ireland. The OPW is currently developing a strategy to manage flood risk, in conjunction with other relevant state agencies. The strategy is likely to involve non-structural measures such as storage and better flood forecasting and warning, but will also include structural works, particularly where flooding is already a problem. Developments here will be closely monitored and where necessary reflected in the programme measures.

In the context of the SEA and the environmental impact of the proposed Axis 2 measures the Department of Agriculture and Food considers that the following summary of the achievements to date and independent evaluations is also relevant:

(A) Agri-environmental measure (REPS)

Improvements since REPS commenced in 1994

Almost 60,000 farmers, farming 2m hectares in the scheme, farm to individual farm plans prepared by a professional

4,000km of new hedgerow contracted for establishment 2,700km of hedgerow contracted for rejuvenation 13,700ha contracted for new on farm habitat creation 17,000 farmers opted to provide nature corridors by increasing all field margins from

1.5m to 2.5m 7,000ha contracted for the establishment of traditional hay meadow 12,000ha contracted for the establishment of species-rich grassland.

70

Evaluation report on REPS in 1999The 1999 evaluation was carried out by Fitzpatrick and Co. and concluded that the scheme, as designed, has many attributes. It applies a set of standard environmental requirements to be met by participating farms, which together make substantive inroads towards achieving optimal environmental sustainability on farming units. A range of areas is covered, ensuring real improvements on participant farms, although the nature of improvements, correctly, depends on the nature of individual farms. The scheme furthermore ensures that these advancements may be guaranteed for a period into the future.

Mid-term evaluation report 2003

This report was compiled by AFCon, independent consultants who established that:

Soil quality has been protected through nutrient management planning and grassland management.

Chemical contamination of soils has been prevented or reduced through the limitations on nutrient input implemented by nutrient management plans.

The biodiversity measure has been successful in protecting habitats that may have been otherwise lost.

Hedgerow quality has attributed to avian diversity on farmland in general. The visual appearance of farms is much improved. Maintenance of stonewalls

and retention of hedgerows has a positive impact on the landscape. Research done by Teagasc found that more archaeological features have been

maintained on farms because of REPS. Prior to this, some of these were destroyed due to land improvement associated with more intensive farming.

The report concluded that REPS has a positive effect on the landscape by improved visual appearance, better management of designated areas of high nature value, and appreciation of historical and cultural values.

Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) report 2006

This study of REPS was carried out by Danny Cambell, W. George Hutchinson and Riccardo Scarpa and concluded that the scheme delivers:

Improvement of wildlife habitats, hedgerows, farmyard tidiness and cultural heritage Improvements to biodiversity-enhanced recreational opportunities, rural development

and contributions to farmers’ incomes and the broader rural economy.

The report further concludes that the total benefits provided by the REPS are likely to exceed the costs associated with it and on this basis the scheme would seem to be justified.

(B) Less favoured areas (LFAs)

The scheme places emphasis on maintaining the rural population in less favoured areas (LFAs), through an environmentally friendly approach, which focuses on the proper management of low intensity pasture systems, i.e. extensive farming. As regards the overlap between REPS and LFAs (average of 100,000 qualifying applicants per annum), it is important to note that in 2000 there were 27,000 REPS applicants who also qualified under LFAs – 27 per cent. By 2006 the figure had increased to 41,000 – 41 per cent.

71

Of the land area referred to above, 5.15 million hectares are designated as less favoured, with a total utilised agricultural area (UAA) of 3.67 million hectares, and represents almost 75 per cent of agricultural land nationally. For the duration of the Plan applicants were obliged to comply with good farming practice (GFP), which laid down the environmental requirements for the scheme. Good farming practice is common-sense farming and is described as the standard of farming that a reasonable farmer would follow in the region concerned. Care of the environment is an integral part of GFP, with particular emphasis on grassland and nutrient management. Environmental issues were also central to the 1997 National Strategy for Sustainable Development, e.g. nutrient management through the reduction of both fertiliser application rates and stocking densities. Also, among the main environmental challenges identified by the Department of the Environment was halting the decline in water quality, through proper nutrient management.

The environmental issues mentioned in the previous paragraph are addressed by the LFAs through the obligation of having a minimum stocking density per forage hectare of 0.15 livestock units. The main beneficial effect arising has come via a corresponding reduction in stocking levels, attributable to the abolition of the overall link between animal production and receipt of compensatory allowances. This has resulted in a reduction in the use of artificial fertilisers and the amount of animal waste produced, which in turn has improved both soil and water quality. Empirical evidence is provided by national livestock data as follows:

Cattle numbers have decreased by 4.8 per cent during the life of the Plan, from 6.408 million to c. 6.100 million.

Sheep numbers have decreased by 14.7 per cent, from 4.807 million to c. 4.1 million. Fertiliser usage has decreased by 3 per cent, from 1.545 million tonnes to c. 1.5

million tonnes.

While the reductions in cattle numbers and fertiliser use have contributed significantly to the achievement of Ireland’s targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in accordance with Kyoto undertakings, there is a risk that further decline in sheep numbers would lead to some loss of diversity and traditional landscape in certain areas. The position is being closely monitored, therefore, and Ireland is proposing actions under agri-environment to prevent stocking levels from falling below sustainable levels.

72

5. Description of Axes and Measures proposed for each Axis

Measures proposed for each Axis

As set out in Ireland’s Rural Development National Strategy 2007–2013, the programme will contribute to each of the three objectives detailed in Article 4 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, namely:

Improving the competitiveness of agriculture by supporting restructuring, development and innovation (Axis 1) Improving the environment and the countryside by supporting land management (Axis 2) Improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of economic activity (Axis 3).

Beneficiaries will be limited to those complying, where appropriate, with the minimum pay legislation.

The programme will provide support through the following Measures:

Axis 1–Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sectorMEASURE CODE

MEASURE

111 Vocational training and information actions112 Setting up of young farmers113 Early retirement of farmers and farm workers121 Modernisation of agricultural holdings

Axis 2–Improving the environment and the countrysideMEASURE CODE

MEASURE

212 Payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas213 Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC 214 Agri-Environmental payments

Axis 3–The quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economyMEASURE CODE

MEASURE

311 Diversification into non-agricultural activities312 Business creation and development313 Encouragement of tourism activities321 Basic services for the economy and rural population322 Village renewal and development323 Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage33 Training and information for economic factors under Axis 3

73

Axis 3–LEADERMEASURE CODE

MEASURE

341 Skills-acquisition and animation measure 41 Implementing local development strategies421 Implementing co-operation projects431 Running the Local Action Group

The position re the horizontal indicators is set out in the table below:

HORIZONTAL INDICATORS

Indicator Measurement Baseline ProjectionEconomic development

GDP per capita, expressed in PPS (EU-25=100)

147.4 140.7 (2008)

Employment rate

Employed persons aged 15-64 as a percentage of the population of the same age group

Average 69.6%Female 60.1%Young People 54.3%

70 per cent by 2010

Unemployment Rate of unemployment, i.e. unemployed persons as a percentage of economically active population

Average 4.9%Female 4.7%Young People 10.6%

Maintain

74

5.1 Axis 1: Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural sector

Summary of actions

Under this Axis, Measures are designed to meet the objective of improving the competitiveness of the agriculture sector through: Achieving the transfer of land to young trained farmers better able to meet the new

challenges facing Irish agriculture Providing training to beneficiaries under the Natura 2000 (measure 213) and Agri-

environment (measure 214) Measures under Axis 2 to optimise delivery of commitments undertaken

Encouraging the transfer of holdings from older farmers to young farmers setting up in farming

Support of capital improvements in farm structures, ensuring that primary agriculture becomes competitive and market-oriented.

The following table summarises the baseline situation and the targets for Axis 1.

Indicator Measurement Baseline Target

Training and education in agriculture

Percentage of farmers with basic and full education in agriculture

Basic 17%Full 14%

17%14%

Age structure in agriculture

Ratio: farmers under 35years of age/farmers aged 55 years or over

0.17 0.15

Labour productivity in agriculture

Gross value added per annual work unit (GVA/AWU)

€14,057 GVA per AWU Increase

Labour productivity in food industry

Gross value added per person employed in food, drink and tobacco industry

€137,043 Increase

Labour productivity in forestry

Gross value added per employee in forestry

€39,200 Increase

75

Vocational Training and Information Actions(REPS Training)

Legal basis:Articles 20(a)(i) and 21 of Regulation 1698/2005.Point 5.3.1.1.1 of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006

Measure Code: 111

Rationale for interventionTraining will be provided to beneficiaries under the Natura 2000 (measure 213) and Agri-environment (measure 214) Measures under Axis 2 to optimise delivery.

Objectives of the measureThe objective is to provide participants with information on environmental benefits arising from the Agri-environment and Natura 2000 Measures and clarification on all relevant measure requirements at individual farm level; additionally, to equip farmers with the knowledge and skills necessary to implement comprehensive environment actions.

Scope and actionsThe provision of training in farming systems compatible with good environmental practice is an important requirement of the scheme. Under the scheme, beneficiaries under the Axis 2 Agri-environment and Natura 2000 Measures will be required to attend approved education courses. Beneficiaries who have not attended a training course in the 2000 to 2006 programming period will be obliged to attend an appreciation Training module. The appreciation module must meet a standard set of criteria, including a minimum of 10 hours duration.

Additionally, all beneficiaries will be encouraged to attend at further one day training/demonstration modules in years one and two of the five-year Natura 2000 or Agri-environment contract.

The estimated expenditure for attendees is €1.07m per annum.

The cost of delivering appreciation courses is circa €1,500 per course and it is projected that 300 courses would be held annually at a total projected cost of €450,000. In addition 600 modular courses per year at €750 per course will cost €450,000. In total training courses will cost €900,000 per annum.

BeneficiariesFarmers participating in the Agri-environment Measure and the Natura 2000 Measures under Axis 2

DemarcationNo support for the training under the Pillar I Article 68 Dairy Efficiency Scheme will be provided under this measure. Support for training under the Dairy Efficiency Scheme relates to the dissemination of knowledge on best dairy production practice (grassland management, herd health, breeding, finance, etc.). This knowledge transfer is delivered via Dairy Discussion Groups, facilitated by an expert, attended by beneficiaries under the Dairy Efficiency Scheme. Support for training under this measure relates to the dissemination of knowledge on best environmental practice appropriate to the commitments undertaken by a

76

beneficiary under the REPs scheme. Hence the focus of training under each scheme is quite separate.

Description of the operations (including types of training)These courses are designed to provide new or prospective beneficiaries under Measures 213 and 214: An introduction to Measures 213 and 214 and an understanding of their objectives and

measures Explanation requirements in general and under the individual measures, covering areas

such as nutrient management, farming practices, record keeping, etc. General information such as compliance checks and penalty provisions Education on the consequences of agricultural pollution and its avoidance (including

reference to climate change awareness, and mitigation of and adaptation to its effects) An appreciation of the importance and preservation of National Heritage Areas,

Natura 2000 sites, archaeological features, wildlife habitats, etc. A practical demonstration involving a visit to an approved REPS demonstration farm.

Demonstration farms provide opportunities for participants in the scheme to see and examine how a model environmentally friendly farm is operated. Visits to these farms form an integral part of education programmes. An estimated 60 demonstration farms spread geographically across the whole territory will be established at an estimated annual cost of €200,000.

Details on coverage of supportThe support will be available to all participants of the Natura 2000 and Agri-environment Measures under Axis 2. A payment rate of €130 is proposed for attendance at the 10-hour appreciation module.

Additional payment proposed is a maximum of €100 per annum for training/demonstration modules attended in the relevant Agri-environment contract year.

The proposed training is comprised of courses for which no normal education system or programmes are in place.

Definition of bodies providing the training and information actions (These can be public authorities or private bodies selected through a call for proposals)

The training will be provided by professional agriculturalists who are approved by the Department of Agriculture and Food for the purposes of drawing up farm plans under the Natura 2000 and Agri-environment Measures under Axis 2. All courses must be approved by the Department of Agriculture and Food in advance and full details of course tutors, participants and syllabus must be provided.

State aid schemes used for co-financingRate of support (up to 100 per cent): 100 per cent

Demarcation role with other EU financial instrumentsThe measure is linked solely to actions under this programme and does not duplicate or conflict with possible other training actions.

77

A member of a Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisation receiving support for training under the Scheme of Aid for Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations is precluded from receiving support for similar actions under this measure.

Financing Total Cost: €7,414,720 Public Expenditure: €7,414,720

78

Transition arrangements (including estimated amount) Not Applicable

Quantified targets for EU common indicators

Type of indicator Indicator Target

Output Number of participants to training 49,200Number of training days received 147,600

ResultNumber of farmers or forest holders that successfully ended a training activity 49,200

Impact Change in gross value added per annual work unit Not applicable

79

Setting Up of Young Farmers(Young Farmers Installation Scheme)

Legal basisArticles 20(a)(ii) and 22 of Council Regulation (EC) 1698/2005Articles 13 and 14, Annex II, point 5.3.1.1.2 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006

Measure Code: 112

Rationale for interventionThe continued rejuvenation of the Irish farming sector is one of the priorities of Irish agricultural policy. This scheme will assist those interested in pursuing farming as a career by offsetting the set-up costs associated with such set-up and also provide a mechanism for encouraging investment on such farms.

Objectives of the measureThe objectives of the scheme are: (i) to achieve the transfer of land to young, trained farmers better able to meet the new challenges facing Irish agriculture, (ii) to off-set the set-up costs faced by young people when establishing themselves in farming, and (iii) to provide assistance for the investments required on such holdings.

Scope and actionsThe scheme will encompass a single payment to eligible applicants in order to fulfil the principal objectives set out above. A business plan will be required from each applicant. Participants will be required to continue farming for five years from the date of set-up and to farm the land transferred or its equivalent during that period.

BeneficiariesApplicants between the age of 18 and 35 setting-up in farming for the first time on or after 1 January 2007 and not later than 31 December 2013 and subject to compliance with off-farm income ceiling.

Definition of setting up Applicant must be set up on at least 20ha (non less favoured area) or 15ha (less favoured area) for a minimum period of seven years and be an applicant for a herd number or other Department identifier. The seven-year period is designed to ensure that the applicant has a long-term hold on the land concerned. The provisions in relation to minimum land areas shall not apply, however, in the case of intensive enterprises. ‘Intensive enterprises’ are defined as those holdings, which involve the production of pigs, poultry, mushrooms, rabbits, protected horticultural crops or nursery stock. In such cases, applicants will be deemed to be set up when they become established on holdings with production facilities of at least 20 production units (in contrast to the land area requirements applicable to non-intensive enterprises). Where the intensive enterprises concern pig or poultry production, applicants will have to confirm that the holdings are in compliance with the spread land requirements of the 2006 Nitrates Regulations.

80

Summary of requirements of business plan.This includes, in relation to in case of investments requirements to comply with existing Community standards within a 36 months grace period, and details on frequency and treatment of reviews of the business plan.

The business plan shall be required to contain: Description of present situation of the agricultural holding including the agricultural

output and specific milestones and targets for the development of the activities of the new holding

Details of investments, training, advice or any other action required for the development of the activities of the agricultural holding

Indication of three development options chosen by the applicant from a list of such options. Applicant will be required to complete two of these options within two years of the date of set-up and the final option within four years of the date of set-up.

An initial application, including business plan, shall be required to be submitted within a certain period running from the date of set-up. Penalties will be applicable where applications are received late or where development options are not completed within the periods specified above. Entitlement to aid will be lost where application is not received within sixteen months of date of set-up.

A review shall be carried out by the Department in the fifth year following the date of set-up. The grant will be recouped if the applicant is not farming the land transferred, or its equivalent, at the time of review.

The possibility exists to benefit from the grace period in order to reach the occupational skills and competence requirements. Applicants shall be required to complete occupational skills and competence requirements within two years from date of set-up.

The possibility exists to combine different measures through the business plan giving access of the young farmers to these measures. Eligible applicants will be able to apply for investment grants under the farm modernisation measure.

Amount of support€15,000 paid on completion of education, property and income requirements.

Choice of paymentSingle premium.

Quantified targets4,200 farmers

Financing Total Cost: €12,942,430 Public Expenditure: €12,942,430

81

Transition arrangements (including estimated total amount)Not applicable.

Quantified targets for EU common indicators

Type of indicator Indicator TargetOutput Number of assisted young farmers 941

Result Increase in agricultural gross value added in supported farms €10.3million

Impact

Net additional value added expressed in PPS €1.5 million per annumChange in gross value added per annual work unit €1,020 per annual mwu

Additional programme specific indicators and quantified targets:(1) Number of beneficiaries: 941(2) Land area transferred: 34,000 ha (3) Applicant farm size: 50ha(4) Ages of transferees: <=35(5) Level of training of applicant: Fetac Level 6 or equivalent(6) Number of beneficiaries who are transferees in ERS: 280 (7) Number of transfers to family members: 470(8) Total volume of direct investment: €7m

This Scheme was suspended on 14th October 2008.

82

Early Retirement of Farmers and Farm Workers(Early Retirement Scheme)

Legal basisArticles 20 (a) and 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 Article 14 and point 5.3.1.1.3 of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006.

Measure Code: 113

Rationale for interventionThe strategy for the development of a competitive agricultural structure in the coming years provides for the introduction of policies that will target structural change and aid the development of agricultural holdings. The report of the Agri-Food 2010 Committee identified weaknesses in Irish Agriculture as: lack of commercial viability because of small size, low level of productivity due to poor age structure and low education level, and lack of land mobility. This scheme aims to address these issues by assisting those interested in retiring early from farming transferring their land to younger trained farmers who commit to the development of their holdings. In light of experience acquired in the implementation of previous schemes of early retirement the transferee age limit has been increased, up to 50 in certain circumstances. Regional disparities have also been recognised, with a reduction in the size of agricultural holding required in less favoured areas. The estimated uptake under this scheme is lower due to recent changes in Irish agriculture including the effect of the introduction of the Single Payment Scheme.

Objective of the measureThe objectives of this measure are to complement the Setting up of Young Farmers measure [Young Farmers Installation Scheme (2007–2013)] by encouraging the transfer of holdings from older farmers to younger trained farmers setting up in farming under that scheme and to reassign land from retiring farmers to established farmers who wish to enlarge their holdings.

Scope and actionsThe scheme will encompass the payment of an annual pension to eligible applicants for a maximum period of 10 years in order to achieve the objectives set out above.

BeneficiariesThe beneficiaries: transferors, farm workers and transferees are defined as follows:

A transferor must: Be between the ages of 55 and 66 on the date of admission to the scheme; pension

payments will not be made after a participant’s 66th birthday Have practised farming for at least ten years immediately before retirement Be farming an area of not less than 5 hectares of agricultural land, except in the case

of intensive enterprises (e.g. pigs, poultry or horticulture) Undertake to cease all agricultural activity.

83

On the date of submission of a valid application by the transferor, the transferee must:

(1) be approved for payment under the Young Farmer’s Installation Scheme (2007–2013)[YFIS] or have submitted a second stage application for payment (YFIS2) that results in the issue of an approval for payment and fulfil the conditions of that scheme which include the following:

(a) Be less than 35 years of age(b) Succeed the transferor(s)/owner(s) as head of an agricultural holding

which must be at least 20 hectares of agricultural land (non less favoured area) or, at least 15 hectares (less favoured area) of agricultural land, except in the case of intensive enterprises.

Or

(2)(i) be a farmer who fulfils the following conditions:(a) Be less than 45 years of age(b) Be farming a minimum of 5 hectares of agricultural land and enlarge that holding

by becoming a transferee (c) On completion of land transfer and enlargement, farm a holding of at least 20

hectares of agricultural land (non less favoured area), or at least 15 hectares (less favoured area) of agricultural land, except in the case of intensive enterprises where a minimum level of production will be required

(d) Be compliant with the off-farm income ceiling of €50,000 which is designed to focus the scheme on those young farmers with a greater dependence on farming who are most likely to remain in farming

(e) Meet the educational requirements.

Or

(2)(ii) be a farmer who fulfils the following conditions:(a) Be approved as a Transferee under a previous Early Retirement Scheme (ERS1

or ERS2)(b) Be between 45 and 50 years of age(c) Be farming a minimum of 5 hectares of agricultural land and enlarge that

holding by becoming a transferee(d) On completion of land transfer and enlargement, farm a holding of at least 20

hectares of agricultural land (non less favoured area), or at least 15 hectares (less favoured area) of agricultural land, except in the case of intensive enterprises where a minimum level of production will be required.

84

A farm worker must on the date of submission of a valid application by the transferor:

Be aged between 55 and 66 years of age Have devoted at least half of his/her working time to farm work, during the preceding

five years, as a family helper or farm worker Have worked on the transferor’s agricultural holding for at least the equivalent of two

years full-time during the four-year period preceding the early retirement of the transferor Belong to a social security scheme.

Link with national retirement schemes Early Retirement support shall be granted as a supplement taking into account the amount of any national retirement pension to which the transferor is entitled. All applicants for the early retirement scheme including those in joint-management (even though only one pension may be payable) must have applied for any normal retirement pension paid by the State to which they may be entitled and must notify the outcome of their application. If they become entitled to any such pension after they enter the Early Retirement Scheme, they must apply for it and notify the outcome of their application.

Link with the young farmers setting up measure Farmers who are eligible and approved for payment under the Young Farmers Installation Scheme (2007–2013) are eligible transferees under the Early Retirement Scheme.

Duration of the aid The total duration of early retirement support cannot exceed 10 years for the transferor and for the farm worker. It shall not go beyond the 66th birthday of the transferor and the normal retirement age of the farm worker.

Use of the possibility to transfer released land to a body, which undertakes to reassign it at a later dateNot proposed.

Type of assistanceThe pension will be at a flat rate of €9,300 per annum for the first 5 ha plus €300 per ha Thereafter up to a maximum of 24 hectares. This will give a pension rate as follows (Table for illustrative purposes):

Area of Farm Transferred(Hectares)

Pension(€)

5 €9,30010 €10,80012 €11,40016 €12,60020 €13,80024 €15,000

Farm workers may be eligible for a pension of €4,000 per annum.

85

Amount of payments The maximum amount per farmer is €15,000 euro annually and €150,000 in total. When a farm is transferred by several transferors, overall support for early retirement shall be limited to the amounts provided for one transferor. The maximum amount per farm worker is €4,000 annually and €40,000 in total (no maximum limit of number of workers).

Where, in the case of a transferor, a retirement pension is paid by the Member State, early retirement support shall be granted as a supplement, taking into account the amount of the national retirement pension.

Financing Total Cost: € 225,858,724 Public Expenditure: € 225,858,724

Transition arrangements (including estimated total amount)Expenditure relating to commitments – with their same terms and conditions–undertaken in the 1994–1999 and 2000–2006 programming periods with payments to be made after 31 December 2006 will be eligible in the 2007–2013 programming period. Estimated total public expenditure in respect of the 1994–1999 period is €53m with a further €200m in respect of the 2000–2006 period.

Quantified targets for EU common indicator

Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007–2013

Output

Number of farmers early retired 636

Number of farm workers early retired1 pa (2007–2013);7 in total

Number of hectares released 21,000 in total

Result Increase in agricultural gross value added in supported farms  €6.36 million

ImpactNet additional value expressed in PPS €3,664,632Change in gross value added per full time equivalent €8,480

Additional programme specific indicators and quantified targets

(1) Number of Transferors: 636(2) Number of Transferees: 750(3) Ages of Transferors: >=55(4) Ages of Transferees: <=35, <=45 or <=50 depending on category of Transferee(5) Transferees farm size after transfer: 35 ha

Level of training of transferee Category A – FETAC Level 6 or equivalent Category B – 180-hour course or equivalent or a minimum of five years farming experience,

depending on age.

This Scheme was suspended on 14th October 2008.

86

Modernisation of Agricultural Holdings(On-Farm Investment)

Legal basisArticles 20(b)(i) and 26 of Council Regulation (EC) 1698/2005Article 17 and point 5.3.1.2.1 of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006

Measure Code: 121

Rationale for interventionThe agri-food industry faces significant opportunities and threats. There must be a focus on market orientation and competitiveness at all levels. This must be done in a manner that ensures the highest level of food safety and with regard to the environment and animal welfare. This measure addresses the need for associated capital investment at farm level. Objectives of the measureThe objectives are: (i) to ensure that the agriculture sector in Ireland becomes more competitive and market-oriented; (ii) to promote higher quality and greater efficiency in production on Irish farms; (iii) to promote diversification of activities, for example horse breeding, on Irish farms, thereby providing other sources of agricultural income; (iv) to promote higher standards of animal welfare and protection of health and safety on Irish farms; and (v) to ensure higher environmental standards on Irish farms and reduce overall greenhouse and transboundary gas emissions from the agriculture sector.

Scope and actionsUnless covered by another specific exchequer-funded measure in the NDP, farmers in all farming sectors will be eligible to participate, regardless of the level of farm income. The type of investments involved is set out below. On-farm grain storage and related ancillary equipment will also be supported. This measure will include aid for investments that will encourage the development and use of modern highly specialised, cost-efficient and labour-saving facilities and equipment. For example, there is a need for handling facilities, including mobile units incorporating scales, and fencing (to facilitate improved pasture management and paddock grazing) specific to the sheep sector as well as handling facilities, exercise arenas and fencing for horses/deer. In addition, a manure-processing facilities scheme will be introduced having regard, inter alia, to the positive effects that such processing would have on air quality in Ireland.

The provisions of Article 2(3) of Commission Regulation 1974/2006 will be respected in the application of this measure. In this regard it is relevant that Ireland has adopted a full decoupling approach in relation to direct support under Pillar 1.

BeneficiariesAll eligible farmers subject to compliance with minimum educational requirements or farming experience

Description of the requirements and targets with regard to the improvement of the overall performance of the agricultural holdingsThe performance indicators for the scheme shall include environmental and quality measures, together with targets in regard to the type of investments carried out (see below).

87

Primary production sectorsAll eligible sectors

Type of investments (tangible-intangible) (a) Animal housing, handling and related facilities (including specialised slurry

handling/spreading facilities) (b) Sheep handling and weighing facilities, including mobile units, specialised equipment

and dedicated internal and perimetre fencing(c) Investments in regard to diversification of farm enterprises, including handling

facilities, exercise arenas and fencing for horse/deer breeding and production(d) Investments relating to improvement of dairy hygiene(e) Investments which improve animal welfare standards including the conversion of sow

housing to meet new EU animal welfare standards (see below), the installation of rubber mats on slats/cubicle beds, etc

(f) The installation of water storage equipment on farms for the recycling of rainwater;(g) The installation of equipment designed to improve occupational safety(h) On-farm grain storage(i) New and developing technology for the processing of manure.

Designation of the newly introduced Community standards (and of existing standards in the case of young farmers receiving setting-up support) for which support may be granted, justification related to the specific problems involved in complying with these standards and duration and justification of the grace period per standard concerned

Commission Directives 2001/88/EC and 2001/93/EC amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (farmers required to implement standards concerned by 1 January 2013). These requirements became law for all new built or brought into use facilities after 1 January 2003 and will apply to all current facilities after 2013.

Type of aidGrant based on percentage of eligible expenditure by farmer, subject to maximum investment ceiling. The Scheme will be administered on the basis of receipts and invoices submitted by the farmer. Expenditure claimed on foot of receipts and invoices will be subject to a ceiling to ensure that expenditure claimed is reasonable.

Aid intensity(a) Farm Improvement

(i) Forty per cent standard grant-rate with top-up grant for young farmers of 10 per cent, subject to an overall maximum eligible investment ceiling of €120,000 per holding, with a separate €120,000 investment ceiling per holding for investments in relation to dairy hygiene. The scheme will establish separate lists of eligible items for this purpose. Each holding will be entitled to grant-aid up to the maximum of each separate investment ceiling during the course of operation of the scheme.

(ii) Twenty per cent or 40 per cent grant rate for mobile equipment depending on the type of

equipment.

88

(b) Manure Processing Facilities Forty per cent grant-rate for the installation of manure processing facilities, subject to a maximum eligible investment ceiling of €1 million per holding with a view, inter alia, to the improvement of air quality in Ireland.

The scheme will have three primary objectives, namely: To improve the quality of air in Ireland To assist in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions To encourage the introduction of new and developing technologies for the processing

of manure.

Applications that do not meet the three criteria above will not be eligible for funding. To ensure compliance with the approach, all applications will be subject to a strict assessment for compliance with the above objectives. Applications solely involving the disposal of excess nitrogen would not meet the assessment criteria above and therefore would not be eligible for grant-aid.

(c) Pig Welfare Forty per cent grant-rate subject to maximum eligible investment ceiling of €300,000 per holding for improvements in relation to the protection of pigs (sow housing).

Certain fixed items may also be subject to maximum eligible investment ceilings.

Financing Total Cost: €180,786,902 Public Expenditure: €72,314,761

Transition arrangements (including estimated support)This is a new scheme.

Coherence with Pillar 1Operations covered by this measure do not and will not qualify for support in Ireland under the schemes listed in Annex 1 of Regulation (EC) no 1974/2006.

A member of a Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisation receiving support for investment actions under the Scheme of Aid for Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations is precluded from receiving support for similar actions under this measure.

Quantified targets for EU indicators

Type of indicator Indicator Target

OutputNumber of farm holdings supported 5,400Total volume of investment €175.5 million

Result Number of holdings introducing new products or techniques 4,320

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPS €5 million per annumChange in gross value added per annual work unit €1,500 per annum

89

Additional programme specific indicators and quantified targets(1) Number of beneficiaries: 5,400(2) Average grant paid: €13,000(3) Level of investment carried out: €184.5 million(4) Livestock housing grant-aided: 4,950 square metres(5) Fodder storage capacity grant-aided: 25,000 tonnes(6) Number of assisted holdings improving storage/land-spreading of farm manure: 90(7) Storage capacity for animal waste grant-aided: 11,250 cubic metres(8) Number of holdings meeting new animal welfare standards: 45(9) Number of holdings reducing exposure to noxious substances, odours, dust, extreme

climatic conditions outdoor/indoor, lifting of heavy loads, aberrant working hours or improving safety standards: 5,355

(10) Number of applicants constructing/extending dairies or milking premises: 180

Measure 121 On Farm Investment was fully subscribed in October 2007. It is proposed to introduce new schemes under Measure 121 with the objective of addressing the spending requirement under Axis 1 and to provide targeted investment support in order to improve competitiveness in Agriculture.

90

Modernisation of Agricultural Holdings[Targeted Agricultural Modernisation Scheme (TAMS)]

Legal basisArticles 20(b)(i) and 26 of Council Regulation (EC) 1698/2005Article 17 and point 5.3.1.2.1 of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006

Measure Code: 121

Rationale for interventionThe agri-food industry faces significant opportunities and threats. There must be a focus on market orientation and competitiveness at all levels. This must be done in a manner that ensures the highest level of food safety and with regard to the environment and animal welfare. This measure addresses the need for associated capital investment at farm level focusing in particular on improved animal welfare standards, increases efficiencies in the dairy and sheep sector, water conservation and the promotion of renewable energies.

Appropriate eligibility criteria will apply to all schemes. Selection criteria will also apply to ensure that schemes are targeted on clearly defined objectives. In the case of the Dairy and Sheep measures, the support is targeted at new entrants with the aim of producing maximum efficiency; in the case of the Sow and Poultry measures the support is targeted at existing commercial producers to achieve the required welfare standards while maintaining existing production levels in those sectors. The target in the case of the Willow/Miscanthus Measure is to increase production through growers with proven links to end-users. The Water Conservation Scheme is targeted at dairy farmers with high water consumption.

Objectives of the measureThe objectives are: (i) to ensure that the agriculture sector in Ireland becomes more competitive and market-oriented; (ii) to promote higher quality and greater efficiency in production on Irish farms with particular emphasis on dairy and sheep enterprises; (iii) to promote higher standards of animal welfare; (iv) to promote the conservation of scarce resources and; (v) to promote the achievement of renewable energy targets.

Scope and actionsA. Investment in Dairy EnterprisesThe scheme will assist in the costs of establishment for new dairy farmers and other dairy farmers to expand production and improve efficiency by supporting capital investment in establishing and upgrading dairy facilities. This support will not extend to buildings but instead will focus only on the following new facilities

□ Milking Machine Equipment, including new milking machines in new/existing premises; and

□ Cooling, Refrigeration, Storage Equipment

91

B. Investment in Sheep EnterprisesThis scheme will be targeted at sheep farmers with active breeding flocks, with preference given to holdings in disadvantaged areas. Grant aid will be provided for sheep fencing and mobile handling facilities.

C. Investment in Pig Welfare MeasureThe scheme will assist existing pig farmers in the conversion from existing systems to loose housing for sows in order to comply with forthcoming animal welfare requirements.

D. Investment in Poultry Welfare MeasuresThe Scheme will assist poultry farmers with the capital investment required to convert from unenriched laying hen systems to enriched, free range or barn systems and is targeted at 90 existing egg producers and 126 caged hen houses, with support being given to new buildings and enriched cages.

E. Investment in Water ConservationThis scheme will be targeted, in the first instance, at dairy farmers. Grant aid will be provided for water harvesting and conservation facilities and equipment.

F. Investment in Bio EnergyThis scheme will primarily be targeted towards tillage and dry stock farmers to plant Willow and Miscanthus. Grant aid will be provided in the form of start up assistance to enable growers to meet high establishment costs.

It is accepted that when arable/grassland is ploughed and planted with any crop there is an initial loss of carbon to the atmosphere. In practice, miscanthus and willow will sequester Carbon relative to the crops they will replace. Where soils are already being tilled they are losing carbon. It is expected that miscanthus could replace annual tillage crops on a small area of the more marginal tillage soils. It is expected that willow will be grown mainly on grassland soils. On semi-intensively managed grassland soils, flux measurements taken in recent years indicate CO2 sequestration of the order of 2- 3 tonnes per hectare per year. To address any concerns of carbon loss the specifications for this measure will specify the optimum management practices and target the planting to those sites and soil types that are most suitable. It is expected that there will be a positive impact on soil C sequestration.

Coherence with first pillarThe provisions of Article 2(3) of Commission Regulation 1974/2006 will be respected in the application of this measure. Operations covered by this measure do not and will not qualify for support in Ireland under the schemes listed in Annex 1 of Regulation (EC) no 1974/2006.

Funding under this measure will not support actions, which may be funded by Unspent Single Payment Scheme Funds under Pillar 1.

BeneficiariesA. Investment in Dairy EnterprisesThe scheme will be open to dairy farmers who have satisfied the education and training qualifications of the New Entrants Scheme (NES) and Milk Quota Trading Schemes (MQTS), who have received a milk quota allocation under the NES and MQTS, who have a holding

92

comprised of lands owned and/or leased, who have a separate and independent herd number and who have separate milk storage facilities.

B. Investment in Sheep EnterprisesThe scheme will be open to beneficiaries with an active breeding flock, with preference for flocks in excess of 50 ewes. Applicants must not have previously benefited under the On-Farm Investment Scheme. The scheme will prioritise farmers in disadvantaged areas.

C. Investment in Pig Welfare MeasuresThis scheme will be open to all eligible pig producers.

D. Investment in Poultry Welfare MeasuresThis scheme will be open to all eligible caged hen producers.

E. Investment in Water ConservationThis scheme will be targeted, in the first instance, at dairy farmers.

F. Investment in Bio EnergyThe scheme will be primarily targeted towards tillage and dry stock farmers. Farmers must be landowners or have leasehold title to the land and be eligible to claim the Single Farm Payment.

Description of the requirements and targets with regard to the improvement of theoverall performance of the agricultural holdingsA. Investment in Dairy Enterprises The principal objective of the scheme is to assist new entrants to dairying in the establishment and/or upgrading of dairying facilities. The costs associated with establishing a dairy facility are very significant. Typically new entrants are successors who inherit already established dairying facilities including stock and quota. Brand new entrants on the other hand are those that have no established links in the sector and in order to establish a viable dairying enterprise must invest heavily in land, quota and facilities in order to reach the standards necessary to comply with food safety legislation. In an overall sense the objective of the investment aid will be to encourage new entrants by providing them with some level of support to establish their investment by meeting part of the considerable capital costs associated with establishment and ensuring that they have the most up to date technology available to compete in the modern dairy sector.

B. Investment in Sheep Enterprises In the case of sheep enterprises the principal objective is to produce efficiencies to encourage more farmers to remain in the industry and stem the decline in sheep numbers. This will be achieved by assisting sheep farmers in reducing their labour input with support for sheep fencing and mobile handling facilities.

C. Investment in Pig Welfare MeasuresThe scheme will aid existing pig farmers to build or to convert to loose sow housing to comply with the 2013 requirement laid down in Directive 2001/88/EC on standards for the protection of pigs.

D. Investment in Poultry Welfare Measures

93

This scheme is also designed to assist 90 poultry farms (comprising 126 houses) adapt to new enriched caged systems and is based on replacing existing buildings with buildings with the new enriched cages or conversion to free range / barn systems.

E. Investment in Water Conservation The scheme is designed to produce efficiencies in water usage to both conserve a valuable resource and reduce water costs, by maximising the use of rainfall run-off and reduce the on farm costs of water.

F. Investment in Bio EnergyThis scheme is designed to increase the area of Willow and Miscanthus planted, with a view to meeting Ireland’s renewable energy targets. The measure will increase crop production and encourage farmers to consider alternative land use options in the bioenergy area. It will also complement other Government measures in the renewables area and provide opportunities for rural development and employment.

Type of investments (tangible-intangible)(a) Dairy Equipment Scheme – Support for investment equipment(b) Sheep Fencing / Mobile Handling Equipment - Support for investment in equipment(c) Loose Housing for Sows - Support for investment in buildings(d) Poultry Conversion Scheme - Support for investment in buildings/cages(e) Water Harvesting and Conservation - Support for investment in equipment(f) Willow / Miscanthus Scheme - Support for establishment costs

Designation of the newly introduced Community standards (and of existing standards in the case of young farmers receiving setting-up support) for which support may be granted, justification related to the specific problems involved in complying with these standards and duration and justification of the grace period per standard concernedCommission Directives 2001/88/EC and 2001/93/EC amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (farmers required to implement standards concerned by 1 January 2013). These requirements became law for all new built or brought into use facilities after 1 January 2003 and will apply to all current facilities after 2013.The deadline for completion of works under the Investment in Sow Welfare Measure was initially set at 31st December 2012, which coincides with the date for compliance with the new EU animal welfare rules for the pig sector. Following consultation with the pig industry on compliance with the new animal welfare standards, it was indicated that a grace period would be required in order to meet the new regulatory requirements; A grace period of 14 months from 1st January 2013 until the 28th February 2014 is considered necessary, as it is estimated that securing bank credit and planning permission could take several months.. The extension was sought due to the problems encountered by pig farmers in Ireland in obtaining the necessary bank finance and planning permission. As a result, applicants under the scheme will exceptionally be entitled to receive grant-aid where the investment works are completed to the required new animal welfare standards during the period from the 1st

94

January 2013 until 28th February 2014. This extension does not affect the implementation in Ireland of the new EU animal welfare rules for the sector with effect from 1st January 2013. It merely enables those farmers who were unable to complete the investment works concerned by the 31st

December 2012 to continue to receive the available grant-aid provided the works concerned are completed by 28th February 2014. The extension of the period of grace, to the 28th of February 2014, pertains solely to the eligibility for receiving financial support and it does not modify the date of application of the partial ban on individual sow stalls, and that the legal requirements pertaining to animal welfare must be complied with.

An EU ban on unenriched (conventional battery) cages is due to enter into force from 1 January 2012, in line with Directive 1999/74/EC on minimum standards for laying hens.The deadline for completion of works under the Investment in Poultry Welfare Measure was initially set at 31st December 2011, which coincides with the date for compliance with the new EU animal welfare rules for the poultry sector. Following consultation with the poultry industry on compliance with the new animal welfare standards, it was indicated that a grace period would be required in order to meet the new regulatory requirements; A grace period of 9 months from 1st January 2012 until the 28th September 2012 is considered necessary. It is estimated that securing bank credit could take several months and this delay is combined with the delay of several months in securing the supply of enriched cages. A grace period of 6 months was initially proposed but following consultation with poultry experts, the period of 9 months was considered more appropriate given the likely delays. The extension was sought due to the problems encountered by poultry farmers in Ireland in obtaining the necessary bank finance and delays in securing supplies of the new enriched cages. As a result, applicants under the scheme will exceptionally be entitled to receive grant-aid where the investment works are completed to the required new animal welfare standards during the period from the 1st January 2012 until 28th September 2012. This extension does not affect the implementation in Ireland of the new EU animal welfare rules for the sector with effect from 1 st January 2012. It merely enables those farmers who were unable to complete the investment works concerned by the 31st December 2011 to continue to receive the available grant-aid provided the works concerned are completed by 28th September 2012.

Type of aidGrant based on percentage of eligible expenditure by farmer, subject to maximum investment ceiling or a maximum level of grant.

Aid intensity

A. Investment in Dairy EnterprisesThe Dairy Equipment Scheme will have a grant rate of 40% up to a maximum grant level.

B. Investment in Sheep EnterprisesThe Sheep Fencing and Mobile Handling Equipment Scheme will have a grant rate of 40% up to a maximum grant level.

C. Investment in Pig Welfare MeasuresThe Loose Housing for Sows Scheme will have a grant rate of 40% up to a maximum grant level per unit.

95

D. Investment in Poultry Welfare MeasuresThe Poultry Cage conversion Scheme will have a grant rate of 40% up to a maximum grant level per hen.

E. Investment in Water ConservationThe Water Harvesting and Conservation Scheme will have a grant rate of 40% up to a maximum grant level.

F. Investment in Bio EnergyThe Willow and Miscanthus Scheme will have a grant rate of 50% up to a maximum grant level. The increase aid intensity under this scheme is in accordance with Article 16(a) Paragraph 2 of Regulation 1698/2005. This higher aid intensity is intended to promote uptake under this scheme to provide a critical mass of farmers engaged in the production of renewable energy

Financing− Total Cost: €125,191,170− Public Expenditure: €50,076,702

Transition arrangements (including estimated support)This is a new scheme.

Quantified targets for EU indicatorsType of indicator Indicator Target

OutputNumber of farm holdings supported 7,140Total volume of investment €223.3 million

Result Number of holdings introducing new products or techniques 2,280

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPS €39.7 millionChange in gross value added per annual work unit 1,500

Additional programme specific indicators and quantified targets(1) Number of new entrants: 89 (Scheme A only)(2) Number of Recent entrants: 1,784 (Scheme A only)(3) Sheep numbers: maintained (Scheme B only)(4) Number of Sheep farmers: maintained (Scheme B only)(5) Number of handling units grant aided: 607 (Scheme B only)(6) Length of fencing grant aided: 648,000 metres (Scheme B only)(7) Number of holdings meeting new animal welfare standards: 182 Units

(Scheme C only)(8) Number of converted pigs: 40,500 (Scheme C only)(9) Number of holdings meeting new animal welfare standards 73 (Scheme D only)

96

(10) Level of investment carried out per sector: Dairying €9.72m Other sectors €6.48m(Scheme E only)

(11) Number of beneficiaries per sector: Dairying 972 Other sectors 648(Scheme E only)

(12) Number of hectares planted: 5,670ha (Scheme F only)

Modernisation of Agricultural HoldingsMeasure 121

Overall Measure Level Indicators

FIS TAMS CombinedType of indicator Indicator Target Target Target

Output

Number of farm holdings supported 5,400 7,140 12,540Total volume of investment €180.8 million €125.2 million €306 million

Result

Number of holdings introducing new products or techniques 4,320 2,280 6,600Increase in gross value added in supported holdings €72.3 million €91,9 million €164.2 million

Impact Net additional value expressed in PPS

€5 million per annum(i.e. €35 million)

€39.7 million €74.7 million

97

Change in gross value added per annual work unit €1,500 per annum

€1,500 per annum

€1,500 per annum

Adding Value to Agriculture and Forestry Products

Measure code: 123

Legal Basis: Articles 28 of Council Regulation (EC) 1698/2005Article 19 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006

Rationale for intervention:

The Agri-Food sector in Ireland has been identified as a sector with significant potential for growth and in this context this measure will provide support for both start up enterprises and established enterprises to develop and improve their food products. This support will have the direct effect of improving the quality and variety of product available and supporting the creation of employment opportunities. This measure will be delivered using the LEADER approach under Measure 411.

Objectives of the measure

The objective of the measure is to support and encourage economic activity in rural areas through the development of food enterprises

Scope and Actions:

98

Support will be granted to tangible and/or intangible investments which:

improve the overall performance of the enterprise; concerns the processing and/or marketing of products covered by Annex I to the

Treaty,except fishery products, and of forestry products, and/or the development of new products, processes and technologies linked to products covered by Annex I to the Treaty, except fishery products, and to forestry products

respect the Community standards applicable to the investment concerned. Where investments are made in order to comply with Community standards, support may be granted only to those which are made by micro and small enterprises, in order to comply with a newly introduced Community standard. In that case a period of grace, not exceeding 36 months from the date on which the standard becomes mandatory for the enterprise, may be provided to meet the standard. The relevant standard shall be met at the end of the period of grace.

provide for a range of assistance types for start-up food enterprises and expansion of existing food enterprises including the adoption of new technologies

develop innovative products and activities provide for a range of assistance for adding value to local food products and for improving

quality and development of artisan processing facilities foster support for small-scale research, analysis and development in the local food sector

Primary Production sectors:

Tangible/intangible investments related to food production in rural areas

Type and size of beneficiary enterprise:

Micro and Small Enterprises in the Agri-Food sector.

Type of support:

Improvements in the processing and marketing of food products will be encouraged by means of support for tangible/intangible investments aimed at improving efficiency in the processing and marketing sector, introducing new technologies and innovation, opening new market opportunities for food products, putting emphasis on quality, by targeting micro and small enterprises which are better placed to add value to local products.

Target Area: All rural areas

Aid Intensity:

The Scheme will have a grant rate of 40% up to a maximum grant level.

Financing

– Total cost: €12.5m

– Public expenditure €5.0m

Coherence with first pillar.

99

Support for the development of Agri-Food enterprise in the micro/small sector is not funded under Pillar I of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Quantified targets for EU common indicators27

Type of Indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013Output Number of Enterprises Supported 200  Total Volume of Investment 12.5Result Number of Enterprises introducing new products 200  Increase in GVA in supported enterprises €15mImpact Net Additional value expressed in PPS €1m  Net additional full-time equivalent jobs created 200

Additional Indicators

Number of enterprises with marketing/processing activities: 190Number of enterprises with development activities: 10Number of enterprises with new products: 120Number of enterprises with new techniques: 20Number of enterprises with expansion of production: 60

5.2 Axis 2: Improving the environment and the countryside

Summary of actions

Under this Axis, Measures are designed to protect and enhance natural resources and landscapes in rural areas. In so doing they will contribute to the EU priority areas of:

Biodiversity and the preservation and development of high nature value farming and forestry systems and traditional agricultural landscapes Water Climate change.

The Measures will contribute to the implementation of the Natura 2000 network, to the Gotebörg commitment to reverse biodiversity decline by 2010, to the objectives laid down in Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy and to the Kyoto Protocol targets for climate change mitigation.

The Measures chosen are designed to meet the Axis 2 objective through: Ensuring continued agricultural land use, thereby contributing to the maintenance of a

viable rural society Promoting environmentally friendly farming practices Preserving the farmed landscape.

The following table summarises the baseline situation and the targets for Axis 2.

27 As this measure is delivered by LEADER it is evaluated under Axis 4 of the programme; as such indicators under Measure 123 are additional indicators only.

100

Indicator Measurement Baseline Target

Biodiversity: population of farmland birds

Trend of index of population of farmland birds

93.5

Index 2000=100

95

Biodiversity: high nature value farmland areas

UAA of high nature value farmland areas

1.1m ha (i.e. 26% of U.A.A.) 1.1m ha (i.e. 26% of U.A.A.)

Water quality: Gross nutrient balances

Surplus of nitrogen in kg/ha

82kg/ha 75kg/ha

Climate change: Production of renewable energy from agriculture and forestry

Production of renewable energy from biomass

3 kToe from Agriculture180 kToe from Forestry

370kToe

Afforestation: Area determined under forestry

Hectares of trees planted 10.29 per cent of land area 10.75 per cent of land area

Soil: Areas at risk of soil erosion

Ton/ha/year 0.16 *0.16

Soil: Organic Farming UAA under organic farming (thousand ha)

38 220

Climate change: GHG emissions from agriculture

Emissions of methane and nitrous oxide from agriculture and measured in 1000t of CO2 equivalent

18,435 9,7916,625

101

Axis 2 MeasuresPayments to Farmers in Areas with Handicaps, other than Mountain Areas

(Less Favoured Areas Compensatory Allowances Scheme)

Legal basisArticle 36(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

Measure Code: 212

Rationale for interventionIn order to avoid land abandonment, compensatory allowances seek to compensate those farming in agriculturally disadvantaged areas. The Compensatory Allowances Scheme encourages sustainable use of agricultural land in less favoured areas and takes account of environmental protection requirements. The scheme ensures continued agricultural land use, thereby contributing to maintaining the countryside.

Objective of the measureFarmers in less favoured areas face significant handicaps deriving from factors such as remoteness, difficult topography and poor soil conditions. They tend to have lower farm productivity and higher unit production costs than farmers in other areas. Without financial support, these lower returns from farming would pose a significant threat to the future viability of these farming communities.

Support under the scheme, therefore, will contribute to: Ensuring continued agricultural land use, thereby contributing to the

maintenance of a viable rural society Maintaining the countryside Maintaining and promoting sustainable farming systems, which in particular

take account of environmental protection requirements.

Type of support The scheme will provide support for farmers in less favoured areas to compensate for

additional costs and income foregone related to maintaining agricultural production in such areas.

The scheme will operate on an annual basis and, to qualify for compensation, farmers must:

o Undertake to adhere to environmental protection requirements consistent with their statutory obligations

o Undertake to farm in the LFA for five years from the first payment of a compensatory allowance

o Adhere to the requirements of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 on cross-compliance, which cover 18 Statutory Management Requirements relating to the Environment; Public, Animal and Plant Health; Notification of Diseases and Animal Welfare

Farm three hectares or more of LFA land With effect from 2012 scheme year, applicants must:

o have met a minimum stocking density of 0.3 livestock units per hectare in 2011 and

102

o in the scheme year of application, meet a minimum stocking density of 0.15 livestock units per hectare.

The following categories of farmers will be entitled to apply for a derogation if they meet any of the following criteria:

o The level of stocking density was restricted by the requirements of meeting a Commonage Framework De-Stocking Plan;

o The stocking density was restricted by the provisions of an Agri-Environmental Plan implemented by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine or by National Parks and Wildlife Service or any other state agency;

o Active farmers, whose stocking levels were restricted by the marginal land that they farm;

o Farmers, who did not meet the 0.3 lu/ha in 2011 as a result of force majeure/exceptional circumstances such as death or illness of the farmer or animal disease;

o New entrants to farming. A retention period of at least 7 continuous months will apply. The average stocking

density (excluding non-breeding equines) is calculated over the twelve months of the scheme-year.

Land situated more than 80 kilometres from a farmer’s holding will be excluded from aid under the Scheme, where an applicant’s main holding is situated in a non-less favoured area.

Demarcation with Pillar I Article 68 Grassland Sheep SchemeBeneficiaries under Pillar I Article 68 Grassland Sheep Scheme may receive aid under this measure. The operations funded under each scheme are totally separate and there is no element of overcompensation. This is illustrated by the difference between the two schemes and the purpose of the support under each scheme. The activities and types of enterprises proposed to be supported under the different schemes are clearly distinguishable. The operations funded under Pillar 1 involve breeding ewes only, while those falling under Pillar 2 involve mainly non-breeding sheep and other livestock. In the case of the Grassland Sheep Scheme the enterprise is permanent, labour intensive and with relatively high fixed costs. The maintenance of other sheep under the Less Favoured Area scheme in many instances is seasonal, with sheep being purchased during the grass-growing season for the purposes of grazing the grass. The sheep are generally sold in October/November. There is a minimum stocking density requirement of 0.15 livestock units per hectare under the LFA scheme but the animals can be cattle, sheep (either ewes or other sheep), goats and other farm animals. The purposes of the Less Favoured Areas Scheme are the continued use of agricultural land, the maintenance of the countryside and the promotion of sustainable farming systems. Payment reflects the severity of farming handicap, environmental problems, type of production and economic structure of the holding.

By contrast the purpose of the payment under the Grassland Sheep Scheme is to maintain the national sheep breeding flock which has declined by 41% since 2000. The aid paid under the Grassland Sheep Scheme is paid exclusively to sheep breeding flock owners and is not paid to other sheep flock owners. The sole objective here is to maintain the current level of sheep production in Ireland by concentrating aid on the breeding flocks.

103

Sheep enterprises are one of the less profitable farming enterprises, particularly in hill areas. The level of aid under both schemes is modest and even combined together are below the maximum level of €200 per hectare permissible under the LFA scheme. In addition there is a cap on the eligible hectarage under both schemes.

Level of supportAid will continue to be differentiated to reflect the differing levels of severity of permanent handicap experienced within the LFAs. LFA land is sub-divided into three land classification categories as follows: More severely handicapped (lowland) Less severely handicapped (lowland) Mountain type land.

Levels of payment will, as a rule, be based on eligible forage area declared in the Department of Agriculture and Food’s Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS). Payment rates will be as follows:

More severely handicapped (lowland)€95.99 per hectare up to 30 hectares

Less severely handicapped (lowland)€82.27 per hectare up to 30 hectares

Mountain type land€109.71 per hectare on first 10 hectares or part thereof for cattle, sheep or goat enterprises or a combination of those enterprises, and €95.99 per hectare on remaining hectares, subject to an overall payment ceiling of 34 hectares.

Target groupApplicants for compensatory allowances will be required to: Be a registered herdowner, i.e. a person who currently holds a herd number issued by

the Department of Agriculture and Food Occupy and farm a minimum of three hectares of forage land in a disadvantaged area Undertake to remain in farming for five years from the first payment of a

compensatory allowance Comply with good agricultural and environmental conditions. Aid will be targeted at those farmers who are farming exclusively in Less Favoured

Areas with degressive rates payable to farmers in respect of their LFA land, where some of their land is situated in a non-less favoured area. (i.e. LFA payments to farmers with both LFA and non-LFA land, would be reduced by the proportion of the non-LFA land to the total land of the beneficiary)

Payment will also be made in respect of land under energy crops subject to the following conditions:

The maximum area of eligible land under energy crops will be 10 hectares.

104

The minimum requirement of 3 hectares forage area remains. The applicant will be required to meet the minimum stocking density of 0.15 livestock

units per forage hectare declared.

In the case of applications covering land under energy crops, the following adjusted rates apply: €37.27 per hectare for less severely handicapped lowland (including coastal areas with

specific handicaps) €50.99 per hectare for more severely handicapped lowland €64.71 per hectare for mountain type grazings (first 10 hectares or part thereof) and

€50.99 per hectare on the remainder.

Target areaThe scheme will continue to apply to all the less favoured areas in Ireland, as first listed in Council Directive 75/272/EEC with subsequent reviews and amendments of the list contained in the Annexes to Directive 85/350/EEC, Directive 91/466/EEC and Directive/96/52/EEC as last amended by Commission Decision C (1999) 709 of 23 March 1999. This designation will apply until at least 2010.

Financing Total Cost: €1,440,572,861 Public Expenditure: €1,440,572,861

Quantified targets for EU common indicatorsIndicator Target at 2010

Input Amount of public expenditure realised: Total EAFRD

771m210m

Output Number of supported holdings in areas with handicaps More severely

handicapped Less severely

handicapped

80,000

20,000Agricultural land area supported: More severely

handicapped Less severely

handicapped

No. of LFA farmers in

4.075 million Hectares

1.080 million Hectares

50,000

105

REPSResults Area under successful land

management contributing to: Biodiversity Water Quality Climate change Improvement in soil

quality Avoidance of

marginalisation and land abandonment

4 million Hectares

Impact Reversing biodiversity decline

Preserving high amenity value countryside into the future

Maintenance of high nature value farming and forestry areas

Farmers being able to survive in farming while preserving biodiversity

106

Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC

Legal basisArticles 36 (a)(iii) and 38 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 Point 5.3.2.1.5 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006.

Measure Code: 213

Rationale for intervention:The legal basis for selection and designation of Natura 2000 sites is Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992. These provide for the establishment of a network of protected areas throughout the European Community. In Ireland these sites are selected and designated by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. These Directives were transposed into Irish law through the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997. The Wildlife Act of 1997 (as amended in 2001) is the main statute governing the protection of wildlife in Ireland and takes into account the Birds and Habitats Directives.

As part of the designation process, a series of notifiable actions were developed which include a list of activities that may alter, damage, destroy or interfere with the integrity of the site. Landowners were advised of these notifiable actions, and must comply with the restrictions on them as part of cross-compliance under SMR1 and SMR5. NPWS develop Conservation Plans for these Natura sites, which outline the conservation issues and objectives for the management of the site. These Conservation Plans do not prescribe farming activities to achieve the conservation objectives, but are used for guidance when preparing farm plans under Natura and agri-environment measures.

Support for farmers is necessary to help address specific disadvantages in the areas concerned with the implementation of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora28 in order to contribute to the effective management of Natura 2000 sites.

Objectives of the measureTo contribute to positive environmental management of farmed Natura 2000 sites and river catchments in the implementation of the Birds Directive, the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive

BeneficiariesFarmers actively farming designated Natura 2000 sites

Scope and actionsTo compensate farmers with utilisable agricultural land in designated Natura 2000 sites for the mandatory restrictions related to the designation. To put in place a management plan outlining farming activities which are compatible with the protection of the site.

Natura is classified into two land types in Ireland and will be delivered under two themes:

28 OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p 7. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, pg 1)

107

(1) Privately owned land with SAC and/or SPA designation(2) Lands farmed in Common (Commonage land) with SAC and/or SPA designation.

A minimum stocking density of 0.15 livestock units per hectare is required as a condition of eligibility. In exceptional circumstances this minimum stocking density requirement may be dispensed with where it is necessary on grounds of environmental sustainability.

Demarcation with Pillar I Article 68 Burren Farming for Conservation Scheme (BFCS)Measure 1 of BFCS relates to Production of Species Rich Limestone Grassland, Measure 2 relates to Site Enhancement Works and Measure 3 relates to Protection of Designated land and other areas of Annex1 Habitat.

Beneficiaries under the Burren Farming for Conservation Scheme (BFCS) may as an exception receive support under this measure in the first instance in respect of Measure 3 of the BFCS.

This exception is granted for budgetary reasons. Both beneficiaries who are currently under contract under this measure and new entrants, will be paid under this measure.

Administrative Rules

Applicants under both the BFCS and this measure will be paid under this measure in respect of actions under Measure 3 of the BFCS

Applicants under the BFCS only, will receive payment under the BFCS

1. Privately-owned Land with Natura designation

ObjectiveTo provide a comprehensive approach to the conservation of privately-owned designated Natura 2000 sites.

Scope and actionsThis payment is justified by the mandatory requirements placed on the farmer as a result of the Natura designation, i.e. compliance with the restrictions on notifiable actions as defined above. To be eligible for this payment, farmers must also undertake additional voluntary commitments under the agri-environment measure, REPS, provided for under Article 39. The restrictions on notifiable actions resulting from Natura designation are separate and distinct from the voluntary commitments under agri-environment, and no action will be eligible for both payments.

Relevant baselineGAEC/Cross compliance requires a farmer to comply with the mandatory notifiable actions for Natura 2000 sites which are designated under Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC. While these notifiable actions restrict changes in land use of the site, they do not outline the management practices necessary to conserve the site. GAEC does not require the engagement of an environmentalist for the management of these sites.

108

Core actionsParticipants in this Measure must comply with the mandatory requirements for Natura 2000 sites, which comprise notifiable actions (Details set out in Appendix 2) communicated to the farmer in the designation process.

In addition, in order to meet the requirements under this Measure, farmers must engage the services of an environmentalist to provide advice on appropriate farming practices compatible with the conservation of the site. Compliance with the restrictions on these notifiable actions and the engagement of an environmentalist are in addition to the requirements of the agri-environment measure under article 39(a) (iv).

(These Natura designated sites are not farmed in isolation but are part of the farm holding and the management practices of the whole farm. Ireland requires an integrated farm plan embracing Natura 2000 and Agri-environment requirements.)

To ensure a uniform approach in the delivery of the Natura element of farm plans giving effect to the restrictions on notifiable actions, farming conditions for the following habitat types have been developed and must be complied with: Conditions for the conservation of the Burren Blanket bogs, heaths and upland grasslands Sand dune and machair areas Shannon Callows, Wet Grassland and Corncrake Habitat.For other habitat types in designated areas for which specific farming conditions have not yet been developed, the planner must contact the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for instructions on any conditions appropriate to the site, and must incorporate any such conditions into the Natura element of the farm plan.

If specified conditions have not yet been determined by NPWS for specific habitat types, the planner must set down appropriate environmental conditions in the individual farm plan, in consultation with the environmentalist.

Amount€66 per hectare up to 40 hectares; €25 per hectare on next 40 hectares; €18 per hectare on next 40 hectares and €5 per hectare for each hectare above 120 hectares.

The payment structure for this Measure, and for the Organic Farming and Agri-Environment Measures is degressive. This has been an accepted feature of Ireland’s previous programmes and is designed to ensure the best use of considerable but limited funds and to maximise the engagement of the farming population with environmentally friendly farming practices. The payment structure reflects the fact that the marginal effort and cost required to meet the requirements of the scheme will in most cases diminish with farm size (economies of scale) as will the environmental benefits per hectare (diminishing returns in terms of environmental effort). The mid-term evaluation of the programme will consider, inter alia, the effect of this payment structure on demand for these Measures among farmers with larger holdings.

Participants must carry out the full range of Actions set out in the agri-environment measure (Measure 214) on the same land parcels. Therefore the Natura payment is cumulated with the agri-environmental payments.

109

Follow upCompliance will be checked during on-farm audits, and non-compliance will result in application of penalties. These Natura 2000 sites are also subject to additional monitoring and checking in accordance with cross-compliance provisions relating to the Birds and Habitats Directives.

2. Lands farmed in Common (Commonage land) with Natura designation

ObjectiveTo provide a comprehensive approach to the conservation and/or regeneration of designated commonage land

Scope and actionsThis payment is justified by the mandatory requirements placed on the farmer as a result of the Natura designation, i.e. compliance with the terms of the Commonage Framework Plan(s) applying to his/her holding. Following guidance from the European Commission in 1997 when Ireland identified weaknesses in the management of commonage land, consisting mainly of overgrazing by sheep, a framework plan was prepared for each commonage in the state–some 4,300 plans in all. Approximately 450,000 hectares of commonage land was surveyed by specially trained teams to identify the condition of the land and prescribe necessary actions for environmental sustainability. Each Framework Plan includes the following: — Outline of the general site description and current land use Map the habitat types on the site and their current condition Reductions in ewe numbers necessary Overall objective for conservation.

On Natura commonage, full compliance with the terms of the Framework Plan is mandatory. Under the Natura measure, the farmer must engage both an approved planner and an environmentalist in the preparation of a farm plan for Natura 2000 commonage. The framework plan sets out the environmental condition of the commonage and appropriate agricultural activity to ensure environmental sustainability, including, where necessary, a reduction in the grazing pressure to be achieved by reducing sheep numbers.

Approximately 60 per cent of commonage land designated under Natura 2000 is subject to mandatory Natura 2000 restrictions on notifiable actions.

To protect against the possibility of the submission of payment claims in respect of dormant commonage shares, eligibility for payment will normally (exceptions in the case of inheritance, setting up young farmers and transferees under the Early Retirement Scheme) be restricted to commonage shares declared on IACS in the five years preceding the date of the REPS application.

Relevant baselineFarmers must abide by the restrictions on notifiable actions for the retention of Natura 2000 habitats. GAEC also limits the maximum number of stock a farmer can maintain in line with the information outlined in the relevant Commonage Framework Plan.

GAEC does not, however, require a management regime for the grazing of animals, e.g. periods of grazing and limits on numbers of grazing animals to a specific site.

110

Core ActionsWithin the overall framework plan, each active shareholder is allocated a grazing entitlement, pro-rata to the share he or she has been actively using on the commonage. Shareholders may not exercise other shareholders’ rights. Each active commonage shareholder shall undertake works and grazing restrictions on

commonages in proportion to his/her owned share in the commonage. Farmers must abide by the restrictions on notifiable actions (see appendix 2) for the retention of Natura 2000 habitats, which are eligible costs under Measure 213.

In addition to abiding by the GAEC requirement to implement the reduced stocking requirement set out in the relevant Commonage Framework Plan, farmers must implement sustainable farming practices, prepared by the approved planner and environmentalist, which contribute to the maintenance of the habitat and avoidance of land abandonment. This may require a farmer to maintain a sheep flock that is economically unviable.

As these designated Natura commonage sites are not farmed in isolation, but are part of the larger farm holding and the management practices for the whole farm, Ireland requires participants to have an integrated farm plan embracing Natura 2000 and agri-environment requirements on the non-designated area of the farm.To ensure a uniform approach in the delivery of the Natura element of farm plans giving effect to the notifiable actions, farming conditions for the following habitat types on commonages have been developed and must be complied with: Conditions for the conservation of the Burren Blanket bogs, heaths and upland grasslands Sand dune and machair areas.

Amount €242 per hectare up to 40 hectares, €24 per hectare on next 40 hectares. €18 per hectare on next 40 hectares and €5 per hectare for each hectare above 120 hectares. The payment on the first 40 hectares exceeds the amount in the Annex and is justified on the basis that agri-environment payments cannot be cumulated with the Natura 2000 Commonage payment on the same land parcel and that the farming conditions the farmer is required to follow were established prior to the commencement of this programming period by an assessment of the commonage land (the commonage framework plans) by qualified agricultural and environmental professionals. This payment is also justified to protect against land abandonment in these peripheral areas where commonage is found.

Follow upCompliance will be checked during on-farm audits, and non-compliance will result in application of penalties. These Natura 2000 sites are also subject to additional monitoring and checking in accordance with cross-compliance provisions relating to the Bird and Habitats Directives.

Description of the methodology and the agronomic assumptions used as reference point for the calculations justifying additional costs and income foregone resulting from the disadvantages in the area concerned related to the implementation of Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EECThe calculation of the Natura 2000 payment does not include any transaction cost element and is set out in Appendix 3.

111

In duly justified circumstances where it is shown to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the Natura 2000 payment does not fully compensate the farmer for actual losses and the cost of compliance, an additional payment may be made under a National Scheme operated by the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the form of a state aid.

Evidence as referred to in article 48(2) of the implementing rules allowing the Commission to check consistency and plausibility of the calculationsThe costings have been independently verified by Teagasc.

With effect from 15th July 2009, the rates payable will be reduced by 14%.With effect from 9th July 2009, this scheme was closed to new applicants.

Financing

Total Cost: €88,181,715 Public Expenditure: €88,181,715

Transition arrangements (including estimated amount)There are no transition arrangements.

112

Quantified targets for EU common indicators

Type of indicator Indicator Target

Output

Number of supported holdings in Natura 2000 areas/under WFD

6,800

Supported agricultural land under Natura 2000/under WFD

141,000ha

ResultAreas under successful land management

141,000ha

Impact

Reversal in biodiversity decline

Improve framework plans (FP) by one damage category

Maintenance of High nature value farmland

141,000ha

Improvement in water quality

Indirect link with target to improve FPs by one damage category

Contribution to combating climate change

To complement cross-sectoral initiatives

Additional Natura indicators

No. of participants with Commonage/Natura land

DAF 17,200 18,500

No. of REPS participants with commonage

DAF 8,390 9,100

Average Area of Commonage per REPS participant

DAF 25ha 25ha

Context – Total number of farms using commonage

CSO 2000

11,800 11,800

No. of REPS participants with enclosed Natura land

DAF 11,100 11,600

No. of farmers availing of conservation of wild birds habitat

DAF 2006

47 500

113

Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC

Legal basisArticles 36 (a) (iii) and 38 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 Point 5.3.2.1.5 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006.

Measure Code: 213

Rationale for intervention:The previous Natura 2000 scheme under this measure code was closed to new applicants with effect from 9th July 2009 and, in light of this, a new scheme to reflect the new lower payment rates was created to replace it.

The legal basis for selection and designation of Natura 2000 sites is Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992. These provide for the establishment of a network of protected areas throughout the European Community. In Ireland these sites are selected and designated by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. These Directives were transposed into Irish law through the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997. The Wildlife Act of 1997 (as amended in 2001) is the main statute governing the protection of wildlife in Ireland and takes into account the Birds and Habitats Directives.

As part of the designation process, a series of notifiable actions were developed which include a list of activities that may alter, damage, destroy or interfere with the integrity of the site. Landowners were advised of these notifiable actions, and must comply with the restrictions on them as part of cross-compliance under Statutory Management Requirements 1 (SMR1) and Statutory Management Requirements 5 (SMR5). NPWS develop Conservation Plans for these Natura sites, which outline the conservation issues and objectives for the management of the site. These Conservation Plans do not prescribe farming activities to achieve the conservation objectives, but are used for guidance when preparing farm plans under Natura and agri-environment measures.

Objectives of the measureTo contribute to positive environmental management of farmed Natura 2000 sites and river catchments in the implementation of the Birds Directive, the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

BeneficiariesFarmers actively farming designated Natura 2000 sites.

Scope and actionsTo put in place and implement Sustainable Management Plans in order to enhance the conservation status of the sites.

A minimum stocking density of 0.15 livestock units per hectare is required as a condition of eligibility. In exceptional circumstances this minimum stocking density requirement may be dispensed with where it is necessary on grounds of environmental sustainability.

114

Demarcation with Pillar I Article 68 Burren Farming for Conservation Scheme (BFCS)Measure 1 of BFCS relates to Production of Species Rich Limestone Grassland, Measure 2 relates to Site Enhancement Works and Measure 3 relates to Protection of Designated land and other areas of Annex1 Habitat.

Beneficiaries under the Burren Farming for Conservation Scheme (BFCS) may as an exception receive support under this measure in the first instance in respect of actions under Measure 3 of the BFCS.

This exception is granted for budgetary reasons. Both beneficiaries who are currently under contract under this measure and new entrants, will be paid under this measure.

Administrative Rules

Applicants under both the BFCS and this measure will be paid under this measure in respect of actions under Measure 3 of the BFCS

Applicants under the BFCS only, will receive payment under the BFCS

Relevant baselineGAEC/Cross compliance requires a farmer to comply with the mandatory notifiable actions for Natura 2000 sites which are designated under Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC. On Natura commonages, a farmer must comply with the relevant Commonage Framework Plan. While these notifiable actions restrict changes in land use of the site, they do not outline the management practices necessary to conserve the site. GAEC does not require the engagement of an environmentalist for the management of these sites.

Core actionsParticipants in this Measure must comply with the mandatory requirements for Natura 2000 sites, which comprise notifiable actions (details set out in Appendix 2) communicated to the farmer in the designation process.

In addition, in order to meet the requirements under this Measure, farmers must engage the services of an environmentalist to prepare a Sustainable Management Plan setting out appropriate farming practices compatible with the conservation of the site.

To ensure a uniform approach in the delivery of the Natura element of Sustainable Management Plans giving effect to the restrictions on notifiable actions, farming conditions for the following habitat types have been developed and must be complied with:

Conditions for the conservation of the Burren Blanket bogs, heaths and upland grasslands Sand dune and machair areas Shannon Callows, Wet Grassland and Corncrake Habitat.

In the case of Corncrake Habitats, farmers must register with the NPWS and follow the NPWS prescription for the site.

For other habitat types in designated areas for which specific farming conditions have not yet been developed, the environmentalist must contact the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) section of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for instructions on any conditions appropriate to the site, and must incorporate any such

115

conditions into the plan. For Natura commonages, the Sustainable Management Plan must be compatible with the relevant Commonage Framework Plan.

Amount *€75 per hectare up to the maximum financial limit set for the scheme *€314 per hectare for conservation of priority wild bird habitats

*Payment will be made for UAA only.

Follow upCompliance will be checked during on-farm audits, and non-compliance will result in the application of penalties. These Natura 2000 sites are also subject to additional monitoring and checking in accordance with cross-compliance provisions relating to the Birds and Habitats Directives.

116

Actions and Amounts of Natura 2000 for AEOSAction. Area of

ApplicationDescription of Action and Objective

Measure No.

Payment Total per measure

Controls1. Natura 2000

Designated Natura 2000 sites

Objective: Protection of designated Natura 2000 habitats.

Core Actions: Adherence to a Sustainable Management Plan for the site. In the case of grassland habitats the establishment of a sustainable stocking level and grazing regime.

213 €75/ha**this cost has been independently verified by Teagasc

€90m OtSC: visual inspection

Cross checks to IACS databases

2. Conservation of priority wild bird habitats

Designated Natura 2000 sites

Objective: To enhance the habitat structure and availability of breeding sites for the corncrake. The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government will be directly involved in the delivery of this supplementary measure

Core Actions: Register with NPWS. Follow the NPWS farm specific prescription for the site which includes inter alia delayed mowing of meadows and centre out mowing.

213 €314/ha OtSC: visual inspectionCross checks to IACS databases.

117

Description of the methodology and the agronomic assumptions used as reference point for the calculations justifying additional costs and income foregone resulting from the disadvantages in the area concerned related to the implementation of Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EECThe calculation of the Natura 2000 payment does not include any transaction cost element and is set out in Appendix 3A.

Evidence as referred to in article 48(2) of the implementing rules allowing the Commission to check consistency and plausibility of the calculationsThe costings have been independently verified by Teagasc.

Financing

Total Cost: €7,556,582 Public Expenditure: €7,556,582

Quantified targets for EU common indicators

Type of indicator IndicatorTarget 2007-

2013

Output

Number of supported holdings in Natura 2000 areas/under WFD  8,000Supported agricultural land under Natura 2000/under WFD  240,000 ha

Result Areas under successful land management  240,000 ha

Impact

Reversal in biodiversity decline (farmland bird species population) Decline haltedChange in high nature value areas 240,000 haChanges in gross nutrient balance 78 Kg NIncrease in production of renewable energy Not applicable

118

Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC

Measure 213

Overall Measure level Indicators

Type of indicator Indicator Original Natura 2000 Target

New Natura 2000 scheme

Combined Targets

Output

Number of supported holdings in Natura 2000 areas/under WFD

6,625

 8,000

14,625

Supported agricultural land under Natura 2000/under WFD

199,000ha

 240,000 ha

439,000 ha

Result

Areas under successful land management

199,000ha  240,000 ha

439,000 ha

Impact

Reversal in biodiversity decline

Improve framework plans (FP) by one damage category Decline

halted

Decline halted

Maintenance of High nature value farmland

199,000ha 240,000 ha

439,000 ha

Improvement in water quality

Indirect link with target to improve FPs by one damage category 78 Kg N

78 Kg N

Contribution to combating climate change

To complement cross-sectoral initiatives Not

applicable

Not applicable

119

Agri-Environmental Payments

(Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS), Organic Farming, Heritage Farm Buildings and

Maintenance of the Visual Appearance of the Farmyard)

Legal basisArticles 36(a) (iv) and 39 of Regulation 1698/2005 Article 27 and point 5.3.2.1.4 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006.

Measure Code: 214

Integrated MeasureIn accordance with Article 70(7) of Regulation 1698/2005 and Article 42 of Regulation 1974/2006 the agri-environment measure will comprise an integrated measure.

The supplementary measure in relation to Heritage Farm Buildings is classified under measure code 323 of Axis 3 [Article 52(b)(iii) of Reg. (EC) no. 1698/2005 + Point 5.3.3.2.3 of Annex II of Reg (EC) No 1974/2006]. The expenditure in respect of this supplementary measure will be attributed to Axis 2 as the dominant axis.

Action 8 of the agri-environment measure is classified under measure code 323 of Axis 3. Although compliance with these actions will be required under the REPS measure it is not proposed to make payments. The level of support for the mandatory undertakings is reduced accordingly in Appendix 3 of the Programme, but it will be open to the applicant to undertake additional biodiversity options.

The additional biodiversity measure under Action 8 (Traditional Orchards) falls within Axis 2.

Rationale for intervention Agri-environmental payments play an important role in supporting sustainable development in rural areas and in responding to society’s increasing demand for environmental services. This measure should encourage farmers to introduce or continue to apply agricultural production methods compatible with the protection of the environment, the landscape and its features.

Objectives of the measure To promote

ways of using agricultural land which are compatible with the protection and improvement of the environment, biodiversity, the landscape and its features, climate change, natural resources, water quality, the soil and genetic diversity

environmentally-favourable farming systems the conservation of high nature value farmed environments that are under

threat the upkeep of historical features on agricultural land the use of environmental planning in farming practice

To protect against land abandonment To sustain the social fabric in rural communities To promote conversion to organic production standards

120

Scope and actionsThe proposed scheme builds on the success of actions in the 2000–2006 programming period, with an increasing emphasis on pro-active environmental and biodiversity objectives.

Farmers will be obliged to carry out their farming activity in accordance with farming conditions relevant to land classification for a minimum period of five years.

Where part of a holding comprises lands designated under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and agricultural areas included in river basin management plans pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC, agri-environment commitments shall, where appropriate, take account of the conditions laid down for support in the areas concerned.

Increasing the number of farmers converting to organic production methods is prioritised. Farmers complying with Council Regulation 2092/91 as amended on Organic Farming shall be eligible for financial support through a stand-alone organic sub-measure.

All general programme scheme participants shall be obliged to have a farm nutrient management plan prepared. If the farmer has obtained a derogation from the national Regulations implementing the Nitrates Directive,29 his/her REPS nutrient management plan prepared in accordance with the derogation shall be acceptable for such period as the derogation remains in force.

A minimum stocking density of 0.15 livestock units per hectare is required as a condition of eligibility. In exceptional circumstances this minimum stocking density requirement may be dispensed with where it is necessary on grounds of environmental sustainability.

Where the relevant mandatory standards or requirements, established pursuant to Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and its Annexes III and VI, as well as of the minimum requirements for fertiliser and plant protection product use and of other relevant mandatory requirements established by national legislation30 are amended, the agri-environment contract shall be adjusted to take account of any such legislative changes. If the beneficiary does not accept such adjustment, the commitment shall expire and reimbursement shall not be required.

Where application for REPS is made for farms benefiting from derogations under the nitrates directive, these applications will be subject to detailed examination to establish in what way each farm is in a position to fulfill each of the requirements of the mandatory undertaking. Where a requirement is obligatory under the terms of the derogation or cannot be fulfilled due to management practices related to grassland or to the absence or greatly reduced presence of features such as internal field boundaries, wildlife habitats or sites of historical and/or archaeological interest, the level of support for the mandatory undertakings shall be reduced accordingly but it will be open to the applicant to undertake additional biodiversity options.

Risk of overlap with First Pillar – EAGF A member of a Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisation receiving support for environmental actions under the Scheme of Aid for Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations is precluded from receiving support for similar actions under this measure.

29 Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources30 See Appendix 4 on listing of national legislation

121

Demarcation with Pillar I Article 68 Burren Farming for Conservation Scheme (BFCS)Measure 1 of BFCS relates to Production of Species Rich Limestone Grassland, Measure 2 relates to Site Enhancement Works and Measure 3 relates to Protection of Designated land and other areas of Annex1 Habitat.

Beneficiaries under the Burren Farming for Conservation Scheme (BFCS) may as an exception receive support under this measure in the first instance in respect of Measures 1 & 3 of the BFCS.

This exception is granted for budgetary reasons. Both beneficiaries who are currently under contract under this measure and new entrants, will be paid under this measure.

Administrative Rules Applicants under both the BFCS and this measure will be paid under this measure

in respect of actions under Measures 1 & 3 of the BFCS Applicants under both the BFCS and this measure will be paid under the BFCS in

respect of actions under Measure 2of the BFCS. Applicants under the BFCS only, will receive payment in respect of the actions

under three measures under the BFCS

Specific actions A General Programme for all applicants consists of: A set of mandatory undertakings required in respect of their entire farm holding,

outlined below Supplementary Measures (detailed below) for which beneficiaries can draw down

additional payment in accordance with the cumulation of aid programme provisions; and a dedicated stand-alone Organic Farming sub-measure.

General Programme mandatory requirementsGeneral Programme participants must apply core measures in respect of the total area of their holding for a five-year period, together with at least two additional undertakings to be selected from the tables of listed options below. Individual farm plans are drawn up by professionally qualified planners31 approved by the Department of Agriculture and Food.

DESCRIPTION OF CORE ACTIONSACTION 1 Follow a farm nutrient management plan prepared for the total area of the farm

ACTION 2 Adopt an appropriate grassland and soil management plan for the total area of the farm

ACTION 3 Protect and maintain watercourses, waterbodies and wells

ACTION 4 Retain wildlife habitats

ACTION 5 Maintain farm and field boundaries

ACTION 6 Restrict the use of pesticides and fertilisers in and around hedgerows, lakes, ponds, rivers and streams

31 A suitable University degree in Agricultural Science is required, and planners must submit trial plans to an acceptable standard before they are approved.

122

ACTION 7 Establish biodiversity buffer strips surrounding features of historical and archaeological interest

ACTION 8 Maintain and improve visual appearance of the farm and farmyard

ACTION 9 Produce tillage crops respecting environmental principles

ACTION 10 Undertake training under Axis 1 as provided for under Measure 111

ACTION 11 Prepare, monitor and update agri-environmental plan in consultation with planner and keep such farm and environmental records as may be prescribed by the Minister

123

Legal basis for actions

Action Legal BasisACTION 1Follow a farm nutrient management plan prepared for the total area of the farm

Articles 36(a) (iv) and 39 of Regulation 1698/2005 Article 27 and point 5.3.2.1.4 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006.

ACTION 2Adopt an appropriate grassland and soil management plan for the total area of the farm

Options2A Traditional Hay Meadows2B Species Rich Grassland2C Mixed Livestock Enterprises 2D Use of Clover in Swards2E Use of Trailing Shoe2F Control of Invasive Species

Articles 36(a) (iv) and 39 of Regulation 1698/2005 Article 27 and point 5.3.2.1.4 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006.

ACTION 3Protect and maintain watercourses, waterbodies and wells.

Options3A Increased Watercourse Margin3B No Bovine Access to Watercourses3C Use of Planted Buffer Zones

Articles 36(a) (iv) and 39 of Regulation 1698/2005 Article 27 and point 5.3.2.1.4 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006

ACTION 4Retain wildlife habitats

Options4A Creation of New Habitat

4B Tree Planting#

4C Nature Corridors

4D Establish Farm Woodland#

*Articles 36(a) (iv) and 39 of Regulation 1698/2005 Article 27 and point 5.3.2.1.4 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006

Article 29 and point 5.3.2.1.6 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006

ACTION 5Maintain farm and field boundaries

Options5A Coppicing of Hedgerows5B Laying of Hedgerows5C Plant New Hedgerows# 5D Additional Stone Wall

Articles 36(a) (iv) and 39 of Regulation 1698/2005 Article 27 and point 5.3.2.1.4 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006

124

Maintenance Article 29 and point 5.3.2.1.6 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006

ACTION 6Restrict the use of pesticides and fertilisers in and around hedgerows, lakes, ponds, rivers and streams

Articles 36(a) (iv) and 39 of Regulation 1698/2005 Article 27 and point 5.3.2.1.4 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006

ACTION 7Establish biodiversity buffer strips surrounding features of historical and archaeological interest

Options7A Increased archaeological site margins

Articles 36(a) (iv) and 39 of Regulation 1698/2005 Article 27 and point 5.3.2.1.4 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006

ACTION 8Maintain and improve visual appearance of the farm and farmyard##

Options8A Establish Traditional Orchard of specified varieties of Irish origin# (non-commercial)

8B Install Bird or Bat Boxes Article 29 and point 5.3.2.1.6 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006

ACTION 9Produce tillage crops respecting environmental principlesOptions

9A Green Cover Establishment9B Environmental Management of Setaside9C Increased Arable Margins9D Low Input Cereals/Root Crops9E Minimum Tillage Crops

Articles 36(a) (iv) and 39 of Regulation 1698/2005 Article 27 and point 5.3.2.1.4 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006

ACTION 10 Undertake training

Undertake training in environmentally-friendly farming practices

Articles 36(a) (iv) and 39 and Article 20(a)(i) of Regulation 1698/2005 Article 27 and point 5.3.2.1.4 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006.

ACTION 11Prepare, monitor and update agri-environmental plan in consultation with planner and keep such farm and

Articles 36(a) (iv) and 39 of Regulation 1698/2005 Article 27 and point 5.3.2.1.4 of

125

environmental records as may be prescribed by the Minister

Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006.

Supplementary MeasureTraditional Orchards

Supplementary MeasureConservation of Animal Genetic Resources

Supplementary MeasureRiparian Zones

Supplementary MeasureLINNET (Land Invested in Nature, Natural Eco-Tillage) Habitats

Supplementary MeasureLow-Input Tillage Crops

Supplementary MeasureMinimum Tillage

Supplementary MeasureTraditional Grazers

Supplementary MeasureClover Swards

Supplementary MeasureConservation of Wild Bird Habitat

Supplementary MeasureLake Catchments

Supplementary MeasureMixed Grazing

Articles 36(a) (iv) and 39 of Regulation 1698/2005 Article 27 and point 5.3.2.1.4 of Annex II of Regulation 1974/2006.

Supplementary MeasureHeritage Buildings### These options form part of Measure 216## These options form part of Measure 323

Biodiversity undertakings

To achieve increased biodiversity at farm level, enhancement of the eleven basic Measures is desirable. Because farmers are offered a choice from a series of optional undertakings, each farmer is given the opportunity to select the works most appropriate to the environmental or landscape features of the farm in question. At least two biodiversity options must be included in the farm plan, one of which must be a category 1 option. (The difference between the two category options is directly related to the cost of implementing the actions at farm level. To deliver a category 1 option, a farmer incurs a higher cost than for a category 2 option. Where

126

the same action is available as a category 1 or a category 2 option, the difference is the area devoted to the action. For example, the area of traditional hay meadow to qualify for category 2 option is approximately one third of the area required under category 1.)

The objective of these mandatory undertakings is to further enhance the promotion of biodiversity on farms by encouraging farmers to select environmental options best suited to their own farm.

Core Measures Category 1 Options Category 2 Options

1 Nutrient management

2 Grassland management 2A Traditional Hay Meadows2B Species Rich Grassland2D Use of Clover in Swards

2A Traditional Hay Meadows2B Species Rich Grassland2C Mixed Livestock Enterprises2E Use of Trailing Shoe2F Control of Invasive Species

3 Protection of watercourses 3A Increased Watercourse Margin3B No Bovine Access to Watercourses3C Use of Planted Buffer Zones

4 Retain wildlife habitats 4A Creation of New Habitat4B Tree Planting4D Establish Farm Woodland

4B Tree Planting4C Nature Corridors

5 Maintain farm and field boundaries

5A Coppicing of Hedgerows5B Laying of Hedgerows5C Plant New Hedgerows5D Additional Stone Wall Maintenance

5A Coppicing of Hedgerows5B Laying of Hedgerows5C Plant New Hedgerows5D Additional Stone Wall Maintenance

6 Restrict the use of pesticides and fertilisers in and around hedgerows, lakes, ponds, rivers and streams

There are no biodiversity options in relation to Measure 6

7 Establish biodiversity buffer strips surrounding features of historical and archaeological interest

7A Increased biodiversity Buffer Strips surrounding features of Historical and Archaeological interest

8 Visual appearance of farm and farmyard

8A Establish Traditional Orchard of specified varieties of Irish origin

8B. Install Bird or Bat Boxes9 Produce Tillage Crops

respecting environmental Principles

9A Green Cover Establishment9B Environmental Management of Setaside9C Increased Arable Margins9D Low Input Cereals/Root Crops9E Minimum Tillage Crops

9A Green Cover Establishment9C Increased Arable Margins9D Low input cereals/root crops

In circumstances where, on environmental grounds, the options available are deemed to be inappropriate to the holding, alternative environmental requirements will be specified on a case-by-case basis and included in the farm plan.

Supplementary Measures

Supplementary Measure Traditional Orchards

127

Supplementary Measure Conservation of Animal Genetic Resources

Supplementary Measure Riparian Zones

Supplementary Measure LINNET (Land Invested in Nature, Natural Eco-Tillage) Habitats

Supplementary Measure Low-Input Tillage Crops

Supplementary Measure Minimum Tillage

Supplementary Measure Traditional Grazers

Supplementary Measure Clover Swards

Supplementary Measure Conservation of Wild Bird Habitat

Supplementary Measure Lake Catchments

Supplementary Measure Mixed Grazing

Supplementary Measure Heritage Buildings

128

Agri-Environmental Payments Sub-Measure–Organic Farming

Participants: Must be engaged in the organic production of animals intended for human

consumptionand/or

Must be engaged in the production of organic crops intended for human consumption and/or animal feed

Must comply with the conditions of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 as amended, and register with the Department of Agriculture and Food as an organic operator and be subject to annual inspection.

Confirmation that the cross-compliance requirements are identical to those provided for by Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003The cross-compliance requirements which affects the implementation of this measure are identical to those provided for in Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003.

Description and justification of the different types of commitments, based on their expected environmental impact in relation to environmental needs and priorities

ACTION 1: Follow a farm nutrient management plan prepared for the total area of the farmThis measure promotes the efficient use of nutrients in an environmentally friendly manner. It involves a systematic evaluation of all the nutrient sources available and required on the farm and sets limits on the application rates for chemical fertilisers, organic fertilisers and other nutrient sources.

Objective: This measure promotes the efficient use of nutrients in an environmentally friendly manner and complements mandatory measures to protect water resources from pollution from agriculture.

Scope and actions For non-derogation farms32, systematic evaluation of the entire nutrient sources available and required on the farm. Measure sets limits on the application rates for chemical fertilisers, organic fertilisers and other nutrient sources. Includes soil sampling analysis and interpretation related to specific fertility of various soil types on holding. Where a nitrates derogation is granted, the nutrient management plan will be acceptable for participation in REPS. Additional Category 1 biodiversity commitments will be required for all farmers farming to a derogation from the nitrates directive. (Since a derogation is available only to farmers with at least 80 per cent grassland, this consideration will be relevant to grassland farmers only.)

Relevant baseline: Total quantity of fertilisers applied must not be more than the crops need. Farmer must meet requirements in relation to animal manure management, planning and building regulations, water and air. Farmers using less than 170kg of organic N/ha must respect this limit as set down in the Nitrates Regulation on a whole-farm basis. Farmers using more than 170kg of organic N/ha must respect the limits set down in their Nutrient Management Plan at the level of homogenous crops subject to the same soil sample.

32 Those farms that have not obtained a derogation from the general limit of 170 kg NORG laid down in Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources

129

Core actions: for grassland farmersSoil sampling and analysis are not GAEC requirements for any farmer operating at or below 170kg of organic N/ha. The soil sampling, analysis and interpretation by the REPS planner provides the base-line data on the specific fertility of the various soil types on the individual farm and allows the targeting, at the level of homogenous crops subject to the same soil sample, of nutrient application including optimum recycling of farm-generated organic fertilisers. This action will also lead to benefits of biodiversity by restricting its use on plots of conservation interest. Derograted farmers must choose a relevant category 1 option from the list.

Core actions: for arable farmersSoil sampling and analysis are not GAEC requirements for any farmer operating at or below 170kg of organic N/ha. The soil sampling, analysis and interpretation by the REPS planner provides the base-line data on the specific fertility of the various soil types on the individual farm and allows the targeting, at the level of homogenous crops subject to the same soil sample, of nutrient application including optimum recycling of farm-generated organic fertilisers. Arable farmers may elect to reduce nutrient inputs by 30 per cent from the recommended crop fertilisation rates or alternatively undertake actions on 6 per cent of the arable area of the holding in accordance with the requirements of the LINNET supplementary measure below, but as part of their basic undertaking and without the payment for the supplementary measure that is available to grassland farmers. (Fertiliser use on the area devoted to the LINNET action will be reduced by up to 100 per cent. On the remainder of the holding, fertiliser use will not exceed crop requirements as set out in the nutrient management plan.)

Amount/ha: €25 (grassland farmers); €60.2 (arable farmers)

Follow up: Compliance with these limits will be checked during on-farm audits, and non-compliance will result in application of penalties. If the farmer exceeds the planned stocking rate or exceeds the land productivity a penalty will apply. Farmers will also be penalised where they exceed the planned chemical Nitrogen and phosphorus allowance ceilings.

Additional biodiversity options: none

ACTION 2: Adopt an appropriate grassland and soil management plan for the total area of the farm Excessive poaching and overgrazing of grassland can result in siltation and nutrient enrichment of surface waters. The adoption of a specific grassland and soil management plan by farmer participants will ensure a balance between agricultural and environmental demands.

Objective: To promote a sustainable grassland and soil management plan that protects habitats and minimises poaching, overgrazing and soil erosion

Scope and actions Only applicable to grassland farms. Planners in preparing individual farm plans will set out actions for the maintenance of grassland habitats that are sensitive to or damaged by poaching, over- or under-grazing, flooding and soil erosion. The planner will also assess the condition of the soil structure and recommend an appropriate management regime going beyond the requirements of GAEC.

130

Relevant baseline Wildlife Act 1976/2001. Statutory requirements for waste and water management. Forage must be conserved in a manner that maximises quality and yield. The nutrient requirement for forage production must be adhered to. Undergrazing and overgrazing must be avoided. During the winter period GAEC allows a farmer to outwinter at a stocking density of two livestock units per hectare. GAEC requires the control of invasive species to the extent that land remains capable of agricultural production.

Core actions Farmers must adhere to five-year plan for the maintenance of grassland and soil quality. The core winter period is identified during which the outwintering of livestock cannot exceed one livestock unit per hectare. The plan will specifically outline how and where animals are to be outwintered.

Amount/ha: €10.20 in respect of grassland farmers

Follow up: Compliance with the core wintering and stocking density will be checked during on-farm audits, and non-compliance will result in application of penalties.

Additional biodiversity options

Traditional hay meadows Objective: To provide greater biodiversity by allowing grasses and wild flowers to mature and seed in situ

Core action: Select and maintain 0.4 ha or 8 per cent of holding (whichever is greater), subject to a maximum of 1.6 hectares as a traditional hay meadow.

Amount: €7/ha33

Baseline: Forage produced and conserved in a manner that maximises quality and yield

Species rich grassland Objective: To provide greater biodiversity through a specific grazing plan, which maximises diversity rather than forage production

Core action: Select and maintain 0.4 ha or 8 per cent of holding (whichever is greater), subject to a maximum of 1.6 hectares as a species rich grassland.

Amount: €7 per hectare

Baseline: Grassland grazed in a manner that avoids both over-and under-grazing

Use of clover in swardsReseeding land to maintain high clover levels.

Objective: To reduce the dependence on nitrogenous fertilisers by the incorporation of white clover into grassland swards

33 This payment, and other payments which require action on areas of the farm up to a maximum, are not based on the maximum area itself but are averaged on a per hectare basis on the first 20 hectares of the holding

131

Core action: Incorporate clover into 25 per cent or 5 hectares, whichever is the lesser, of the grassland swards of the farm.

Amount: €23 per hectare

Baseline: There is no requirement under GAEC to maintain white clover as a component of grassland.

Use of trailing shoe technology (using latest technology for increasing N cycling efficiency)

Objective: To improve the recycling of organic nitrogen on livestock holdings and to contribute to reduced nitrous oxide, ammonia emissions and odours.

Core action: Spread all slurry using the trailing shoe technology

Amount: €10 per hectare

Baseline: No requirement under GAEC to use this technology

Selected control of invasive species Objective: To enhance identified non-Natura 2000 habitats in the interest of biodiversity by managing high rush, bracken, gorse, hazel and blackthorn populations in grassland habitats using targeted chemical/manual means. Retain carefully managed dispersed population of these species in these habitats for enhanced biodiversity.

Core action: Select and maintain 0.5 ha or 10 per cent of holding (whichever is the greater) subject to a maximum of two hectares as a scrub mosaic. The removal of selected species by manual grubbing or spot treatment with selective herbicides will be required.

Amount: €12 per hectare

Baseline: GAEC allows the non-selective control (mechanical grubbing) of these species, with no requirement to consider biodiversity benefits. GAEC does not require the management of existing scrub populations. What is required is that existing populations do not expand/encroach on to utilisable agricultural land to such an extent that it cannot be used for agricultural purposes. This measure targets the management of areas with high densities of existing scrub species to maximise biodiversity potential and is not targeted to control species encroaching from hedgerows.

ACTION 3: Protect and maintain watercourses, waterbodies and wellsRiparian margins are an important habitat to a wide range of flora and fauna. The development of streamside vegetation strengthens channel banks and acts as a buffer strip to intercept overland flow of nutrients. Buffer zones around wells also contribute to the protection of water quality.

132

Objective: Protect water quality and enhance biodiversity along watercourses by avoiding nutrient enrichment and siltation of water from agriculture and allow natural streamside vegetation to develop.

Scope and actions: Planners in preparing individual plans will identify all watercourses and wells on the holding identify current practices and prescribe a work schedule for the protection and enhancement of these watercourses, waterbodies and wells.

Relevant baseline: The spreading of fertilisers in the buffer zones adjacent to waterbodies is not permitted. Farmers can graze livestock up to the watercourse edge. There is no requirement to fence or remove the build-up of silt.

Core actions: Grassland farmers are required to fence off watercourses and wells, leaving a margin of 1.5 metres. Fences, where required by the scheme specifications and irrespective of the presence of livestock, must be in place at all times for the duration of the REPS contract. Any exception to this requirement must be clearly detailed in individual REPS plans. On the basis of appropriate justification, fences may be foreseen as moveable.

All farmers are required to remove silt from watercourse and scrape bottom and sides to original depths in accordance with their management plan.

Amount: €29.3 (grassland farmers); €20.5 (arable farmers) per hectare

Additional biodiversity options

Increase watercourse marginObjective: To create a wider margin adjacent to water bodies to intercept overland flow of nutrients and enhance biodiversity.

Core action Increase the width of fenced watercourse margin to 2.5 metres.

Amount: €8 per hectare

Baseline: The spreading of fertilisers in the buffer zones adjacent to water bodies is not permitted. Farmers can graze livestock up to the watercourse edge. There is no requirement to fence or remove the build-up of silt.

No bovine Access to watercoursesObjective: To protect water quality and avoid physical damage to the watercourse by preventing bovine access to watercourses. Core action: Provide an alternative source of drinking water to bovines.

Amount: €5 per hectare

Baseline: Under GAEC there is no restriction preventing bovines from drinking from watercourses.

Use of planted buffer zoneObjective: To reduce the risk of nutrient loss into watercourses & protect vulnerable soils & catchments

133

Core Action: Plant 500 square metres or 1 per cent of the holding (whichever is the greater) to a maximum of 2,000 square metres of willow/alder buffer strips of a minimum five metre width, adjacent to identified watercourses.

Amount: €8.5 per hectare

Baseline: Planted buffer zones are not a requirement of GAEC.

ACTION 4: Retain wildlife habitatsWildlife habitats may be on any area of a farm, but the most important ones are often areas peripheral to normal farming operations. These areas have largely been undisturbed by drainage, ploughing, re-seeding nor have they been subjected to heavy fertiliser or herbicide use. Thus they retain their unique characteristics. Some habitats have developed naturally during the 10,000 years since the last Ice Age and are irreplaceable, while other habitats have developed as a result of centuries of traditional farming practice and are dependent upon the continuation of that management. Land set aside for wildlife habitat use will have to be kept in good condition. The wildlife habitats protected under GAEC are those designated under the birds and habitats directives, commonages governed by a commonage framework plan and nationally designated natural heritage areas. Agri-environment actions, on the other hand, require that habitats identified on farms other than those to which GAEC applies must also be retained and managed. The retention of these areas under REPS, which could otherwise be lost, makes a significant contribution to the Irish landscape and wild flora and fauna. All the habitats identified on a farm must be clearly marked on the farm map prepared by the planner. The habitats to be retained are diverse in nature ranging from small ponds to large areas of blanket peat.

Objective: To retain wildlife habitats, and traditional farm boundaries, and promote farming practices that and beneficial to wildlife and conservation

Scope and actions: The planner must identify all habitats on the farm, other than those to which GAEC applies (national heritage areas, commonage land under the Commonage Framework Plan and Natura). The planner must specify how these habitats are to be retained and managed.

Relevant baseline: Compliance with requirements applicable to Natural Heritage Areas, Natura sites and Wildlife Act 2001. There is no mandatory requirement to retain habitats outside these designations.

Core actions: All habitat areas must be identified and mapped during the REPS planning process. This requires the nomination of a minimum of 3 per cent of the farm in the case of grassland farmers and 2 per cent of the farm in the case of tillage farmers for wildlife habitat. The plan will detail how these habitats are to be retained and managed. This restricts the farmer from utilising this land to its full agricultural potential.

Amount: €21.5 per hectare for grassland farmers; €19.2per hectare for arable farmers

Follow up: Compliance will be checked during on-farm audits, and non-compliance will result in application of penalties.

134

Additional biodiversity options:

Creation of new habitatsObjective: To create new habitats on farms, thus increasing the area of the farm under habitat protection and increase biodiversity

Core action: Permanently fence and maintain a minimum of 0.2 hectares or 4 per cent of the holding, whichever is the greater, subject to a maximum of 0.8 hectares, as habitat.

Amount: €23 per hectare Baseline: GAEC does not require the creation of new habitat. This measure goes beyond the requirement of the core action to retain wildlife habitats.

Tree plantingThe actions under this measure are non-productive and are in accordance with the requirements of Measure 216. The option is linked to the achievement of commitments under Agri-environment Measure 214 and is included as an integrated measure.

Objective: To encourage the planting of native broadleaf trees which have a significant impact on biodiversity and landscape.

Core action: Plant one tree per hectare to a maximum of 40 hectares. The trees must be protected from livestock by suitable fencing.

Amount: €13 per hectare per annum up to a maximum of 20 hectares over 5 years

Baseline: GAEC does not require the planting of trees.

Establishment of nature corridorsObjective: To protect our extensive range of field margins as they are an important source of plant diversity. This action provides the opportunity to increase field margins to 2.5m and links their protection with the protection of habitats. The synergy provided by both actions will deliver enhanced biodiversity and allow wildlife to move between identified habitats.

Core action: Increase grassland field margins by 1metre on whole farm. Prohibition on the application of fertilisers and pesticides within 2.5 metres of hedgerows and stonewalls.

Amount: €9 per hectare

Baseline: There is no GAEC requirement to establish nature corridors.

Establishment of farm woodlandThe actions under this measure are non-productive and are in accordance with the requirements of Measure 216. The option is linked to the achievement of commitments under the Agri-environment Measure 214 and is included as an integrated measure.

Objective: To create small woodlands on farms and thereby increase biodiversity and enhance the visual landscape.

135

Core actions: Establish and maintain a farm woodland with native tree species a minimum of 1,000 square metres or 2 per cent of holding, whichever is the greater, subject to a maximum of 4,000 square metres.

Amount: €23 per hectare

Baseline: There is no GAEC requirement to establish farm woodlands.

ACTION 5: Maintain farm and field boundariesLinear boundaries that include stonewalls, earth or stone banks, hedgerows and mature trees give the Irish landscape its distinctive character and field pattern. These provide important habitats for flora and fauna and function as linear corridors permitting wildlife to move between habitats such as woodlands, wetlands etc. The vast majority of field divisions in Ireland are comprised of earth banks, stonewalls, hedgerows and other similar natural boundaries and contribute significantly to a high-quality landscape. It is a specific requirement of the Agri-environment scheme that these features be maintained for the duration of participation.

Objectives: To record, maintain and enhance immovable boundary fences, stonewalls and hedgerows in the interest of stock control, bio-security, wildlife and the scenic appearance of the area

Scope: The planner will identify and map all immovable boundary features (internal and external) on the farm. The plan will specify an annual schedule of works for the maintenance of these features in the interest of stock control, bio-security, wildlife and the scenic appearance of the area. The majority of field divisions are comprised of earth banks, stonewalls, hedgerows and other similar natural boundaries.

Relevant baseline: GAEC does not prohibit the removal or replacement of immovable boundary features. GAEC requires that external boundaries be stockproofed when livestock are present in the field. The provision of the Wildlife (Amendment) Act 2001 prohibits the cutting of hedgerows during the bird-nesting season – 1 March to 31 August.

Core actions: All immovable boundary features must be retained and maintained in accordance with a specific annualised programme of work. This maintenance will extend to 140 metres of hedgerow per hectare, subject to an overall maximum of 5,600 metres per farm. In the case of stonewall maintenance it will extend to 70 metres per hectare, with an overall maximum of 2,800 metres. Where a mix of hedgerow and stone-walls exist on a farm, a pro-rata mix of these features can be selected for maintenance. External boundaries must be maintained stockproof at all times.

Amount: €30.20 per hectare for grassland and €10 per hectare for tillage

Follow up: Compliance will be checked during on-farm audits, and non-compliance will result in application of penalties.

136

Additional biodiversity options

Coppicing of hedgerowsObjective: To rejuvenate selected hedgerows in the interest of biodiversity and the visual landscape

Core action: To identify and coppice a minimum of three metres of hedgerow per hectare per annum, subject to an overall maximum of 300 metres of hedgerow coppiced per holding. The coppiced hedgerow must be fenced to exclude browsing animals.

Amount: €31.5 per hectare

Baseline: GAEC does not require coppicing of hedgerows.

Laying hedgerowsObjective: To rejuvenate by laying selected hedgerows in the interest of biodiversity and the visual landscape

Core action: To identify and lay a minimum of two metres of hedgerow per hectare per annum, subject to an overall maximum of 200 metres of hedgerow lay per holding. The laid hedgerows must be fenced to exclude browsing animals.

Amount: €30 per hectare

Baseline: GAEC does not require laying of hedgerows.

Planting new hedgerowsThe actions under this measure are non-productive and are in accordance with the requirements of Measure 216. The option is linked to the achievement of commitments under Agri-environment Measure 214 and is included as an integrated measure.

Objective: To establish new hedgerows in the interest of creating immovable boundaries, biodiversity and the visual landscape

Core action: To establish a minimum of three metres of hedgerow per hectare per annum, subject to an overall maximum of 300 metres of new hedgerow established per holding. The new hedgerow must be fenced to exclude browsing animals.

Amount: €32 per hectare

Baseline: GAEC does not require the planting of new hedgerows.

Additional stonewall maintenanceObjective: To provide for the opportunity to maintain additional traditional stonewalls on the farm over and above the minimum requirement of 70 metres per hectare.

Core action: Maintain/repair an additional three metres of stonewall per hectare per annum, up to an overall maximum of 300 metres over the contract period.

137

Amount: €23 per hectare

Baseline: There is no GAEC requirement to retain or maintain stonewalls. GAEC requires an external stockproof boundary. This requirement is additional to the core action of maintain farm and field boundaries.

ACTION 6: Restrict the use of pesticides and fertilisers in and around hedgerows, lakes, ponds, rivers and streamsThe improper and/or inappropriate use of pesticides and fertilisers can dramatically upset the balance of flora and fauna, resulting in a major reduction in biodiversity. Pesticides, apart from reducing biodiversity, may leave residues in water that are harmful to humans and animals. Fertiliser entering waterbodies adds to nutrient enrichment, resulting in eutrophication and unwanted plant growth that impedes water flows. This measure specifically relates to the loss of production in the field margins adjacent to hedgerows and stonewall boundaries.

Objective: To protect water resources and habitats

Scope and actions: The planner must identify on the farm map the areas on the farm where fertilisers and pesticides must not be applied and provide a schedule of work for the control of excessive vegetation adjacent to watercourses. Relevant baseline: Cross-compliance/GAEC requires that fertiliser must not be used within 1.5m of any watercourse. There is no Cross-compliance/GAEC restriction on the spreading of fertilisers adjacent to hedgerows and stonewalls. Cross-compliance/GAEC requires that pesticides must be stored and used safely in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions. Comply with statutory maximum pesticide residue limits.

Core actions: Pesticides must not be applied within 1.5m of field boundaries and hedgerows. Fertilisers and manures must not be applied within 1.5m of field boundaries and hedgerows. Excessive vegetation must be cleared from watercourses in accordance with environmental specifications. Amount: €10per hectare (grassland farmers); €10.50 per hectare (arable farmers)

Follow up: Compliance will be checked during on-farm audits, and non-compliance will result in application of penalties.

There are no additional biodiversity options for this action.

ACTION 7: Establish biodiversity buffer strips surrounding features of historical and archaeological interestThe countryside of Ireland contains a rich heritage of historical and archaeological monuments, and the surrounding land, because of traditional farming methods, is rich in biodiversity. Mechanised farming practices and changes in land use can threaten this ancient landscape.

Objective: To retain and maintain biodiversity surrounding any features of historical or archaeological interest not listed in National records (i.e. lime kilns and ruins of traditional dwellings).

138

Scope and actions: The planner must identify and map all features of historical and/or archaeological interest on the farm and specify the areas to be established as buffer strips around them.

Relevant baseline: No GAEC requirement to establish buffer zone for biodiversity around such features. GAEC requirement is to comply with The National Monuments Act 1994—do not remove or damage monuments or sites listed in the Records of Monuments & Places.

Core action: This buffer strip (20m in grassland (5m in arable)) surrounding the site shall be managed in the interests of biodiversity and landscape protection.

Amount: €8 per hectare on grassland farms; €1.30 per hectare on arable farms

Follow up: Compliance will be checked during on-farm audits, and non-compliance will result in application of penalties.

Additional biodiversity options

Increased biodiversity buffer strips surrounding features of historical and archaeological interest

Objective: To further retain and maintain biodiversity surrounding any features of historical or archaeological interest not listed in National records.

Core action: Increase the buffer zone by a further 50 per cent

Amount: €10 per hectare

Baseline: GAEC requirement is to comply with The National Monuments Act 1994—do not remove or damage monuments or sites listed in the Records of Monuments & Places.

ACTION 8: Maintain and improve visual appearance of the farm and farmyardThe countryside of Ireland contains an important record of Irish history—a rich heritage of historical and archaeological monuments. Mechanised farming practices and changes in land use can threaten this ancient landscape.

Objective: To retain traditional farm buildings and harmonise the visual impact of the farm with the surrounding countryside

Scope & actions: The planner must identify the traditional farm buildings (of limestone, granite or sandstone and/or with slated roofs) on the farm and prescribe how they are to be maintained. The planner must also outline those actions that will minimise the impact of the farm buildings and yard in the landscape.

Relevant baseline: There is no GAEC requirement in relation to the upkeep of farm buildings or their integration into the landscape. Litter Pollution Act, GAEC: removal of traditional stone farm buildings, gates, gateposts and piers is not recommended.

Core actions: The farmer must retain and maintain traditional farm buildings according to the annual programme of work. ‘Maintenance’ refers to the work necessary to protect the fabric

139

of a building and to keep it weatherproof. It does not include any work to put right significant defects or decay, or anything required to-bring a building in poor repair back to good condition. Some maintenance works will be required annually. Others – such as clearing of gutters and vegetation – may need to be undertaken several times per year. The Heritage Council has advised that maintenance is more appropriate to an annualised work plan.

Maintain other farm buildings by the use of appropriate materials, which reflect the traditions of the area and are in keeping with minimising their impact on the landscape.

Appropriate planting around the farmyard must also be undertaken to integrate the buildings into the landscape and enhance biodiversity.

Amount: No claim; this is an entry-level requirement

140

Additional biodiversity actions Establish a traditional orchardThe actions under this measure are non-productive and are in accordance with the requirements of Measure 216. The option is linked to the achievement of commitments under Agri-environment Measure 214 and is included as an integrated measure.

Objective: To establish and maintain orchards using varieties of native Irish origin. This will protect our genetic resource, increase the biodiversity of the local landscape and provide additional habitat for wildlife on the farm Core action: Establish a 500-square-metre traditional orchard with specified native Irish varieties. The produce from this plot is not commercial.

Amount: €11 per hectare

Baseline: There is no requirement under GAEC to conserve Ireland’s genetic resources.

Install bird/bat boxesObjective: To encourage and maintain bat and bird populations in and around the farmyard

Core actions: Erect and maintain eight nest boxes or equivalent at suitable locations around the farmyard.

Amount: €11 per hectare

ACTION 9: Produce tillage crops respecting environmental principlesTillage land, especially when intermixed with grassland, provides an important habitat for many seed-eating birds such as larks and finches and is also a safe habitat for ground-nesting birds.

Objective: To encourage tillage farming practices and production methods that reflect the increasing concern for conservation, landscape protection and wider environmental problems

Scope and actions: Tillage land is an important habitat for many seed-eating birds, e.g. larks and finches, and ground nesting-birds. The planner must assess the current management techniques for crops grown on the farm and prescribe how straw and stubble must be managed, and prescribe for the establishment of uncultivated margins.

Relevant baseline: GAEC prohibits the depletion of soil organic matter, the erosion of soils and damage to soil structure. GAEC does not require an uncultivated margin to be maintained.

Core actions: Straw and stubble burning is prohibited. Farmers must leave an uncultivated field margin of 1.5 metres from all permanent field boundaries and three metres from watercourses. Monitor soil management plan.

Amount: €38.20 per hectare for arable farms – core action not applicable to grassland farms; therefore no claim

141

Follow up: Compliance will be checked during on-farm audits, and non-compliance will result in application of penalties.

Additional biodiversity options

Green cover establishmentObjective: To provide an over wintering crop cover, which will utilise residual soil nutrients following the harvest of a cereal, or oil, seed crop

Core Action: Establish a sown green cover crop, which is ploughed in as a green manure in spring. Category 1 requirement is 14 hectares or greater of green cover. Category 2 requirement is 7 hectares or greater of green cover.

Amount: € 25 per hectare

Baseline: Under GAEC, green cover can be established through natural regeneration or by sowing grass or a winter cereal crop, which can be subsequently harvested.

Environmental management of set-asideObjective: To provide food and safe nesting sites for ground-nesting birds

Core action: Maintain as set-aside a minimum of 0.3 hectares or 10 per cent of the farm, whichever is the greater, subject to a maximum of four hectares. A minimum of 25 per cent of the area set aside must remain unmown each year, rotating this unmown area annually. Mowing of set-aside must be carried out in a bird-friendly fashion, i.e. from the centre out, and pesticide use is restricted to spot treatment of persistent perennial weeds. Application of fertilisers not permitted.

Amount: €23 per hectare

Baseline: Under GAEC, all set-aside lands can be mown using standard mowing techniques and practices. Fertilisers can be applied in accordance with crop requirements. Pesticides can be used as necessary.

Increased arable marginsObjective: To create different types of environmentally friendly crop margins, thus creating more space for the characteristic plants and animals associated with arable farms to survive.

Core action: Farmers must maintain three metre conservation margins (i.e. 1.5 metres wider that core measure requirement) on specific arable fields identified in the REPS plan. These margins must remain in situ for the duration of the contract. Category 1 requirement is 14 hectares or greater with these margins. Category 2 requirement is 7 hectares or greater with these margins.

Amount: €23 per hectare

Baseline: There is no requirement under GAEC to establish or maintain uncultivated field margins in tillage crops.

142

Low-input cerealsObjective: To contribute to the conservation of seed-eating bird species by encouraging the production of low-input spring cereals in grassland-dominated farms.

Core action: Farmers must establish a spring cereal crop on 10 per cent of the holding subject to a maximum of two hectares. The crop cannot be undersown with grass or clover, nor can it be harvested as whole crop silage.

Amount: €37 per hectare

Baseline: GAEC requirement is to maintain a minimum level of land activity that permits agricultural production to continue. There is no GAEC requirement to establish spring cereals on grassland farms. This option is only available on grassland farms, which have no existing tillage enterprise.

Minimum tillage

Objective: To encourage the use of minimum tillage practices, thereby improving soil structure and increasing soil organic matter. This will also contribute to the protection of soil biota.

Core action: Farmers must establish cereals using minimum tillage techniques.

Category 1 requirement is 14 hectares or greater. Category 2 requirement is 7 hectares or greater.

Amount: €23 per hectare

Baseline: Under Irish conditions minimum cultivation techniques are not necessary to meet GAEC requirements.

ACTION 10: Undertake training in environmentally friendly farming practices

Objective: To provide participants with information on the environmental benefits arising from agri-environmental actions and clarification on all the relevant scheme requirements

Scope and actions: Participants are required to familiarise themselves with the agri-environmental scheme requirements on an ongoing basis. Detailed documents are provided to each participant on entry into the scheme and there is an onus on all participants to inform themselves of any changes in the regulations governing GAEC or Statutory Management Requirements of the Single Payment Scheme which may require an amendment of individual farm plans.

Relevant baseline: There is no GAEC requirement to attend compulsory training associated with participation in agri-environment measures.

Core actions: Acquire the knowledge and skills to comply with the core requirements of REPS. Participants must attend a formal training course provided for under RDP, Measure 111 before the end of Year 2 of their REPS contract.

Amount: €4.40 per hectare for continuous updating of knowledge and skills to participate effectively in the scheme

143

Follow up: Verification of attendance at mandatory training course under Measure 111 will be checked before payment is made. Non-attendance will result in the freezing of payment until the commitment is honoured.

ACTION 11: Prepare, monitor and update agri-environmental plan in consultation with planner and keep such farm and environmental records as may be prescribed

Objectives: To record management information and practices undertaken throughout each year of the REPS contract in the prescribed Agri-environmental Record Sheets.

Scope and actions: The timely recording of relevant management information has long been considered the keystone for effective farm management. Use of records as a management tool will result in a consequent improvement in the efficiency and viability of the farm unit. The implementation cost of this commitment to the farmer is the time and cost involved in having a farm-specific plan prepared and maintaining records over and above SPS requirements. The keeping and production of agri-environmental records by the farmer is a key part of on-farm compliance inspections.

Relevant Baseline: Comply with annual record keeping under GAEC.

Core actions: The REPS participants must keep annual agri-environmental records by recording details of the core actions and commitments required under the agri-environmental farm plan. Records required include:

Details of land spreading, at the level of homogenous crops subject to the same soil sample, of animal and other waste whether stored or imported

Particulars regarding the ‘wintering’ of animals Newly constructed facilities Farming practices followed to avoid poaching and overgrazing. Works carried out for the protection and maintenance of watercourses. Works undertaken to retain undesignated habitats Length of repair and maintenance work carried out on farm and field boundaries Details of how noxious weeds were controlled Details of works carried on archaeological/historical features Dates and other particulars of remedial/maintenance works carried out to maintain

appearance of the farm and farmyard Details of tillage crop production system Details of training courses or demonstrations attended Details of any unplanned environmental works carried out Undertakings/grazing regime/conservation measures followed to protect Natura 2000

land and other nationally designated areas Works carried out under supplementary measures.

Amount: €16.50 per hectare

Follow up: Compliance will be checked during on-farm audits, and non-compliance will result in application of penalties.

144

Supplementary Measure—Traditional OrchardsMany varieties of native Irish fruit trees in existence are almost extinct and preserved only in seed banks. This measure will provide an incentive to ensure the survival of this unique resource. Native varieties of fruit trees may help to develop, through plant breeding techniques, new fruit cultivars, or increase the disease-resistant properties of modern varieties.

Objective: To establish orchards with traditional varieties of native fruit trees. This will contribute to the protection of our plant genetic resource and will increase the biodiversity of the local landscape and provide a habitat for wildlife on the farm

Scope and actions: This supplementary measure is available nationwide and requires participants to select specific varieties of native fruit trees to establish an orchard. The orchard must be a minimum of 500 square metres.

Relevant baseline: There is no GAEC requirement to plant orchards.

Amount: €300 per orchard per annum

Follow up: Compliance will be checked during on-farm audits, and non-compliance will result in application of penalties.

Supplementary Measure – Conservation of Animal Genetic ResourcesLocal animal breeds play a significant role in maintaining the rural environment. Supporting the conservation of these genetic resources will allow for the long-term survival of this valuable genetic material, which could otherwise become extinct. These genetic resources represent a significant element of the cultural heritage of farming in Ireland.

Costings on the rearing of animals (bovines, ovines and equines) of local breeds indicate that there is substantial opportunity costs (income) foregone with the rearing of such non-commercial breeds. There are also additional administrative costs associated with registering the animals with Breed Societies etc.

Bovines

Ovines Equines

Opportunity cost foregone (per LU) €658 €154 €80Administration costs (per LU)e.g. society membership, registration

€100 €90 €120

Transaction cost nil nil €40

The objective of this supplementary measure is to assist farmers participating in REPS to rear farm animals of local breeds, indigenous to the area, that are in danger of being lost to farming.

Supplementary Measure – Riparian ZonesMany Irish rivers and their tributaries are habitats for aquatic species (including salmonid and pearl mussel species) that are important nationally and in the wider European context. The development of riparian zones provides a suitable habitat for flora and fauna that sustain food webs important in the river ecosystem.

The objective of this supplementary measure is to provide shade to overly exposed designated river channels and water bodies, to stabilise riverbanks and to intercept nutrients transported in overland flow.

145

Supplementary Measure – LINNET34 HabitatsOver past decades, farming enterprises have become increasingly specialised in response to market demands. This has resulted in a decline in traditional mixed farming systems. These changes, together with a reduced acreage of spring cereals, have increased the pressure on populations of farmland bird species because of a reduced food supply over winter.

The objective of this supplementary measure is to alleviate the trend of landscape homogenisation and simplification by encouraging the small-scale production of cereal plots, especially in areas dominated by grassland.

Supplementary Measure – Low-Input Tillage CropsThe maintenance of the cereal or root crop for the five-year duration of the REPS contract is a significant cost of complying with the prescribed management practices in this measure. This will contribute to more efficient on-farm utilisation of organic fertilisers.

The objective of this supplementary measure is to alleviate the trend of landscape homogenisation and simplification by encouraging the small-scale production of cereal plots, especially in areas dominated by grassland.

Supplementary Measure – Minimum TillageContinuous arable production can deplete soil organic matter (carbon), leading to a weakening of soil structure and an increase in the potential for soil erosion, run-off and associated loss of soil biota. Minimum tillage will also reduce emissions of greenhouse gas both from reduced impact on the soil and from a reduction in on-farm fuel consumption.

Supplementary Measure – Traditional Sustainable GrazingThis supplementary measure encourages sustainable grazing practices in marginally farmed areas and contributes to the conservation of flora and fauna on specific habitats. The farmed landscape and associated flora and fauna of Ireland require continued active farming for its survival.

The objective of this supplementary measure is to contribute to the National Biodiversity Plan via maintenance of specific habitats for conservation of flora and fauna and prescribing grazing breeds most suitable to marginal land and the maintenance of farming on lands most vulnerable to abandonment.

Supplementary Measure – Clover SwardsThe objective of this supplementary measure is to contribute to the delivery of water quality, by promoting and encouraging the practice of incorporating clover into suitable grassland, in order to reduce dependency on nitrogenous fertilisers. The incorporation of clover into suitable swards can significantly reduce the dependence on chemical nitrogen, which, in turn, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from that source.

34 LINNET is an acronym for Land Invested in Nature, Natural Eco-Tillage

146

Supplementary Measure – Conservation of Wild Bird Habitat The corncrake is a globally threatened migratory bird which was formerly widespread in hay meadows throughout Ireland. In recent decades it has become restricted to wetlands and poor farmland, possibly because of changing farming practices.

The objective of this supplementary measure is to enhance the habitat structure and availability of breeding sites for the corncrake.

BirdWatch Ireland will be directly involved in the delivery of this supplementary measure.

Supplementary Measure – Lake CatchmentsThe restrictions on fertiliser applications in proximity to water bodies under the general scheme provisions contribute positively to water quality. However, in some specific lake catchments additional environmental management can contribute to enhanced water quality. Improved water quality can enhance the social and economic vitality of rural communities through the development of recreational and amenity potential.

A measure is proposed under Axis 4 using a bottom-up approach to include all stakeholders in developing local strategies for the management of lake catchments. When management strategies are fully developed it will be mandatory for REPS to comply with the strategy under agri-environment (this may result in a slight variation of the current presentation of this supplementary measure). In the interim, to complement and assist in the development of management strategies for the agricultural sector, it is proposed to make available as part of the REPS scheme a voluntary supplementary measure in the catchments of specific lakes. This supplementary measure will be available on a limited and voluntary basis and will initially be introduced on a pilot basis in the Corrib catchment in the west of Ireland.

Core actions: The planner will identify areas of the farm where additional management will contribute positively to enhance water quality. Pending the full development of management strategies for the lake catchment, the farm plan shall identify and map the areas of the farm to which the measure applies and include one or more of the following actions: Whole-farm reduction in Organic N by reduction in stock numbers – Reduce stocking rate

by 30kg Organic N from stocking rate in year previous to joining scheme Traditional hay meadows Species-rich grasslands Increase in water course margin Alternative drinking points—prohibit bovines from drinking directly from any

watercourse on the holding Planted buffer zones.

These actions are additional to the requirements under the core agri-environmental measure to select two biodiversity options. The baseline fertilisation limits of the Nitrates Directive shall never be exceeded on the whole farm and under no circumstances will the same action be compensated for twice under the rural development plan.

The actions relating to traditional hay meadows and species-rich grasslands will be paid according to the actual area on which they are undertaken — for example, the total payment for 0.5ha will be €60 and the payment for 1.5ha will be €180. (By contrast, the payment for similar actions as Biodiversity Options is averaged as a payment per hectare over the holding.)

This measure will be delivered in a manner that complements but does not overlap with the two proposed interventions under the Operational Programmes of the Regional Assemblies

147

concerning a water source protection measure and treatment programme for local group water schemes. No payments will be made to any individuals concerning interventions under Axis 4.

The objective of this supplementary measure is to contribute to cross-sectoral actions aimed at improving water quality.

Supplementary Measure – Mixed GrazingThe biodiversity of many grassland habitats is enhanced by maintaining or introducing a grazing regime with a mix of herbivores. Pastures grazed by mixed species produce a more diverse sward both in structure and height. The synergy between the grazing habits of cattle and sheep is well recognised and the resultant sward structure provides environmental opportunity for both flora and fauna to exploit, be it by birds, invertebrates, grass species or wild flowers. The tradition of this type of mixed grazing is found predominantly among the more extensive grassland farmers.

The objective of this measure is to maintain and increase biodiversity on grassland by encouraging mixed grazing. The measure is available to farmers who graze both bovines and ovines in a structured way that is targeted to deliver diverse swards.

This supplementary measure will therefore be available to farmers who engage in a mixed cattle/sheep livestock farm enterprise in which at least 20 per cent of the livestock units (on average) grazing the holding must be made up of the second livestock type. The livestock must graze the same sward either together or in a LEADER–follower grazing system. While the measure requires a mix of both cattle and sheep, the level of payment is calculated on the basis of the land area required for the number of sheep on the holding.

The objective of this measure is based solely on the delivery of environmental benefits and it is not production-related. To safeguard against an increase in production, Ireland will monitor national sheep numbers annually. If these approach 95 per cent of the average during the reference period for the Single Payment Scheme, this measure will be closed to new entrants.

Amount: €50 per hectare up to a maximum area of 20 hectares

Supplementary Measure—Heritage Farm buildings

Rationale for intervention Traditional farm buildings can make a significant and positive contribution to the Irish landscape. Many of the older buildings were laid out using local tried-and-tested materials, built to patterns and arrangements that made optimum use of resources. They survived and were maintained using simple materials and ingenious repairs, all of which add up to a culture of resourceful care and pride. The actions required under this measure meet the criteria of Measure 323 under Axis 3 but will be included as part of an integrated agri-environment measure under Axis 2, which is the dominant axis.

Objectives of the measureThe objective of the measure is to ensure that a number of traditional farm buildings, which contribute to the visual landscape and are of historical/architectural value, will be maintained into the future.

Scope and actions

148

Many traditional farm buildings are being lost through neglect. The timely repair (or, as a minimum, weatherproofing) of traditional farm buildings prevents dilapidation and the onset of serious structural problems, which may lead to expensive restoration in the future. Therefore, in partnership with the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Heritage Council will administer a grants scheme to REPS 4 participants on the conservation and repair of traditional farm buildings.

Definition of operations to be supportedGrants of up to €25,000 will be available to carry out approved conservation works to the exterior of farm outbuildings (roof, outside surface of walls, windows and doors) and associated structures (historic yard surfaces, landscape features around the farmyard e.g. walls, gate pillars). The traditional farm buildings must have architectural or vernacular heritage character, make a contribution to their setting and not be overwhelmed by large-scale modern buildings. Dwelling houses will not qualify under this supplementary measure.

Traditional farm buildings, which were built for a purpose associated with agriculture and which are still capable of being used for an agricultural purpose will be considered for support under this measure.

The buildings must be in fair condition, that is, they must have surviving materials that contribute to their character and which are repairable. Beneficiaries shall carry out maintenance and repair works on a ‘like for like’ basis using traditional materials and methods, in order to conserve the character of the building in its local setting. The works may be carried out by a contractor or by the farmer, but must be overseen by a competent conservation consultant.

Participants must continue to protect and maintain in weatherproof condition the specified traditional farm buildings, including fixtures and fittings and adjacent associated features such as mounting blocks or stack/stook bases. Photographs of all elevations of the building for which funding is sought shall be submitted as evidence of the condition of the building at the application stage.

All applications will be assessed by the Irish Heritage Council who will select projects that qualify for grant aid under this measure. The Heritage Council will be involved at all stages of delivery, and payment will only issue on the Council’s certification of satisfactory completion of works.

149

The REPS 4 Scheme was closed to new applicants on 9th July 2009. At that point it had almost reached its output target of 64,000 holdings receiving support. As commitments in 2009 will exceed the budgetary allocation it is not financially possible to continue to provide support for new applicants under this scheme. An Agri Environment measure funded by (a) modulation funds and (b) 50% of Ireland’s Allocation under the European Economic Recovery Plan is proposed for the purpose of addressing the new challenges of climate change, water management and biodiversity.

150

Agri-EnvironmentOrganic Farming

(Stand-alone measure)

Organic food is quality food produced to strict, legally-based, internationally-recognised standards. Organic farming represents a different view of farming systems, which places a strong emphasis on environmentally friendly practices, with particular concern for animal welfare. The principles and methods employed in organic farming promote practices that co-exist with natural systems and help protect and enhance the environment.

The objective of this measure is to promote conversion to organic production methods, thereby delivering enhanced environmental benefits and responding to supply deficits and societal demands for organic produce. Participants of this measure must hold a licence issued by one of the Certifying Bodies approved by the Department of Agriculture and Food, be registered as an organic producer with the Department’s Organic Unit, comply with the provisions of Council Regulation 2092/91 (as amended) on the organic production area of the holding and be subject to annual inspection.

Farmers may opt to convert all or part of the holding and may participate in this measure on a stand-alone basis outside of the general REPS programme. Where only part of the holding is converted the Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions and Statutory Management Requirements of the Single Payment Scheme must be respected on the entire holding.

In the interest of crop rotation and optimising output, organic producers may apply to exchange parcels of full organic status.

The payment rate will be increased for the conversion period for conventional stockless tillage producers who participate in the stand-alone organic measure only, and grow green manure during the two-year conversion process. This payment is justified on the basis that there is no market return on the area during conversion. The objective of this is to maximise the incorporation of organic matter in preparation for organic production.

Only areas declared on the Integrated Administrative and Control Systems (IACS) will be considered for payment.

151

Commonage Land outside the Natura 2000 Network

ObjectiveTo provide a comprehensive approach to the conservation and/or regeneration of non-designated commonage land

Scope and actionsThe farming conditions for commonage land are set out in Commonage Framework Plans. These plans set out the environmental condition of the commonage and appropriate agricultural activity to ensure environmental sustainability, including where necessary a reduction in the grazing pressure to be achieved by destocking of sheep.

While approximately 40 per cent of commonage land is not designated under Natura 2000, it is subject to the same restrictions as designated commonage. The difference is that for Natura commonages, the restrictions – the management prescriptions in the Commonage Framework Plans – are legally binding, whereas for non-Natura commonages they are voluntary (with the exception of the maximum stocking levels in the Framework Plans).

Therefore, in the absence of a facility to make Natura 2000 payments on this land, the agri-environment payment rate is fixed at a similar rate to Natura 2000 commonage payments. The proposed rates of payment and the justification are set out in the relevant table in Appendix 3.

Relevant baselineGAEC requires a farmer to comply with the stock numbers outlined in the Commonage Framework Plan. GAEC does not require a management regime for grazing animals. There is no mandatory requirement to retain habitats on non Natura 2000 commonage lands.

Core actionsHabitats on these non-designated commonages must be maintained under voluntary agri-environmental commitments. Farmers with non-Natura commonage cannot, inter alia, afforest the lands, carry out any land improvement works including drainage, or cut turf commercially. In addition to abiding by the GAEC requirement to implement the reduced stocking requirement set out in the relevant Commonage Framework Plan, farmers must implement a sustainable grazing regime contributing to the maintenance of the habitat and avoidance of land abandonment. This may require a farmer to maintain a sheep flock that is economically unviable.

To protect against the possibility of the submission of payment claims in respect of dormant commonage shares, eligibility for payment will normally (except in the case of inheritance, setting up young farmers and transferees under the Early Retirement Scheme) be restricted to commonage shares declared on IACS in the five years preceding the date of the REPS application.

Amount: €282 per hectare up to 40 hectares, €29 per hectare on next 40 hectares €22 per hectare on next 40 hectares and €5 per hectare for each hectare above 120 hectares

Follow up: Compliance will be checked during on-farm audits, and non-compliance will result in application of penalties.

152

Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) outside the Natura 2000 Network

ObjectiveTo provide a comprehensive approach to the conservation and/or regeneration of nationally designated sites outside of the Natura 2000 network

Scope and actionsThe basic designation for wildlife in Ireland is the Natural Heritage Area. This is a national designation and many of the NHA sites have overlapping Natura 2000 designation. Some NHA sites, however, are not designated under Natura 2000 but are important in a national context and it is these sites that this measure is designed to address. The preparation of the REPS plan requires professional environmentalist input to assess the environmental condition of the site and prescribe appropriate management practices for the retention of the habitat.

Relevant baselineGAEC requires that the land be maintained in a state that permits continued agricultural production.

Core actionsIn addition to complying with the basic core measures, farmers must implement the prescribed management regime for the maintenance of the habitat and avoidance of land abandonment. This may require a farmer to maintain livestock that are economically unviable.

Amount: €282 per hectare up to 40 hectares, €29 per hectare on next 40 hectares €22 per hectare on next 40 hectares and €5 per hectare for each hectare above 120 hectares

Follow up: Compliance will be checked during on-farm audits, and non-compliance will result in application of penalties.

The description of the methodology and of the agronomic assumptions and parametres (including the description of the baseline requirements, which are relevant for each particular type of commitment) is used as a reference point for the calculations justifying: (a) additional costs; (b) income foregone resulting from the commitment made; and (c) level of the transaction costs. Where relevant, this methodology should take into account aid granted under Regulation (EC) num. 1782/2003. Where appropriate, the conversion method should be that used for other units in accordance with Article 27.9 of the implementing rules.

A description of the methodology, assumptions, and parametres of eligible costs and aid intensity are detailed in the table of costings in Appendix 3.

The minimum requirements for fertiliser and plant protection products used and other mandatory requirements such as: minimum requirements for fertilisers must include, inter alia, the Codes of Good Practice introduced under the Nitrates Directive for farms outside Nitrate Vulnerable Zones, and requirements concerning phosphorus pollution. Minimum requirements for plant protection products must include, inter alia, requirements to have a licence to use the products and meet training obligations, requirements on safe storage, the checking of application machinery and rules on pesticide-use close to water and other sensitive sites.

153

Baseline requirements of all farmers using plant protection and biocidal products35

Only authorised or registered plant protection and biocidal products may be stored and used.

Plant protection and biocidal products must be stored, handled and used properly as specified on current approved product labels.

Plant protection products must, when appropriate, be used in accordance with the principles of integrated control.

Plant protection products must be used in accordance with the principles of good plant protection practice.

Records of acquisition, use and disposal of plant protection and biocidal products must be maintained and be produced for inspection.

Plant protection and biocidal products that are no longer approved for use must not be retained.

35 Detailed baseline inspection requirements are outlined in the Single Farm Payment Scheme Guide to Cross-compliance Requirements published by the Department of Agriculture and Food in August 2006

154

Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions referred to in Article 5 and Annex IV of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003

Issue Standards Soil erosion: Protect soil through appropriate measures – Minimum soil cover

– Minimum land management reflecting site-specific conditions

– Retain terraces

Soil organic matter: Maintain soil organic matter levels through appropriate practices

– Standards for crop rotations where applicable

– Arable stubble management

Soil structure: Maintain soil structure through appropriate measures

– Appropriate machinery use

Minimum level of maintenance: Ensure a minimum level of maintenance and avoid the deterioration of habitats

– Minimum livestock stocking rates or/and appropriate regimes

– Protection of permanent pasture

– Retention of landscape features

– Avoiding the encroachment of unwanted vegetation on agricultural land

By Government decision Ireland adopted a whole-territory approach to the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in 2003. The whole-territory approach was designed to ensure a comprehensive approach to the reduction and prevention of pollution from all agricultural sources. In line with decisions of the European Court of Justice in cases arising in other Member States, Ireland’s Nitrates Action Programme addresses reduction/prevention of pollution from phosphorus as well as from nitrogen.

The Action Programme is given legal effect by Regulation SI No. 378 of 2006.

The measures, objectives and criteria applied in the selection of beneficiaries by calls for tender are in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 39.4 of Regulation 1698/2005

155

The scheme will be open to all farmers and, accordingly, provisions relating to calls for tender are not relevant.

Evidence as referred to in Article 48(2) of the implementing rules allow the Commission to check the consistency and plausibility of the calculations. The costings have been independently verified by Teagasc.

156

Amounts of supportAmount

General REPS Programme(Core measures plus options)

€177.57 /ha up to 20ha€175 /ha for next 20ha up to 40 ha€70 /ha for the next 15ha up to 55ha€10 /ha thereafter

Non-Natura 2000 commonage and NHA land

€219.57/ha up to 40ha, €24 /ha for the next 40ha up to 80ha; €18 /ha for the next 40ha up to 120ha; and €5/ha thereafter

Supplementary Measures Amount

Rare Breeds €234 per livestock unit of the breed registered with the breed society.

Riparian Zones36 €724.50/ha up to a maximum of -4ha in respect of salmonid and crayfish sites and-4ha in respect of pearl mussel sites

Participation in LINNET Project37 First hectare €700From 1 to 2.5ha €400 per hectare

Low-Input tillage Crops €316/ha up to maximum of 2.5haMinimum Tillage €21/ha up to maximum of 40ha

Traditional Orchards €256 per holdingTraditional Sustainable Grazing €43/ha up to a maximum area of 20haMixed Grazing €43/ha up to a maximum area of 20haLake Catchments Whole-Farm Reduction in Organic N

by Reduction in Stock Numbers Traditional Hay Meadows Species Rich Grasslands Increase Water Course Margin Alternative Drinking Points Buffer Zones

€68/ha

€103/ha up to 2.5ha€103/ha up to 2.5ha€3 per 100m€4 per ha/per drinking unit€171/ha up to maximum of 2.5ha

Clover Swards €26 /ha up to max of 40haConservation of Wild Birds — Participation in Corncrake Project

€85 /ha

Organic Farming Amount

Organic Farming (55ha) €212/ha in conversion up to 55ha and €30/ha thereafter

€106/ha in full organic status up to 55ha and €15/ha thereafter

Organic Farming (≤ 6ha) €283/ha in conversion

36 The increased rate of payment is intended to target the many Irish rivers and their tributaries which are habitats for important aquatic species, including salmonid and pearl muscle species which are coming under considerable pressure. The increased payment reflects the urgency in incentivising farmers to take up this measure. The high post and wire fencing specification that also includes access gates for machinery and stiles for fishing people is a major cost of complying with the prescribed management practices in this measure.37 There has been increasing pressure on populations of farmland bird species due to reduced food supply over the winter months. The number of farmland birds continues to fall and the increased payment reflects the urgency in incentivising farmers to take up this measure. The maintenance of the cereal brassicas crop mixes for the five year duration of the REPS contract is a significant cost of complying with the prescribed management practices in this measure.

157

€142 /ha organic statusOrganic Farming additional optionApplicants (non-REPS stockless farmers) applying green cover during the conversion period

€240/ha per year up to a maximum of 40 ha for the two years of conversion

Heritage Payments Grant of 75% of total cost of works subject to a maximum of €20,000

Island farmers face additional costs because of their location. It is therefore also proposed that land farmed on offshore islands will receive an additional 15 per cent to take account of the increased costs of carrying out the agri-environment undertakings.

Cumulation of Aid

Organic Payment Plus REPS basic Plus Owned Natura orAny one ofLINNETRare BreedsTraditional OrchardsRiparian Zone

REPS basic Payment Plus One of PlusLINNETRiparianClover SwardsMinimum TillageLow Input CerealMixed GrazersTraditional Grazing

One of Rare BreedsTraditional Orchards

Wild Birds Habitat# Lake Catchment

REPS basic Payment Plus Natura 2000 PlusAnd/orNon-Natura 2000 NHA And/orNon-Natura 2000 Commonage- And/orRiparian1

Heritage Payments

One of LINNET*Clover Swards*Minimum Tillage*Low-Input Cereal*Traditional Grazers*Mixed Grazing*Rare BreedsTraditional Orchards

Wild Birds Habitat# Lake Catchment

1Where Riparian is selected none of SMs marked * in column 3 can be chosen.#Lake Catchment SM will have limited application to specific lakes.

For plant genetic resources under threat of genetic erosion, evidence of genetic erosion based upon scientific results and indicators for the occurrence of landraces/primitive (local) varieties, their population diversity and the prevailing agricultural practices at local level Not Applicable

For conservation of genetic resources in agriculture: types of beneficiaries, of operations and details on eligible costs

The increased rate of payment for

158

Beneficiaries: Farmers participating in agri-environment measure

The list of local breeds in danger of being lost to farming and the number of breeding females concerned. That number must be certified by a duly recognised technical body – or breeders’ organisation/association – which must register and keep up to date the herd or flock books for the breed. The body concerned must possess the necessary skills and knowledge to identify animals of the breeds in danger.

Breeds and numbersCattle Kerry 613

Dexter 2,053Irish Maol (or Moiled) 392

Equines Connemara Pony 1728Irish Draught 1038Kerry Bog Pony 49

Sheep Galway 707

Financing Total Cost: €1,941,188,041 Public Expenditure: €1,941,188,041

Transition arrangements (including estimated amount)Agri-Environment commitments under the REPS Scheme undertaken under Council Regulation (EC) No. 1257/1999 in respect of the 2000-2006 Programming period involving payments to be made after 31 December 2006, as well as expenditure related to on-going commitments in respect of participants transforming to new commitments under REPS 4, shall be funded under the new Programme. The likely level of take up of transformation to REPS 4 is reflected in the estimated ongoing commitment of €890 million.

159

Quantified targets for EU common indicators

Type of indicator Indicator Target

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

64,000

Total area under agri-environmental support 2.25m hectaresTotal number of contracts 64,000Physical area under agri-environmental support

2.25m hectares

Number of actions related to genetic resources

10 actions

Result Areas under successful land management 2.2538m hectares

Impact

Reversal in biodiversity decline Increase in farmland bird index Increase in unpolluted length of rivers

Average no. of habitats on non-target area

Decline halted 100 72 per cent of

length maintain 1 per

farm

Maintenance of high nature value farmland and forestry

Maintenance of quality farm buildings Protection of archaeological features No. of new features discovered

Likert landscape assessment

750,000ha

1 per farm 1 per farm 10 per cent

increase 0.75 or

higher Improvement in water quality: Increase in unpolluted length of rivers

Decrease of slightly/moderately polluted length Soil P index

Fertiliser P use Reduced Chemical N use

Increase 72 per cent of

length 31 per cent of

length 75 per cent of

samples @ 2/3 5kg/ha 20 per cent

compared to non-REPS

Contribution to combating climate change Positive

38 Inclusive of area under M216

160

Programme-specific indicatorsREPS criteria(e-REPS* = electronic mapping system)

DAF REPS

e-REPS*

Action 1: Nutrient ManagementAverage area farmed (ha) Average planned organic Nitrogen per hectare Farm enterprise breakdown by category REPS contract area to be managed according to REPS specification (ha.)

Proportion of farms part of an NHA Average payment received (Euro) Average area of land identified which can take animal/other waste (ha)

Average potential of grassland to take animal and other wastes (Kg/ha)

Proportion of facilities for fodder/silage effluent which satisfy REPS

Proportion of farms where animal housing satisfies REPS Number of buildings requiring remedial work for animal housing

Number of new buildings required for animal housing Proportion of farms where storage for farm wastes satisfies REPS

Number of buildings requiring remedial work for farm wastes Proportion of farms with grassland areas sensitive to damage from poaching

Action 2: Grassland ManagementStocking densities recommended to avoid poaching (Ha/livestock unit)

Area devoted to traditional hay meadows Area devoted to species-rich grassland Area (ha) of farm with clover in swards Number of farms with mixed livestock enterprises Number of farms using trailing shoe method of slurry spreading Litres of slurry spread using trailing shoe method No. of farms where trailing shoe method of slurry spreading is used

Number of farms managing invasive species

Action 3: Protection of WatercoursesNumber of farms with wells/watercourses that require protection

Average length of water courses per participant (m) Average length of watercourse fencing required per participant (m)

Average length of watercourse maintenance per participant (m) Uptake of Option 3A per county (increased watercourse margin)

Length (m) of increased watercourse margin Uptake of Option 3B per countyUptake of Option 3C per county (Reduce nutrient inputs and protect vulnerable soils in catchments)

Area (ha) for Option 3C

161

DAF REPS

e-REPS

Action 4: Retain Wildlife HabitatsNumber of farms with non-target wildlife habitats for retention Area (ha) of non-target habitats identified for protection per farm

Type and area (ha) of non-target habitats identified Uptake of Option 4A (create a new habitat) per county Average area (ha) of Option 4A per participant Uptake of Option 4B (planting trees) per county Average number of trees planted per participant Uptake of Option 4C (nature corridors) per county Uptake of Option 4D (establish farm woodland) per county Area (ha) of farm woodland established

Action 5: Maintain Farm and Field BoundariesAverage length (m) of farm boundary hedgerows to be retained per farm

Average length (m) of farm boundary stone walls to be retained per farm

Average length (m) of ‘other’ farm boundary to be retained per farm

Average length (m) of internal hedgerows to be retained per farm

Average length (m) of internal stone walls to be retained per farm

Average length (m) of ‘other’ internal boundary to be retained per farm

Average length (m) of hedgerows to be maintained during the plan per farm

Average length (m) of stone walls to be repaired during plan per farm

Uptake of Option 5A (coppicing of hedgerows) per county Average length (m) of hedgerow coppiced per participant Uptake of Option 5B (laying of hedgerows) per county Average length (m) of hedgerow laid per participant Uptake of Option 5C (plant new hedgerows) per county Average length (m) of new hedgerows planted per participant Uptake of Option 5D (additional stone wall maintenance) per county

Average length (m) of additional stone wall maintained per farm

Action 6: Restricted use of pesticides and fertilisersIndicators for this measure are extrapolated from indicators of measures 3, 4 and 5.Action 7: Establish biodiversity buffer strips around features of historical or archaeological interest Number of farms with features of historical/archaeological interest

Number of new unrecorded archaeological features identified per county

Uptake of Option 7A (increased archaeological site margins) per county

Number of sites per applicant under option 7A Number of sites managed under option 7B

162

DAF REPS

e-REPS

Action 8: Visual Appearance of Farm and FarmyardPercentage of farms with quality farm buildings for retention per county

Uptake of Option 8A (traditional orchards) per county

Action 9: TillageNumber of farms per county with declared tillage Number of farms per county with Option 9A (green cover establishment)

Area (ha) of option 9A per farm Number of farms per county with Option 9B (env. management of set-aside)

Area (ha) of option 9B per farm Number of farms per county with Option 9C (increased arable margins)

Length (m) of increased arable margins per farm Number of farms per county with Option 9D (low-input cereals/root crops)

Area (ha) of option 9D per farm Number of farms per county with Option 9E (bio-energy crops) Area (ha) of option 9E per farm Number of farms per county with Option 9F (minimum tillage crops)

Area (ha) of option 9F per farm

Conservation of Animal Genetic ResourcesNumber of farmers availing of Supplementary Measure – Conservation of animal genetic resources

Average annual SM payment per farm Number of animals supported (by breed)

Riparian ZonesNumber of farmers availing of SM – riparian zones (by species) Area (ha) of land under riparian zones by county

163

DAF REPS e-REPSLINNETNumber of farmers availing of SM—Linnet Area (ha) of land in SM—Linnet

Low Input Tillage CropsNumber of farmers availing of SM – Low-input tillage crops Area (ha) of land in SM – low input tillage crops

Minimum TillageNumber of farmers availing of SM – minimum tillage Area (ha) of land in SM – minimum tillage

Traditional Farm Enterprises

Number of farms with recreated traditional orchards Number of farms with bird/bat boxes

Traditional GrazersNumber of farmers availing of SM – traditional grazers

Mixed GrazingNumber of farmers availing of SM – mixed grazing LU receiving payment under SM Area of land farmed under SM

Clover swardNumber of farmers availing of SM – clover sward Area (ha) of land in SM – clover sward

Conservation of Wild Bird HabitatNumber of participants in SM – conservation of wild bird habitat Average area of SM – conservation of wild bird habitat

Heritage BuildingsNumber of farmers availing of SM – heritage buildings Number of traditional farm buildings conserved

Organic FarmingNumber of farms engaging in organic farming Number of farms with partial conversion of holding Average organic N per hectare per participant Area (ha) grassland farmed as organic Area (ha) arable land farmed as organic Area (ha) horticulture farmed as organic

164

Indicators baseline

Indicator Data source/Year

Baseline Target 2013

REPS Soil Sample @ P Index 1 (per cent) Teagasc 2006 15 12REPS Soil Sample @ P Index 2 (per cent) Teagasc 2006 38 25REPS Soil Sample @ P Index 3 (per cent) Teagasc 2006 25 43REPS Soil Sample @ P Index 4 (per cent) Teagasc 2006 22 20Average REPS soil P (mg/l) Teagasc 2006 7.67 6.5Non-REPS Soil Sample @ P Index 1 (per cent) Teagasc 2006 15 15Non-REPS Soil Sample @ P Index 2 (per cent) Teagasc 2006 33 22Non-REPS Soil Sample @ P Index 3 (per cent) Teagasc 2006 25 33Non-REPS Soil Sample @ P Index 4 (per cent) Teagasc 2006 27 30Average Non-REPS soil P (mg/l) Teagasc 2006 9.16 8.0Organic N/ha UAA (ext) NFS39 2005 97.3kg 90.0kg Chemical N/ha UAA NFS 2005 94.8kg 60.0kg Organic P/ha UAA NFS 2005 14.9kg 15.0kg Chemical P/ha UAA NFS 2005 12.3kg 7.0kg National sales of Chemical N (ton) DAF 2005/06 345,154 320,000National sales of Chemical P (ton) DAF 2005/06 37,209 30,000Average lime requirement (t/ha) Teagasc 2006 4.4 4.0Average length of watercourse per farm (m/ha) eREPS 27 27Average no. of non-designated habitats/farm eREPS 2 2Average area of habitat (ha) eREPS 2.24 2.5Average total length of hedgerow/farm (m/ha) eREPS 110 112Average total length of stonewall/farm (m/ha) eREPS 16 17Average total length of other/farm (m/ha) eREPS 80 80No. of grassland tillage farms eREPS 4,000 5,000Area spring cereals (national – ha) DAF 187,000 192,000Average no. of traditional stone buildings/farm DAF 1 1Average no. of features/farm on SMR DAF 1 1Average no. of new features not previously recorded

eREPS 4000 1500

Number of farmers availing of Supplementary measure – conservation of animal genetic resources

DAF 2006 560 650

Number of livestock units under supplementary measure – conservation of animal genetic resources- Kerry cow DAF 2006 235 350- Dexter DAF 2006 0 10- Irish Maol DAF 2006 0 15- Irish Draught DAF 2006 129 140- Connemara DAF 2006 300 330- Kerry bog pony DAF 2006 0 20- Galway ewe DAF 2006 45 80Average payment per participant DAF 2006 €850 (194

payments) i.e. 4.25 LU

6 LU

No. of farmers availing of riparian zone SM DAF 2006 260 400Area of land under riparian management DAF 2006 427 ha 800 haNumber of farmers availing of SM – LINNET DAF 2006 1,378 3,000Area (ha) of land in SM – Linnet DAF 2006 2,112 ha 5,000haNumber of farmers availing of traditional Orchards

DAF 2006 150 500

No of farmers availing of traditional grazing supplementary measure

DAF 0 3000

39 National Farm Survey

165

Indicator Data source/Year

Baseline Target 2013

Area of clover swards DAF 0 110,000haArea of low-input cereals DAF 0 9,000haArea of farm woodland DAF 0 1,300haLength of hedgerow rejuvenation DAF 1,200km 3,200kmLength of hedgerow establishment DAF 1,800km 4,800kmLength of trad. stonewall maintenance DAF 800km 1,500kmBroadleaved tree planting (number of trees)

DAF 150,000 400,000

Traditional hay meadows DAF 3,000ha 20,000haBiomass crops 0 1,000haMixed farming system 0 220,000haUse of trailing shoe 0 6,000 farmersUse of planted buffer zones 0 500haMinimum tillage 0 10,000haNest boxes 150 farmers 1000 farmersCreation of new habitat 1,500ha 3,800haGreen cover establishment 910 ha 1,000haEnvironmental management of set-aside 0 3,300haIncreased arable margins 3,000m 38,000mIncreased water course margins 15,000m 55,000mNature corridors DAF 2006 16,000 farmers 16,000 farmersIncreased biodiversity buffer zone 0 7,000 sitesOrganic farming – participants

grass (ha)cereals (ha)horticulture (ha)

DAF 2006 1,100 farmers 4,000 farmers70,000ha2,200ha1,300ha

166

Participation/area targets, showing relevance to water quality, climate change, landscape and biodiversity

Measure* WCLBIndicator TargetConservation of Wild Birds Supp. ● ● ● Uptake of various

measures 1,000 farmers Rare Breeds Supp. ● ● 1,000 farmers Riparian Zones Supp. ● ● ● ● 400 farmers LINNET Habitat Supp. ● ● ● 3,000 farmers

Traditional Grazers Supp. ● ● ● 3,000 farmersMixed Grazing Supp. ● ● 10,000 farmersTraditional Orchards Supp. ● ● ● ● 500 farmers Clover Swards Supp/

Opt● ● ●

110,000haLow-Input Cereals/Root Crops etc.

Supp/Opt

● ● ● ●9,000ha

Woodland/Forestry Opt. ● ● ● ● 1,300haHedgerow Rejuvenation Opt. ● ● 3,200kmNew Hedgerow Establishment Opt. ● ● ● 4,800kmAdditional Stone Wall Maintenance

Opt. ●1,500km

Broadleaved Tree Planting Opt. ● ● ● ● 400,000 treesTraditional Hay Meadows Opt. ● ● ● 20,000haSpecies-Rich Grassland Opt. ● ● ● 20,000haBiomass only Opt. ● ● ● 1,000haIntroduce Mixed Farming System Opt. ● ● ● 220,000haUse of Trailing Shoe Opt. ● ● 6,000 farmersSoil Phosphorus Reduction Opt. ● 500haMinimum Tillage Opt. ● 10,000haNesting Boxes Opt. ● 1,000 farmersCreation of New Habitat Opt. ● ● ● 3,800haGreen Cover Establishment Opt. ● ● ● 1000haEnvironmental set-aside Management

Opt. ●3,300ha

Increased Arable Margins Opt. ● 38,000m Increased Watercourse Margin Opt. ● ● ● 55,000mNature Corridors Opt. ● ● ● 16,000 farmersIncrease Archaeological Buffer Zone*

Opt. ●7,000 sites

Organic Farming ● ● ●Grass 216,500,000haCereals 2,200haHorticulture 1,300ha

* W = Water Quality C = Climate Change L = Landscape B = Biodiversity

167

Agri-Environmental Payments[Agri Environment Options Scheme (AEOS)]

Legal basis:Article 36 (a) (iv) and 39 of Regulation (EC) No. 1698/05

Article 27 and point 5.3.2.1.4 of Annex II Regulation (EC) N. 1974/06

Measure Code: 214

Integrated MeasureIn accordance with Article 70(7) of Regulation 1698/2005 and Article 42 of Regulation 1974/2006 the agri-environment measure will comprise an integrated measure.

Parts of Options 2, 3, 7, 9, 11 and 12 comprise investment actions and are classified under measure code 216. These options are integrated into Measure 214. The 216 measures will be subject to the control regime applicable to investments but with payments spread over the period of the contract.

Rationale for interventionThe current modification will fund measures that will address the new challenges of biodiversity, water management and, to a lesser extent, climate change. Irish agriculture is predominantly extensive and grass-based. Tillage occupies some 10 per cent of utilisable agricultural area (UAA); most of the remainder is devoted to cattle and sheep farming. Seventy five per cent of UAA is currently categorised as disadvantaged, and 77 per cent of farmers qualify for less favoured areas (LFAs) payments. Traditional farming practices have produced a landscape that is rich in biodiversity but recent trends and developments, particularly the decoupling of direct payments from production, threaten to cause a decline in farming activity with an accompanying loss of biodiversity. The OECD in its Environmental Performance Review of Ireland 2009 has identified a number of problems and has recommended specifically that Ireland “improve the match between spending on agri-environmental measures and ecological needs, e.g. by placing more emphasis on measures in or near Natura 2000 sites”.

Objectives of the measure:The objectives of AEOS are to meet the challenges of conserving and promoting biodiversity, encouraging water management and water quality measures and combating climate change.

168

In line with the commitments under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the EU’s Strategy for Halting the Loss of Biodiversity and ongoing work on Ireland’s second National Biodiversity Plan, the primary focus of the Scheme is biodiversity conservation.

The secondary focus of the Scheme is water management (including measures to improve water quality). This choice of priorities takes into account the fact that substantial measures have already been taken to limit the threat to water quality from farming. In 2006, Ireland introduced Regulations40 giving effect to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. A programme of investment in farm waste management, partly grant-aided by some €1.2 billion in national funds, has resulted in the construction of some 5.8 million cubic metres of additional waste storage since 2006. Recognising the requirement under the Water Framework Directive to achieve “good quality water status” by 2015 and the part that farmers can play in achieving that objective, the Scheme will promote actions that contribute to the quality of our waters.

The third chosen priority is climate change. The Scheme includes actions that will offer some reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from tillage farming and raise awareness of the issue amongst farmers.

Ireland has promoted agri-environmental farming in the form of the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS) since its inception in 1994. The proposed AEOS will build upon the gains made in conservation management under REPS, and will specifically target Natura 2000 sites and areas whose landscape and biodiversity have resulted from traditional farming methods. Such areas are an essential component of the EU’s internal policy on biodiversity protection.

The scheme will be open to all farmers, with priority being given to those whose holdings are in areas of greatest importance in terms of biodiversity and water quality.

Scope and actions:This scheme builds on the success of previous actions both under the 2000–2006 Programme and the current Programme, with an increased emphasis on a pro-active approach to biodiversity, water management and climate changes objectives.

In the case of derogation farmers under the Nitrates Directive, no payment will be made for the non-application of fertiliser or for the reduced use of fertiliser under this scheme.

Demarcation with Pillar I Article 68 Burren Farming for Conservation Scheme (BFCS)

40 European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 378 of 2006)

169

Measure 1 of BFCS relates to Production of Species Rich Limestone Grassland, Measure 2 relates to Site Enhancement Works and Measure 3 relates to Protection of Designated land and other areas of Annex1 Habitat.

Beneficiaries under the Burren Farming for Conservation Scheme (BFCS) may as an exception receive support under this measure in the first instance in respect of Measures 1 & 3 of the BFCS.

This exception is granted for budgetary reasons. Both beneficiaries who are currently under contract under this measure and new entrants, will be paid under this measure.

Administrative Rules Applicants under both the BFCS and this measure will be paid under

this measure in respect of actions under Measures 1 & 3 of the BFCS Applicants under both the BFCS and this measure will be paid under

the BFCS in respect of actions under Measure 2 of the BFCS. Applicants under the BFCS only, will receive payment in respect of

actions under the three measures under the BFCS

General:To ensure the best agri-environmental outcome and to ensure that commitments do not exceed the funds available, a selective approach will apply to applications, though the scheme will be open to all. There will be an initial environmental profiling of all farmers who express a wish to participate in the Scheme, to identify those whose holdings are in areas of greatest importance in terms of biodiversity and water quality.

Entry Requirements:(1) Habitats of highest importanceProspective applicants whose farms include one of the following habitats will rank highest in the environmental profiling which constitutes the screening process for entry to the scheme.

o Natura habitato Non-Natura Commonage

Successful applicants with these habitats will be required to manage them in accordance with a Sustainable Management Plan. Plans will be assessed to ensure that they are of an acceptable standard and appropriate to the particular habitat.

It will be open to these applicants to choose one or more additional options, either ‘biodiversity’, ‘water quality’ or ‘climate change’ provided they are relevant to the environmental profile of the farm in question.

(2) Other Habitats

170

To achieve a wider geographical spread of participants, farms with habitats not included in category (1) will be allowed to choose 2 or more options. Preference will be given to those meeting an identified environmental need, for example:

o Situation in an area of concern in terms of water quality o Situation in a non-designated area where bird species are at risko Choice of a genetic resource measureo Presence of non-designated Species Rich Grasslands

Farmers will be required to choose a relevant option aligned to the need being addressed, as well as a complementary option or options.

Scoring SystemDepending on the level and profile of subscribers, and in order to align participation with the objectives of the scheme, a scoring system will be applied to applications and will be based on some or all of the following criteria:

Type of habitat Status of habitat Status of water quality Level of threat to bird species Environmental value of options chosen Area or number of units chosen Previous participation in an agri-environment measure Any other relevant factor

Those who score highest in this screening process will be invited to apply for the scheme and select the actions they propose to carry out under it. Their applications will be assessed to make certain that the environmental value of the proposed undertakings are consistent with the priorities of biodiversity, water management and climate change. Individual undertakings may be altered or restricted on their environmental merits and to limit the level of payment. In any case, a maximum payment per farmer will apply. Farmers will be required to carry out their farming activity in accordance with their commitments for a period of at least 5 years.

Structure of the Scheme:Payment will be for actions going beyond the baseline of GAEC and cross-compliance; this baseline will apply to the whole farm. The applicant will be invited to select actions appropriate to his environmental profile, with the possibility of choosing one or more additional options which must have specific relevance to the holding in question. The applicant may be required to undertake actions different from those he has proposed, if in the opinion of the Department they would make a greater contribution to the objectives of the Scheme.

Agri-environment commitments may be adjusted during the period for which they apply, on consent of the competent authority, provided that the adjustment is duly justified having regard to the objectives of the commitment.

171

The table below sets out the actions consistent with the new challenges and levels of support available.

The costings of the measures set out in Appendix 3A have been independently verified by Teagasc. Full details relating to the status of Teagasc and the verification process are set out in Appendix 6.

Where the relevant mandatory standards or requirements established pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 and its Annexes, the minimum requirements for fertiliser and plant protection product use and other relevant mandatory requirements established by national legislation are amended, the agri-environment contract shall be adjusted to take account of any such legislative changes. If the beneficiary does not accept such adjustment, the commitment shall expire and reimbursement shall not be required.

172

Actions and Amounts of Support

Action No. Area of Application

Description of Action and Objective Payment Controls

1.Commonage land outside Natura network

Commonage areas not designated as Natura sites

Objective: Conservation and regeneration of commonage land.

Core Actions: Habitats on these non-designated commonages must be maintained under voluntary agri-environmental commitments. Farmers with non-Natura commonage cannot, inter alia, afforest the lands, carry out any land improvement works including drainage, or cut turf commercially. In addition to abiding by the GAEC requirement to implement the reduced stocking requirement set out in the relevant Commonage Framework Plan, farmers must implement a sustainable grazing regime contributing to the maintenance of the habitat and avoidance of land abandonment. This may require a farmer to maintain a sheep flock that is economically unviable.

€75 /ha OtSC: visual inspection

Cross checks to IACS databases

2.Establishment and maintenance of habitats

National Objective: Conservation & creation of areas of high biodiversity on farmland.

Core Actions: New Grass HabitatsCreate 2.5m uncultivated field margin resulting in loss of productionFence habitat to restrict livestock access at certain points in the year.#

Maintenance of margin by grazing with animals

€0.05/m

€0.03/m

OtSC: visual inspection

Cross checks to IACS databases

3.Tree Planting & Management

NationalObjective: Conservation & creation of areas of high biodiversity on farmland.#

Core Action: Planting and maintenance in each year of undertaking of native trees with particular emphasis on broad leaved species.a) Standard:

173

Tree (broadleaf tree) €20.009m of fence @ €3.30 /m €29.70Supporting stake & Guard €3.00Planting 1 hr @ €10/hr €10.00TOTAL PER TREE €62.70/ tree

b) Planting whips (min 1.2m high) cost of whip €2.50supporting stake €2.00tree planting and guard €5.00TOTAL COST PER WHIP* €9.50*these costs have been independently verified by Teagasc

4.Traditional Hay Meadows

National Objective To provide greater biodiversity by allowing grasses and wild flowers to mature and seed.

Core Actions: Meadow must not be mowed before 1st July.Inefficient work practices

€314/ha

OtSC: visual inspection

Cross checks to IACS databases

5.Species Rich Grasslands

National Objective To provide greater biodiversity by allowing grasses and wild flowers to mature and seed.

Core Action: Maintaining species rich grasslands by-fertilizer limited to 30kg per hectare-specific grazing regime to preserve the habitat.-topping permitted only after 15th July.

€314/ha

OtSC: visual inspectionCross checks to IACS databases

Reduced to €314/ha

174

6.Animal Genetic Resources

National Objective: The conservation of genetic resources in danger of being lost to farming.

Core Actions: Rear & mate herbivore of specific native breeds. Be a member of the approved breed society.Register offspring with the relevant breed society.Maintain records

€200/LU

Animal G Resources:Cross check with databases.Cross check with relevant breed society. Records & herd books.OtSC.Inspection of supporting documentation. Annual declaration by beneficiary

7. Traditional Orchards

National Objective: The conservation of genetic resources in danger of being lost to farming.

Core Actions: Establish non-commercial orchard with traditional top fruit varieties selected from a published list on vigorous rootstocks.#

10 trees planted at 7 m spacings, to a minimum of 0.05 ha Income foregone

€5/tree

8.Wild bird Cover

National Objective: to provide a food source for wild birds and alleviate the trend of landscape homogenisation and simplification by encouraging the small-scale production of cereal plots, especially in areas dominated by grassland.

Core Actions: Establish, on suitable, grassland plots a low –input arable crop to provide cover and winter food source for farmland birds

€869/ha

Wild Bird Cover:OtSC: visual inspection

Cross checks to IACS databases.

175

9.Hedgerow Planting & Rejuvenation

NationalObjective: To maintain and enhance immovable boundary fences, stonewalls and hedgerows in the interest of stock control, bio-security, wildlife and the scenic appearance of the area

Core Actions: Plant new additional hedgerows on suitable sites#Income forgone

Laying of existing hedgerows Labour

Coppicing of existing hedgerowsLabour and machine hire

€2.50/m/yr

€8m

€5/m

Cons. of wild bird habitats:OtSC: visual inspection

Cross checks to IACS databases.Certificate of compliance from BirdWatch Ireland

10.Traditional Dry Stone wall Maintenance

Objective: To maintain and enhance immovable boundary fences, stonewalls and hedgerows in the interest of stock control, bio-security, wildlife and the scenic appearance of the area

Core Actions: Follow an annual wall maintenance programme for the farm. Livestock must be present on the farm and commonage lands are not eligible.

€50 per 100m

OtSC: visual inspection

Cross checks to IACS databases

# These options form part of Measure 216

176

Action No. Area of Application

Description of Action and Objective Payment Controls

11.Riparian Margins

National Objective: To protect water quality by creating a buffer thereby intercepting nutrients that may be transported by overland flow.

Core Actions:Creation of a permanently fenced margin adjacent to identified watercourses.This land cannot be used for agricultural production, but must be maintained annually.

Fence to prohibit animal access#

2.5 metre wide uncultivated strip along watercourse resulting in quantifiable loss of production plus annual maintenance cost

5 metre margin resulting in loss of production and annual maintenance cost

10 metre margin resulting in loss of production and annual maintenance cost

30 metre margin resulting in loss of production and annual maintenance cost.

€0.14/m

€0.34/m

€0.74/m

€2.70/m

OtSC: visual inspection

Cross checks to IACS databases.

12.Provision of alternative water source for bovines.

National Objective: To protect water quality and avoid physical damage to the watercourse by preventing bovine access to watercourses.#

Core Actions No bovine access to drinking points on watercourses adjacent to lands.

Fence off any water access drinking points. Install water trough with piped water in suitable location 10 m from watercourse

# These options form part of Measure 216

177

Action No. Area of Application

Description of Action and Objective Payment Controls

13.Arable Margins

National Objective: To increase carbon sequestration by grassing down arable land.

Core Actions: Create 3-metre wide margin around the periphery of arable fields.

Mow margin each year post 15th August.

€0.23/m

OtSC: visual inspection

Cross checks to IACS databases.

14.Green Cover Establishment from a sown crop.

National Objective: Increase soil organic matter (Carbon Sink)

Core Actions-very light tilling of soil to prepare seedbed.-sowing specific green cover crop (e.g. mustard) at prescribed rate-post sowing rolling- annual rotation may take place for the duration of the contract subject to the annual establishment of a Green Cover area at least equal to the area declared in year 1.

€80/ha

OtSC: visual inspection

Cross checks to IACS databases.

15.Use of trailing shoe technology

National Objective: To contribute to reductions in Nitrous Oxide emissions.

Core Actions:All slurry on farm must be spread using trailing shoe or injection system by 1st June

€0.77/cubic metre

OtSC: visual inspection

Cross checks to IACS databases.

16.Min Till

National Objective: To encourage the use of minimum tillage practices, thereby improving soil structure and increasing soil organic matter. This will also contribute to the protection of soil biota.

Core action: Farmers must establish cereals using minimum tillage techniques

€23/ha

OtSC: visual inspection

Cross checks to IACS databases.

178

Financing

– Total cost: €96,762,767

– Public expenditure: €96,762,767

Transition arrangements:

Not applicable

Quantified targets for EU common indicators

Overall AEOS Scheme indicators

Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support 15,000Total area under agri-environmental support 225,000 haTotal number of contracts 15,000Physical area under agri-environmental support 225,000 haNumber of actions related to genetic resources 1

Result Areas under successful land management 225,000 ha

Impact

Reversal in biodiversity decline (farmland bird species population) Decline haltedChange in high nature value areas Decline haltedChanges in gross nutrient balance N/aIncrease in production of renewable energy N/a

179

Option Specific Indicators (by priority)

BIODIVERSITY

Commonage land outside Natura NetworkType of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 7,500Total area under agri-environmental

support 187,500 haTotal number of contracts 7,500

Physical area under agri-environmental support 187,500 ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources N/A

Result Areas under successful land management 187,500 ha

Impact

Protection of birds and other wildlife and improvement of biotope network,

reducing entry of harmful substances in bordering habitats, conservation of

protected fauna and flora- area of land 187,500 ha

Establishment and Maintenance of HabitatsType of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support5,631

Total area under agri-environmental support 2,816 ha

Total number of contracts5,631

Physical area under agri-environmental support 2,816 ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources N/A

Result Areas under successful land management 2,816 ha

Impact

Protection of birds and other wildlife and improvement of biotope network,

reducing entry of harmful substances in bordering habitats, conservation of

protected fauna and flora

- Ha of wildlife habitats created 2,816 ha

180

Tree Planting and Management Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 678Total area under agri-environmental

support 67.5 haTotal number of contracts 678

Physical area under agri-environmental support 67.5 ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources N/A

Result Areas under successful land management 67.5 ha

Impact

Protection of birds and other wildlife and improvement of biotope network,

reducing entry of harmful substances in bordering habitats, conservation of

protected fauna and flora- No. of trees planted 13,565 trees

Traditional Hay MeadowsType of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 2,436Total area under agri-environmental

support 9,746 haTotal number of contracts 2,436

Physical area under agri-environmental support 9,746 ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources N/A

Result Areas under successful land management 9,746 ha

Impact

Conservation of species rich vegetation types, production and maintenance of

grasslands-Ha of traditional hay meadow 9,746 ha

181

Species Rich GrasslandType of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 2,436Total area under agri-environmental

support 9,746 haTotal number of contracts 2,436

Physical area under agri-environmental support 9,746 ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources N/A

Result Areas under successful land management 9,746 ha

Impact

Conservation of species rich vegetation types, production and maintenance of

grasslands- Ha of species rich grassland 9,746 ha

Conservation of Animal Genetic ResourcesType of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 818Total area under agri-environmental

support 27,000 haTotal number of contracts 818

Physical area under agri-environmental support 27,000 ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources 1

Result Areas under successful land management 27,000 ha

Impact Conservation of genetic resources- LU’s supported 8,168 LUs

182

Traditional OrchardsType of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 908Total area under agri-environmental

support 45 haTotal number of contracts 908

Physical area under agri-environmental support 45 ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources 1

Result Areas under successful land management 45 ha

Impact Conservation of genetic resources- No. of traditional trees planted 9,075 trees

Wild Bird CoverType of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 1,502Total area under agri-environmental

support 3,003 haTotal number of contracts 1,502

Physical area under agri-environmental support 3,003 ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources N/A

Result Areas under successful land management 3,003 ha

Impact

Protection of birds and other wildlife and improvement of biotope network,

reducing entry of harmful substances in bordering habitats, conservation of

protected fauna and flora- Ha of wild bird cover 3,003 ha

183

Hedgerow Planting and Rejuvenation Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 1,775Total area under agri-environmental

support 354,954 mTotal number of contracts 1,775

Physical area under agri-environmental support 354,954 m

Number of actions related to genetic resources N/A

Result Areas under successful land management 354,954 m

Impact

Protection of birds and other wildlife and improvement of biotope network,

reducing entry of harmful substances in bordering habitats, conservation of

protected fauna and flora- m of hedgerow rejuvenated 354,954 m

Dry Stone Wall MaintenanceType of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 1,815Total area under agri-environmental

support 1,815,000 mTotal number of contracts 1,815

Physical area under agri-environmental support 1,815,000 m

Number of actions related to genetic resources N/A

Result Areas under successful land management 1,815,000 m

Impact

Protection of birds and other wildlife and improvement of biotope network,

reducing entry of harmful substances in bordering habitats, conservation of

protected fauna and flora- m of dry stone walls maintained 1,815,000 m

184

WATER QUALITY

Riparian MarginsType of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 2,760Total area under agri-environmental

support 4,140 haTotal number of contracts 2,760

Physical area under agrienvironmental support 4,140 ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources N/A

Result Areas under successful land management 4,140 ha

Impact

Conservation of high-value water bodies, protection and improvement of

water quality- area of riparian margin 4,140 ha

Provision of Alternative Water Source for BovinesType of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 4,688Total area under agri-environmental

support18,750 alternative

water sourcesTotal number of contracts 4,688

Physical area under agrienvironmental support

18,750 alternative water sources

Number of actions related to genetic resources N/A

Result Areas under successful land management

18,750 alternative water sources

ImpactChanges in gross nutrient balance

Protection and improvement of water quality

Surplus reduced

18,750 alternative water sources

185

CLIMATE CHANGE

Arable MarginsType of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 2030Total area under agri-environmental

support 2,739 haTotal number of contracts 2030

Physical area under agrienvironmental support 2,739 ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources N/A

Result Areas under successful land management 2,739 ha

Impact Contributing to combating climate change Positive

Green CoverType of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 1,032Total area under agri-environmental

support 10,313 haTotal number of contracts 1,032

Physical area under agrienvironmental support 10,313 ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources N/A

Result Areas under successful land management 10,313 ha

Impact Contributing to combating climate change Positive

186

Trailing Shoe Technology Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 2,061Total area under agri-environmental

support 535,715m3

Total number of contracts 2,061Physical area under agrienvironmental

support 535,715m3

Number of actions related to genetic resources N/A

Result Areas under successful land management 535,715m3

Impact

Contributing to combating climate change

Reduction of Nitrous OxideReduction of Ammonia

Positive3,536kg

173,573kg

Min-TillType of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving

support 599Total area under agri-environmental

support 17,934 haTotal number of contracts 599

Physical area under agri-environmental support 17,934 ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources N/A

Result Areas under successful land management 17,934 ha

Impact Contribution to combating climate change. Positive

187

Agri-Environment

Measure 214

Overall Measure Level Indicators

Type of indicator Indicator REPS Target

AEOS Overall Scheme Indicators

AEOS & REPS Combined

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

64,000 15,000 79,000

Total area under agri-environmental support

2.25m hectares 225,000 ha 2.48 m hectares

Total number of contracts

64,000 15,000 79,000

Physical area under agri-environmental support

2.25m hectares 225,000 ha 2.48 m hectares

Number of actions related to genetic resources

10 actions 1 11 actions

Result Areas under successful land management

2.25m hectares 225,000 ha 2.48 m hectares

Impact

Reversal in biodiversity decline

Increase in farmland bird index

Increase in unpolluted length of rivers

Average no. of habitats on non-target area

Decline halted 100 72 per cent of

length maintain 1 per

farm

Reversal in biodiversity decline (Farmland bird species population)

Decline halted

Reversal in biodiversity decline - Biodiversity Decline halted

Increase in farmland bird index (100)

Increase in unpolluted length of rivers (72 per cent of length)

Average no. of habitats on non-target area (maintain 1 per farm)

188

Impact

Maintenance of high nature value farmland and forestry

Maintenance of quality farm buildings

Protection of archaeological features

No. of new features discovered

Likert landscape assessment

750,000ha 1 per farm 1 per farm 10 per cent

increase 0.75 or

higher

Change in high nature value areas

Decline halted

Maintenance of high nature value farmland and forestry (750,000ha)

Maintenance of quality farm buildings (1 per farm)

Protection of archaeological features (1 per farm)

No. of new features discovered (10 per cent increase)

Likert landscape assessment (not applicable)

Improvement in water quality:

Increase in unpolluted length of rivers

Decrease of slightly/moderately polluted length

Soil P index Fertiliser P use Reduced

Chemical N use

Increase 72 per cent of

length 31 per cent of

length 75 per cent of

samples @ 2/3 5kg/ha 20 per cent

compared to non-REPS

Changes in gross nutrient balance

N/a

Improvement in water quality: Increase in

unpolluted length of rivers (72 per cent of length)

Decrease of slightly/ moderately polluted length (31 per cent of length)

Changes in gross nutrient balance: Soil P index

(75 per cent of samples @ 2/3)

Fertiliser P use (5kg/ha)

Reduced Chemical N use ( 20 per cent compared to non-REPS)

189

Contribution to combating climate change

Positive Increase in production of renewable energy N/a

Increase in production of renewable energy Not applicable

190

Non Productive Investments

(Linked to Measure 214 REPS & AEOS)

Code of the measure: 216 (linked to 214)

Legal Basis

Articles 36 (a) (vi) and 41 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.Article 32 and point 5.3.2.16 of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006.

Rationale for intervention

This measure is operated under Measure 214. As Measure 214 is the dominant measure in this instance, the rationale for intervention is laid out for each of the agri-environment schemes (REPS & AEOS). The proposed actions under 216 are considered to be necessary in order to fully complement actions under 214.

Objectives of the measure

To support non-remunerative investments where they are necessary, in order to achieve the commitments undertaken under agri-environmental schemes.

Scope and actions:

Action Description of action and objective (with reference to any related commitments under Measure 214)

Payment

1.Establishment and maintenance of habitats

Action: Fence habitat to restrict livestock access at certain points in the year.Objective: Creation of 2.5m uncultivated field margin resulting in creation of areas of high biodiversity on farmland. Integrated into Action 4 Measure 214 – REPS and Option 2 Measure 214 - AEOS.

€3.30/m

2.Tree Planting & Management

Actions: Planting, fencing and maintenance of native trees and whips with particular emphasis on broad leaved species.

a) Standard Treeb) Whip (min 1.2m high)

Objective: Conservation & creation of areas of high biodiversity on farmland. Integrated into Action 4

€62.70/ tree€9.50/ whip

191

Measure 214 - REPS and Option 3 Measure 214 – AEOS.

3. Traditional Orchards

Actions: Establish non-commercial orchard with traditional top fruit varieties selected from a published list on vigorous rootstocks by means of planting, fencing and annual maintenance.

10 trees planted at 7 m spacings, to a minimum of 0.05 ha. Objective: The conservation, on farmland, of genetic resources in danger of being lost. Integrated into Action 8A Measure 214 – REPS and Option 7 Measure 214 - AEOS.

€75/tree

4. Hedgerow Planting

Action: Establish new hedgerow by means of planting and fencing.

Objective: The encouragement of wildlife and retention of biodiversity.  Integrated into Option 5 Measure 214 – REPS and Option 9 Measure 214 - AEOS.

€32/m

5.Riparian Margins

Action: Fence margin adjacent to identified watercourses to prevent  animal access.

Objective: To protect water quality by creating a permanent buffer thereby intercepting nutrients that may be transported by overland flow. This land cannot be used for agricultural production, but must be maintained annually. Integrated into Action 5C Measure 214 – REPS and Option 11 Measure 214 - AEOS.

€3.30/m

6.Provision of alternative water source for bovines.

Actions: Install water trough with piped water in suitable location 10 m from watercourse. Prevent access to drinking points on watercourses adjacent to lands.

Objective: To protect water quality and avoid physical damage to the watercourse by preventing bovine access to watercourses. Integrated into Option 12 Measure 214 – AEOS.

€200 per trough

Definition of operations to be supported

Definition of “non-productive investments”: those investments that do not lead to any significant increase in the value or profitability of the agricultural holding.

192

Quantified targets for EU common indicators

Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

 29,250 (i.e. 15,000 REPS and 14,250 AEOS)

Total volume of investment  €100 million (funded under Measure 214)

Result Areas of successful land management  041 ha.

Impact

Changes in Gross Nutrient Balance(Improvement in water quality) Not applicable42

Reversal in biodiversity decline (farmland bird species population)  Decline halted

Change in high nature value areas

Maintenance of High Nature Value Farmland and Forestry Areas

Increase in production of renewable energy Not applicable

Financing for M216 linked to AEOS only

- Total Cost: €15,982,800- Public Expenditure: €15,982,800

41 This area is captured under Measure 214.42 Reductions in gross nutrient balance are targeted and will result from the interception of nutrients by means of the buffer zones created  and the prevention of bovine access to watercourses under this measure. It is not possible to put a precise figure on the reduction in gross nutrient balance as monitoring to the exclusion of all other factors is not possible or available at farm level.

193

5.3 Axis 3:Quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy

Summary of actions

All measures contained in Axis 3 will be delivered through the LEADER approach. These measures will meet the Axis 3 objective of improving quality of life in rural areas and promoting diversification of the rural economy through: Increasing economic activity and employment rates in the wider rural economy through

encouraging on-farm diversification into non-agricultural activities Supporting the creation and development of micro-enterprises in the broader rural

economy Encouraging rural tourism built on the sustainable development of Ireland’s natural

resources, cultural and natural heritage Improving access to basic services by rural dwellers by, for example, addressing

inadequate recreational facilities Regenerating villages and their surrounding areas by improving their economic prospects

and the quality of life Maintaining, restoring and upgrading the natural and built heritage.

The following table summarises the baseline situation and the targets for Axis 3.

Indicator Measurement Baseline TargetImportance of rural areas per cent population in rural areas 72 per cent 72 per centFarmers with other gainful activity

Sole holders-managers with other gainful activity as percentage of total number of farm holders (sole holders-managers)

44% 50 per cent

Employment development of non-agricultural sector

Employment in secondary and tertiary sectors (000s)

National 1,956.5In Rural Areas 1,373

96 per cent

Economic development of non-agricultural sector

GVA in secondary and tertiary sectors (Mio Euro)

National 153,955In Rural Areas 92,296

98 per cent

Self-employment development

Self-employed persons National 322In Rural Areas 262

20 per cent

Tourism infrastructure in rural area

Number of bed places National 206,831In Rural Areas 166,859

Sustain

Internet take-up in rural areas

Persons having subscribed to DSL internet as a percentage of total population

National 13%In Rural Areas 5%

20 per cent

Development of services sector

GVA in services as a percentage of total GVA

National 65%In Rural Areas 55%

60 per cent

Net migration Net migration into the state (per 1000 inhabitants)

National 16.9In Rural Areas 17.8

Sustain

Life-long learning in rural areas

per cent of adults (25-64 years) participating in education and training

National 8%In Rural Areas 6%

12 per cent

194

AXIS 3 MEASURES

Diversification into Non-Agricultural Activities

Legal basisArticle 52 (a) (i) of Reg. (EC) N 1698/2005Article 53 and point 5.3.3.1.1 of Annex II of Reg. (EC) N 1974/2006

Measure Code: 311

Rationale for interventionThe main focus of this measure is to create alternative on-farm employment opportunities in non-agricultural activities and services. A growing feature of farming is the increase in the number of farms no longer able to sustain farming families without additional on-farm income supplementation. However, as few as 3per cent or so of all farms are presently involved in some form of non-agricultural or forestry activity. Agri-tourism as an example of a complementary activity that combines well with farming activity and also can provide many farm families with the opportunity to develop a viable on-farm alternative enterprise.

Objective of the measureTo significantly increase the percentage of holdings where the fixed assets of the farm are utilised in any non-agricultural activity by a member of the farm household for economic gain.

Content While the scope of the measure encompasses all non-agricultural activities, common actions will include: Provision of tourism facilities. The type of facilities envisaged would be

renovation of farm buildings for tourism purposes, walking, cycling, angling, pony trekking, bird watching etc.

Development of niche tourism and educational services such as arts and crafts, speciality food provision, open farms etc.

Development of farm shops selling home/locally grown and manufactured products.

Target groupA member of the farm household.

Target areaAll agricultural holdings

Risk of overlap with First Pillar - EAGFA member of a Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisation receiving support for investment actions, environmental actions or training under the Scheme of Aid for Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations is precluded from receiving support for similar actions under this measure.

195

Quantified targets for EU common indicators43

Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007—2013

Output Number of beneficiaries See belowTotal volume of investment €19.1 million

ResultIncrease in non-agricultural GVA in supported businesses See belowGross number of jobs created See below

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPS See belowNet additional full-time equivalent jobs created See below

Output:Number of beneficiaries: 507

Number of beneficiariesTotal:MaleFemale

507380127

Age Category: < 25 years – 32> 25 years – 475

Type of non-agricultural activity:– Tourism Activity– Craft Activity– Trade/Retail Activity– Other

15812632190

Result:Increase in non-agricultural GVA in supported businesses, using 2006 as a baseline figure and plotting annual increment subsequently.

Gross number of jobs created: 791 full-timeGender Age On-Farm Off-Farm

Gross number of jobs created

Male: 475

Female: 316

< 25 years – 64> 25 years – 727

126 665

Additional number of tourists

Increase of 6332 per annum in agri-tourism visitors

43 All Axis 3 measures delivered by LEADER are evaluated under Axis 4 of the programme; as such indicators under Axis 3 are additional indicators only.

196

Impact:

Net additional value expressed in PPS €3.4m

Employment creation: 950 full-time equivalentsGender Age On-Farm Off-Farm

Net employment creation

Male: 570Female: 380

< 25 years – 94> 25 years – 856

158 792

197

Support for Business Creation and Development

Legal basisArticle 52 (a) (ii) of Reg. (EC) N 1698/2005 Point 5.3.3.1.2 of Annex II of Regulation (EC) N 1974/2006

Measure Code: 312

Rationale for interventionThe continuing change in farming patterns allied to a need to provide alternative employment and enterprise options to rural dwellers gives rise to the need to focus on the economic development of rural resources. Sectors utilising natural resources need to be targeted through innovative measures. Development of micro-enterprise under this heading is closely linked with economic actions under other headings in the axis such as under rural/agri-tourism, environmentally friendly initiatives and alternative energy. Actions here must also, where relevant, support and reinforce the economic impact of similar economic interventions under the other axes.

Objective of the measureTo position rural areas to provide economic activity of sufficient mass to attract people to live and work there and so offer a counter balance to the economic pull of Gateway towns that are the focus for development under the National Spatial Strategy.

Content: Selected investment in small rural enterprise space Provision for a range of assistance types for start-up enterprises and expansion

of existing enterprises including the adoption of new technologies Development of innovative products and activities The provision of a range of assistance types for adding value to local products,

including support for business networks, collective marketing, local branding initiatives, and improved quality and development of artisan processing facilities

Support for the utilisation of local ICT capacity, for example centralised online processing of micro-enterprise administrative activities

Actions to foster rural entrepreneurship, particularly combined with support for small-scale research, analysis and development.

It is a requirement under this measure that a sectoral agreement exists between the Local Action Group and the relevant County Enterprise Board. Where appropriate and by mutual consent, this can be a continuation of the agreement in place under the LEADER programme 2000—2006.

Target groupAll rural dwellers currently engaged in rural micro-enterprise activity or who wish to set up a micro-enterprise

Target areaAll rural areasRisk of overlap with First Pillar - EAGF

198

A member of a Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisation receiving support for investment actions, environmental actions or training under the Scheme of Aid for Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations is precluded from receiving support for similar actions under this measure.

Quantified targets for EU common indicators44

Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007—2013

Output Number of micro-enterprises supported See below

ResultGross number of jobs created See belowIncrease in non-agricultural GVA in supported businesses See below

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPS See belowNet additional full-time equivalent jobs created See below

Output

Number of new or existing micro-enterprises supported: 4479Micro-Enterprise Status Age Category Type of Micro-

EnterpriseNew – 1568 * *Existing – 2911 * *

Result

Gross number of jobs created: 4355Gender Age On-Farm Off-Farm

Gross number of jobs created

Male: 2613Female: 1742

< 25 years—623> 25 years— 3732

435 3920

Economic growth expressed in non-agricultural GVA by region, from baseline 2006

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPS €10m

44 All Axis 3 measures delivered by LEADER are evaluated under Axis 4 of the programme; as such indicators under Axis 3 are additional indicators only.

199

Employment creation: 4977 net number of FTE jobs

Gender Age On-Farm

Off-Farm

No. of FTE jobs created

Male: 2986Female: 1991

< 25 years – 746> 25 years – 4231

498 4479

200

Encouragement of Tourism Activities

Legal basisArticle 52 (a) (iii) of Reg. (EC) N 1698/2005 Point 5.3.3.1.3 of Annex II of Regulation (EC) N 1974/2006

Measure Code: 313

Rationale for interventionIn most rural areas tourism is an integral component of wider rural enterprise and both should be developed in an integrated manner whenever possible. Rural tourism is also very closely correlated with agricultural activity. Lack of regional balance in tourist activity is a challenge to the future viability of rural tourism. The focus of this measure must also extend wider to embrace other aspects of rural recreation and demonstrate synergy with the Countryside Recreation Strategy. Due to the cross-cutting nature of this measure, actions at the territorial level must demonstrate an overall coherence with relevant actions concerning agri-tourism, rural enterprise and conservation of natural heritage and culture. Environmental awareness and protection must be an intrinsic feature of this measure.

Objective of the measureTo maximise the sustainable, regionally balanced, tourism potential of all rural areas through provision of necessary infrastructure and development of the countryside as a recreational resource for all.

Content Analysis and provision of infrastructural needs for tourism and countryside

recreation in a defined area Maintenance of vernacular features—in a way that protects the heritage of the

features—such as disused railway lines, canal towpaths, bog roads etc. Development of the use of forests for countryside recreation Development of niche tourism such as arts and crafts, speciality food

provision, eco-tourism, genealogy, archaeology etc. Development of the use of the Internet and ecommerce facilities in general for

the provision of booking and information services to tourists.

Target groupAll rural dwellers

Target areaAll rural areas

Risk of overlap with First Pillar - EAGFA member of a Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisation receiving support for investment actions, environmental actions or training under the Scheme of Aid for Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations is precluded from receiving support for similar actions under this measure.

201

Quantified targets for EU common indicators45

Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007—2013

OutputNumber of new tourism actions supported See belowTotal volume of investment €49.1 million

ResultAdditional number of tourist visits See belowGross number of jobs created 1065

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPS See belowNet additional full-time equivalent jobs created 355

Output

Small-Scale Infrastructure

Recreational Infrastructure

Development and/or marketing of tourism services relating to rural tourism

Number of new tourism actions supported

355 355 870

Result

Overnight Stays Number of day visitorsAdditional number of tourist visitsPer annum

3551 10653

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPS €11.m

Net additional full-time equivalent jobs created 355

Employment creationGender Age On-Farm Off-Farm

Number of jobs created

Male: 178Female: 178

< 25 years—71> 25 years—284

106 249

45 All Axis 3 measures delivered by LEADER are evaluated under Axis 4 of the programme; as such indicators under Axis 3 are additional indicators only.

202

Additional performance indicatorNumber of overseas holiday makers whose holiday is predominantly in the countrysideBaseline: 1.2 millionTarget: 1.8 million

Additional performance indicatorNumber of overseas visitors involved in cycling, hiking and walking Baseline: 0.3 millionTarget: 0.6 million

203

Basic Services for the Economy and Rural Population

Legal basisArticle 52 (b) (i) of Reg. (EC) N 1698/2005Point 5.3.3.2.1 of Annex II of regulation (EC) N 1974/2006

Measure Code: 321

Rationale for interventionQuality of life issues including the availability of services and living conditions significantly influence the extent to which people are willing to return or re-locate to rural areas to live and work. While key service provision is properly addressed through integrated actions by mainstream government services, certain quality of life initiatives specifically targeted towards rural communities can be addressed under this measure. Such initiatives must demonstrate complementarity with, and avoid duplication of, broader service provision as articulated in the specific chapter on the rural economy in the National Development Plan 2007–2013. In this context lack of adequate cultural and leisure facilities in some rural communities is a significant impediment to their further development.

Objective of the measureTo identify and provide appropriate cultural and leisure facilities to local communities, not otherwise available to them.

Content While the needs of more remote rural populations and peri-urban areas may differ markedly, initiatives will broadly address the provision of: Amenity and leisure facilities Support for cultural activities Certain arts facilities General community and recreational infrastructure Innovative activities in local communities such as social and information

networks etc.

All assessments and actions should be carried out in consultation and agreement with the appropriate local authorities. Any equipment, activities or infrastructure provided must be available and accessible to all age and social groups in the community concerned. Mainstream activities of sports organisations and bodies are excluded from support under this measure.

Type of costs covered: Capital costs only such as provision of infrastructure, equipment and some specialist support and development in relation to acquisition of specialised skills sets

Transitional arrangements: Do not arise as actions under this measure do not replace, but complement, existing measures delivered by nationally funded local authorities

Target group

204

All rural community groupsThe relevant Local Authority in a LAG area may apply for funding, at the rate of aid applied to community groups, to carry out projects under this measure. Such applications will only be considered eligible where the proposal involves a community group that has agreed to contribute at least 5% of the total project costs.

Target areaAll rural areas

Quantified targets for EU common Indicators46

Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007—2013

Output Number of supported actions See belowTotal volume of investment €50.1m

Result

Population in rural areas benefiting from improved services

2,500,000 (See details below)

Increase in internet penetration in rural areas

Not supported under this measure

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPS See belowNet additional full-time equivalent jobs created See below

OutputAmenity/Leisure Facilities

Arts/Cultural Facilities

Recreational Infrastructure

Number of actions supported

343 343 343

ResultAmenity/Leisure Facilities

Arts/Cultural Facilities

Recreational Infrastructure

Number of communities benefiting from actions

206 206 206

Increase in Internet penetration in rural areas is not supported under this measure.

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPS €11.56m

Net additional full-time equivalent jobs created 514

Numbers benefiting from facilities by category (new indicator)

46 All Axis 3 measures delivered by LEADER are evaluated under Axis 4 of the programme; as such indicators under Axis 3 are additional indicators only.

205

Gender Age Social GroupInfrastructure Male: 10282

Female: 10282< 25 years – 6855> 25 years – 13709

206

Basic Services for the Economy and Rural PopulationThe Rural Broadband Reach Scheme (RBR)

Measure code: 321

Article (and paragraph) which covers the measure:Articles 52(b)(i) and 56 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.Point 5.3.3.2.1 of Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.

Rationale for intervention:The European Economic Recovery Package allocated funds for rural areas to ensure the provision of broadband services. The Scheme will target individual premises in rural areas which, for a variety of reasons, are unable to receive a broadband service from any of the service providers already operating in the area. The intervention proposed would compensate service providers that extended their networks to cover the “unreachable” premise.

Objectives of the measure:The objective of the measure is to secure access to broadband for certain target premises in rural Ireland to which affordable broadband is not currently available and is unlikely to be available in the near future.

Scope:As part of the planning and design of the National Broadband Scheme47 (NBS), extensive and detailed mapping exercises of the areas covered by the existing DSL, fixed and mobile wireless broadband operators were carried out by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources ('DCENR'). In the process of identifying the areas to which the NBS would apply, approximately 12,500 premises which were not covered by existing broadband service providers, were excluded from the NBS as the area in which they are located was already deemed substantially covered.

While the mapping exercise did take account of the height of the local terrain it did not take into account local clutter arising from trees, buildings or other local obstructions or split copper lines as this information was not available. As a result of this shortcoming it has been recognised that there are also premises (estimated at a further 12,500) that would appear to be in a covered area but due to local obstacles or technical issues are not able to avail of the coverage from the existing broadband operators.

Accordingly, DCENR envisage that there are 25,000 potential applicants, made up of 12,500 potential applicants living in the unserved premises identified as part of the NBS mapping exercise which are beyond the reach of existing service providers and a further 12,500 applicants who are living in areas that are deemed to be served but who are unable to obtain a service from the existing service providers due to local obstacles or technical issues.

47 See http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Communications/Communications+Development/National+Broadband+Scheme.htm State Aid decision 475/2007 http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/comp-2007/n475-07.pdf

207

The potential applicants under this scheme will not be eligible to be given a service under the NBS, because the areas they live in are not covered under the NBS. The NBS (http://www.three.ie/NBS) website contains an address checker which will allow applicants to confirm that they live outside the NBS area (http://ve.bizmaps.ie/threeireland/Pages/Public/NBSPublicPage.aspx)

Despite the fact that the non-NBS areas were deemed to be substantially covered at the time of the mapping exercise which informed the NBS process, there continues to be a comparatively small number of premises (c. 25,000, or approximately 1% of all premises in the country), which continue to have no broadband coverage.

The unserved premises in question are generally in low population density rural locations and are dispersed in nature and there is a continued and persistent failure of the market to provide a broadband service to these premises as the deployment of the necessary additional infrastructure or extension of existing infrastructure to serve these isolated customers is not justifiable under normal open market economic criteria.

It is proposed to conduct an open tendering process under the EU Procurement Rules to find a service provider who will create the necessary infrastructure and/or extend the reach of existing infrastructure to enable access to broadband for the consumers who qualify under the scheme.

The market is unlikely to make the necessary investment in infrastructure to make broadband available to remaining “unserved” consumers. Without the intervention proposed through the scheme, those unserved consumers and businesses in the rural areas concerned will be denied access to the benefits of broadband. The scheme will give an opportunity to existing service providers to offer a service to the particular consumers as part of the verification process, and only the consumers who are not offered a service during the verification process will qualify to be included in the scheme. The scheme is therefore designed to address a genuine market failure.

Type of operations supported:The Scheme will support activities under options 1 and 2 of Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005:

“Creation of and enabling access to broadband infrastructure including backhaul facilities and ground equipment (e.g. fixed, terrestrial wireless, satellite-based or combination of technologies)”

and,

“Upgrade of existing broadband infrastructure”

The type of infrastructures adopted will be a matter for the successful bidder, depending on the technology or mix of technology chosen by the bidder. DCENR is not requiring a particular technology.

For instance, if the successful bidder was using a fixed or mobile wireless technology to reach a particular consumer or cluster of consumers, this could involve putting in

208

place infrastructure such as a mast or a number of masts, connection to or establishment of backhaul infrastructure to secure a connection, and the installation of routers and/or modems.

If a wired technology was adopted, then this could involve installing or upgrading wires, associated civil works (ducts), associated facilities such as digital switches, equipment such as routers and modems.

If a satellite technology was adopted, it would involve the installation of satellite dishes, transmitting and receiving equipment, specialised modems and routers.

Main Features of the SchemeThe Scheme will identify and verify consumers, living in rural areas, who are unable to obtain a broadband service at an affordable price within a reasonable timeframe and a database of such consumers, who will be regarded as “qualified applicants” under the scheme, will be constructed.

In order to qualify, applicants must:

be living in a rural location, as defined under the Rural Development Programme,

be located outside of the areas covered by the NBS, and

make a declaration to state that they are not party to a contract with an existing broadband service provider.

be verified as “unserved” consumers by establishing that they are not capable of being served by existing service providers who will be given the opportunity to offer a service to the consumers in question.

Possible beneficiaries under the Scheme will be identified and notified to existing service providers:

If an existing service provider offers an affordable service to the consumer and the consumer refuses to enter into a contract on the basis of the offer, then the consumer will be deemed to have been “served” and will not be eligible under the scheme.

If an existing service provider offers an affordable service to the consumer and the consumer enters into a contract on the basis of the offer, but the service provider fails to provide the service within three months of the acceptance of the offer, in the absence of an offer from any other service provider the consumer will be deemed to be “unserved” and will be eligible under the scheme.

If a 21-day period elapses without any service provider notifying DCENR of an intention to offer a service to the consumer, the consumer will be deemed to be unserved and will be eligible under the scheme.

209

The Scheme is designed to benefit only those consumers who are unable to obtain a broadband service under the normal prevailing market conditions. If an existing service provider is willing to offer and deliver a service to a consumer, then they will not be eligible under the scheme.

The ServiceIt is intended that the minimum required service to be provided under the scheme will have the following characteristics:

always-on service (no charge by connection time);

downstream (i.e. Internet to subscriber) speed of 2Mbit/s;

upstream (i.e. subscriber to Internet) speed of 256kbit/s;

a maximum contention ratio equivalent to 48:1 (by reference to the technology employed by the successful service provider);

minimum monthly limit on download capacity (uncharged) per retail subscriber connection of 10GB;

latency requirements such that common Internet Protocol (IP) applications such as Virtual Private Network (VPN), Voice over IP (VoIP) and gaming may be supported by the broadband service.

It will be a matter for bidders to identify the most appropriate infrastructure to achieve the aims of the scheme. This will include the use of new and existing infrastructure used for

wired solutions,

wireless solutions,

solutions based on mobile technology and

solutions based on satellite technology.

Roll-Out of the SchemeOnce a service provider is selected under the procurement process, the final list of applicants will be given to the Service provider who will then roll out the service.

It is expected that the Service provider will contact the applicants and offer them a service. There will be an appropriate timeframe and protocol put in place to give the applicant the opportunity to accept the service. If, after a fixed period and a fixed routine of contact, the applicant declines the service, they will be considered to no longer qualify under the scheme.

Accordingly, the total number of consumers to be served under the scheme will become clear when the scheme is rolled out. It will be a matter for the bidder to price their bid in accordance with their view of the expected market response.

210

The service will be rolled out over a two year period and that all applicants under the scheme will have been provided with a service by the end of 2012. Following this rollout period, no new customers will be connected under this scheme. The successful bidder will be required to continue the service to the customers under the scheme until the end of 2015.

Wholesale AccessThe winning bidder will be required to make the infrastructure that is subsidised under the scheme available to other operators at a wholesale rate so that they can also use the infrastructure to offer services.

Distribution of the support A once-off charge for consumers connected during the roll-out of the scheme will be paid. This is expected to be invoiced by the successful bidder to DCENR on a monthly basis.

Demarcation line and criteria with other EU financial instruments: EU funding has been provided to previous broadband intervention initiatives including the National Broadband Strategy, the Group Broadband Scheme (GBS), and the Metropolitan Area Networks (MANs) Programme. Each of these initiatives has been successful in assisting the roll-out of broadband networks by Service Providers. These initiatives are funded through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).

The remaining unserved premises have not been, and will not be, addressed by any other EU funded scheme. Specific measures will be taken to ensure demarcation is maintained and to prevent double subsidisation;

With regard to demarcation from the NBS, the potential applicants under this scheme will not be eligible to be given a service under the NBS, because applications will not be accepted from people who llive in the geographical area covered by the NBS. The NBS (http://www.three.ie/NBS) website contains an address checker which will allow potential applicants to confirm that they live outside the NBS area (http://ve.bizmaps.ie/threeireland/Pages/Public/NBSPublicPage.aspx)

Any premise that applies for the new scheme which is already receiving a broadband service from a GBS Service Provider or any other service provider, will not be eligible for consideration under the scheme. This approach will be safeguarded by the notification of applicants to existing service providers.

With regard to the Metropolitan Area Networks schemes (MANS), these schemes are very different in nature to either the NBS or the Scheme now proposed.

The main goal of the MANS programme is to provide a communications infrastructure (ducts, fibre) and wholesale services to operators in towns outside Dublin to reduce the high fixed cost of building own infrastructure for telecommunications operators, which represents the most important barrier to entry in this market. The MANs tackle a major bottleneck, the so-called “middle mile”

211

between local loop and regional networks. They are carrier neutral wholesale fibre optic networks generally in a ring formation which can be linked back to the international points of connectivity by backhaul, in the areas where such backhaul infrastructure exists.   They are facilitative infrastructure for Service Providers to use, if required, but the MANs do not, of themselves, mean that their existence in a town implies that consumers there or in the surrounding areas can definitely obtain a broadband service.  

The scheme now proposed is designed to provide the necessary infrastructure to ensure connectivity for the individual consumers who will qualify under the scheme. This is a fundamentally different problem from that which was addressed by the MANS scheme. The consumers who are likely to benefit from the scheme now proposed will not have benefitted from the funding provided from the MANS. As DCENR will be co-ordinating the spending on the MANS, the NBS and the scheme now proposed, it is in a position to ensure that no overlap occurs with regard to the different funding methods employed.

The EAFRD co-financed Rural Development Programme for Ireland provides for supports to develop the capacity of rural dwellers to utilise ICT including Internet and broadband to access e-services and other public and commercial electronic applications. The Rural Broadband Reach Scheme will clearly complement this support, while not entailing any overlap in the types of support provided. The RBR will also complement ERDF funded schemes by only servicing unreachable premises under these schemes.

Compliance with RegulationsOperations covered by this measure do not and will not qualify for support in Ireland under the schemes listed in Annex 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006.

Funding under this measure will not support actions, which may be funded by Unspent Single Payment Scheme Funds under Pillar 1.

State AidA State Aid Notification to DG Competition (N607/2009 Rural Broadband Reach Scheme – Ireland) has been made.

Financing:Total Cost: €0Public Expenditure: €0

This scheme is now closed for applications. Funding has been attributed to M121 TAMS and M214 REPS.

Quantified targets for EU common indicators:

212

Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output Number of supported actionsTotal volume of investment

Result

Population in rural areas benefiting from improved servicesIncrease in internet penetration in rural areas

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPSNet additional full time equivalent jobs created

Additional programme-specific indicators and quantified targets: Reduce the estimated number of unserved premises in rural areas from an

estimated 25,000 to nil.

213

Village Renewal and Development

Legal basisArticle 52 (b) (ii) of Reg. (EC) N 1698/2005Point 5.3.3.2.2 of Annex II of regulation (EC) N 1974/2006

Measure Code: 322

Rationale for interventionVillages and small towns are the focal point for a significant section of the rural community and as such are a priority for development. The focus for improvement will extend to the enhancement of villages, small towns and the surrounding countryside. Actions will be aimed at enhancing the environmental, amenity and surface structural aspects of these communities and as such will have complementarity with other Axis 3 measures, particularly tourism and conservation of the local heritage. All actions under this measure involving public areas must be agreed with the relevant local authority.

Objective of the measureTo provide appropriate supports to enhance the economic and social attractiveness of villages, small towns and the surrounding countryside

Content Environmental upgrading, e.g. upgrading parks, civic areas, river walks etc Access facilities to amenities Public utilities such as street lighting etc General surface upgrading and renovation of relevant derelict buildings

excluding traditional farm buildings, which will be eligible for support under Axis 2

Farmers’ markets Other small-scale actions.

DemarcationUrban renewal measures supported by the ERDF will be limited to Gateway and Hub towns only. The village renewal measure under the EAFRD will be excluded from Gateway and Hub towns and will fully respect the definition of rural areas in this programme

Target groupAll rural dwellersThe relevant Local Authority in a LAG area may apply for funding, at the rate of aid applied to community groups, to carry out projects under this measure. Such applications will only be considered eligible where the proposal involves a community group that has agreed to contribute at least 5% of the total project costs.

Target areaCountryside, villages and small towns

214

Risk of overlap with First Pillar – EAGF A member of a Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisation receiving support for investment actions, environmental actions or training under the Scheme of Aid for Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations is precluded from receiving support for similar actions under this measure.

Quantified targets for EU ccommon indicators48

Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007—2013

OutputNumber of villages where actions took place 1789(See below)Total volume of investments €49.82 million

Result

Population in rural areas benefiting from improved services 2,500,000 (See below)Increase in internet penetration in rural areas See below

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPS See belowNet additional full-time equivalent jobs created See below

OutputActivity Number of villages and communities

benefiting from enhancementRenovation of buildings 441Environmental upgrading 441Farmers’ markets 126Surface and amenity improvements 441Other small-scale infrastructure 340

ResultPopulation in rural areas benefiting from enhancement actions: includes economic, social, consumer and visual benefitPopulation benefiting

Renovation Upgrading Markets Surface Other

Small towns 125958 188936 25192 503830 62978Villages 18893 62978 31490 188936 62978Countryside 12595 62978 6298 31490 12595

ImpactNet additional value expressed in PPS €11.64m

48 All Axis 3 measures delivered by LEADER are evaluated under Axis 4 of the programme; as such indicators under Axis 3 are additional indicators only.

215

Net additional full-time equivalent jobs created 630

216

Conservation and Upgrading of the Rural Heritage

Legal basisArticle 52 (b) (iii) of Reg. (EC) N 1698/2005Point 5.3.3.2.3 of Annex II of regulation (EC) N 1974/2006

Measure Code: 323

Rationale for interventionRural heritage resources, be they natural, built or cultural in form must be developed and utilised in a sustainable manner, by and for, the good of the community. Under this measure, conservation actions should be extended to include not just conservation and protection actions for the natural, cultural, social and vernacular heritage but also encompass pro-active initiatives in relation to the utilisation of local resources to provide sustainable and renewable energy options for local communities. Likewise, actions concerning environmental awareness and improvement should be complementary to those, particularly under the Agri-environmental section of the programme. Such actions should have a strong local community aspect and address the protection of the natural environment, particularly in relation to water quality and degradation of natural amenities including local beaches and other coastal areas of high environmental and economic value to local communities.

A high degree of complementarity with renewable energy actions under Axis 1 and agri-environmental actions under Axis 2 will be obligatory under this measure. Actions funded under the EAFRD to protect local water bodies will focus on the amenity and recreational value of such resources while ERDF-supported interventions will address water treatment and drinking quality standards. Similarly, actions at farm level to protect water resources will be supported primarily under Axis 2 and any such actions will be excluded from support under this measure. The Traditional Farm Buildings measure helps to ensure that a number of traditional farm buildings, which contribute to the visual landscape and are of historical and architectural value, will be maintained into the future.  It is operated by the Heritage Council on behalf of the Department.  The Heritage Council issue a certificate on satisfactory completion of works.  Grants of 75% of the total cost of works are covered under the scheme and the balance of 25% must be from the applicant’s own resources.  The Traditional Farm building measure is integrated into Measure 214 – REPS.

Objective of the measureTo provide an integrated approach to the protection of the local heritage through a suite of related preservation actions, complemented by a range of initiatives designed to develop the sustainable economic contribution of the natural heritage

Content Actions to preserve and develop vernacular architecture, crafts, archaeology,

cultural traditions etc. Integrated plans for the restoration and development of locally significant

natural areas, features and areas of environmental significance Community environmental actions to protect and restore the amenity value of

local water resources and high-value nature areas

217

Other environmental initiatives aimed at waste reduction Alternative or renewable energy actions addressing suitability of new

technologies to meet community energy needs; awareness actions for community groups and, under certain conditions, capital assistance to community groups adopting such technology.

Renewable energy initiatives in this regard must be community focused and the emphasis is equally on the environmental protection of the rural area involved. Many such sustainable energy initiatives will by their very nature be located in areas of high nature value, so there is a natural linkage between them under this heading.

Actions, particularly in the domain of renewable energy and with an environmental aspect, must be agreed with the relevant state agencies and respect all environmental legislation and meet best practice standards.

Target groupRural populationThe relevant Local Authority in a LAG area may apply for funding, at the rate of aid applied to community groups, to carry out projects under this measure. Such applications will only be considered eligible where the proposal involves a community group that has agreed to contribute at least 5% of the total project costs.

Target area All rural areas

Quantified targets for EU common indicators49

Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007—2013

Output

Number of rural heritage actions supported

1582 (See below) + 230 actions under M214

Total volume of investments€52m [See below] + €5.75m under M214

Result Population in rural areas benefiting from improved services 2,500,000 (See below)

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPS

See below

Net additional full-time equivalent jobs created See below

OutputNatural/Vernacular Heritage

Cultural Heritage

Environmental Initiatives

Renewable Energy

Number of rural 452 452 452 226

49 All Axis 3 measures delivered by LEADER are evaluated under Axis 4 of the programme; as such indicators under Axis 3 are additional indicators only.

218

heritage actions supportedTotal volume of investments

€9.45m €9.45m €9.45m €24.35m

Result

Natural/Vernacular Heritage

Cultural Heritage

Environmental Initiatives

Renewable Energy

Community category by popn

Small Town 10 per centVillage 20 per centCountryside 70 per cent

Town 30 per centVillage 40 per centCountryside 30 per cent

Town 20 per centVillage 25 per centCountryside 55 per cent

Town 30 per centVillage 50 per cent Countryside 20 per cent *

Total number of people benefiting

506020 316262 316262 442768

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPS €11.6 millionNet additional full-time equivalent jobs created 474

219

Training and Information Measure for Economic Actors Operating in the Fields Covered by Axis 3

Legal basisArticle 52 (c) of Reg. (EC) N 1698/2005 Point 5.3.3.3 of Annex II of regulation (EC) N 1974/2006

Measure Code: 331

Rationale for interventionThe overall priority for the axis is to stimulate economic and social activity in all rural areas. The range of actions to deliver this priority was chosen to deliver the optimum economic and social impact while demonstrating internal as well as external complementarity at axis level. However, the successful implementation of these measures also requires training in adapted and new skills for all rural dwellers and communities. The importance of training to personal development also means that this measure constitutes a priority in itself and must also demonstrate a clear complementarity to any training actions under Axis 1.

Objective of the measureTo equip rural dwellers and communities with the appropriate range of skills and training to derive maximum social and economic benefit from the initiatives available under this axis.

Content Provision of general/specialised training courses in fixed/mobile facilities and

in-house development of appropriate training facilities linked to the increased use of know-how and new technologies to make the products and services in rural areas more competitive

Provision of flexible learning opportunities in new technology for women, young people and minority groups in particular

Development of training facilities in rural areas (fixed/mobile) Facilitation of distant learning (mainstream or tailored courses) through the

use of new technologies Provision of relevant training courses to those wishing to add value to local

products, in particular by facilitating access to markets for small production units via collective actions

Developing the capacity of rural dwellers to utilise ICT including Internet and broadband to access ℮services and other public/commercial electronic applications. This measure has been designed to complement the proposed telecommunications intervention under the two Regional Operational Programmes aimed at expanding the supply and coverage of broadband territorially.

DemarcationThe ESF will address mainstream vocational education and training programmes specifically geared to the general labour market. The EAFRD will be targeted towards responding only to local community niche needs specific to the measures contained in this programme, e.g. learning to utilise ICT to enhance a rural tourism product.

220

Risk of overlap with First Pillar – EAGF A member of a Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisation receiving support for investment actions, environmental actions or training under the Scheme of Aid for Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisations is precluded from receiving support for similar actions under this measure.

Technical supportFinancing will be available within this measure to Local Action Groups to support the provision of specific technical input. Such technical support would include access to specialised technical resources, knowledge or skills not generally available within the group or applicable only to specific measures or actions. Exchange of specialist information, know-how or best practice would also be supported under this measure. Financial support under this measure to facilitate technical support is capped at €7.90m.

Target groupAll rural dwellers

Target areaAll rural areas

221

Quantified targets for EU common indicators50

Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007-2013

Output

Number of economic actors supported activities  23,853 (See below)Number of days of training received by participants See below

ResultNumber of participants that successfully ended a training activity See below

Output

Number of rural dwellers trained: 23,944

Nature of activity undertakenCategory Elearning/craft/ICT/marketing etc.Gender:MaleFemale

11,97211,972

Age group:< 25 years25 – 44 yearsOver 44 years

4,77111,9727,156

Social group Groups prioritised in National Training Strategy

Number of days of training received by participants

47,707

Result

CategoryNumber of participants that completed a training activity

Gender:MaleFemale

11,04311,043

Age group:< 25 years25 – 44 yearsOver 44 years

4,41711,0436,626

Social group Groups prioritised in National Training Strategy

50 All Axis 3 measures delivered by LEADER are evaluated under Axis 4 of the programme; as such indicators under Axis 3 are additional indicators only.

222

A Skills-Acquisition and Animation Measure with a view to Preparing and Implementing a Local Development

Strategy

Legal basisArticle 52 (d) of Reg. (EC) N 1698/2005Point 5.3.3.2.1 of Annex II of regulation (EC) N 1974/2006

Measure Code: 341

Rationale for interventionThe experience gained from past LEADER programmes has shown that Local Development Strategies offer an appropriate model for the delivery of a range of rural economy measures. Such a delivery mechanism strengthens territorial coherence and provides a concentrated programming impact. Since Axis 3 measures will be delivered through the LEADER methodology by Local Action Groups, the animation and capacity building needs of the rural territory are central to a successful uptake of the programme in all rural areas.

Objective of the measureTo utilise the bottom-up structures of the LEADER methodology to create awareness, understanding and motivation in rural communities so as to enable their full participation and input into the preparation of local development strategies.

Content Actions will include: Animation activities at group and individual level to encourage community

involvement in a broad range of social and economic activities Capacity-building measures aimed at community and minority groups to foster

the spirit of social capital and self-help Initiatives aimed at geographically disadvantaged communities or those

lacking in sufficient mass to enhance cohesion and capacity to develop Initiatives to animate specific interest or marginal groups to harness unique

potential

DemarcationSkills and animation activities are limited solely to developing local capacity to participate in, and contribute to, Local Action Groups no demarcation issues should arise

Target groupCommunity groups and all forms of local partnership

Target areaAll rural areas

223

Quantified targets for EU common indicators51

Type of indicator Indicator Target 2007—2013

Output

Number of skill acquisition and animation actions 883Number of participants in actions  22,086 (See below)Number of supported public/private partnerships See below

Result Number of participants that successfully ended a training activity See below

OutputNumber of beneficiaries of the skills acquisition and animation actions: 36,810

Nature of activityCategory Skills acquisition/AnimationGender:MaleFemale

11,04311,043

Age group:< 25 years25 – 44 yearsOver 44 years

4,41711,0436,626

Group category Those identified in LAG business plansNumber of supported public/private partnerships

Axis 3 will be delivered entirely by Local Action Groups; no Public Private Partnerships will be involved at official delivery level.

ResultNumber of participants that completed an activity

GenderMaleFemale

18,40518,405

Age group:< 25 years25 – 44 yearsOver 44 years

7,36218,40511,043

Social group Those prioritised in LAG business plans

51 All Axis 3 measures delivered by LEADER are evaluated under Axis 4 of the programme; as such indicators under Axis 3 are additional indicators only.

224

Implementing Local Development Strategies

Legal basisAs referred to in Article 62(1)(a) with a view to achieving the objectives of one or more of the three other axes defined in sections 1, 2 and 3 (Article 63(a) of Reg. (EC) N 1698/2005)Articles 37 to 39 and point 5.3.4.1 of Annex II of Commission Regulation (EC) N 1974/2006

Measure Code: 41 (inclusive of Measures 411 and 413)

Rationale for interventionThrough successive rounds of the LEADER programme, local action groups have developed through the bottom-up approach to an extent where LEADER now delivers a local development strategy in all rural areas. To achieve further integration of programming in the wider rural community and avoid duplication of actions, it is appropriate that the LEADER methodology is introduced to mainstream rural development programming to deliver all measures under Axes 3 under Measure 413. However, the highly innovative LEADER approach will also be developed to address rural needs in relevant spheres outside the confines of the measures of Axis 3 and specifically through interventions to support enterprises that are involved in the processing and or marketing of Annex 1 products under measure 123 of Axis 1. This activity will be delivered under Measure 411.

Objective of the measureTo deliver integrated value-added measures in the whole of the rural territory across Axis 3/4 and Measure 123 of Axis 1.

Procedure and timetable for selection of local action groups (LAGs)The process for selection of local action groups will commence when a draft national rural development programme has been submitted to the EU Commission for approval. The selection process, including a call for proposals, submission of applications with business plan, evaluation and final selection of groups should be completed in time to facilitate timely implementation of the programme.

Procedures to select groups will be open to all rural areas, all existing groups and partnerships developed through the Cohesion process currently underway.

Selection criteria will include: The coherence of the plan with the nature of the territory, particularly in socio-

economic terms. It must prove its economic viability, innate innovation and sustainability in the sense that resources will be used in such a way that the options available to future generations are not impaired

The degree to which the plan targets support, which seeks to enhance the job opportunities and/or activities for women and young people

The level of business activity demonstrated in the proposed actions The rigour and depth of the needs assessment and the described links between

needs assessment, the process and outcome of local objective setting, activities, actions and projects, and their relationship with national and EU policy objectives

225

The extent of the commitment, ability and proposed methods for ensuring on-the-ground co-operation with other agencies involved in local development

The overall flexibility of the plans with regard to ongoing local needs and policy review, as well as wider contextual policy development (e.g. the national spatial strategy and/or the County Development planning process)

The groups management structure, administrative ability and financial status

The physical size and population of the territory, its degree of rurality and the characteristics of the area population

The degree to which co-operation is integrated into the local development strategy

Representation of the community pillars in the area concerned (and observance of the ‘bottom-up principle’)

Indicative number of LAGsIt is not possible to pre-empt the objective selection process for the programme but current coverage of the entire rural territory is provided by 35 territorial LAGs and three representative organisations.

The LEADER Methodology/LAGs and Axes 152,3 and 4 will cover the entire rural territory as indicated under measures 411/413/421/431.

The inclusion of physical size is not a criterion but a characteristic that should be referenced in LAG business plans.

Areas whose population falls outside the size limits of 5,000 and 150,000In the current LEADER+ programme almost one third of all LAGs service a territory with a population greater than 100,000. Only one group, with a predominantly peri- urban population on the fringe of the Greater Dublin Area, exceeds the size limit of 150,000 inhabitants. Any applications proposing to exceed the size limits will be evaluated according to the physical size and geography of the territory, the degree of rurality and the characteristics of the population living there. Proposals to establish groups covering a population of less than 5,000 will only be considered justified in the case of geographic fragmentation, e.g. islands, or very low population density e.g. less than 10 persons/km2.

Selection of operations by LAGsThe basic template governing the activities of LAGs, including the focus on type of operation, will be the formally approved business plan submitted as part of the final approval and contract process. The further balance of activity will be determined by the financial allocation to the groups, eligible activities as defined by the measures in the programme and subsequent detailed national operating rules determining eligibility of actions and expenditure. Project selection will be further strengthened by the use of expert project evaluation committees established within the group structure.

Financial circuits applicable to LAGsLocal Action Groups will act as intermediate bodies for the disbursement of the national portion of public programme funding to successful project applicants. This

52 This methodology will only be used to deliver measure 123: support for enterprises involved in the processing and/or marketing of Annex 1 products.

226

function will be delegated to the LAGs by the Paying Agency, as provided for under article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1290/2005. When eligible projects are completed and documentation submitted, LAGs can apply to the Paying Agency for re-imbursement of the EU-funded portion of the project costs already paid out by them.

Demarcation criteria with structural funds financingThe scope of actions under measure 123 of Axis 1, Axes 3 and 4 as set out in this programme is limited to fall under the EAFRD and would not intervene in the areas set aside for the Operational Programmes 2007–2013 to be supported by the ERDF and ESF. Breaking this down further, County Development Boards have government responsibility for co-ordinating the delivery of measures locally through local authorities and area development groups. Conscious of the need to avoid duplication of interventions, Local Action Groups will be obliged to have cross-representation arrangements with County Development Boards and have business plans endorsed by them.

EFF: Support under the EAFRD will be limited to actions by coastal communities which only complement actions funded under Axis 4 of the EFF.

Demarcation with other local community initiativesThe Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs has set down detailed criteria for Local Action Groups delivering nationally funded local community initiatives on its behalf. The operating rules governing the rural development programme will ensure there is no overlap between it and any community initiatives in operation.

Payment of AdvancesBeneficiaries for investment support projects under measures 311, 312, 313, 321 (excluding the Broadband Reach Scheme), 322, 323 and 331 may request the payment of an advance. This will be limited to a maximum of 20% of the public aid related to the investment and its payment shall be subject to the establishment, by the beneficiary, of a bank guarantee or an equivalent guarantee corresponding to 110 % of the amount of the advance.

Financing Total Cost: €336,970,511- Public Expenditure: €249,470,511

Quantified targets for EU common indicatorsType of indicator Indicator Target

Output Number of local action groups supported  36Total size of LAGs area (in km2)

69,476Number of projects financed by LAGs

12,602

227

Total population in LAG area 2,734,855Number of beneficiaries 4,194

Result Gross number of jobs created Number of successful training results

4542 (FT+PT)

879 courses and 23,441 persons

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPS €2.3 million

Net additional FTE jobs created 4,688

Rates of Aid applicable to LEADER M411 – Axis 1 Measure 123Measure 123, delivered by M411, will have a grant rate of 40% up to a maximum grant level

Rates of aid applicable to LEADER M413 - Axis 3Rates of aid cannot exceed rates available to comparable projects under other grant aid schemes operated by Government Departments and State agencies. Subject to this underlying principle the maximum rate of public funding as a general rule will be 75 per cent, with the following exceptions:

Administration up to 100 per cent Animation up to 100 per cent Training up to 100 per cent Analysis and development for community-based projects up to 90 per cent

and 75 per cent for private promoters, subject in all cases to a maximum of €50,000 per project

Community groups will be eligible for a higher rate of aid at 90 per cent where this higher rate of grant would not discriminate against private interests or promoters in the same sphere of activity.

Grant aid must conform to the provisions of de minimis legislation. The standard ceiling for grant aid will be €150,000 with prior approval required from the Department for higher levels up to the de minimis ceiling.

Additional public funding from the relevant Local Authority may be used in respect of community projects of a capital nature, excluding analysis and development actions, under the three measures; Basic Services (321), Village Renewal (322) and Conservation of the Rural Heritage (323). The maximum rate of public funding in such cases shall be 95 per cent.

228

Implementing Co-Operation Projects Involving the Objective Selected under Point (A)

Legal basisArticle 63(b) of Reg. (EC) N 1698/2005

Measure Code: 421

Scope and actionsTransnational and inter-territorial co-operation will be supported under this measure. Co-operation is allowable between LEADER groups and other non-LEADER groups provided the project involved is led and co-ordinated by a LEADER group. Support will be available for projects falling under Measure 411 and 413 and also for innovative and experimental approaches to promoting joint ventures addressing common issues. This context, preparatory activity, co-ordination and animation are eligible for funding. While joint actions may involve groups from third countries, only activities taking place within the EU are eligible for funding. All cross-border projects involving LAGs from Northern Ireland must be submitted to the relevant Managing Authority and endorsed by the Cross Border Steering Group for Rural Development.

Inter-territorial co-operation has the twin aims of achieving the critical mass necessary for a joint project to be viable and encouraging complementary actions in adjoining LAGs. Co-operation should not consist simply of exchanges of experience but must include the implementation of a joint project – supported by a common structure if possible. Special emphasis will be placed on co-operation at the regional level, particularly in relation to tourism and environmental initiatives that naturally span a number of LAG territories.

Procedure, timetable and objective criteria to select inter-territorial and trans-national cooperation projectsThe co-operation methodology must be integrated in the business plans of LAGs at the outset of the programme. The selection and approval of projects must be carried out to the same extent as for other projects, i.e. through the project evaluation committee process. The value-added benefit of all projects must be clearly demonstrated and transparent.

Financing Total Cost: €10.70m Public Expenditure: €7,877,497

229

Quantified targets for EU common indicators

Type of indicator Indicator Target

OutputNumber of supported cooperation projects 265Number of cooperating LAGs  36

ResultGross number of jobs created 147

Impact Net additional FTE jobs created 74

230

Running the Local Action Group, Acquiring Skills and Animating the Territory

Legal basisArticle 59 (Article 63(c) of Reg. (EC) N 1698/2005)

Measure Code: 431

Rationale for the measureSince the LEADER methodology will be utilised to implement integrated wider community rural development programming in all rural areas, both the efficient administration of the Local Action Group and the effective animation of all rural areas are the key targets for support under this measure. Any relevant training required to support administration and animation activity will also be supported under this measure.

Objective of the measure– To provide LAGs with sufficient resources and expertise to efficiently administer and animate their local development strategies throughout all of the rural territory. The strategies include the operation of Measure 123 and all measures under Axes 3 and 4.

Limit to apply on the share of the LAG budget for overhead costs:The administration budget for each LAG is set at a maximum of 20 per cent of public funding, at programme and group level. Local Action Groups may request the payment of an advance of their administration budget. The amount of the advance shall not exceed 20 % of the public funding allocation related to running costs, and payment shall be subject to the establishment of a bank guarantee or an equivalent guarantee corresponding to a minimum of 110 % of the amount of the advance.

Financing Total Cost €84.845m Public Expenditure: €62,464,131

Quantified targets for EU common indicators Type of indicator Indicator Target

OutputNumber of skill acquisition and animation actions 350Number of participants in actions 2100

Result Number of successful training results

2100 persons having completed either a skills-acquisition or animation course

231

Table 5.3.6 List of types of operations referred to in Article 16a(3)(a) up to amounts referred to in Article 69(5a) of that Regulation

Axis/Measure

Type of operation Potential Effects “Existing” or “New” type of Operation (E) or (N)

Output indicator Target

New Challenge: Renewable energies.

121 PERENNIAL ENERGY CROPS (SHORT ROTATION COPPICE AND HERBACEOUS GRASSES).

SUBSTITUTION OF FOSSIL FUELS, CARBON SEQUESTRATION, REDUCTION OF NITROUS OXIDE (N2O)

E Area of energy crops established. 5,670ha

NUMBER OF HOLDINGS RECEIVING SUPPORT.

473

New Challenge: Biodiversity213 Setting up of management

plans for Natura 2000 Protection of birds and other wildlife and improvement of biotope network, reducing entry of harmful substances in bordering habitats, conservation of

N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

8,000

232

protected fauna and flora

Total area under agri-environmental support

240,000 ha.

Total number of contracts 8,000Physical area under agri-environmental support

240,000 ha.

213 Conservation of priority wild bird habitats

Protection of birds and other wildlife and improvement of biotope network, reducing entry of harmful substances in bordering habitats, conservation of protected fauna and flora

N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

701

Total area under agri-environmental support

701 ha

Total number of contracts 701Physical area under agri-environmental support

701 ha

214 Commonage land outside Natura network

Protection of birds and other wildlife and improvement of biotope network, reducing entry of harmful substances in bordering habitats, conservation of protected fauna and flora

N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

5,000

Total area under agri-environmental support

125,000 ha.

Total number of contracts 5,000Physical area under agri-environmental support

125,000 ha.

214/216 Establishment and maintenance of habitats:

Protection of birds and other wildlife and improvement of biotope network,

N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers

3,754

233

New grass habitats reducing entry of harmful substances in bordering habitats, conservation of protected fauna and flora

receiving support

Total area under agri-environmental support

1,877 ha.

Total number of contracts 3,754Physical area under agri-environmental support

1,877 ha.

216 Tree Planting & Management

Protection of birds and other wildlife and improvement of biotope network, reducing entry of harmful substances in bordering habitats, conservation of protected fauna and flora

N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

452

Total area under agri-environmental support

45 ha

Total number of contracts 452Physical area under agri-environmental support

9,043 trees

214 Traditional Hay Meadows Conservation of species-rich vegetation types, protection and maintenance of grasslands.

N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

1,624

Total area under agri-environmental support

6,497 ha

Total number of contracts 1,624Physical area under agri-environmental support

6,497 ha

214 Species Rich Grassland Conservation of species-rich vegetation types, protection and maintenance of grasslands.

N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

1,624

234

Total area under agri-environmental support

6,497 ha

Total number of contracts 1,624Physical area under agri-environmental support

6,497 ha

214 Conservation of animal genetic resources.

Conservation of animal genetic resources

N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

545

Total area under agri-environmental support

18,000 ha

Total number of contracts 545Physical area under agri-environmental support

18,000 ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources

1

214/216 Traditional Orchards Conservation of genetic resources N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

605

Total area under agri-environmental support

30 ha

Total number of contracts 605Physical area under agri-environmental support

30 ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources

1

214 Wild Bird Cover Protection of birds and other wildlife and improvement of biotope network, reducing entry of harmful substances in bordering habitats, conservation of

N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

1,001

235

protected fauna and floraTotal area under agri-environmental support

2,002 ha

Total number of contracts 1,001Physical area under agri-environmental support

2,002 ha

214/216 Hedgerow Planting and Rejuvenation

Protection of birds and other wildlife and improvement of biotope network, reducing entry of harmful substances in bordering habitats, conservation of protected fauna and flora

N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

1,183

Total area under agri-environmental support

236,636 m

Total number of contracts 1,183Physical area under agri-environmental support

236,636 m

214 Traditional Dry Stone Wall Maintenance

Protection of birds and other wildlife and improvement of biotope network, reducing entry of harmful substances in bordering habitats, conservation of protected fauna and flora

N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

1,210

Total area under agri-environmental support

1,210,000 m

Total number of contracts 1,210Physical area under agri-environmental support

1,210,000 m

New Challenge: Water Quality214/216 Riparian Margins Protection and improvement of water N Number of farm holdings and 1,840

236

quality holdings of other land managers receiving supportTotal area under agri-environmental support

2,760 ha

Total number of contracts 1,840Physical area under agri-environmental support

2,760 ha

216 Provision of alternative water source for bovines

Protection and improvement of water quality

N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

3,125

Total area under agri-environmental support

12,500 alternative water sources

Total number of contracts 3,125Physical area under agri-environmental support

12,500 alternative water sources

New Challenge: Climate change214 Arable Margins Reduction of nitrous oxide (N2O),

carbon sequestrationN Number of farm holdings and

holdings of other land managers receiving support

1,353

Total area under agri-environmental support

1,826 ha

Total number of contracts 1,353 Physical area under agri

environmental support1,826 ha

214 Green Cover Reduction of nitrous oxide (N2O), N Number of farm holdings and 688

237

Establishment from a sown crop

carbon sequestration holdings of other land managers receiving supportTotal area under agri-environmental support

6,875 ha

Total number of contracts 688Physical area under agri environmental support

6,875 ha

214 Use of trailing shoe technology

Reduction of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions

N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

1,374

Total area under agri-environmental support

357,143m3

Total number of contracts 1,374Physical area under agri environmental support

357,143m3

214 Min Till Reduction of nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon sequestration

N Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support

399

Total area under agri-environmental support

11,956 ha

Total number of contracts 399Physical area under agri-environmental support

11,956 ha

238

6,7 and 8 Financing Plan

6.1 Annual Contribution from EAFRD (in EURO)

Table 6.1: Annual Contribution from the EAFRD (in EURO) 2,494,540,590

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013TOTAL

Non-convergence region 373,683,516 355,014,220 331,071,422 335,372,252 326,098,528 318,171,063 308,803,589 2,348,214,590Additional Funds from Article 69(5a) of Regulation No 1698/2005 – non-convergence region. - - 15,780,000 28,146,000 25,600,000 34,100,000 42,700,000 146,326,000

Total 373,683,516 355,014,220 346,851,422 363,518,252 351,698,528 352,271,063 351,503,589 2,494,540,590

6.2 Financial Plan by Axis (in EURO, total period)

Table 6.2: Financial Plan by Axis (in EURO, total period)

Axis  Public Contribution

Total public Indicative Rate (per cent)

Applicable Rate(per cent)

EAFRD amount

Axis 1 367,107,103 64.70 85.00 237,515,376

Axis 2 3,396,843,433 55.00 55.00 1,868,263,888

Axis 3 0 0.00 0.00 0

Axis 4 (1) 320,800,746 74.89 85.00 240,275,326

Technical Assistance

4,320,000 50.00 50.00 2,160,000

Total 4,089,071,282 57.42 2,348,214,590

(1) Axis 3 measures are to be implemented using the LEADER (Axis 4) approach.

239

Table 6.2: Financial Plan by Axis (in EURO, total period)

Financial Plan for allocated Health Check and EERP fundsAxis  Public Contribution

Total public€

EAFRDcontribution rate (per cent)

EAFRD amount€

Axis 1 1,500,000 85.00 per cent 1,275,000Axis 2 193,401,333 75.00 per cent 145,051,000Axis 3 0Axis 4 - - -Total 194,901,333 146,326,000

Table 6.2: Financial Plan by Axis (in EURO, total period)

Overall Financial Plan for EAFRD, Health Check and EERP FundsAxis  Public Contribution

Total Public€

EAFRDIndicative Contribution

Rate (per cent)

EAFRD amount

€Axis 1EAFRD –Axis 1 367,107,103 64.70 per cent 237,515,376HC / EERP- Axis 1 1,500,000 85 per cent 1,275,000Total Axis 1 368,607,103 64.78per cent 238,790,376

Axis 2EAFRD – Axis 2 3,396,843,433 55 per cent 1,868,263,888HC/ EERP- Axis 2 193,401,333 75 per cent 145,051,000Axis 2Total 3,590,244,766 56.07 per cent 2,013,314,888

Axis 3*Total

0 0 0

Axis 4Total 320,800,746 74.89 per cent 240,275,326

Axes 3 + 4Total

320,800,746 - 240,275,326

Technical Assistance

4,320,000 50.00 per cent 2,160,000

Total 4,283,972,615 2,494,540,590

*(Axis 3 measures are implemented through the LEADER (Axis 4).

240

Table 6.3 Indicative budget to operations referred to in Article 16a of Regulation (EC 1698/2005 between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2013 (Article 16a(3b) up to amount specified in Article 69 (5a) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005)

Axis/measure EAFRD contribution for 2009-2013

Axis 1Measure 121

Related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), points (a) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

€1,275,000 [Bio-energy scheme]

Total Axis 1 Related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), points

(a) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005€1,275,000 [Bio-energy scheme]

Axis 2Measure 213

Related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), points (a) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

€5,667,436 [Natura 2000]

Measure 214 Related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), points

(a) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.€127,396,464 [Agri-environ scheme]

Measure 216 Related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), points

(a) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.€11,987,100

Total Axis 2 Related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), points

(a) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005€145,051,000

Axis 3Measure 321

Related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), points (a) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

Related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), point (g) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

nil

Total Axis 3 Related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), points

(a) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 Related to priorities listed in Article

16a(1), point (g) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

nil

Axis 4Measure 413

Related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), points (a) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

Related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), point (g) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.

nil

nilTotal Axis 4

Related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), points (a) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

Related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), point (g) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

nil

nilTotal programme €146,326,000

Total under Axis 1,2,3, and 4 related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), points (a) to (f) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

€146,326,000

Total under Axis 3 and 4 related to priorities listed in Article 16a(1), point (g) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005

Nil

Table 7: Indicative breakdown by Rural Development Measure (in EURO, total period)

Measure / AxisPublic

Expenditure

PrivateExpenditur

e

TotalCost

(111) Vocational training and information actions 7,414,720 - 7,414,720

241

(112) Setting up of young farmers 12,942,430 - 12,942,430(113) Early retirement of farmers and farm workers 225,858,724 - 225,858,724

(121) Farm modernisation 122,391, 229 183,586,843 305,978,072(123) Adding value to agriculural and forestry products 0 0 0

Total Axis 1 368,607,103 183,586,843 552,193,946(212) Payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas

1,440,572,861 - 1,440,572,861

(213) Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) 95,738,297 - 95,738,297

(214) Agri-environmental payments 2,037,950,808 - 2,037,950,808(216) non-productive investments 15,982,800 - 15,982,800

Total Axis 2 3,590,244,766 - 3,590,244,766

Axis 3 Implemented under Axis 4 - - -(41) Local development strategies of which:

- 411 Competitiveness- 412 Environmental /land

management- 413 Quality of life/diversification

5,000,000-

245,458,746

7,500,000-

80,200,000

12,500,000-

325,658,746421 Cooperation: 7,878,000 - 7,878,000431 Running costs, skills acquisitions, animation 62,464,000 - 62,464,000

 Total Axis 4 320,800,746 87,700,000 408,218,393

Total Axes 1, 2, 3 and 4 4,279,652,615 271,286,843 4,550,657,105

511 Technical Assistance 4,320,000 4,320,000of which amount for the national rural network (where relevant):

3,000,000 - 3,000,000

(a) Running costs 750,000 - 750,000(b) Action plan 2,250,000 - 2,250,000Grand Total 4,283,972,615 271,286,843 4,554,977,105

Table 8:Additional national financing (Article 16(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005)(In EURO, total period)

242

Measure / Axis 1Additional National

FinancingAxis 1 nil

Measure / Axis 2

(212) Payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas 0(214) Agri-environmental payments 30,000,000

Total Axis 2 30,000,000 Measure/Axes 3(321) Basic services for the economy and rural population* 7,000,000(322) Village renewal and development* 7,000,000(323) Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage* 7,000,000(413) Implementing Local Development Strategies* 21,000,000

Grand Total 51,000,000

* As Axis 3 measures are implemented using the LEADER (Axis 4) approach the total of €21million is shown under Measure 413.

243

9. Competition (State Aid) appraisalAs indicated in Section 8, additional state aid financing is being provided for a number of measures under Axes 1 and 2 of this programme. The state aid position in relation to that financing is indicated in the table below. Also shown in that table is the position regarding compliance of Axes 3 and 4 measures with the de minimis regulation.

State Aid (Table A)Annex II, point 9 A of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1974/2006

Measures falling within the scope of Article 36 of the EC Treaty

Measure Code

Name of the Aid Scheme

Indication of the lawful-ness of the scheme

Duration of aid scheme

Axis 2

212

Payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas

Information on compliance with Reg 1974/2006 set out in Appendix 5

2007—2013

214Agri-environmental payments

Information on compliance with Reg 1974/2006 set out in Appendix 5

2007—2013

244

State Aid (Table B)Measures falling outside the scope of Article 36 of the EC TreatyAnnex 11 point 9B of Commission Regulation EC No. 1974/2006

Axis 3

Measure Code

Name of the Aid scheme

Indication of the lawfulness of the Scheme

Duration of Aid scheme

311Diversification into non-agricultural activities

Compliance with De Minimis Regulation 1998/2006 2007—2013

312 Support for the creation and development of

Compliance with De Minimis Regulation 1998/2006

2007—2013

245

micro-enterprises

313 Encouragement of tourism activities

Compliance with De Minimis Regulation 1998/2006 2007—2013

321Basic Services for the Economy and Rural Population

Compliance with State Aid Approval No. 607/2009 2007-2013

321

Basic Services for the Economy and Rural Population other than the Rural broadband Reach Scheme.

Compliance withState Aid SA.34223 (2012/N) 2007-2013

322Village Renewal and Development

Compliance withState Aid SA.34223 (2012/N) 2007-2013

323Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage

Compliance with De Minimis Regulation 1998/2006 2007—2013

331

Training and information for economic actors operating in the fields covered by Axis 3

Compliance with De Minimis Regulation 1998/2006 2007—2013

341

Skills acquisition and animation with a view to preparing and implementing a local development strategy

Compliance with De Minimis Regulation 1998/2006 2007—2013

Axis 4

411Quality of life/diversificationCompliance with De Minimis

Regulation 1998/2006 2007—2013

413Quality of life/diversificationCompliance with De Minimis

Regulation 1998/2006 2007—2013

421Trans-national and inter-regional cooperation

Compliance with De Minimis Regulation 1998/2006 2007—2013

431

Running the local action group, skills acquisition, animation

Compliance with De Minimis Regulation 1998/2006 2007—2013

Any cases of application of the schemes enumerated above for which under State Aid rules or under conditions and commitments laid down in the respective State aid approval decision, individual notifications are required, will be notified individually pursuant to Article 108 (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

246

247

10. Complementarity with other CAP instruments and EU Policies

General appraisal

The measures in this programme complement the support available in Ireland under the first pillar of the CAP. Direct income payments to farmers under that pillar are based on the principle of full decoupling, i.e. they are not linked in any manner to production. Market returns are, therefore, the key to production. This in turn puts an emphasis on competitiveness, and the Axis 1 measures in this programme address this priority in the important areas of restructuring and farm modernisation. The Axis 2 measures also tie in with the first pillar support. These underline the public good aspect of agriculture and the importance of sustainability. In this, they reflect and expand upon the environmental-related conditions attached to the direct income payments. The support being provided under Axis 3 is also completely compatible with the first pillar of CAP. Targeted as it is on the ‘off-farm’ economy, it recognises the importance of wider rural development both to the agricultural sector and to the overall rural population.

The programme also complements Ireland’s national strategic reference framework for European Cohesion policy 2007—2013. That framework concerns support from the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund. The strategic focus is on human capital investment, innovation, knowledge and entrepreneurship and strengthening the competitiveness and connectivity of the gateways and hubs set out in the National Spatial Strategy. This focus harmonises with rather than duplicates the priorities of this programme. In any event, there will a mechanism—set out in the following section—to ensure that there is no overlap or duplication of interventions.

This programme will not provide support to the fisheries sector or aquaculture industry. It will, however, complement actions under the European Fisheries Fund through support for coastal communities under Axes 3 and 4. As with the other European Funds, there will be procedures to ensure complementarity and demarcation between fund interventions. Specifically an inter-departmental group is being established to oversee implementation of fisheries and marine related actions under the FIFG and EAFRD funds. Complementarity will be further ensured through the recent inclusion of Fisheries within the remit of the Department of Agriculture and Food.

It is also relevant that Ireland’s National Development Plan 2007—2013 contains a number of exchequer-funded measures that have a clear rural development focus. These measures include sectoral on-farm investment support, assistance for afforestation and related forestry activities, and an animal welfare scheme for the suckler herd. The measures complement those in this programme and, in particular, address the competitiveness and environmental priorities under Axes 1 and 2. The measures were drafted in parallel with those in this programme and were subject to the same consultation and evaluation process. Together with the measures in this programme, they form part of the agriculture and food support in the National Development Plan and, through its monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, will be

248

kept under continuous review to ensure consistency of approach. Measures under Axes 3 and 4 have been formulated to complement nationally funded programmes aimed at improving social and economic infrastructure in less populated rural areas (CLÁR programme as described in Section 3.4 ‘Impact from previous programming period’). A national scheme offering low-income farmers income support opportunities through providing services to local communities has been designed around the structure of the LEADER methodology (Rural Social Scheme as described in Section 3.4 ‘Impact from previous programming period’). In this way complementary national initiatives strengthen the social and economic impact of measures in Axes 3 and 4.

Turning to the programme’s compatibility with other EU strategies, Ireland’s national rural development strategy outlined the linkage to its Lisbon Reform Programme that was launched in October 2005. That programme accepted the emphasis on growth and jobs while also recognising social equity and environmentally sustainable development as inter-related goals.

The rural development strategy and this related programme are very much in line with the Lisbon Reform Programme. Axis 1 and Axis 2 will promote competitiveness and sustainable development respectively. The Axis 3 measures will also contribute to these objectives while in addition enhancing social inclusion.

Other EU strategies reflected in this programme include:

Plan for Organic Farming –The organic sector will benefit from the particular arrangements applicable to it under the rural environment protection scheme in Axis 2.

Climate Change – The Axis 2 measures are particularly relevant here. EU Biodiversity Strategy 2010 – Natura 2000 sites will be supported under

Axis 2. The afforestation measure will also contribute to biodiversity. 6th Community Environment Action Programme – Community actions

targeting sustainable use of local resources and waste reduction initiatives under Axis 3 will support the objectives of this programme.

EU i2010 ICT Strategy – training and access to ICT systems, e-public and e-business services supported under Axis 3 are relevant to this strategy.

European Marine Strategy Directive – Axes 3/4 measures will, where relevant, demonstrate a complementarity with its aims.

Demarcation criteria for Axes 1, 2 and 3/4 measures

The measures within Axes 1 and 2 will be administered by the Department of Agriculture and Food and concern sectors/areas that are within its remit. They relate to actions that are not eligible for support under another Community instrument and do not duplicate the support schemes referred to in Annex 1 of Regulation 1974/2006.

The Axis 3 measures that fall within the remit of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs are included in the priority. They are included the chapter on the rural economy in the NDP. Their complementarity with a suite of nationally and EU co-funded measures that will benefit the rural economy is demonstrated in that plan and has already been referred to in the above general appraisal.

249

In liaison with the managing authorities for other EU—funded Programmes 2007—2013 the Managing Authority for this programme identified the possible risk of overlapping and is satisfied that no overlapping will arise. The following potential areas of risk of overlapping were assessed:

Accessibility—ERDF emphasis will be on public infrastructure, while EAFRD emphasis in Axis 3 will be on community-based services.

Risk prevention—ERDF support as currently proposed envisages supporting publicly funded and managed (by local authorities) source protection in rural areas and pilot treatment facilities in small rural villages to protect water intended for human consumption and to prevent risks to public water supplies. The EAFRD-supported rural development programme provides for on-farm privately co-financed pollution control, on-farm environmental protection and community amenity-type investments along waterways.

Renewable energies—ERDF funding will support energy-efficient transport, public buildings and industrial premises, renewable energy demonstration projects, sustainable energy zones and innovation schemes. EAFRD support for renewable energies will apply to development and initiatives by rural communities to reduce the carbon footprint. Such initiatives will focus on use and adaptation of local resources and raw materials to provide innovative energy-efficient systems to local communities and small villages. Such initiatives will be developed in consultation with the competent authorities.

Natural and cultural heritage—ERDF supports will assist the restoration and upgrading of natural and cultural heritage sites in designated urban centres. EAFRD funding is targeted at rural areas, including villages.

Broadband—ERDF funding for broadband will focus on the provision of local infrastructure through the further roll-out of the MANS networks and Group Broadband Scheme for smaller rural communities, via regional and local authorities. The EAFRD will be limited in scope to support for local actions to benefit from the availability of broadband infrastructure, e.g. through access to public e-services etc.

Training—The ESF will support training to facilitate a return to mainstream employment and strengthen the national labour market pool. The EAFRD will fund limited local training of rural dwellers to maximise uptake of the LEADER methodology and facilitate involvement in measures under Axis 3.

Fisheries—The EFF will fund activities in the marine and fisheries sector. The EAFRD will be limited in scope to on-shore support of local coastal communities.

Risk of overlap with First Pillar – EAGF - Funding for similar actions under the Scheme of Aid for Producer Organisations in the Fruit and Vegetable Sector may be allowed in respect of one fund only with priority given to the First Pillar fund.

Where a member of a Fruit and Vegetable Producer Organisation has received support for actions under the Scheme of Aid for Producer Organisations that person shall be precluded from receiving support for similar actions from the EAFRD.

POs will be required to certify that neither they nor their members have applied for or received any other aid. In addition, claims for actions involving capital

250

investment, agri-environment commitments or organic production will be checked against records of other Schemes and discovery of an application for duplicate funding by any one member of the PO will result in disallowance of the entire action.

At local administrative level County Development Boards have government responsibility for co-ordinating the delivery of measures locally through local authorities and area development groups. Conscious of the need to avoid duplication of interventions, Local Action Groups will be obliged to have cross-representation arrangements with County Development Boards and have business plans endorsed by them.

Specific complementarity with other key priority areas such as rural enterprise and tourism will be achieved through consultation with Regional Tourism Authorities and formal sectoral agreements with County Enterprise Boards. All relevant service providers will be represented on the boards of Local Action Groups.

To ensure continued satisfactory co-operation and demarcation between EU-funded programmes, a committee on co-ordination of EU funds is to be established. This is detailed in Ireland’s national strategic reference framework (NSRF) for European Cohesion policy. The NSRF under the Department of Finance provides that assistance under the ERDF, ESF, EAFRD and EFF is consistent with the activities, policies and priorities of the EU and complementary with other financial instruments of the Community and that no duplication of effort takes place. The committee to be established under the NSRF will seek to ensure synergy between operational programmes and may be called upon to resolve possible demarcation issues. It will include the two Departments charged with implementation of this programme, together with the managing authorities for other operational programmes.

251

11. Designation of Competent Authorities and Responsible Bodies

The Department of Agriculture and Food has overall responsibility for fulfilling the role of the member state in accordance with Article 74 of Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005. The Department has structures in place to ensure that its administrative and control systems protect the financial interests of the EU. These include appropriate numbers of trained administrative staff in authorising divisions, a technical inspectorate which carries out controls on the spot, an appropriately staffed and trained Internal Audit Unit, an Accreditation Review Group chaired by the head of the paying agency, to review compliance with Accreditation criteria laid down in Annex I of Commission Regulation 885/2006 and to ensure relevant audit findings are followed up, and an audit committee chaired by an external person, and with external membership, both from the public and private sectors. A written agreement covering compliance with accreditation criteria has been finalised with the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, which will manage the Axes 3 and 4 measures as a delegated body and there is cross-representation between the two Departments on their respective Accreditation Review Groups. A similar arrangement will be entered into with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources concerning its implementation of the broadband measure under measure 321 of Axis 3.

The designated authorities in line with Article 74 of Regulation 1698/2005 are as follows:

Managing Authority – Rural Development Division of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will have this role. The division will carry out the functions set out in Article 75 of Regulation 1698/2005. It has fulfilled a similar function in relation to the CAP Rural Development Plan 2000—2006. The managing authority is responsible for managing and implementing the programme in an efficient, effective and correct way.

Paying Agency – The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the accredited paying agency within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No. 1290/2005. Within the Department, the divisions implementing the individual schemes and Finance Division, which will certify EAFRD payment claims, will meet the relevant responsibilities. In the case of Axis 3/4 measures, the paying agency’s responsibilities are delegated to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and, through it, local action groups. EAFRD claims will, however, also be channelled through the Finance Division of the Department of Agriculture and Food. The paying agency has to provide guarantees as to validity of payments and retention of supporting documents.

Certifying Body – Deloitte & Touche is the appointed certifying body within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation No. 1290/2005. The certifying body is an independent overseer of the truthfulness, completeness and accuracy of the paying agency’s accounts.

The management and control structure is summarised in the chart in Appendix 7.

252

12. Monitoring and Evaluation System

Description

In line with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005, the Department of Agriculture and Food – as the managing authority – and the monitoring committee will have responsibility for the monitoring and evaluation system. That system will take account of the EU common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF). As with the ex-ante evaluation, the mid-term and ex-post evaluations will be undertaken by independent evaluators. On-going monitoring and evaluation work will supplement these. The implementing Departments – Agriculture and Food and Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs – will carry this out. Its scope and nature will be informed by the CMEF requirements, the outcome of the independent evaluations and the deliberations of the monitoring committee.

Envisaged composition of the monitoring committee

The monitoring committee will be set up within three months of EU approval of this programme. It will be chaired by the Department of Agriculture and Food and is likely to include representation from:

Farming and rural bodies Regional/local government Environmental and equality interests Relevant Government Departments and bodies.

The monitoring committee will oversee the implementation of the programme. The EU Commission is entitled to participate in its work in an advisory capacity.

253

13. Communication Plan on Information and Publicity

AimThe aim of the communication plan is:

To ensure awareness, understanding and action where applicable among the primary audience of beneficiaries

To inform and educate the primary audience of the administrative procedures and applications for finance

To communicate to the beneficiaries and relevant secondary target audiences (detailed below) information regarding the contribution made by the EAFRD

To provide information and publicity for the general public on measures financed under this programme and on its overall progress

To inform the public of the programmes adoption by the EU Commission and its updates, the main achievements in the implementation of the programme and its closure. The slogan and logo for the EAFRD will be included in such publications

To provide for constant review to ensure the above aims are achieved To deliver the communication plan at a cost-efficient price.

Responsibility of the managing authorityThe managing authority will have overall responsibility for the communication plan. It will liaise with the Departments and divisions responsible for the individual measures to ensure coherent action. It will also arrange for the monitoring committee to review progress on the action plan and to consider possible adaptations. In addition the managing authority will link in with the national rural network to ensure a co-ordinated approach to the dissemination of information.

Starting from 2008, the managing authority will publish annually by electronic means the list of beneficiaries receiving support under the programme, the measures involved and the amounts of public contributions allocated.

Target groupsThe primary target audience comprises: Potential beneficiaries, and the General public.

There are additional key groups that will be a focus of the communications plan and will, thus, be both informed and aware of the programme. In this context, over 70 groups engaged in the consultative process on the rural development strategy and programme. The groups covered a wide spectrum including farming/rural interests, national/regional/local authorities, and equality and environmental matters. In consultation with the national rural network, the managing authority foresees an important role for these groups in disseminating information about the programme. A similar role can be played by the European Commission Office in Dublin, which will also be kept informed of developments under the programme.

254

Communication plan and information measureOver the period of the programme the managing authority will disseminate comprehensive information on the RDP using all suitable media facilities. The role of and financial contributions from the EAFRD will be referenced in the appropriate information measures made available to interested applicants.

The communication plan will involve using a number of media channels to communicate to the primary and secondary audiences that will be both constant and in phases over the seven year period. These channels are:

1. Advertising campaign - Phases2. Website - Constant3. Print material* - Constant4. PR - Constant5. Media relationship management - Constant6. Seminars / Road shows/ Conferences - Phases

(*to include brochures and information leaflets etc)

The advertising campaign is planned to run over a number of concentrated phases to achieve maximum impact and awareness of the programme. The timing of each phase will be tailored to achieve and deliver on the aims. Media planning will be based on using all available market research tools.

The initial phase in 2007 will involve extensive advertisement in the national newspapers, farming press, development of website information and distribution to the target groups of print material on the programme. This is the key launch phase for announcing the commencement of the programme and making both primary and secondary audiences aware of the programme and the positive impact this will have.

To build on the momentum that the launch phase will deliver, the focus of the next phase, over the period of the programme, is to further roll-out the programme information by way of further public advertisement, seminars, information centres at major rural/agricultural shows and updates on the website. Progress reports will be made available to beneficiaries and the general public using the appropriate media tools during the programming period.

The information sources, e.g. leaflets, website, will include telephone contact points at national and local level for potential applicants and the general public to discuss the programme and its implementation.

The timing of each phase is tailored to achieve and deliver on the aims set out above, more specifically as follows: Phase 1 September—October 2007 This is the key launch phase for announcing the commencement of the RDP and making both potential beneficiaries and the general public aware of the programme and the positive impact this will have. The media selection of Department press releases and website, national press, farming press, national and regional radio will be relied upon to deliver this phase.

255

Phase 2 February—March 2008 Building on the momentum that the launch phase will deliver, the focus of this phase is to further roll-out the programme information and updates. The media selection is as per phase 1.

Phase 3 February—March 2009 This phase is designed to act as both a reminder and an updater of the progress of the RDP.

Phase 4 February—March 2011 This is the final planned phase and will be used to further update the beneficiaries on the RDP and to highlight the progress from 2007. Again, the media selection is based on phase 1.

The information measures will focus on the following objectives:

Information for potential applicants and beneficiaries

Promoting greater general public understanding of the objectives and achievements of the programme in Ireland

Ensuring recognition of the role of, and financial contribution from, the EAFRD.

To achieve these objectives the managing authority will undertake the following communication functions:

Co-ordinate the communication plan for the programme

Assist the monitoring committee in the review, update and dissemination of the communication plan

Publish and circulate of the approved programme and a summary booklet for potential beneficiaries and other interested parties

Make the programme and the summary booklet available throughout the implementing Departments’ national and local office networks

Publish the national rural development strategy

Develop and use information tools including leaflets/posters, advertisements, display stands, advertisements and a website to promote a greater understanding of the programme.

Ensure the role of, and contributions from, the EAFRD are referenced on the websites of the implementing Departments, information leaflets and in their periodic publications

Publish information leaflets/forms/guidance documents on each of the support measures in print and electronic form

Participate in seminar, conferences, information days, rural/agricultural shows to promote a greater understanding of the programme and the implementation and monitoring arrangements in Ireland

Publish progress reports on the programme in Annual Review and Outlook of the Department of Agriculture and Food and in the respective Annual Reports of the

256

Department of Agriculture and Food and of the Department of Community Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.

Publish the relevant support measures in the Schemes and Services Booklet of the Department of Agriculture and Food and in the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs’ guide booklet Many Communities – A Common Focus

Make reference in the information measures to the responsibility of beneficiaries to display an explanatory plaque if in receipt of programme support for an investment greater than €50,000 and a billboard if greater than €500,000

Provide updates on Departments’ websites on the programme and specific support measures

Undertake forward planning of linkages between developments under the communication plan and the European Network for Rural Development.

In addition, the managing authority will perform a support role for the implementing Divisions and the DCRGA by the provision of advice on implementing the publicity and information regulation and assistance in the implementation of the communication plan.

Indicative budgetThe communication plan will be funded by the national exchequer and by the EAFRD. Total funding over the period of the programme is estimated at €1m.

Administrative Department/Bodies responsible for implementation of communication PlanCAP Rural Development Division of the Department of Agriculture and Food is the managing authority under the RDP and has responsibility for the preparation and implementation of the communication plan. This task is shared with the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (DCRGA). As the DCRGA has responsibility for the measures under Axes 3 and 4 of the programme, it will have a pivotal role in ensuring implementation of the communication plan in relation to these particular measures. All publication and information measures will be co-ordinated between both Departments.

Evaluation of the impact of the information and publicity measuresThe managing authority will monitor the impact of the information and publicity measures in terms of transparency, awareness of the programme and the role of the EU.

This evaluation process will be defined by the respective audiences, i.e. the most effective indicator for the beneficiaries can be determined by take-up of the relevant programmes. For the general public, the independent evaluation at mid-term stage will include an assessment of the effectiveness of the communications plan. While the methodology to be used will be left to the independent evaluators, it will be a core condition in the invitation to tender. In addition, a website survey will be conducted to assess stakeholders’ satisfaction with the programme’s publicity measures.

257

The monitoring committee will guide the managing authority as to possible additional publicity measures.

The managing authority will ensure that the information and publicity measures are in accord with Annex VI of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1974/2006 of 15 December 2006 – implementing rules [OJ L 386, 23.12.2006, p.15].

258

14. The designation of the partners consulted and the results of the consultation

Designation of the partners consulted

On 24 October 2005 a notice was placed in the national media inviting expressions of interest from organisations wishing to be consulted on the draft national rural development strategy and programme.

Eighty-four replies were received. The organisations involved were regarded as having a legitimate interest and were formally designated as consultative partners on 15 November 2005.

On 23 December 2005 a consultative document issued to the partners. This sought views as to the priorities, measures and other factors for incorporation into the rural development strategy/programme.

Seventy-two submissions were received. Their contents were outlined to the consultative partners at a seminar in Tullamore, Co. Offaly on 14 March 2006. The seminar also afforded an opportunity for participants to expand on their submissions and/or to put forward further ideas.

The consultative process covered measures such as forestry that are not covered by this programme. In the interest of complementarity and completeness the comments made on those measures are, however, included in the following sections.

Results of the consultation

The submissions covered the full breadth of the proposed strategy/programme and contained a wide variety of views. It is, thus, difficult to present a composite summary but the following were the main points to emerge.

There were different views as to the preferred balance between the priorities. While each priority had its advocates, all were viewed as important, with a particular appreciation being shown for the environmental aims of Axis 2.

In relation to Axis 1, most considered that support should be slanted towards physical capital (farm improvement etc.) rather than human capital (training etc.). The need to address the age structure issue in agriculture was, however, also cited, as was the desirability of supporting, where possible, renewable energy initiatives.

On Axis 2 there was very strong support for the current rural environment protection scheme. It was seen as important in terms of water quality and biodiversity. Two other current schemes, compensatory allowances and forestry, also had significant support counteracted to some extent by critical comments – the long-term benefit to disadvantaged areas was questioned, as was the forestry species mix and use of certain land. Some put forward Natura 2000 and animal welfare as possible measures.

In relation to Axis 3 in particular, the need to cross-reference to other policy documents (e.g. spatial strategy, white paper on rural development) and to bear in mind equality and social inclusion issues was highlighted.

There was strong support for a rural network. The general view was that this must have broad representation and must cover the full scope of the programme.

259

Following the preparation of the draft Rural Development Programme a public consultation process commenced on 7 November 2006. Allied to this a public consultation meeting was held on 28 November 2006.

Over forty submissions were received, from different interested parties and individual members of the public. The submissions included general comments on the content of the draft Programme and specific comments and suggestions on the individual measures/schemes proposed in the Programme. The comments and suggestions on the individual measures are summarised in the following section. The observations of a more general nature are summarised here according to their source.

Political Parties

1 Fianna Fáil MEPS

The Fianna Fáil members of the European Parliament warmly welcome the expenditure provisions and the range of measures provided for in the Programme. They also identify a number of areas, which they feel should receive more emphasis and attention. These include:

The need to increase the availability of broadband, particularly the provision of access for Community groups

The establishment of an interdepartmental group on child care (Justice, Health and Children, and Agriculture) to ensure that rural communities are receiving adequate funding

A proposal to increase the level of tax exemptions available to encourage increased production of bio-energy and bio-fuels

Upgrading of regional airports, extension of international air access and the enhancement of local transport facilities.

ResponseThe Programme provides for measures that include business creation and training of economic actors, which support the utilisation of local ICT facilities, and training in new ICT technologies such as broadband. The proposals made in relation to child care, tax exemptions for bio-energy and bio-fuels and the enhancement of transport infrastructure are outside of the remit of the Programme.

2 Green Party

The submission made by the Green Party recognises the important role that the Programme will play in providing a stable rural economy. The submission focuses on the need to support the development of rural enterprises and the importance of developing an enhanced renewable energy sector in rural areas. A summary of the specific proposals made by the Green Party are set out below: The development of the bio-fuels and bio-energy sectors A proposal for the introduction of a new Planning Code for rural areas to

support and facilitate the development of alternative and indigenous enterprise in these rural areas

A proposal for a study to devise a new plan for farm-based tourism The establishment of a national rural enterprise agency, which would be a

‘one-stop shop’ for advice on grant supports, mentoring, business opportunities, training and development in rural areas and for rural enterprises

260

A proposal for a public consultation process on Farmers’ Markets.

ResponseThe measures proposed in Axes 3 and 4 of the Programme provide for schemes to encourage and enhance rural enterprises through the provision of supports for training, business creation, village renewal and development, the conservation of rural heritage and the enhancement of tourism activities in rural areas. On renewable energy, support for the establishment of miscanthus and willow are provided for under the Pillar 1 measure described at Section 3.1.

The specific issues raised in relation to a planning code for rural areas, a rural enterprise agency, a farmers’ market public consultation process and a farm-based tourism study are part of the broader public policy debate on rural areas and rural enterprise. These issues are dealt with on an on-going basis by number of a Government Departments, namely Agriculture and Food; Community, Rural Affairs and the Gaeltacht; Finance; Enterprise, Trade and Employment; and Transport.

Other Government Departments

1 Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG)

The DoEHLG is pleased with the provisions promoting protection of aquatic environments, in particular the new aspects of the REPS scheme and in Axis 4 for the promotion and improvement of threatened water bodies.

In relation to forestry and its potential impacts on water quality the DoEHLG has highlighted, the influence of tree species and soil type.

ResponseThe DoEHLG’s endorsement of the aquatic protection provisions is welcome. The comments on forestry are dealt with under the Strategic Environmental Assessment.

2 Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (DCMNR)

The DCMNR have highlighted two areas:

While the programme recognises the need to introduce voluntary measures designed to improve water quality in a number of areas: specifically, certain salmon rivers and pearl mussel habitats, and the catchments of certain western lakes, the DCMNR sees scope for more detailed plans for rivers and lakes to be included.

There is no reference in the Biodiversity sections of the programme to the need to protect aquatic habitats, particularly salmon habitats, or the benefits that the riparian corridor can provide as a habitat for flora and fauna.

Response

261

The issue of water quality in general is addressed via the measures put in place to implement the Water Framework Directive as well as by national legislation such as the Phosphorus Regulations and the Nitrates Regulations. The voluntary schemes in this programme include elements designed to complement and augment these efforts, but are not themselves the primary instrument for improving water quality. The dedicated Supplementary Measure for Riparian Zones is being extended in REPS to help the preservation of the freshwater pearl mussel, and the Supplementary Measure for certain lake catchments (complemented by actions under Axis 3) is innovative. These and other aspects of the programme can be reconsidered at the mid-term evaluation stage, particularly in the light of developments in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.

The importance of aquatic habitats is fully accepted. The individual elements of the programme, particularly those in the agri-environment measures, provide a high level of supplementary protection for habitats such as ponds, rivers and lakes where they exist on a participating farm. These actions are, however, complementary to national efforts (by statutory means and otherwise) to improve water quality, such as the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.

3 NDP Gender Equality Unit, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (DJELR)

The NDP Gender Equality Unit provided the following comments and suggestions:

The commitment to the promotion of gender equality contained in the programme, particularly under the LEADER approach and training measure under Axis 3 is welcomed. It is, however, suggested that in the absence of dedicated gender equality personnel and resources, the promotion of equality throughout the programme measures may be uneven.

The clearly stated commitment in the programme to ensuring that the provisions of the Equal Status Acts 2000 and 2004 are met is viewed very positively.

As approximately 90 per cent of land is in male ownership, the submission envisages that the extent of such ownership will be continued through the proposed concentration of expenditure at on-farm level. One suggested option is to retain a dedicated expenditure under Axes 1 and 2 for training measures for women.

Failure to promote the concept of farming partnerships is seen as a lost opportunity to foster equality.

Monitoring and evaluation data should be gender disaggregated across the programme to facilitate measurement of on-going programme impact on gender equality.

ResponseEquality of opportunity is a core requirement of the programme, as emphasised in chapter 15. Assurance of continued equality will be maintained through the appropriate composition of the monitoring committee and disaggregation of performance evaluation data into gender components where possible.

Farm Bodies

262

The farm organisations have in general broadly welcomed the programme and are supportive of its measures. There is a recognition that the proposed measures will assist in helping to meet the challenges facing Irish agriculture and rural areas in the next seven years. There is also recognition that the draft Programme provides for the improvement of the physical infrastructure and the enhancement of the knowledge base of the sector while maintaining the focus on enhancing sustainability and the environment.

The farm bodies made a number of other general comments and suggestions: The increased funding allocations and payment rates in the various measures

were welcomed. There should be a further enhancement of schemes to encourage the

production of renewable energy crops. An animal welfare scheme for dairy herds, which would improve

competitiveness by improving the productivity of the herd, should be introduced in the Programme. Similar suggestions were made in relation to sheep and deer.

Response

The measures in the programme are the maximum possible, bearing in mind the regulatory provisions and the available funding. They also reflect the consensus reached with the farm bodies in the social partnership process and the consultation on this programme. Through the monitoring and evaluation framework, progress will be kept under review.

Environmental Bodies

The environmental bodies broadly supported the environmental elements of the programme but raised a number of additional issues that they felt could be dealt with in the programme. The specific concerns raised by environmental bodies in respect of forestry are dealt with in the Strategic Environmental Assessment.

The other issues raised by the environmental bodies are set out below:

While broadly supporting the need for strong and sustainable rural development, more emphasis needs to be placed on protecting, maintaining and enhancing the conservation of key rural sites for sensitive flora and fauna.

Little consideration has been given in the programme to the identification and protection of high nature value (HNV) farmland, which is recognised within the EU as a key habitat.

A biodiversity monitoring programme, including a farmland bird population indicator, should be established as part of the programme.

Resources in the REPs should be allocated to proper ecological supports including ecological training for those involved in REPs.

The REPs 4 is welcome. It is the simplicity of the scheme, which appeals to farmers, and this ensures a large uptake by farmers, resulting in positive impacts on biodiversity in the Irish countryside.

Water quality issues, which are being addressed in the development plans for River Basin Districts, should also be reflected in the programme.

A scheme that supports a return to domestic garden fruit and vegetable production, should be included in the programme.

263

Response The primary mechanism for conservation of key sites for sensitive flora and

fauna is the system of designation administered by the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Participants in any of the measures in the programme will – as before – be required to follow the appropriate NPWS prescriptions for such sites where these are available.

Farmers participating in REPS must meet high standards of environmental management on their lands, regardless of whether they are in a HNV area. The identification of HNV farmland is not itself a matter for the programme. However, if such lands are designated by a competent authority and protection measures are prescribed, then those measures would have to be complied with by participants in the measures in the programme.

BirdWatch Ireland already conducts a monitoring programme on farmland birds and this indicator is listed in the programme. National biodiversity monitoring is not a matter for the RDP.

REPS has always included provisions for training to help the participant understand and meet his or her agri-environmental commitments under the scheme. REPS 4 training will be devised to match the requirements of the final scheme.

The voluntary schemes in the programme include elements designed to augment and complement national efforts on water quality such as implementation of the WFD and the designation of habitats, but the programme is not the primary instrument for addressing water quality issues.

REPS 4 proposes to continue support for traditional orchards.

Forestry Groups

The general issues raised by the forestry groups include the following:

The level of funding proposed for forestry is inadequate and will not cover planting targets.

The planting target is 50 per cent of the planting target set by the Government’s national forestry strategy (20,000 hectares). The planting targets are therefore not in line with the current Government forestry policy.

The consequences for the processing sector of the reduced planting target have not been taken into account. The annual figure of 20,000 hectares was identified in the national strategy as being the minimum to create an economical critical mass for the processing sector.

The funding for forestry is no longer co-financed by the EU, unlike previous the programming periods. This will leave the annual funding for forestry open to the political decisions made as part of the national estimates process.

While the programme does recognise the role played by forestry in climate change through carbon sequestration, a mechanism to compensate farmers for their carbon sequestration is required.

The level of funding provided for the forestry development and competitiveness measures is inadequate.

ResponseThe level of funding for forestry under the National Development Plan 2007–2013 includes a number of proposed new measures to make investment in forestry more

264

attractive than ever. Ultimately, the schemes are demand-led but the intention is to stimulate that demand. The question of the ownership of sequestered carbon remains an issue for future debate.

Public Bodies (incl. Regional Assemblies/Authorities and Western Development Commission)

The need for complementarity between this programme and the new National Development Plan 2007–2013 was a common theme. Other general issues included:

The need to ensure complementarity with the National Spatial Strategy and EU structural funds, particularly the avoidance of overlap with measures contained in the Operational Programmes of the Regional Assemblies

Further broadening of measures particularly aimed at rural tourism, micro- enterprise, and conservation and upgrading of rural heritage

Development of rural infrastructure concerning road, rail and air transport facilities in rural areas

Use of appropriate performance indicators and establishment of a representative monitoring committee and network.

ResponseThe programme is structured to complement and add value to the wider range of measures focused on rural areas that are contained in the new National Development Plan 2007–2013, particularly under the strategic priority heading ‘The National Development Plan and Rural Communities’.

Social Inclusion Groups

A common theme addressed by many groups was the need to develop the social capacity of communities to address the underlying causes of poverty, promote social inclusion, and pursue equality of opportunity at all levels. Other issues raised include:

The need to clearly address issues of social inclusion, non-discrimination and reduction in poverty within the framework of the White Paper on Rural Development 1999

A more equitable distribution of funding across axes Support for training, the provision of basic social infrastructure, particularly

services aimed at supporting the elderly, health care, rural transport, broadband and child care

Specific support for marginal groups such as farm smallholders.

ResponseThe White Paper on Rural Development 1999 provides the strategic framework for the promotion of social inclusion and combating poverty in rural communities. Both of these core issues will be addressed under appropriate measures in this programme, particularly through training initiatives, skills-acquisition actions and capacity-building measures.Community Environmental Groups

The common principle underlying most submissions with an environmental focus was the sustainable economic development of rural areas. Submissions strongly supported:

265

The development of renewable energy initiatives and environmentally sustainable, well-planned small-scale enterprises

The promotion of adequately funded recreational activities and related infrastructure in the wider countryside. A specific measure should be aimed at the Countryside Recreation Strategy

The protection from erosion of coastal areas important to local communities.

ResponseThe business plans of local action groups implementing environmental actions in the wider rural economy must clearly demonstrate positive environmental impact. Actions targeting rural recreation must conform to the principles of the Countryside Recreation Strategy.

Rural Economy Groups

There was a clear emphasis in many submissions on developing the local rural economy, particularly through support for small-scale enterprise. Economic supports by LEADER groups should be delivered in close co-

ordination with other public support agencies. The establishment of a dedicated Rural Development Agency charged with

streamlining support for rural enterprise was also proposed. There was a general opinion that economic activity should concentrate on

local resources such as artisan foods, farmers’ markets, renewable energy sources and other enterprises focused on local materials and know-how.

There was a specific proposal to support farm-based business creation, particularly in relation to on-farm diversification options.

ResponseEnterprise support activity must not duplicate initiatives by other public agencies, and appropriate sectoral agreements must be in place at local level. Emphasis will be placed on developing on-farm diversification initiatives and enhancing the economic contribution of local natural resources.

Other Interested Parties

Submissions were also received from a small number of other interested parties and individuals. These submissions included requests for, among other things, a scheme to fund Farmer Accident and Sickness insurance and a request to fund a project which will deliver an integrated Information Technology (IT) farm software package for farmers and agricultural organisations. The regulatory terms and/or the available funding do not allow these requests to be pursued under the programme.

266

Public Consultation Process—Suggestions on Individual Measures

The table below sets out the main specific points to emerge in the consultation process, and the responses to them. It is not an exhaustive list and does not include proposals relating to details of the measures and/or their implementation that are appropriate to measure documentation rather than to this programme.

AXIS 1 COMPETITIVENESSMeasure Suggestion Response

Young Farmers Installation Scheme

2006 transfers should be eligible for the new rate

Not possible under terms of regulation

Minimum size of farm should be 10ha in disadvantaged areas and 15ha in non-disadvantaged areas

The minimum sizes of farms provided for in the programme are more appropriate in the context of the competitiveness aim

Minimum length of lease should be 5 years and not 10

The 10-year lease requirement provided for in the programme is more appropriate. This will however be the subject of a review after 5 years

FETAC level 6 Advanced Certificate in Agriculture should be the new minimum educational requirement

FETAC level 6 or equivalent provided for in the measure

Early Retirement from Farming

Index linking of pension Not possible. Previously rejected by EU Commission for legal reasons

Basic payment rate of 75 per cent of total payment on 1st 5ha and a payment rate of €198 per ha for 1st 24ha

This issue is partially addressed in the re-structuring of the pension payments now in measure

Maximum age of transferee should be 50 years

Acceptable in certain circumstances and now in measure

Retired farmers should be given the farmer rate of forestry premium

This proposal is precluded by EU regulation

Retirees to be allowed work a certain number of hours a week on son/daughter’s farm

This proposal is precluded by EU regulation, which states that Transferors must cease all agricultural activity

Small farmers should be encouraged to participate. Therefore pension calculation needs to be examined

Restructured pension calculations now in measure

In case of intensive farmers calculations should be based on a standard amount and not hectares

The revised pension calculation will be of increased benefit to intensive farmers

267

Minimum size of farm should be 10ha in disadvantaged areas and 15ha in non-disadvantaged areas

The minimum sizes of farms provided for in the programme are more appropriate in the context of the competitiveness aim

Age of transferee must be less than 40 years rather than 45 years

See reply above regarding age of transferee

Transferors should be between 55 and 66 and not 56 years

This proposal has been accepted

On-Farm Investment

Maximum grant rates allowable should be used

The rates and other conditions reflect the investments needed, the available funding and the likely uptake. Progress will be kept under review

Investment ceilings need to be increased in line with increases in standard costs and these need to be increasedThere should be greater flexibility on spending within the schemesSeparate investments limit of €120,000 for farm waste Management and dairy hygiene should apply.

A separate investment limit of €120,000 for dairy hygiene is now provided

A scheme to support wood chip boilers should be considered

Already provided by Sustainable Energy Ireland through the Greener Homes Scheme

Provisions should be made for partnerships

Where appropriate special conditions are applied in individual schemes to cover farm partnerships

AXIS 2 ENVIRONMENTMeasure Suggestion Response

Less Favoured Areas Compensatory Allowances Scheme

Minimum stocking density should be abolished

While both suggestions have alternative merits, it has been decided to continue with a minimum level of 0.15lu/ha. Matter can be re-examined in light of planned review of disadvantaged areas

Minimum stocking level should be 0.3lu/ha

Review of areas outside of disadvantaged areas with a view to including marginal land

Not issue for programme. Review of disadvantaged areas’ classification already planned

Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/0EC

NHA, SPA and SAC land should all attract the same payment level

Designated NHA, SPA and SAC all attract the same level of payment. The justification for paying the same rate for proposed/candidate NHA will need to be examined

268

Payment rate of €243 should apply on 1st 20ha of no designated land

The payment rate for the 1st 20ha of non-designated land has been set at €234/ha, and represents the 17 per cent increase agreed in recent partnership talks

Rural Environment Protection Scheme – REPS Agri-environment payments

A review of operating costs and income foregone should occur in 2008 and payments rates increased where necessary

The mid-term review can examine all aspects of REPS payments

Payment rates need to be frontloaded to encourage greater uptake by small-scale farmers

The proposed rates reflect the agreement reached in recent partnership talks

Concerns over Nitrates Regulations compliance

There are no additional compliance requirements in the Nitrates Action Programme for REPS farmers over and above non-REPS farmers

Requirement for 5-year lease prior to application should be amended

Farmer must give a commitment for 5 years and, therefore, the lease must cover the full period of the REPS contract

5 per cent inspection rate Not a matter for the programme; can be dealt with in the scheme’s terms and conditions

No need for a minimum stocking density

A minimum stocking level is required to provide an environmental return and to ensure against land abandonment. It will also ensure that the person getting the benefit is farming. Ownership of land does not entitle a person to REPS payments

Should be a grazing period of 6 months, not 3

The length of the grazing agreement can be decided later in drawing up the REPS specification. On the basis of grazing aftergrass the period of 6 months could not be justified

Farmers utilising a nitrate derogation of 250kg/ha should be able to participate

All farmers will be eligible for REPS 4

Farmers operating over 170kg/ha will be required to apply annually for a derogation and will require a nutrient management plan under the nitrates directive. The nutrient levels in the management plan approved for the purposes of the derogation will be acceptable for REPS also.

269

Increase payment rates for supplementary measures in line with increased costs

Rates reviewed and adjusted

Farmers should be allowed accumulate aid by taking on more than 2 supplementary measures

Not acceptable on grounds of extra cost. The funding provided for the programming period only assumes a maximum of two supplementary measures in the cumulation of aid

A traditional grazing supplementary measure is required

Such a measure is included

Various suggestions in relation to supplementary measures

Details will be examined in drawing up the specification for REPS

If restriction of payments to 55ha is to continue the farmer should be allowed exclude any areas exceeding 55ha

Payments are not restricted to 55ha. All land in REPS qualifies for a payment

First afforestation of non-agricultural land grant should be limited to private individuals, with premiums limited to farmers

Regulation does not limit measure to private individuals. Limited premiums are payable in respect of abandoned farmland

FEPS should be targeted towards new afforestation on REPS farms

FEPS establishment is targeted towards new afforestation on REPS farms and is designed to encourage the establishment of high nature value forests

Funding should be provided for forest roads

A Forest Infrastructure Scheme is included as provided for under Article 30 of Council Regulation 1698/2005

AXIS 3 RURAL ECONOMY/ QUALITY OF LIFEMeasure Suggestion Response

Diversification into Non-Agriculture

Support should be available to promote production of artisan foods, food tourism and farm shops

All of these initiatives are eligible for support

Development of Micro-Enterprise

Government should introduce a programme for Rural Enterprise Development and establish a Rural Enterprise Agency. Mentoring should be supported

The business plans of Local Action Groups must be submitted to, and support, the development strategy of the local County Development Board. Sectoral agreements must also be agreed with the County Enterprise Boards to maximise the impact of public funding on local

270

micro-enterprise development.Rural Tourism A dedicated measure

should be introduced to support development of countryside recreation, including resourcing landowners

The Rural Tourism measure specifies the need for complementarity with the Countryside Recreation Strategy

Village Enhancement Develop a Farmers Market Network

Support is available for the further development of Farmers’ Markets

Basic Services for the Rural Economy

Increase availability of broadband

Provision of ICT infrastructure is not within the scope of this measure

Provision of adequate funding and resources to provide sufficient level of services such as child care, care of the elderly, rural transport system, water treatment.

The provision of mainstream social service is in the remit of several Government Departments. This measure will cater for provision of specific local cultural and recreational infrastructure, in agreement with local authorities

Upgrading of Rural Heritage

Specific support should be given to the protection of local beaches and coastal areas from erosion

There is provision for support for the protection and upgrading of local amenity landscape

Conservation of biodiversity, particularly in relation to fruits and plants should be encouraged

A number of initiatives implemented by the Department of Agriculture and Food currently address the conservation of plant and animal genetic resources

Support should be available for small-scale renewable energy projects by Community groups and other local actors

This will be the case where appropriate projects are submitted to the Local Action Group

Training and Skills A Community Training Programme similar to a former FÁS programme should be introduced

Provision of mainstream training is within the remit of FÁS

An existing Small Holder Initiative to assist low-income farm holders should be supported under this measure

Relevant actions to develop the economic capacity of this and other target groups can be undertaken by Local Action Groups as relevant to the local area

271

15. Equality between Men and Women and Non-Discrimination

Promotion of equalityThe measures in this programme are open to men and women equally. In this context, equality has and will be promoted. The following points are relevant:

The design of various measures promotes an equitable approach. The training measure under Axis 1 includes courses aimed at women.

The involvement of women, young people and older workers is identified as a priority for the programme and is expressly incorporated in measures under Axis 3, and in the composition of Local Action Groups and inanimation of the rural territory.

Equality of participation will be fostered at monitoring committee, selection panel and project levels.

In line with the EU common monitoring and evaluation framework, relevant data will be collected on male and female participation in the programme. This will be available to the managing authority, the monitoring committee and the external evaluators for the purpose of assessing the promotion of equality.

Programme and project level evaluations will assess the extent to which equality has been promoted.

Non-discriminationThis programme is within the remit of the Equal Status Acts 2000 and 2004. Those Acts prohibit discrimination on the grounds of gender, marital status, family status, age, race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and membership of the Traveller community. The measures in the programme have been drafted/ screened so as to ensure that the provisions of the Acts are met. Scheme administrators and project promoters will be advised of the need for non-discrimination and the monitoring committee will be kept informed of developments in this area.

272

16. Technical Assistance Operations

Scope of EAFRD Technical Assistance

The EAFRD will fund the independent mid-term and ex-post evaluations of the Programme, the national rural network, the Communication Plan on information and publicity and expenses incurred in the operation of the National Monitoring Committee. It will also fund expenses relating to the ongoing evaluation of the Programme in accordance with Article 86 of Council Regulation 1698/2005. In order to ensure continuity between activities under the current and future Programmes, the preparatory costs, including an ex-ante evaluation, strategic environmental assessment and associated evaluation work for the 2014 – 2020 programming period will also be funded. It is vital that this preparatory work begins in 2012 and 2013 so that it is completed in sufficient time to inform the next programme; as such it is necessary to fund the costs from the current programme. Only expenditure related to activities providing a genuine and direct link between the two programming periods will be eligible.

National Rural Network

AimThe purpose of the National Rural Network is to assist the efficient and effective implementation of the Rural Development Programme across all axes and to promote synergies across measures. The network will have regard to the different methods of measure delivery under the Axes.

Since there is a significant degree of experience at local level in delivery of rural programming both on and off-farm, a significant focus of the network will be to secure and co-ordinate the flow of information, including performance indicators, between local beneficiaries, intermediate bodies and the managing authority.

BudgetThe indicative budget for the network is €3m and of this €750,000 will be used for the running costs of the network provider. The budget for the implementation of the action plan will be €2.25m, of which €450,000 will be available for the development of a central website and on-line database.

TimetableA tender document for the network will be prepared in September 2007 and will issue following consultation with the European Commission.It is scheduled to have the network operational by March 2008.

Selection of Network providerThe network infrastructure will be provided by an external body selected by a public competitive tendering process. The selection process is scheduled for Autumn 2007.

273

The network will be funded from the Technical Assistance budget, and indicative breakdown of expenditure between running costs and implementation of the action plan will be 25:75. The allocation towards running costs will cover all standard administration costs associated with running the network. Costs covered under the action plan will include the establishment and maintenance of a central website and on-line information database.

Terms of referenceBroad terms of reference will be included in the tender document. The network will build on the success of the current national LEADER network in developing and disseminating best practice across the range of implementing bodies. However, approaches to expanding the networking experience outwards over all 4 Axes will be critical to the final evaluation process. In this context a key function of the network will be to identify, develop and disseminate opportunities for synergies between measures across axes. Aspects targeted should include areas of high nature value and the promotion of environmental protection.

Resource requirementsThe provider must put in place a dedicated network unit, staffed and resourced, consistent with effective delivery of an approved annual action plan. As the technical core of the network will be primarily web based, a strong ICT capacity must be in place.

ParticipationThe network is expected to include Local Action Groups, Social Partners, Government Departments (including Paying Authority and Managing Authority) and Agencies as well as Rural and Countryside Representative Organisations.

Functions of the Network The identification and grouping of stakeholders involved in rural

development programming Transfer of knowledge and best practice to beneficiaries through

dissemination actions and exchange experiences The convening of relevant seminars, conventions and workshops to

ensure the use of best practice in programme delivery Development of a state-of-the-art website; development of project and

statistical databases including ability to capture performance indicators at each level of the hierarchy

Publication of regular updates on programme delivery to as wide an audience as possible. Such publications should be harmonised with and complement those prepared under the Communications plan, particularly in relation to bringing the programme to the attention of the wider general public.

As well as complementing the work of the Communication plan, the output of the network should also feed directly into the annual reports and other formal presentations of the managing authorities

The collection and analysis of indicators and evidence-based programme outputs should feed directly into the mid-term and final programme evaluations. This activity is a core function of the network

274

The provision of a comprehensive information service to groups and organisations when requested

Facilitating and promoting inter-territorial and trans-national cooperation in relation to the delivery of Axes 3 and 4. The network must have the capacity to develop the co-operation principle, provide regulatory advice and offer appropriate mentoring

Representing Ireland on the proposed European Network for Rural Development and other relevant fora and promotion of the rural development programme nationally and abroad.

The network selection process will evaluate the proposals of candidate providers to implement the various functions, any other proposed functions and the indicative resources allocated to the overall task.ManagementA steering group will be established to oversee the delivery of the Network Action Plan. The steering group will consist of the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, the network provider, a representative from the farming organisations and from Local Action Groups. The steering group will meet quarterly in the first year of operation of the network and as necessary thereafter.

275

Appendices 1-10

Appendix 1

Background Tables on Rural Areas, Agriculture and Food

Table1: 2006 Population by Region and Age Structure (percentage)Region Under

15 years

15 - 19 years

20 – 24

years

25 – 64

years

65 years and

upwards

Region as percentage of

total populationLeinster including

GDA

11.0 3.6 4.6 29.5 5.4 54.1

Munster 5.6 1.9 2.1 14.7 3.3 27.7Connacht and part of

Ulster

3.8 1.3 1.3 9.5 2.3 18.2

Total 20.4 6.8 8.1 53.7 11.0 100.0

Table 2: Projected Population to 2026 by Regional Authority (000)53 Region Popn

2006Natural Increase

Internal Migration

External Migration

Popn 2021

Average annual increase (%)

Border 470 81 -16 57 592 1.2Dublin 1,183 258 0 217 1,659 1.7Mid-East 479 147 69 59 754 2.3Midland 252 50 -15 33 321 1.2Mid-West

359 65 -6 32 450 1.1

South-East

461 79 -8 59 591 1.3

South-West

619 108 -21 70 776 1.1

West 411 74 -4 72 552 1.5State 4,233 863 0 600 5,696 1.5

53 CSO Regional Population Projections 2011-2026

276

Table 2a: Definition of Rural Areas

Criteria Percentage National Popn defined as rural

Percentage of National Territory defined as rural

Popn density of rural areas

Eurostat 2000 definition of Rural

71 per cent 99 per cent 40 persons/ km2

Current definition 2000–2006 programme, i.e. excluding 5 major urban centres

64 per cent >97 per cent *

Proposed definition excluding original NSS urban

72 per cent >98.7 per cent

OECD definition, i.e. less than 150 persons/km2

54 per cent 73 per cent

* Calculated from CSO 2002 Ortho map of population density based on Electoral Divisions.

Table 3: Age Profile by System of Farming, 2007< 35 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 > 65 Total (‘000)

Specialist Tillage

10 per cent

18 per cent

24 per cent

27 per cent

20 per cent

5.0

Specialist Dairying

8 per cent

24 per cent

28 per cent

25 per cent

14 per cent

19.3

Specialist Beef

Production

6 per cent

16 per cent

23 per cent

26 per cent

28 per cent

68.2

Specialist Sheep

8 per cent

16 per cent

24 per cent

26 per cent

26 per cent

15.5

Mixed Grazing

Livestock

6 per cent

17 per cent

25 per cent

26 per cent

25 per cent

16

Mixed Crops and

Livestock

6 per cent

16 per cent

26 per cent

26 per cent

26 per cent

3.1

Other 9 per cent

18 per cent

27 per cent

27 per cent

18 per cent

1.0

Total 7 per cent

18 per cent

24 per cent

26 per cent

25 per cent

128.1

Source: CSO, Farm Structures Survey

277

Regional Spread of the FDT Sector Local Units, 2003

Number of Local UnitsRegional Authority Area

Border DublinMid-East

Mid-West Midland

South-East

South-West West Total

FDT 105 109 57 64 38 106 145 72 696Total Manufacturing 637 1,166 492 443 303 602 691 445 4779

FDT as per cent of Regional Total

16.48 per cent

9.35 per cent

11.59 per cent

14.45 per cent

12.54 per cent

17.61 per cent

20.98 per cent

16.18 per cent

14.56 per cent

per cent of Total FDT

15.09 per cent

15.66 per cent

8.19 per cent

9.20 per cent

5.46 per cent

15.23 per cent

20.83 per cent

10.34 per cent

100.00 per cent

No of Local UnitsMeat 19 16 23 14 14 28 14 20 148Dairy 11 3

34*9 3 14 20

52*60

Other Foods 70 78 36 13 53 105 355Drink and Tobacco 5 12 5 8 11 6 47*Breakdowns unavailable due to confidentiality.Source: CSO, Census of Industrial Production

Table 4: Regional Spread of the FDT Sector Local Units, 2003

Table 5: Size Structure and Productivity of the Food, Drink and Tobacco (FDT) and Total Manufacturing Sectors, 2003

Size Structure and Productivity of the Food, Drink and Tobacco (FDT) and Total Manufacturing Sectors, 2003

Local Units Persons Engaged Net Output per unit

Net Output per Person

EngagedNos. Employed 000's 000's €000's €000's

FDTAll

Industry* FDTAll

Industry * FDTAll

Industry* FDT

All Industry

*Under 10 194 1,882 969 9,971 303 298 60.7 56.310-19 137 1,050 1,983 14,481 776 788 53.6 57.120-49 147 968 4,636 30,077 2,085 1,973 66.1 63.550-99 90 416 6,382 28,627 8,671 7,309 122.3 106.2100-199 72 253 10,443 35,614 14,393 24,262 99.2 172.4200-249 14 46 3,184 10,437 8,659 31,451 38.1 138.6250+ 42 164 18,071 92,141 183,404 295,887 426.3 526.6Total 696 4,779 45,668 221,348 14,529 13,068 221.4 282.1Source: CSO, Census of Industrial Production* Total Manufacturing Local Units

Table 6: Export earnings and break down of sectors in agri-food

278

Value of Exports of Agricultural and Agri-food Produce 1999-2006

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Exports Exports Exports Exports Exports Exports Exports Exports

€m €m €m €m €m €m €m €mLive Animals other than 03 298.26 420.03 184.72 209.77 238.29 229.69 226.63 310.409Meat & meat preps 1,770.56 1,752.13 1,594.13 1,744.251,857.61 2,052.70 2,181.78 2,403.16Dairy products, caseins, ingredients and eggs 1,608.97 1,941.04 1,978.23 1,744.721,707.00 1,848.68 2,003.90 2,202.02Cereals and cereal preps 263.93 291.53 314.60 258.24 214.91 200.48 231.22 242.557Potatoes, fruit and vegetables 171.78 172.31 229.88 234.24242.66 217.90 243.13 277.822Sugar, sugar preps and honey 100.30 101.77 113.07 135.47118.92 142.39 135.07 144.874Feeding stuffs for animals 113.83 121.45 135.08 142.46152.91 169.64 176.66 144.582Misc. edible products 785.34 801.66 809.98 832.75802.69 803.20 812.91 910.709Hides and skins 75.05 96.45 99.64 104.2985.64 84.63 75.26 94.014Oilseed and oleaginous fruits 1.65 0.78 1.19 1.231.71 6.29 5.19 6.576Flax and wool 9.74 10.47 8.36 12.8110.89 7.93 7.03 4.846Crude animal & veg mats nes 93.42 96.34 98.39 86.52 82.81 89.76 91.18 71.496Animal oil and fats 21.43 21.98 17.70 21.5123.55 18.90 15.02 14.222Vegetable oil and fats 7.45 5.36 5.89 4.157.78 6.38 3.29 4.496Coffee, tea, etc 209.09 209.62 207.97 226.17228.25 224.83 230.23 229.498Beverages 743.58 854.42 870.96 893.981,012.66 949.01 1,019.69 1296.95Tobacco 60.09 103.87 113.78 107.6894.82 87.68 89.66 74.57Total Agri-Food 6,334.47 7,001.20 6,783.58 6,760.236,883.09 7,140.10 7,547.86 8,432.80* provisionalSource: Central Statistics Office (Trade Data)

Table 7: Enterprise Size by Number of Employees (per cent)54

54 Source: Review of enterprise support in rural areas, Fitzpatrick Associates, 2004

Self-employed 1-9 10-49 50-99 100-499Rural Areas

21.6 65.4 11.2 1.1 0.7

State 23.2 59.7 13.6 1.7 1.3

279

Table 8 Livestock Numbers 1990—2006*

YEAR CATTLE (millions) SHEEP (millions)1990 6,816 8,5391991 6,912 8,8881992 6,951 8,8971993 6,981 8,6261994 6,996 8,4041995 7,034 8,3311996 7,313 7,8881997 7,532 8,1311998 7,640 8,3121999 7,387 7,9252000 7,037 7,555

2001** 7,049 7,3302002 6,992 7,2092003 6,999 6,8482004 7,015 6,7772005 6,982 6,3922006 6,915 5,973

* Source: Central Statistics Office June Livestock Survey ** First year of de-coupling (Area Based Compensatory Allowances Scheme)

280

Table 8 A: Number of Livestock (000 Head) by Region, Year and Type of Animal

ÉIRE / IRELAND

Number of Livestock (000 Head)

by Region, Year and Type of Animal

Total Cattle

Total Cows

Dairy Cows

Non Dairy Cows

Total Heifers

Dairy Heifers

Other Heifers Bulls

Cattle 2+

years

Cattle 2+

years - Male

Cattle 2+

years - Female

Cattle 1-2

years

Cattle 1-2

years - Male

Cattle 1-2

years - Female

Cattle Under 1

year

Cattle Under 1 year - Male

Cattle Under 1 year -

FemaleTotal

Sheep Ewes

Ewes - 2+

years

Ewes - Under 1

year RamsOther Sheep

Ireland Total 2000 7037.4 2364.4 1177.5 1187 331.6 206.5 125.1 56.1 1016.2 721.6 294.7 1517.1 912.4 604.7 1751.9 919.4 832.5 7555 4106.9 3398.3 708.6 109.5 3338.72001 7049.7 2379.3 1182.5 1196.8 331.1 198.3 132.8 58.8 941.1 642.1 299 1515 913.3 601.7 1824.4 955.2 869.2 7330.3 3914.6 3261.3 653.3 104.9 3310.92002 6992.2 2318.3 1164.1 1154.2 373.9 230.7 143.2 62.8 844.7 560.4 284.3 1593.2 991.8 601.4 1799.3 953.1 846.2 7209.6 3804.1 3150 654.1 105.3 3300.12003 6999.5 2342.9 1155.6 1187.3 352.8 215.8 137 64.1 901.5 598.7 302.8 1577.1 983.3 593.9 1760.3 922.1 839.1 6848.9 3615.4 3026.8 588.6 102.5 31312004 7015.6 2363.2 1156.1 1207.1 369.2 229.6 139.6 66.5 910.6 605.4 305.2 1534.8 949.8 585 1771.4 929.8 841.6 6777.2 3570.4 2985.6 584.8 99.6 3107.32005 6982.6 2341.5 1113.7 1227.8 378.3 230.2 148.1 68.3 929.4 619.3 310.2 1575.6 940.2 635.3 1689.5 842.5 847 6392.2 3358.2 2774.7 583.5 96.3 2937.82006 6915.9 2324.6 1109.2 1215.4 385.7 228.7 157 69.3 929.4 639.7 311.5 1560.4 915.7 638.1 1631.2 801.7 829.5 5973.2 3104.3 2619.7 484.6 95.7 2773.2

BMW RegionsBorder 2000 967.3 350.7 127.5 223.2 43.9 21.7 22.2 8.6 115.1 74.3 40.8 193.6 111 82.7 255.3 130.7 124.6 1336.9 755.7 624.9 130.8 20.8 560.3

2001 979.5 354.3 129.2 225.1 44.5 21.2 23.3 9.1 110.3 68.4 41.9 200.7 116.6 84.1 260.6 133.2 127.4 1330.9 722.6 599.2 123.3 20.3 5882002 970.9 344.5 128 216.5 50.9 25.1 25.8 9.6 99.2 56.7 42.5 210.1 125.9 84.2 256.6 130.3 126.3 1285.6 688.9 567.9 120.9 19.8 5772003 961.7 340.5 122.1 218.4 45.6 21.8 23.8 9.7 105.7 60.6 45.1 203.7 119.5 84.2 251.7 134.9 121.6 1240.3 672.8 561.2 111.6 20.3 547.32004 954.9 337.7 120.5 217.2 46.3 23.8 22.5 10.2 109.5 64.1 45.4 205.5 119.5 86 245.9 127 118.9 1240.8 682.4 572 110.4 19.6 538.82005 953.3 334.5 114.4 220.1 48.7 22.7 26 10.4 112.6 64.2 48.4 205.3 114.5 90.8 241.8 121.1 120.8 1173.4 634.8 530.6 104.2 19.8 518.82006 966.7 329.5 112.2 217.3 49.2 21.6 27.6 10.6 112.6 69.6 50.5 223.8 135.5 88.4 233.5 113.7 119.9 1094.9 594.9 497.3 97.6 19.3 480.7

Midland 2000 778.1 219.9 79.7 140.2 28.2 14.3 13.9 4.9 156 108.5 47.4 188.5 110.8 77.7 180.5 96.4 84.2 583.6 308.7 263.3 45.4 8.9 2662001 748.1 220.9 79.9 141 29.2 14.1 15.1 5 133.5 90.3 43.2 185.1 110.6 74.5 174.4 90.6 83.8 570.4 294.8 254.1 40.7 8.9 266.72002 769.6 220.7 78.7 142 35.1 17.6 17.5 5.5 122.9 84.4 38.5 197.7 124.4 73.3 187.7 101.4 86.3 558.1 277.7 234.2 43.5 8.1 272.22003 994.6 226.6 81.9 144.7 31.1 14.7 16.4 6 130.8 87.5 43.3 205.1 128.5 76.6 189.7 136.8 88.4 516.1 259.7 225.5 34.2 7.7 248.82004 782.4 229.3 81.4 147.9 35.2 16.3 18.9 6.3 128.8 88.7 40.1 188.6 116.6 72 194.3 102.7 91.6 507.2 256.4 218.3 38.1 8 242.72005 803.9 227.6 78 149.6 34.1 17.1 17.1 6.5 138.6 92.5 46.1 205.8 120.6 85.2 191.1 96.8 94.3 489.7 245.5 208 37.5 7.2 2372006 801.7 231.2 77.5 153.7 35.5 16.9 18.5 6.8 138.6 97.2 45.8 196.1 111.3 84.8 189.2 95.2 94 513.3 245.4 218.9 26.5 7.3 260.7

West 2000 998.6 333.5 69.6 263.9 36.3 12.6 23.7 7.2 161.5 112.6 48.9 207.6 125.2 82.4 252.4 134.6 117.8 1959.7 1055.3 874.2 181.1 26.8 877.62001 993.5 334.9 68.6 266.3 37.3 11.9 25.4 7.9 149.8 100.5 49.3 209.2 122.4 86.8 254.5 133.6 120.9 1931 1014 848.5 165.5 25.4 891.62002 988.5 324.1 68 256.1 46.1 19.4 26.6 9 133.9 86.6 47.2 218.7 135.4 83.3 256.7 138.4 118.3 1923.6 1010.8 841.9 168.9 26 886.92003 1411 330.9 67.4 263.5 39.4 12.9 26.5 9 143.6 90.6 53 217.2 134.8 82.4 249.7 196 117.7 1828.7 945.8 795.3 150.5 26 856.9

281

Total Cattle

Total Cows

Dairy Cows

Non Dairy Cows

Total Heifers

Dairy Heifers

Other Heifers Bulls

Cattle 2+

years

Cattle 2+

years - Male

Cattle 2+

years - Female

Cattle 1-2

years

Cattle 1-2

years - Male

Cattle 1-2

years - Female

Cattle Under 1

year

Cattle Under 1 year - Male

Cattle Under 1 year -

FemaleTotal

Sheep Ewes

Ewes - 2+

years

Ewes - Under 1

year RamsOther Sheep

2004 989.7 332.6 65.6 267 40.9 13.1 27.8 9.9 140.8 88.7 52.1 214.2 132.8 81.4 251.3 133.8 117.5 1800.4 935.1 788.9 146.2 26.4 838.92005 990.3 327.9 58.6 269.3 41.3 12.7 28.6 10.4 148.2 90.8 57.4 217.8 126.7 91.1 244.7 127 117.8 1727.9 897.8 743.2 154.6 23.6 806.52006 974 321.5 56.8 264.7 42.2 12.4 29.8 10.8 148.2 93.9 55.2 219 120.1 92.3 238.1 124.2 114 1630.1 844.5 707.3 137.2 24.9 760.7

Southern and Eastern RegionsMid-East and Dublin 2000 609.8 172.9 87.4 85.5 26.5 17.1 9.5 3.8 136.9 99.1 37.7 144.6 83.6 61 125.1 64.6 60.6 1137.3 575.7 474.2 101.5 16.1 545.4

2001 573 169.4 86.6 82.8 26.4 16.2 10.2 4 113.8 78.1 35.7 134.9 77 57.9 124.4 64.2 60.2 1080.1 542.2 443.1 99.2 15 522.92002 578.3 165.7 84.2 81.5 27.7 17.5 10.2 4.2 107.6 73.4 34.2 150.1 89 61.1 123 63.7 59.3 1056.4 534.1 430.2 103.8 15.4 5072003 792.8 168.6 82.1 86.5 27.2 15.7 11.5 4.3 117.8 82.8 35 145.4 88.2 57.3 122.6 105 59.4 1036 514.8 420.8 93.9 14.9 506.42004 583 170.9 81.7 89.2 27.3 16.4 10.9 4.3 118.2 80.9 37.3 141 83.6 57.4 121.2 63.2 58 998.7 499.5 411.6 87.9 14.1 4852005 582.1 169.7 79.4 90.3 27.3 16.6 10.7 4.5 120.3 84.4 35.9 142.2 81.2 61 118.2 58.1 60.1 956.4 478.7 385.4 93.3 14.6 463.12006 573.9 167.3 76.7 90.6 28.6 15.9 12.7 4.7 120.3 81.8 36.5 136.7 79.2 57.5 118.4 56.1 62.2 894.4 435 365.9 69 13.9 445.6

Mid-West 2000 1023 357.4 190.2 167.2 50.4 31.3 19.1 9.3 137.8 101.6 36.2 204.4 128.4 75.9 263.7 140.2 123.6 270.7 142.3 119.5 22.8 4.2 124.22001 1049.8 356.4 190.2 166.2 49.4 30.4 19 9.5 139.3 98.3 41 212.1 133.9 78.3 283 150 133 251.2 136.4 117 19.5 3.9 110.82002 1031.6 347.3 189.1 158.2 56.3 36 20.3 10 120.6 84.1 36.5 218.9 142.9 76 278.4 150 128.4 248 134.1 113.7 20.5 4.1 109.72003 588.3 359.1 187.3 171.8 55.9 35.3 20.6 10.5 126.3 87 39.3 219.2 142 77.2 272.2 65.6 127 223.6 117.4 102.3 15.1 3.7 102.52004 1061.3 364 190.1 173.9 60 39 21 11 126.8 84.9 41.9 215.6 136.6 79 284 153.7 130.3 212.7 109.4 95.9 13.5 3.6 99.72005 1051.8 363.4 181.9 181.5 59.3 37 22.4 11.2 127 89.2 37.8 220.7 138.9 81.8 270.1 140.9 129.2 196.7 102.4 89.2 13.1 3.5 90.82006 1040.5 355.9 178.5 177.4 60.7 37.4 23.3 11.1 127 99.2 44.4 215.6 132.8 82.8 253.7 132.4 121.3 178.6 91.6 80.6 11 3.5 83.5

South-East 2000 1266 396.4 243.2 153.2 59.8 42.6 17.2 9.1 172.1 129.3 42.8 309.4 189.7 119.7 319.1 172.3 146.8 1347.2 709.3 579.6 129.8 19.1 618.82001 1257.1 400.9 244.4 156.5 58.9 40.8 18.1 9.4 166.2 121.8 44.4 299.9 186.3 113.6 321.8 171.8 150 1277.9 667.5 552.8 114.7 18.4 5922002 1242.7 391.5 240.1 151.4 63.6 44.2 19.4 10 144 104.2 39.8 308.1 194.9 113.2 325.5 176.2 149.3 1249.9 640.7 531.9 108.8 18.3 590.92003 1048.6 392.2 239.7 152.5 62.6 44.1 18.5 9.9 148.3 106.2 42.1 308.9 196.2 112.7 275.9 150.5 147.3 1134.3 587.5 486.5 101 16.4 530.42004 1240.8 400.1 241.5 158.6 68.5 49.2 19.3 10.2 154.8 110.1 44.7 297.6 189.1 108.5 309.3 161.3 148 1154.1 585.1 471.2 113.9 14.9 554.12005 1213.4 397.6 235.6 162.1 70.7 49.5 21.2 10.3 152.6 110.2 42.4 307.3 189.7 117.6 274.8 123.5 151.3 1051.5 535.4 430.9 104.5 15.3 500.82006 1209.1 401.5 240.4 161.1 73 49.9 23.1 10.4 152.6 111.2 43 301.7 176.6 125.2 268.1 117.2 150.9 932.1 473 396.4 76.6 15.3 443.8

South-West 2000 1394.7 533.6 379.8 153.8 86.4 66.8 19.5 13.2 136.7 96 40.8 269 163.7 105.3 355.7 180.8 175 919.7 559.8 462.6 97.2 13.4 346.42001 1448.9 542.6 383.7 158.9 85.3 63.5 21.8 13.8 128.3 84.6 43.7 273.1 166.6 106.5 405.7 211.7 194 888.8 537 446.7 90.4 12.9 338.82002 1410.7 524.5 375.9 148.6 94.2 70.8 23.4 14.5 116.7 71.1 45.6 289.4 179.2 110.2 371.3 193.1 178.2 888.1 517.9 430.2 87.7 13.7 356.52003 1202.4 525.1 375.2 149.9 90.9 71.2 19.7 14.7 129 84 45 277.6 174.2 103.4 366.8 133.2 177.7 869.9 517.5 435.2 82.3 13.6 338.82004 1403.5 528.6 375.3 153.3 90.9 71.8 19.1 14.5 131.7 87.9 43.8 272.4 171.7 100.7 365.4 188 177.4 863.3 502.4 427.6 74.8 12.9 347.92005 1387.7 520.7 365.8 154.9 96.8 74.7 22.1 15 130 88 42 276.5 168.6 107.9 348.7 175.2 173.5 796.6 463.7 387.4 76.3 12.2 320.72006 1349.9 517.8 367.2 150.6 96.6 74.5 22 14.9 130 86.9 36.1 267.5 160.2 107.2 330.1 162.8 167.3 729.6 419.9 353.3 66.6 11.5 298.3

282

Table 9: Fertiliser Use 1990—2005

YEAR FERTILISER (000 tonnes)

YEAR FERTILISER (000 tonnes)

1990 1,793 1998 1,8301991 1,744 1999 1,8491992 1,646 2000 1,7301993 1,767 2001* 1,5451994 1,820 2002 1,5231995 1,921 2003 1,6281996 1,896 2004 1,5371997 1,699 2005 1,479

2006 1,427

* First year of de-coupling (Area Based Compensatory Allowances Scheme)

Source: Compendium of Irish Agricultural Statistics (Department of Agriculture and Food) and Central Statistics Office

Persons per Kilometre Square.- Greater than 150 shown in green- Less than 150 other colour

284

Appendix 2 Natura 2000 Areas

The areas designated to implement Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC and the obligations for farmers resulting from the corresponding national/regional management provisions:

Special Areas of ConservationNo. Site Code Site Name1 000006 Killyconny Bog (Cloghbally)2 000007 Lough Oughter and Associated Loughs3 000014 Ballyallia Lake4 000016 Ballycullinan Lake5 000019 Ballyogan Lough6 000020 Black Head—Poulsallagh Complex7 000030 Danes Hole, Poulnalecka8 000032 Dromore Woods and Loughs9 000036 Inagh River Estuary10 000037 Pouladatig Cave11 000051 Lough Gash Turlough12 000054 Moneen Mountain13 000057 Moyree River System14 000064 Poulnagordon Cave (Quin)15 000077 Ballymacoda (Clonpriest and Pillmore)16 000090 Glengarriff Harbour and Woodland17 000091 Clonakilty Bay18 000093 Caha Mountains19 000097 Lough Hyne Nature Reserve and Environs20 000101 Roaringwater Bay and Islands21 000102 Sheep's Head22 000106 St. Gobnet's Wood23 000108 The Gearagh24 000109 Three Castle Head to Mizen Head25 000111 Aran Island (Donegal) Cliffs26 000115 Ballintra27 000116 Ballyarr Wood28 000129 Croaghonagh Bog29 000133 Donegal Bay (Murvagh)30 000138 Durnesh Lough31 000140 Fawnboy Bog/Lough Nacung32 000142 Gannivegil Bog33 000147 Horn Head and Rinclevan34 000154 Inishtrahull35 000158 Lough Akibbon and Gartan Lough36 000163 Lough Eske and Ardnamona Wood37 000164 Lough Nagreany Dunes38 000165 Lough Nillan Bog (Carrickatlieve)39 000168 Magheradrumman Bog40 000172 Meenaguse/Ardbane Bog41 000173 Meentygrannagh Bog42 000174 Curraghchase Woods43 000181 Rathlin O'Beirne Island44 000185 Sessiagh Lough45 000189 Slieve League46 000190 Slieve Tooey/Tormore Island/Loughros Beg Bay47 000191 St John's Point48 000194 Tranarossan and Melmore Lough49 000197 West of Ardara/Maas Road50 000199 Baldoyle Bay51 000202 Howth Head52 000204 Lambay Island53 000205 Malahide Estuary54 000206 North Dublin Bay55 000208 Rogerstown Estuary56 000210 South Dublin Bay57 000212 Inishmaan Island58 000213 Inishmore Island59 000216 River Shannon Callows60 000218 Coolcam TurloughNo. Site Code Site Name61 000231 Barroughter Bog

285

62 000238 Caherglassaun Turlough63 000242 Castletaylor Complex64 000248 Cloonmoylan Bog65 000252 Coole-Garryland Complex66 000255 Croaghill Turlough67 000261 Derrycrag Wood Nature Reserve68 000268 Galway Bay Complex69 000278 Inishbofin and Inishshark70 000285 Kilsallagh Bog71 000286 Kiltartan Cave (Coole)72 000295 Levally Lough73 000296 Lisnageeragh Bog and Ballinstack Turlough74 000297 Lough Corrib75 000299 Lough Cutra76 000301 Lough Lurgeen Bog/Glenamaddy Turlough77 000304 Lough Rea78 000308 Loughatorick South Bog79 000318 Peterswell Turlough80 000319 Pollnaknockaun Wood Nature Reserve81 000322 Rahasane Turlough82 000324 Rosroe Bog83 000326 Shankill West Bog84 000328 Slyne Head Islands85 000330 Tully Mountain86 000332 Akeragh, Banna and Barrow Harbour87 000335 Ballinskelligs Bay and Inny Estuary88 000343 Castlemaine Harbour89 000353 Old Domestic Building, Dromore Wood90 000364 Kilgarvan Ice House91 000365 Killarney National Park, Macgillycuddy's Reeks

and Caragh92 000370 Lough Yganavan and Lough Nambrackdarrig93 000375 Mount Brandon94 000382 Sheheree (Ardagh) Bog95 000391 Ballynafagh Bog96 000396 Pollardstown Fen97 000397 Red Bog, Kildare98 000404 Hugginstown Fen99 000407 The Loughans

100 000412 Slieve Bloom Mountains101 000428 Lough Melvin102 000432 Barrigone103 000439 Tory Hill104 000440 Lough Ree105 000448 Fortwilliam Turlough106 000453 Carlingford Mountain107 000455 Dundalk Bay108 000458 Killala Bay/Moy Estuary109 000461 Ardkill Turlough110 000463 Balla Turlough111 000466 Bellacorick Iron Flush112 000470 Mullet / Blacksod Bay Complex113 000471 Brackloon Woods114 000472 Broadhaven Bay115 000474 Ballymaglancy Cave, Cong116 000475 Carrowkeel Turlough117 000476 Carrowmore Lake Complex118 000479 Cloughmoyne119 000480 Clyard Kettle-holes120 000484 Cross Lough (Killadoon)121 000485 Corraun Plateau122 000492 Doocastle Turlough123 000495 Duvillaun Islands124 000497 Flughany Bog125 000500 Glenamoy Bog Complex126 000503 Greaghans Turlough127 000504 Kilglassan/Caheravoostia Turlough Complex128 000507 Inishkea Islands129 000516 Lackan Saltmarsh and Kilcummin HeadNo. Site Code Site Name

130 000522 Lough Gall Bog131 000525 Shrule Turlough

286

132 000527 Moore Hall (Lough Carra)133 000532 Oldhead Wood134 000534 Owenduff/Nephin Complex135 000541 Skealoghan Turlough136 000542 Slieve Fyagh Bog137 000566 All Saints Bog and Esker138 000571 Charleville Wood139 000572 Clara Bog140 000575 Ferbane Bog141 000576 Fin Lough (Offaly)142 000580 Mongan Bog143 000581 Moyclare Bog144 000582 Raheenmore Bog145 000584 Cuilcagh-Anierin Uplands146 000585 Sharavogue Bog147 000588 Ballinturly Turlough148 000592 Bellanagare Bog149 000595 Callow Bog150 000597 Carrowbehy/Caher Bog151 000600 Cloonchambers Bog152 000604 Derrinea Bog153 000606 Lough Fingall Complex154 000607 Errit Lough155 000609 Lisduff Turlough156 000610 Lough Croan Turlough157 000611 Lough Funshinagh158 000612 Mullygollan Turlough159 000614 Cloonshanville Bog160 000622 Ballysadare Bay161 000623 Ben Bulben, Gleniff and Glenade Complex162 000625 Bunduff Lough and Machair/Trawalua/Mullaghmore163 000627 Cummeen Strand/Drumcliff Bay (Sligo Bay)164 000633 Lough Hoe Bog165 000634 Lough Nabrickkeagh Bog166 000636 Templehouse and Cloonacleigha Loughs167 000637 Turloughmore (Sligo)168 000638 Union Wood169 000641 Ballyduff/Clonfinane Bog170 000646 Galtee Mountains171 000647 Kilcarren-Firville Bog172 000665 Helvick Head173 000668 Nier Valley Woodlands174 000671 Tramore Dunes and Backstrand175 000679 Garriskil Bog176 000685 Lough Ennell177 000688 Lough Owel178 000692 Scragh Bog179 000696 Ballyteige Burrow180 000697 Bannow Bay181 000700 Cahore Polders and Dunes182 000704 Lady's Island Lake183 000707 Saltee Islands184 000708 Screen Hills185 000709 Tacumshin Lake186 000710 Raven Point Nature Reserve187 000713 Ballyman Glen188 000714 Bray Head189 000716 Carriggower Bog190 000717 Deputy's Pass Nature Reserve191 000719 Glen of the Downs192 000725 Knocksink Wood193 000729 Buckroney-Brittas Dunes and Fen194 000733 Vale of Clara (Rathdrum Wood)195 000764 Hook Head196 000770 Blackstairs Mountains197 000781 Slaney River Valley198 000831 Cullahill MountainNo. Site Code Site Name

199 000849 SPA Hill and Clomantagh Hill200 000859 Clonaslee Eskers and Derry Bog201 000869 Lisbigney Bog202 000919 Ridge Road, SW of Rapemills

287

203 000925 The Long Derries, Edenderry204 000930 Clare Glen205 000934 Kilduff, Devilsbit Mountain206 000939 Silvermine Mountains207 000979 Corratirrim208 000994 Ballyteige (Clare)209 000996 Ballyvaughan Turlough210 001013 Glenomra Wood211 001021 Carrowmore Point to SPAnish Point and Islands212 001040 Barley Cove to Ballyrisode Point213 001043 Cleanderry Wood214 001058 Great Island Channel215 001061 Kilkeran Lake and Castlefreke Dunes216 001070 Myross Wood217 001090 Ballyness Bay218 001107 Coolvoy Bog219 001125 Dunragh Loughs/Pettigo Plateau220 001141 Gweedore Bay and Islands221 001151 Kindrum Lough222 001179 Muckish Mountain223 001190 Sheephaven224 001195 Termon Strand225 001197 Keeper Hill226 001209 Glenasmole Valley227 001228 Aughrusbeg Machair and Lake228 001230 Courtmacsherry Estuary229 001242 Carrownagappul Bog230 001251 Cregduff Lough231 001257 Dog's Bay232 001271 Gortnandarragh Limestone Pavement233 001275 Inisheer Island234 001285 Kiltiernan Turlough235 001309 Omey Island Machair236 001311 Rusheenduff Lough237 001312 Ross Lake and Woods238 001313 Rosturra Wood239 001321 Termon Lough240 001342 Cloonee and Inchiquin Loughs, Uragh Wood241 001371 Mucksna Wood242 001387 Ballynafagh Lake243 001398 Rye Water Valley/Carton244 001403 Arroo Mountain245 001430 Glen Bog246 001432 Glenstal Wood247 001459 Clogher Head248 001482 Clew Bay Complex249 001497 Doogort Machair/Lough Doo250 001501 Erris Head251 001513 Keel Machair/Menaun Cliffs252 001529 Lough Cahasy, Lough Baun and Roonah Lough253 001536 Mocorha Lough254 001547 Castletownshend255 001571 Urlaur Lakes256 001625 Castlesampson Esker257 001626 Annaghmore Lough (Roscommon)258 001637 Four Roads Turlough259 001656 Bricklieve Mountains & Keishcorran260 001669 Knockalongy and Knockachree Cliffs261 001673 Lough Arrow262 001680 Streedagh Point Dunes263 001683 Liskeenan Fen264 001741 Kilmuckridge-Tinnaberna Sandhills265 001742 Kilpatrick Sandhills266 001757 Holdenstown Bog267 001766 Magherabeg DunesNo. Site Code Site Name268 001774 Lough Carra/Mask Complex269 001776 Pilgrim's Road Esker270 001786 Kilroosky Lough Cluster271 001810 White Lough, Ben Loughs and Lough Doo272 001818 Lough Forbes Complex273 001831 Split Hills and Long Hill Esker274 001847 Philipston Marsh

288

275 001858 Galmoy Fen276 001873 Derryclogher (Knockboy) Bog277 001879 Glanmore Bog278 001880 Meenaguse Scragh279 001881 Maulagowna Bog280 001890 Mullaghanish Bog281 001898 Unshin River282 001899 Cloonakillina Lough283 001912 Glendree Bog284 001913 Sonnagh Bog285 001919 Glenade Lough286 001922 Bellacorick Bog Complex287 001926 East Burren Complex288 001932 Mweelrea/Sheeffry/Erriff Complex289 001952 Comeragh Mountains290 001955 Croaghaun/Slievemore291 001957 Boyne Coast and Estuary292 001975 Ballyhoorisky Point to Fanad Head293 001976 Lough Gill294 001992 Tamur Bog295 002005 Bellacragher Saltmarsh296 002006 Ox Mountains Bogs297 002008 Maumturk Mountains298 002010 Old Domestic Building (Keevagh)299 002012 North Inishowen Coast300 002031 The Twelve Bens/Garraun Complex301 002032 Boleybrack Mountain302 002034 Connemara Bog Complex303 002036 Ballyhoura Mountains304 002037 Carrigeenamronety Hill305 002041 Old Domestic Building, Curraglass Wood306 002047 Cloghernagore Bog and Glenveagh National Park307 002070 Tralee Bay and Magheree Peninsula

West to Cloghane308 002074 Slyne Head Peninsula309 002081 Ballinafad310 002091 Newhall and Edenvale Complex311 002098 Old Domestic Building, Askive Wood312 002110 Corliskea/Trien/Cloonfelliv Bog313 002111 Kilkieran Bay and Islands314 002112 Ballyseedy Wood315 002117 Lough Coy316 002118 Barnahallia Lough317 002119 Lough Nageeron318 002120 Lough Bane and Lough Glass319 002121 Lough Lene320 002122 Wicklow Mountains321 002123 Ardmore Head322 002124 Bolingbrook Hill323 002125 Anglesey Road324 002126 Pollagoona Bog325 002129 Murvey Machair326 002130 Tully Lough327 002135 Lough Nageage328 002137 Lower River Suir329 002141 Mountmellick330 002144 Newport River331 002147 Lisduff Fen332 002157 Newgrove House333 002158 Kenmare River334 002159 Mulroy Bay335 002161 Long Bank336 002162 River Barrow and River NoreNo. Site Code Site Name337 002164 Lough Golagh and Breesy Hill338 002165 Lower River Shannon339 002170 Blackwater River (Cork/Waterford)340 002171 Bandon River341 002172 Blasket Islands342 002173 Blackwater River (Kerry)343 002176 Leannan River344 002177 Lough Dahybaun345 002179 Towerhill House

289

346 002180 Gortacarnaun Wood347 002181 Drummin Wood348 002185 Slieve Mish Mountains349 002187 Drongawn Lough350 002189 Farranamanagh Lough351 002193 Ireland's Eye352 002213 Glenloughaun Esker353 002214 Killeglan Grassland354 002236 Island Fen355 002241 Lough Derg, North-East Shore356 002243 Clare Island Cliffs357 002244 Ardrahan Grassland358 002245 Old Farm Buildings, Ballymacrogan359 002246 Ballycullinan, Old Domestic Building360 002247 Toonagh Estate361 002249 The Murrough Wetlands362 002250 Carrowmore Dunes363 002252 Thomastown Quarry364 002256 Ballyprior Grassland365 002257 Moanour Mountain366 002258 Silvermines Mountains West367 002259 Tory Island Coast368 002261 Magharee Islands369 002262 Valencia Harbour/Portmagee Channel370 002263 Kerry Head Shoal371 002264 Kilkee Reefs372 002265 Kingstown Bay373 002268 Achill Head374 002269 Carnsore Point375 002274 Wicklow Reef376 002279 Askeaton Fen Complex377 002280 Dunbeacon Shingle378 002281 Reen Point Shingle379 002283 Rutland Island and Sound380 002287 Lough Swilly381 002293 Carrowbaun, Newhall and Ballylee Turloughs382 002294 Cahermore Turlough383 002295 Ballinduff Turlough384 002296 Williamstown Turloughs385 002298 River Moy386 002299 River Boyne and River Blackwater387 002301 River Finn388 002303 Dunmuckrum Turloughs389 002306 Carlingford Shore390 002313 Ballymore Fen391 002314 Old Domestic Building, Rylane392 002315 Glanlough Woods393 002316 Ratty River Cave394 002317 Cregg House Stables, Crusheen395 002318 Knockanira House396 002319 Kilkishen House397 002320 Kildun Souterrain398 002332 Coolrain Bog399 002336 Carn Park Bog400 002337 Crosswood Bog401 002338 Drumalough Bog402 002339 Ballynamona Bog and Corkip Lough403 002340 Moneybeg and Clareisland Bogs404 002341 Ardagullion Bog405 002342 Mount Hevey Bog406 002346 Brown BogNo. Site Code Site Name407 002347 Camderry Bog408 002349 Corbo Bog409 002350 Curraghlehanagh Bog410 002352 Monivea Bog411 002353 Redwood Bog412 002354 Tullaghanrock Bog413 002356 Ardgraigue Bog414 002324 Glendine Wood415 002312 Slieve Bernagh Bog416 002348 Clooneen Bog417 002333 Knockacoller Bog

290

418 002351 Moanveanlagh Bog419 002331 Mouds Bog420 002343 Tullaher Lough and Bog421 002327 Belgica Mound Province422 002328 Hovland Mound Province423 002329 South-West Porcupine Bank424 002330 North-West Porcupine Bank425 004001 Wexford Nature Reserve SPA426 004002 Saltee Islands SPA427 004003 Puffin Island SPA

291

Special Protection AreasNo. Site Code Site Name428 004004 Inishkea Islands SPA429 004005 Cliffs Of Moher SPA430 004006 North Bull Island SPA431 004007 Skelligs SPA432 004008 Blasket Islands SPA433 004009 Lady's Island Lake SPA434 004010 Inish And Sgarbheen SPA435 004011 Lough Gill SPA436 004012 Horn Head SPA437 004013 Drumcliff Bay SPA438 004019 The Raven SPA439 004022 Ballycotton Bay SPA440 004023 Ballymacoda Bay SPA441 004024 Sandymount Strand/Tolka Estuary SPA442 004025 Broadmeadow/Swords Estuary SPA443 004026 Dundalk Bay SPA444 004027 Tramore Back Strand SPA445 004028 Blackwater Estuary SPA446 004029 Castlemaine Harbour SPA447 004030 Cork Harbour SPA448 004031 Inner Galway Bay SPA449 004032 Dungarvan Harbour SPA450 004033 Bannow Bay SPA451 004034 Trawbreaga Bay SPA452 004035 Cummeen Strand SPA453 004036 Killala Bay/Moy Estuary SPA454 004037 Blacksod Bay/Broadhaven SPA455 004038 Killarney National Park SPA456 004039 Glenveagh National Park SPA457 004040 Wicklow Mountains SPA458 004041 Ballyallia Lake Wildfowl Sanctuary SPA459 004042 Lough Corrib SPA460 004043 Lough Derravaragh SPA461 004044 Lough Ennell SPA462 004045 Glen Lough SPA463 004046 Lough Iron SPA464 004047 Lough Owel SPA465 004048 Lough Gara SPA466 004049 Lough Oughter SPA467 004050 Lough Arrow SPA468 004051 Lough Carra SPA469 004052 Carrowmore Lake SPA470 004053 Lough Conn SPA471 004054 Lough Cullin (Mayo) SPA472 004055 Cross Lough (Mullet) SPA473 004056 Lough Cutra SPA474 004057 Lough Derg (Donegal) SPA475 004058 Lough Derg (Shannon) SPA476 004059 Dunfanaghy/Rinclevan SPA477 004060 Lough Fern SPA478 004061 Lough Kinale And Derragh Lough SPA479 004062 Lough Mask SPA480 004063 Poulaphouca Reservoir SPA481 004064 Lough Ree SPA482 004065 Lough Sheelin SPA483 004066 The Bull And The Cow Rocks SPA484 004067 High Island (Galway) SPA485 004068 Inishmurray SPA486 004069 Lambay Island SPA487 004070 Mutton Island (Clare) SPA488 004071 Mattle Island SPA489 004072 Stags Of Broad Haven SPA490 004073 Tory Island SPA491 004074 Illanmaster SPA492 004075 Lough Swilly SPA493 004076 Wexford Harbour And Slobs SPA494 004077 River Shannon And River Fergus Estuaries SPANo. Site Code Site Name495 004078 Carlingford Lough SPA

292

496 004079 Akeragh, Banna And Barrow Harbour SPA497 004080 Boyne Estuary SPA498 004082 Greers Isle SPA499 004083 Inishbofin, Inishdooey And Inishbeg SPA500 004084 Inishglora And Inishkeeragh SPA501 004085 Kilcoole Marshes SPA502 004086 River Little Brosna Callows SPA503 004087 Lough Foyle SPA504 004088 Lough Scannive SPA505 004089 Rahasane Turlough SPA506 004090 Sheskinmore Lough SPA507 004091 Stabannan-Braganstown SPA508 004092 Tacumshin Lake SPA509 004093 Termoncarragh Lake And Annagh Machair SPA510 004094 Blackwater Callows SPA511 004095 Kilcolman Bog SPA512 004096 Middle Shannon Callows SPA513 004097 River Suck Callows SPA514 004098 Owenduff/Nephin Complex SPA515 004099 Pettigo Plateau Nature Reserve SPA516 004100 Inishtrahull SPA517 004101 Ballykenny-Fisherstown Bog SPA518 004102 Garriskil Bog SPA519 004103 All Saints Bog SPA520 004105 Bellanagare Bog SPA521 004106 Lough Barra Bog SPA522 004107 Coole-Garryland SPA523 004108 Eirk Bog SPA524 004109 The Gearagh SPA525 004110 Lough Nillan Bog SPA526 004111 Duvillaun Islands SPA527 004112 Helvick Head Coast SPA528 004113 Howth Head Coast SPA529 004114 Illaunonearaun SPA530 004115 Inishduff SPA531 004116 Inishkeel SPA532 004117 Ireland's Eye SPA533 004118 Keeragh Islands SPA534 004119 Loop Head SPA535 004120 Rathlin O'birne Island SPA536 004121 Roaninish SPA537 004122 Skerries Islands SPA538 004123 Slyne Head Islands SPA539 004124 Sovereign Islands SPA540 004125 Magharee Islands SPA541 004126 Tormore Island SPA542 004127 Wicklow Head SPA543 004128 Broad Lough SPA544 004129 Ballysadare Bay SPA545 004130 Inch Lough And Levels SPA546 004131 Inishsirrer And Inishmeane SPA547 004132 Illancrone And Inishkeeragh SPA548 004133 Aughris Head SPA549 004134 Lough Rea SPA550 004135 Ardboline Island And Horse Island SPA551 004137 Dovegrove Callows SPA552 004142 Cregganna Marsh SPA

293

NOTIFIABLE ACTIONS

Habitat TypeThe Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is Required to be Notified in Relation to the Following Activities and

Such Activities Should Not Proceed Without Prior Consent

OPEN MARINE WATERS, INLETS AND BAYS,

1. Operation of commercial recreation activities (e.g. sailing schools, diving tours, jet ski hire, dolphin watching tours)

1.1 TIDAL RIVERS AND ESTUARINE CHANNELS,

2. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

MARINE CAVES, REEFS, 3. Collection of species for aquaria

SUBMERGED SAND BANKS 4. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Operation of commercial recreation activities (e.g. sailing schools, diving tours, jet ski hire, dolphin watching tours)

MUDFLATS AND SANDFLATS, 2. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

SANDY COASTAL BEACHES, 3. Collection of species for aquaria

1.2 SHINGLE BEACHES,

4. Collection of biological samples or organised educational activities where they occur on bedrock shores or boulder beaches

BOULDER BEACHES, BEDROCK 5. Driving vehicles over the area, except over rights of way or over access to licensed aquaculture facilities

SHORES, MARINE CAVES 6. Digging, ploughing or otherwise disturbing the substrate

7. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

8. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

2. Grazing of livestock/ grazing of livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

3. Cropping or removal of plants

4. Driving vehicles over the area, except over rights of way or over access to licensed aquaculture

5. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

1.3 SALTMARSHES 6. Digging or otherwise disturbing the substrate

7. Harvesting shellfish by mechanical means

8. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage

294

9. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species use of any pesticide or herbicide

10. Application of fertiliser, lime or organic materials

11. Dumping, burning or storing any materials

12. Operation of commercial recreation activities (e.g. pony trekking)

13. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Causing erosion by any means (e.g. driving vehicles, riding horses etc.)

2. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans)

3. Grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

4. Supplementary feeding of stock (e.g. with hay, silage, concentrates, roots etc.)

5. Cropping or removal of plants

6. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage

1.4 SAND DUNES OR MACHAIR 7. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species

8. Application of fertiliser, lime or organic materials

9. Dumping, burning or storing any materials

10. Use of any pesticide or herbicide

11. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

12. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. pony trekking)

13. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

14. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Undermining or altering the structure of any shingle barrier or other barrier between the lake and the sea

2. Blocking or altering the flow of water into or out of the lake

3. Restocking with fish

4. Grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung within 50m of the lake

1.5 BRACKISH LAKES, LAGOONS 5. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage within 50m of the lake

6. Application of fertiliser, lime or organic materials within 50m of the lake

7. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species within 50m of the lake

8. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. sailing schools, jet ski hire)

9. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

10. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans)

2. Grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

295

3. Supplementary feeding of stock (e.g. with hay, silage, concentrates, roots etc.)

4. Reclamation, infilling, rock removal, ploughing or land drainage

5. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species

ROCKY SEA CLIFFS, 6. Use of any pesticide or herbicide

1.6 CLAY SEA CLIFFS, SEA STACKS 7. Burning of vegetation

AND 8. Application of fertiliser, lime or organic materials

ISLETS (STACKS, HOLMS AND SKERRIES )

9. Dumping, burning or storing any materials

10. Cropping or removal of plants

11. Removing ruined buildings alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

12. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. pony trekking)

13. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

14. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans)/grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

2. Changing of traditional use from hay meadow (to either grazing or silage making), or from grazing to silage cutting

3. Adding lime/adding fertiliser of any sort to areas not previously fertilised; applying fertiliser which would increase the level of nitrogen in the soil/applying fertiliser which would increase the level of phosphorous in the soil

4. Applying phosphorous to soils which already have in excess of the REPS index 2 levels

5. Using fertiliser on slopes over 25 degrees

2.1 UPLAND GRASSLAND, SCREE, 6. Creation of new tracks or paths

AND INLAND CLIFF 7. Burning of vegetation

8. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage

9. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species

10. Rock removal/use of any pesticide or herbicide

11. Dumping, burning or storing any materials

12. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

13. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. pony trekking)/ introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

14. Recreational use of mechanically propelled vehicles

15. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

296

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans)/grazing livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

2. Changing of traditional use from hay meadow (to either grazing or silage making), or from grazing to silage cutting

3. Adding lime/adding fertiliser of any sort to areas not previously fertilised; applying fertiliser which would increase the level of nitrogen in the soil/applying fertiliser which would increase the level of phosphorous in the soil

4. Applying phosphorous to soils which already have in excess of the REPS index 2 levels

2.2 DRY LOWLAND GRASSLANDS 5. Mowing grass before the 30th June (Note; if you have been notified that your lands hold breeding corncrakes, or certain rare meadows, special provisions will apply)

6. Burning of vegetation /ploughing or cultivation of lands which have not been so managed for the last 20 years

7. Reclamation, infilling, or land drainage

8. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species

9. Use of any pesticide or herbicide dumping

10. Burning or storing any materials

11. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

12. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. pony trekking)/ introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

13. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans)/grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

2. Changing of traditional use from hay meadow (to either grazing or silage making), or from grazing to silage cutting

2.3 WET LOWLAND GRASSLANDS3. Adding lime/adding fertiliser of any sort to areas not previously fertilised; applying fertiliser which would increase the level of nitrogen in the soil/applying fertiliser which would increase the level of phosphorous in the soil

4. Applying phosphorous to soils which already have in excess of the REPS index 2 levels

5. Mowing grass before 30 June (Note: if you have been notified that your lands hold breeding corncrakes, or certain rare meadows, special provisions will apply)

6. Burning of vegetation

7. Reclamation, infilling, or land drainage

8. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species

297

9. Use of any pesticide or herbicide dumping

10. Burning or storing any materials

11. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

12. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. pony trekking)/ introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

13. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans)/grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

2. Grazing of stock from 1 April to 31 October, except as defined in REPS guidelines

3. Changing of traditional use from hay meadow (to either grazing or silage making), or from grazing to silage cutting

4. Supplementary feeding of stock, except as defined in REPS guidelines

5. Removal of scrub by bulldozer or similar machinery (cutting scrub is permitted)

6. Grazing by sheep

2.4 LIMESTONE PAVEMENT 7. Adding lime/adding fertiliser or organic material of any sort

8. Creation of new tracks or paths

9. Burning of vegetation

10. Reclamation, importing of soil, infilling, ploughing or land drainage

11. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species

12. Use of any pesticide or herbicide

13. Dumping, burning or storing any materials

14. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

15. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. pony trekking)

16. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

17. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans)/grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

2. Changing of traditional use from hay meadow (to either grazing or silage making), or from grazing to silage cutting

3. Adding lime within 50m of the normal high flood level of the turlough

4. Adding fertiliser of any sort within 50m of the normal high flood level of the turlough

5. Mowing grass before 30 June (Note: if you have been notified that your lands hold breeding corncrakes, or certain rare meadows, special provisions will apply)

298

6. Supplementary feeding of stock

7. Operation of boat angling or shore angling business

2.5 TURLOUGHS 8. Restocking with fish

9. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage within 50m of the normal high flood level of the turlough

10. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species within 50m of the normal high flood level of the turlough

11. Use of any pesticide or herbicide within 50m of the normal high flood level of the turlough

12. Dumping, burning or storing any materials within 50m of the normal high flood level of the turlough

13. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses, including the blocking of swallowholes

14. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. sailing schools, jet ski hire)

15. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

16. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans)/grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

2. Changing of traditional use from hay meadow (to either grazing or silage making), or from grazing to silage cutting

3. Supplementary feeding of stock, except as defined in REPS guidelines

4. Introduction of stock to formerly ungrazed areas

5. Adding lime

6. Adding fertiliser of any sort

7. Creation of new tracks or paths

8. Burning of vegetation

9. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage

3.1 BLANKET BOG 10. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species

11. Rock removal

12. Cutting turf except from existing banks; no cutting room intact (uncut) areas

13. Commercial peat moss or turf extraction

14. Use of any pesticide or herbicide, including sheep dip

15. Dumping, burning or storing any materials

16. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

17. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. pony trekking)

18. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

299

19. Recreational use of mechanically propelled vehicles

20. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans)/grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

2. Supplementary feeding of stock, except as defined in REPS guidelines

3. Introduction of stock to formerly ungrazed areas

4. Adding lime

5. Adding fertiliser of any sort

6. Creation of new tracks or paths

7. Burning areas of vegetation over 5ha, or burning any area more often than once every 15 years

8. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage

3.2 HEATH 9. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species

(INCLUDING JUNIPER SCRUB) 10. Rock removal

11. Cutting turf except from existing banks; no cutting room intact (uncut) areas

12. Commercial peat moss or turf extraction

13. Use of any pesticide or herbicide, including sheep dip

14. Dumping, burning or storing any materials

15. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

16. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. pony trekking)

17. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

18. Recreational use of mechanically propelled vehicles

19. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans)/grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

2. Adding lime

3. Adding fertiliser of any sort

4. Creation of new tracks or paths

5. Burning areas of vegetation

6. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage

4.1 RAISED BOG, CUTAWAY BOG 7. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species

AND BOG WOODLAND 8. Cutting trees or removing timber

9. Drainage works on the bog or within the local water catchment area

10. Cutting turf or peat moss extraction

300

11. Use of any pesticide or herbicide, including sheep dip

12. Dumping, burning or storing any materials

13. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

14. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. botanical tours)

15. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

16. Recreational use of mechanically propelled vehicles

17. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Changing of traditional use from hay meadow (to either grazing or silage making), or from grazing to silage cutting

2. Adding lime within 50m of the fen or a water course running into it

3. Adding fertiliser of any sort within 50m or a water course running into it

4. Extracting water for irrigation or other purposes

5. Mowing grass before 30 June (Note: if you have been notified that your lands hold breeding corncrakes, or certain rare meadows, special provisions will apply)

6. Supplementary feeding of stock

4.2 FENS, TRANSITION MIRES, 7. Operation of boat angling or shore angling business

PETRIFYING SPRINGS 8. Restocking with fish

9. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage within 50m of the fen

10. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species within 50m of the fen

11. Use of any pesticide or herbicide within 50m of the fen

12. Dumping, burning or storing any materials within 50m of the fen

13. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses within the fen or running into or out of it

14. Harvesting reed or willow

15. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. bird-watching tours)

16. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

17. Recreational use of mechanically propelled vehicles

18. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing by livestock

2. Adding lime

3. Adding fertiliser of any sort

4. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage reseeding, planting of trees or any other species

5. Felling of trees

6. Removal of timber

301

5.1 WOODLANDS 7. Removal of foliage, moss or other materials

8. Killing ivy

9. Use of any pesticide or herbicide

10. Dumping, burning or storing any materials

11. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

12. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. bird-watching tours)

13. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

14. Recreational use of mechanically propelled vehicles

15. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans)/grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

2. Supplementary feeding of stock (as defined in approved farm plans)

3. Adding lime

4. Adding fertiliser of any sort

5. Reclaiming land covered by scrub; if scrub is cut it must be allowed to regrow

6. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage

7. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species

8. Felling of trees

5.2 SCRUB 9. Removal of timber

10. Removal of foliage, moss or other materials

11. Killing ivy

12. Use of any pesticide or herbicides)

13. Dumping, burning or storing any materials

14. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

15. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. walking tours)

16.Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

17. Recreational use of mechanically propelled vehicles

18. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

6.1 RIVERS OR STREAMS Current farming activities can continue without notification unless they involve any of the following, which, may impact upon habitats and are notifiable actions

(that is actions which would require consultation and consent in advance):

Reclamation, infilling or drainage (other than cleaning of drains)* within 5 m of the riverbank.

Removal of trees; reseeding of lands where this has not been practiced for 10 years or more; or afforestation.

Ploughing or use of any pesticides where this has not been practiced for 10 years or more.

Any use of pesticides (herbicide or insecticide) within 5 m of the riverbank.

302

Intensification of current farming activity.

Alteration of the banks, channel, bed or flow of the river.

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density as defined in approved farm plans) within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

2. Grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

3. Supplementary feeding of stock within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

4. Adding lime within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

5. Adding fertiliser of any sort within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

6. Extracting water for irrigation or other purposes

7. Operation of boat angling or shore angling business

8. Restocking with fish

9. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

10. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

6.2 LAKES, PONDS AND CANALS 11. Removal of trees or any aquatic vegetation within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

12. Use of any pesticide or herbicide in the river or stream or within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

13. Dumping rubbish or other materials or disposing of any chemicals or wastes in streams/rivers or into water-courses running into them

14. Dumping, burning or storing any materials within 50m of the lake, pond or canal including the land

15. Spreading of used pesticides (e.g. sheep dip)

16. Alteration of the banks, channel, bed or flow of the lake, pond or canal

17. Harvesting or burning of reed or willow

18. Causing siltation

19. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. bird-watching tours)

20. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

21. Recreational use of mechanically propelled vehicles

22. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans) within 50m of the marsh or reedbed

2. Grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

3. Supplementary feeding of stock within 50m of the marsh or reedbed

4. Adding lime within 50m of the marsh or reedbed

303

5. Adding fertiliser of any sort within 50m of the marsh or reedbed

6. Extracting water for irrigation or other purposes

7. Operation of boat angling or shore angling business

8. Restocking with fish

9. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage within 50m of the marsh or reedbed

10. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species within 50m of the marsh or reedbed

6.3 MARSHES AND REEDBEDS 11. Removal of trees or any aquatic vegetation within 50m of the marsh or reedbed

12. Use of any pesticide or herbicide in the river or stream or within 50m of the marsh or reedbed

13. Dumping rubbish or other materials or disposing of any chemicals or wastes in the marsh or reedbed or into watercourses running into them

14. Dumping, burning or storing any materials within 50m of the marsh or reedbed including the land

15. Spreading of used pesticides (e.g. sheep dip)

16. Alteration of the banks, channel, bed or flow of the marsh or reedbed or of watercourses running into or out of it

17. Harvesting or burning of reed or willow

18. Causing siltation

19. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. bird-watching tours)

20. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

22. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

DITCHES, HEDGES, CEREALS 1. Disturbance of bats

AND INTENSIVE GRASSLANDS, 2. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. bird watching tours)

WALLS, BUILDINGS, 3. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

7.1 WASTE GROUND, 4. Recreational use of mechanically propelled vehicles

BARE SOIL, PARKLAND, 5. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

GRASSLAND, BRACKEN, CAVES, OR QUARRIES

1. Treating buildings or other places used by bats with pesticides or rot preventive treatments

2. Blocking up caves or otherwise preventing access by bats to caves buildings or other places used for roosts

LESSER HORSESHOE BAT 3. Lighting up caves buildings or other places used by bats for roosts

4. Destruction or renovation of buildings or other structures used by bats for roosts

(It is an offence under Wildlife Act 5. Spraying or application of insecticides within 100m of a bat roost

304

1976

8.1

to kill, injure or disturb bats or to destroy their breeding places)

6. Grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung, within 100m of the bat roost

7. Felling trees within 100m of a bat roost

8. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

9. Operation of commercial recreation facilities

10. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

GREY SEAL, COMMON SEAL, 1. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. sailing schools, jet ski hire)

BOTTLE-NOSED DOLPHIN, 2. Commercial dolphin or seal watching

8.2

HARBOUR PORPOISE

3. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area(It is an offence under Wildlife Act 1976 to kill, injure or disturb these

species) 4. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

305

1. Fishing for fresh-water pearl mussels

2. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans) within 30m of the river or stream

3. Grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

4. Supplementary feeding of stock within 30m of the river or stream

5. Adding lime within 30m of the river or stream

6. Adding fertiliser of any sort within 30m of the river or streamRIVER LAMPREY, SEA

LAMPREY, 7. Extracting water for irrigation or other purposesBROOK LAMPREY, 8. Operation of boat angling or shore angling business, restocking with fish

SALMON, TWAITE SHAD, 9. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage within 30m of the river or streamWHITE-CLAWED CRAYFISH, 10. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species within 30m of the river or stream

8.3 FRESH WATER PEARL MUSSEL 11. Removal of trees or any aquatic vegetation within 30m of the river/stream(It is an offence under Wildlife Act 1976 to kill, injure or disturb these

species 12. Use of any pesticide or herbicide in the river or stream or within 30m of the river or stream

13. Dumping rubbish or other materials or disposing of any chemicals or wastes in streams/rivers or into water-courses running into them

14. Dumping, burning or storing any materials within 30m of the river/stream including the land spreading of used pesticides (e.g. sheep dip).

15. Alteration of the banks, channel, bed or flow of the river or stream

16. Harvesting or burning of reed or willow

17. Causing siltation

18. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. bird- watching tours)

19. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

20. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans) within 50m of the lake

2. Grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

3. Supplementary feeding of stock within 50m of the lake

306

4. Adding lime within 50m of the lake

5. Adding fertiliser of any sort within 50m of the lake

6. Extracting water for irrigation or other purposes

7. Operation of boat angling or shore angling business

8. Restocking with fish

9. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage within 50m of the lake

10. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species within 50m of the lake

8.4 KILLARNEY SHAD 11. Removal of trees or any aquatic vegetation within 50m of the river/stream(FISHING OF THIS SPECIES IS 12. Use of any pesticide or herbicide in the lake or within 50m of the lake

REGULATED BY OTHER STATUTE) 13. Dumping rubbish or other materials or disposing of any chemicals or wastes in streams/rivers or into water-courses running into them

14. Dumping, burning or storing any materials within 50m of the lake pond or canal including the land

15. Spreading of used pesticides (e.g. sheep dip)

16. Alteration of the banks, channel, bed or flow of the lake or of watercourses running into or out of it

17. Harvesting or burning of reed or willow

18. Causing siltation

19. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. bird-watching tours)

20. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

21. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans) within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

2. Grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

3. Supplementary feeding of stock within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

4. Adding lime within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

5. Adding fertiliser of any sort within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

6. Extracting water for irrigation or other purposes

7. Operation of boat angling or shore angling business

8. Restocking with fish

9. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

307

10. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

8.5 VERTIGO SPECIES, 11. Removal of trees or any aquatic vegetation within 50m of the river/streamSHINING SICKLE MOSS 12. Use of any pesticide or herbicide in the lake or within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

13. Dumping rubbish or other materials or disposing of any chemicals or wastes in streams/rivers or into water-courses running into them

14. Dumping, burning or storing any materials within 50m of the lake pond or canal including the land

15. Spreading of used pesticides (e.g. sheep dip)

16. Alteration of the banks, channel, bed or flow of the lake or of watercourses running into or out of it

17. Harvesting or burning of reed or willow

18. Causing siltation

19. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. bird-watching tours)

20. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

21. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans) within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

2. Grazing by livestock treated within the previous week with a pesticide which leaves persistent residues in the dung

3. Supplementary feeding of stock within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

4. Adding lime within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

5. Adding fertiliser of any sort within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

6. Extracting water for irrigation or other purposes

7. Operation of boat angling or shore angling business

8. Restocking with fish

9. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

10. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

8.7 SLENDER NAIAD 11. Removal of trees or any aquatic vegetation within 50m of the river/stream

12. Use of any pesticide or herbicide in the lake or within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

13. Dumping rubbish or other materials or disposing of any chemicals or wastes in streams/rivers or into water-courses running into them

308

14. Dumping, burning or storing any materials within 50m of the lake pond or canal including the land

15. Spreading of used pesticides (e.g. sheep dip)

16. Alteration of the banks, channel, bed or flow of the lake or of watercourses running into or out of it

17. Harvesting or burning of reed or willow

18. Causing siltation

19. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. bird-watching tours)

20. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

21. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans)

2. Introduction of stock to formerly ungrazed areas

3. Adding lime

4. Adding lime within 50m of the lake, pond or canal

5. Adding fertiliser of any sort

6. Creation of new tracks or paths

7. Burning of vegetation

8. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage

8.8 MARSH SAXIFRAGE 9. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species

10. Rock removal

11. Cutting turf except from existing banks; no cutting from intact (uncut) areas

12. Commercial peat moss or turf extraction

13. Use of any pesticide or herbicide, including sheep dip

14. Dumping, burning or storing any materials

15. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

16. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. pony trekking)

17. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

18. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

1. Causing erosion by any means (e.g. driving vehicles, riding horses etc.)

2. Grazing of livestock above a sustainable density (as defined in approved farm plans)

309

3. Supplementary feeding of stock (e.g. with hay, silage, concentrates, roots etc.)

4. Cropping or removal of plants

5. Reclamation, infilling, ploughing or land drainage

8.9 PETALWORT 6. Reseeding, planting of trees or any other species

7. Application of fertiliser, lime or organic materials

8. Dumping, burning or storing any materials

9. Use of any pesticide or herbicide

10. Alteration of the banks, bed or flow of watercourses

11. Operation of commercial recreation facilities (e.g. pony trekking)

12. Introduction (or re-introduction) into the wild of plants or animals of species not currently found in the area

13. Any other activity of which notice may be given by the Minister from time to time

310

Appendix 3 Agri-environment Costings

(REPS and Organic Farming)

Basis of REPS Costing for Grassland FarmersMeasure No. Area REPS Specification Action Amount

(€/ha)Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action55

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

1. Nutrient management plan

National Follow an appropriate waste management, liming and fertiliser plan prepared for the total area of the farm.a) Fertiliser limits apply to crops.

b) Nutrient Management Plan to be complied with for the whole farm. This includes establishing baseline soil fertility status by extensive soil sampling, analysis and interpretation

Total Cost

No claim

25

25.00

Farmers less than 170kg org N/ha must abide by the conditions of the Nitrates Directive (SI 378 of 2006) for the protection of waters regulations. This provides that the total amount of livestock manure applied to a holding in a calendar year must not contain more than 170 kgs of nitrogen to the hectare.

The total quantity of fertilisers (organic and chemical combined) that you apply to your land must not be more than the crops need (this includes grass).

In addition farmers must also meet requirements in relation to animal manure management, planning and building regulations.56 Comply with Nitrate SI on spreading of organic and chemical fertilisers.

Farmers stocked above 170kg organic N must apply for derogation under the regulation.As applications at the level of homogenous crops is mandatory for derogation farmers the extra justification is based on additional works being assessed on a specific basis under measure 4 and 5.

Soil sampling and analysis at the level of homogenous crops required. Analysis and interpretation of the results of these samples by the REPS planner provides an accurate base line of the existing fertility of the various soil types on the farm. This, together with an estimation of the land productivity allows the targeting, at the level of homogenous crops subject to the same soil sample, of nutrient application including optimum recycling of farm generated organic fertilisers. This will lead to environmental benefits for water quality through the reduction in chemical N use by an average of 10kg/ha. It will also lead to benefits for biodiversity by restricting its use on plots of conservation interest.

The extra cost of complying with the Nutrient Management Plan is due to significant change and increase in work practice relating to the fertiliser and manure programme based on soil analysis and crop requirements.

2.Grassland and soil management plan

National Adopt a grassland & soil management plan that avoids poaching, overgrazing, soil erosion and run-off leading to the damage of heather or other natural vegetation or wetlands habitats.a) Increased work input by farmer required

in managing livestock over the winter 8.0

Outwinter and overwintering of livestock in buildings and yards while meeting the statutory requirements in relation to waste management, water management, target areas and the Wildlife Act, 2001.This does not set down a core winter

Setting a core wintering period and setting a maximum stocking rate to 1LU/ha, which cannot be exceeded during this period. This will reduce the risk of poaching, particularlyof wetland habitats and overgrazing leading to damage of heather or other natural vegetation.

56 Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977 and Amendment Act, 1990; Waste Management Act, 1996; Fisheries (Consolidation) Act, 1959; Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1998; Air Pollution Act, 1987; Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992 and the European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989.

311

Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Amount(€/ha)

Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

period.

b) Input by farmer in monitoring a grassland and soil management plan

Total Cost

2A. Traditional Hay Meadows This is based on a farmer maintaining

0.4 ha or 8per cent, whichever is the lesser, of his holding as hay meadows

Reduced crop production Reduced feeding value

2B. Species Rich Grassland This is based on a farmer maintaining

0.4 ha or 8per cent , whichever is the lesser, of his holding as species rich grassland

Reduced grass production/grazing potential

Reduced grass quality

2.2

10.2

7

7

housing or grassland management plan for the animals. The management of animals outdoors shall not result in severe poaching or severe overgrazing. Particular attention will be paid where stocking rate over winter is above 2LU/ha.

Forage conserved in a manner that maximises quality and yield. Adhere to the forage requirements for nutrients recommended by Teagasc.

Livestock grazed in a manner that avoids both under and overgrazing of grassland and meets the statutory requirements in relation to target areas5 and the Wildlife Act, 2001.

Planners in preparing individual REPS plans set out the core winter housing period and grassland/soil management, which avoids poaching and overgrazing.This reduced stocking rate during the wintering period results in additional work input by farmer in managing low stock numbers over a large area. Monitoring grassland & soil management plan

There will be additional costs on applicants by reverting to traditional forage making practices. The quantity and quality of forage saved will fall below that normally made on commercial farms.

Normal practices for maintaining a highly productive sward will be prohibited such as reseeding, excess liming and fertilisation.

2D. Encourage the use of clover in swards This is based on a farmer reseeding

conservation ground to maintain high clover levels

Based on 25per cent of 20ha

2E. Encourage the use of trailing shoe technology This is based on a farmer availing of

latest technology for increasing N cycling efficiency

2F. Control of invasive species in grassland, e.g. rushes and/or bracken This is based on a farmer controlling and

managing high

23

10

12

Clover not normally part of Irish swards

No baseline requirement to use this technology

Baseline requires that encroachment of farmland by invasive species to the extent that the land is incapable of agricultural production be prevented. GAEC allows the non-selective control of these species with

Reduced use of chemical N on conservation ground.

Increased N cycling efficiency & Reduced use of chemical N on conservation ground

Maintenance of grassland quality and landscape appearance. Many of these grassland habitats are marginal in nature and the habitat is complemented by the presence of species, which can be invasive if left uncontrolled.

312

Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Amount(€/ha)

Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

3.Protect and maintain watercourses and wells

National

rush/bracken/blackthorn/gorse populations

Chemical and mechanical control Based on 10per cent of 20ha, min 0.5ha

Protect and maintain watercourses and wells, with access by livestock to be limited to drinking points.

a) Fence off watercourses and wells from bovines for the duration of the REPS contract.

b) Bovines restricted from grazing of one and a half metre strip by watercourse.

c) Remove silt from watercourse and scrape bottom and sides to original depth only; in accordance with environmental specifications.

Total Cost

3A. Increase watercourse margin by 1m with drinking access point Grazing restriction along additional 1m

strip by water course

20.0

1.0

8.3

29.3

8

no requirement to consider its biodiversity benefits.

Comply with recommended buffer zones for the non application of fertilisers as specified in SI 378 of 2006 for the protection of watercourses when spreading fertilisers (organic and chemical)A fence to exclude bovines from watercourses and wells is not required.

No specification

Watercourse maintenance is not mandatory.

.Bovines allowed access to one and a half metre strip of grazing along watercourse

.

These habitats are at continual risk of reverting to a semi-natural state. The objective of this measure is to promote the conservation and maintenance of these specific habitats by targeted control of particular species, while retaining a dispersed population of these species within the grassland habitat.

To reduce risk of pollution by the exclusion of all bovines from buffer zone on all watercourses

Average length of watercourse fencing required per ha is 21m.

Loss of grazing of one and a half metre strip by watercourses.

Maintenance of watercourses according to REPS specification will require work with manual tools on an annual basis and the use of a mechanical digger once every five years.

Primary objective of this sub measure is to create additional habitat space alongside watercourses to allow natural regeneration of typical riverside vegetation structure, thus providing habitat for associated fauna. The increased margin also acts as a buffer strip with the potential to intercept nutrients and soil particles in overland flow.Loss of grazing of 1m strip by watercourse

3B: No Bovine access to watercourses Provide alternative piped water source3C: Use of planted buffer zones

Retain wildlife habitats such as field divisions,

5.0

8.5

No restriction preventing bovines drinking directly from watercoursesBaseline is as per basic measure 3. Therefore a unplanted buffer zone is maintained.

To improve water quality by preventing any physical damage to the banks of watercourses.The action of planting a buffer zone with willow or alder, which is stockproofed, goes beyond the baseline. The fact that the buffer is planted and stock-proofed prevents animals from grazing close to the water body. The planted buffer will also intercept nutrients from

313

Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Amount(€/ha)

Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

4. Retain Wildlife Habitats

Nationalwoodlands, wetlands, natural and semi-natural vegetation.a) Setting-aside of land for wildlife habitat

use

b) Consequently, inefficient work practices will arise.

Total Cost

4A. Creation of a New Habitat this is based on a farmer setting aside

additional land for wildlife habitat use; min 0.2 ha or 4per cent of his holding up to 20 ha., whichever is the higher.

Consequently, inefficient work practices will arise.

4B. Tree planting 1 tree/ ha of holding using native species, up to a max of 40ha. Cost of trees. Protection of trees from livestock

browsing. Consequently, inefficient work practices

will arise.

4C. Nature Corridors: increase field margins by additional 1m on whole farm Consequently, dry matter production will

be reduced on that area.

10.5

11

21.5

23

13

9.0

Comply with requirements applicable to NHAs & Natura 2000 area and The Wildlife Act, 2001. Removal of habitats is not recommended. However the removal of wildlife habitats not protected under legislation, to facilitate commercial farming practices, is not prohibited.

Creation of additional space for wildlife is not a requirement of cross-compliance. Therefore general farming practices are facilitated.

Planting of trees is not a requirement of cross-compliance.

Provision of field margins is not a requirement of cross-compliance. Therefore general farming practices are facilitated.

overland flow from adjacent land and contribute to creating additional space for biodiversity.

All habitat areas including non-designated habitats will be identified and mapped during the REPS planning process and the plan will prescribe to the farmer what actions are required to maintain these habitats. The opportunity cost of setting-aside 3per cent of land as wildlife habitat which otherwise could be used for commercial farming purposes.

Conservation of habitats often leads to irregular shaped and small size plots, resulting in inefficient use of modern machinery and work practices.

The opportunity cost of setting-aside a minimum of 0.2ha or 4per cent, whichever is the higher, of land as wildlife habitat which otherwise could be used for commercial farming purposes

Trees improve the appearance of the landscape and help to conserve wildlife. Planting of non-native trees is not permissible. The opportunity cost of setting-aside land for tree planting which otherwise could be used for commercial farming purposes. This will result in inefficient use of modern machinery and work practices.

Loss of production adjacent to field margins is estimated at 260 square metres per ha on which dry matter production will be reduced by 50 per cent because of the restriction on the use of pesticides and fertilisers.

4D. Establishment of farm woodland provision of woodland (linear or patches) 2per cent of 20ha, min 1000msq max

23 Planting of trees is not a requirement of cross-compliance.

Trees improve the appearance of the landscape and help to conserve wildlife. Planting of non-native trees is not permissible. The opportunity

314

Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Amount(€/ha)

Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

5.Maintain farm and field boundaries

National

0.4ha

Retain and maintain boundary and roadside fences, stonewalls and hedgerows in the interests of stock control, wildlife and the scenic appearance of the area.

5A. Coppicing of hedgerows This is based on the active enhancement

of hedgerows at a rate of 3m/ha up to a 20 ha limit.

5B. Laying of hedgerows This is based on the coppicing or laying

of 2m/ha up to a 20ha limit.

5C. Plant new hedgerows This is based on the active enhancement

of hedgerows at a rate of 3m/ha up to a 20 ha limit.

Provision of fencing may be necessary when carrying out all the above practices to prevent livestock browsing during establishment/growth of new plant shoots.

5D. Repair/ maintain stone walls/stone faced banks this is based on the repair/ enhancement

of traditional stonewalls at a rate of 3m/ha/annum (up to a maximum of 20 ha.) above the basic requirement.

0

31.5

30

32

23

External boundaries or roadside fences of fields (excluding commonage land) occupied by livestock must be stock proof.While removal of field divisions, stone walls and hedgerow maintenance is not recommended, their maintenance is not mandatory under cross-compliance; thus their removal to facilitate commercial farming practice is not prohibited.

Coppicing of hedgerows is not a requirement of cross-compliance.

Laying of hedgerows is not a requirement of cross-compliance.

Establishment of new hedgerows is not a requirement of cross-compliance.

While removal of stonewalls is not recommended, their maintenance is not mandatory under cross-compliance; thus the removal of field divisions to facilitate commercial farming practice is not prohibited.

cost of setting-aside land for tree planting which otherwise could be used for commercial farming purposes. This will result in inefficient use of modern machinery and work practices.

All field divisions, fences, stonewall and hedgerows will be retained. In addition, all hedgerows and stone walls must be maintained in accordance with a planned 5-year schedule of work which enhances the biodiversity and landscape value.

The intensive maintenance practices outlined such as laying, coppicing and planting involve labour and capital costs.

The extra cost of maintaining 3m/ha over and above the basic maintenance requirement of the scheme

6.Cease using herbicides, pesticides and

National Cease using pesticides and fertilisers within 1.5m of hedgerows, ponds and streams, except with the Minister’s approval.a) Consequently, dry matter production will 3.5

Safe storage and use of pesticides and chemicals. Use in accordance with product label instructions and statutory code of good plant protection practice. Comply with

Loss of production adjacent to field margins (not watercourse margins) is estimated at 200 square metres per ha on which dry matter production will be reduced by 50per cent

315

Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Amount(€/ha)

Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

fertilisers in and around hedgerows, ponds and streams

be reduced on that area.

b) Clearing of vegetation from watercourses in accordance with environmental specifications.

Total Cost

6.5

10

statutory maximum pesticide residue limits. i.e. SMR 9Clearing vegetation from watercourses is not mandatory.

because of the restriction on the use of pesticides and fertilisers.Fenced watercourses will require cutting of weeds and clearing of vegetation from watercourses in accordance with environmental specifications using manual tools, 21m/ha @ annual cost of €0.31/m.

7.Establish biodiversity buffer strips surrounding features of historical and archaeological interest

National Retain and maintain biodiversity surrounding any features of historical or archaeological interest not listed in National records (i.e. lime kilns and ruins of traditional dwellings). No ground disturbance within 20m of such features to create a biodiversity buffer strip.Consequently, inefficient work practices will arise.

Total

7A - Increase margins around archaeological sites by 50per cent (all sites on farm) No ground disturbance within 30m of

such features Consequently inefficient work practices

3.0

5.0

8.0

10

Comply with the National Monuments Act, 1994. Do not remove or damage archaeological monuments and sites listed on the Record of Monuments and Places. No GAEC requirement to establish buffer zone for biodiversity around such features.

Comply with the National Monuments Act, 1994. Do not remove or damage archaeological monuments and sites listed on the Record of Monuments and Places

REPS protects other sites and features of historical and archaeological interest not listed on the Record of Monuments and Places, for example the ruins of traditional dwelling houses and lime kilns. . This buffer strip surrounding the site shall be managed in the interests of biodiversity and landscape. The corresponding loss of production involved is based on one historical/archaeological feature per farm.

The loss of production involved on an extra 10m buffer area around the Archaeological site.

8.Maintain and improve visual appearance of farm and farmyard

National Maintain farms including farmyards in a tidy state.

a) Maintain farmyard clear of litterb) Use appropriate roof, wall and door

colours and maintain in good state of repair

c) Repair/maintain traditional stone farm buildings

No claimNo claim

No claim

Comply with the Litter Pollution Act, 1997

While removal of traditional stone farm buildings, gates, gatepost and piers is not recommended, they may be removed for reasons of safety, ease of access or maintenance. The painting of buildings is not mandatory.

Remove deposits of litter on-farm and any other unsightly feature, particularly those visible to the general public.

Preservation of old farm buildings of limestone, granite or sandstone wall construction and/or with slated roofs, gates gate posts and piers. Retain all such features and maintenance is often required to include essential repairs to the fabric of the structures.Use appropriate roof, wall and door colours on buildings, which blend in with the surrounding

316

Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Amount(€/ha)

Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

d) Landscaping/screening around farm and farmyard—loss of production on land used for landscaping

Total Cost

8A. Establish a traditional Orchard of specified varieties of Irish origin 500m2 containing 12 trees

8B. Install bird or bat boxes To erect 8 nestboxs or equivalent at

suitable locations around/adjacent the farmyard

No claim

No claim

22/11

11

Landscaping of farmyards is not a requirement of cross-compliance; thus general farming practices are permitted up to and surrounding the farmyard.

No mandatory requirement

No mandatory requirement under GAEC

countryside and maintain in a good state of repair.

The planting of trees around a farmyard softens the lines of buildings and helps to mould them with the landscape and provide a habitat for birds. Non- Native trees are not eligible.

Protect our plant genetic resources and increase biodiversity around farmyards and the retention of traditional farm skills.Maintain and encourage bird and bat populations in and around the farmyard through the purchase and maintenance of bird/bat boxes.

9.Produce tillage crops according to REPS Specification

National Not applicable to grassland farmers.

9D. Promote the growing of low-input cereals/root crops, covers both options The additional cost of growing spring

cereals Inefficiencies of production system 10per cent of 20ha, min 0.5ha, max 2ha

No claim

37

Not applicable to grassland farmers.

GAEC requires that permanent grassland on a national basis does not decrease by 10per cent or more.

Not applicable to grassland farmers.

Benefits biodiversity and landscape and preserves traditional farming skills. The limit of 2ha per farm will ensure that GAEC is protected while benefits to biodiversity of landscape heterogeneity are maintained.

10.Become familiar with environmentally friendly farming practice

National Participants in REPS are recommended to attend prescribed courses and farm demonstrations and acquire the knowledge and skill required to comply with all REPS measures.

4.4

Become familiar with the requirements in relation to waste management, water, air, trees and wildlife, target areas, use and control of plant protection products, planning and building, national monuments and litter as outlined above.

REPS entail being familiar with environmentally friendly farming practices as outlined in the REPS Specification, which go beyond meeting the legislative provisions, listed under GAEC.

11.Prepare, monitor and update agri-environmental records as may be prescribed by the Minister

National Preparation and updating of the REPS Agri-environmental planKeep such farm and environmental records as may be prescribed by the Minister.Records must be kept each year with the appropriate details entered in the record book each month.

16.50

Record date, type and quantity of chemical fertilisers, organic wastes and pesticides brought onto or leaving the farm.

REPS requires the hiring of professional agriculturalist and/or environmentalist advice in the preparation of an agri-environmental plan and for its update during the term of the plan. Advice is also required on the change in farm management practices required to comply with REPS specifications. Annual records to be kept by the REPS applicant on farming operations carried out.

Total Cost of Measures 1 to 11

National124.90 30

317

Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Amount(€/ha)

Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

aboveAdditional measure selected from the list of options as a core action to minimum value of €17 (Either of the options 2D, 4A, 4D, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 9D or 3per cent of LINNET supplementary measure can be chosen.)

17.00 As justified in the costings table for options

Total 141.90Transaction Cost National Transaction cost

Engagement with the REPS process and pre-planning time

5.6

Total Cost National Overall Total Cost 147.5057 3058

57 The overall costing for the first 20ha shall include an additional payment of €30/ha (including 20% incentive) based on a farmer selecting a range of optional measures as set out in Appendix 1.58 By selecting 2 of the options listed (from the categories as set out in Appendix 1) it will be possible to reach the proposed €177.50/ha on the first 20 ha of a holding. There is no incentive element in the costing of the options.

318

Basis of REPS Costing for Arable Farmers59

Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Arable Crops(€/ha)

Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action 60

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

1. Nutrient management plan

National a) Follow an appropriate waste management, liming and fertiliser plan prepared for the total area of the farm.b) Fertiliser limits for crops set at 70per cent of crop requirements; or 6per cent of arable area to be farmed under conditions of LINNET supplementary measure but without additional payment, subject to crop requirements not being exceeded on the rest of the holding.

c) Monitoring of a nutrient management plan will give rise to significant change in work practice when implementing a fertiliser and manure programme for crops.

Total Cost

49.6

1.9

51.50

Farmers less than 170kg org N/ha must abide by the conditions of the nitrates directive (SI 378 of 2006) for the protection of waters regulations. This provides that the total amount of livestock manure applied to a holding in a calendar year must not contain more than 170 kgs of nitrogen to the hectare. The total quantity of fertilisers (organic and chemical combined) that you apply to your land must not be more than the crops need (this includes grass). This means that nitrogen is spread at the economic optimum level for crop production.

Meet statutory requirements in relation to waste management, water, air, planning and building regulations 4.

Soil sampling and analysis are not GAEC requirements for any farmer operating at or below 170kgs organic N/ha. The soil sampling, analysis and interpretation by the REPS planner provides the base-line data on the specific fertility of the various soil types on the individual farm and allows the targeting, at the level of homogenous crops subject to the same soil sample, of nutrient application including optimum recycling of farm generated

organic fertilisers. Arable farmers may elect to reduce nutrient inputs by 30per cent from the recommended crop fertilisation rates or alternatively undertake actions on 6per cent of the arable area of the holding in accordance with the requirements of the LINNET supplementary measure but as part of their basic undertaking and without the payment for the supplementary measure that is available to grassland farmers.

Additional management time required to implement recommendations of the nutrient management plan.

2.Grassland and soil management Plan

National Adopt a grassland management plan.

Not applicable to arable farms no claim Not applicable to arable farms Not applicable to arable farms

3.Protect and maintain watercourses and wells

National Protect and maintain watercourses and wells, with access by livestock to be limited to drinking points.a) Fence off watercourse and wells from bovines

for the duration of the REPS contractb) Leave uncultivated strip 3m wide along

8.5

A fence to exclude bovines from watercourses and wells is not required; hence

cattle may drink at any point along a

Average length of watercourse fencing per ha is 9m for arable crops.

59 Payment for non-target land will be on a per-hectare basis and will be payable on up to a maximum of 55 hectares. Participants farming more than 55 hectares must include all the land in their agri-environmental plan and farm it in accordance with the REP Scheme conditions.

319

Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Arable Crops(€/ha)

Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

watercourses c) Remove silt from watercourse and scrape

bottom and sides to original depth only; in accordance with environmental specifications.

Total Cost

3A. Increase watercourse margin by 1m with drinking access point Grazing restriction along additional 1m strip by

water course

3B: No bovine access to watercourses Provide alternative piped water source

3C: Use of planted buffer zones

1.9

7.1

17.5

8

5

8.5

watercourse.Not mandatory

Watercourse maintenance is not mandatory.

Bovines allowed access to one metre strip of grazing along watercourse

No restriction preventing bovines drinking directly from watercourses

Cattle are allowed to drink at any point along a watercourse.

Protection against silting of water bodies

Maintenance of watercourses according to REPS specification will require work with manual tools on an annual basis and the use of a mechanical digger once every five years.

Loss of grazing of 1m strip by watercourse

To improve water quality by preventing any physical damage to the banks of watercourses

To reduce pollution of watercourses, provide piped water to fields or fence to create special access points to water livestock.

4.Retain wildlife habitats

National Retain wildlife habitats such as field divisions, woodlands, wetlands, natural and semi-natural vegetationa) Setting-aside land for wildlife habitat use

b) Consequently, inefficient work practices will arise

Total Cost

4A. Creation of a New Habitat this is based on a farmer setting aside additional

land for wildlife habitat use; min 0.2 ha or 4per cent of his holding up to 20 ha., whichever is the higher

Consequently, inefficient work practices will arise

7.01

9.4

16.41

23

Comply with requirements applicable to Natura 2000 and designated NHA areas and The Wildlife Act, 2001. Removal of non-designated habitats is not recommended. However, the removal of wildlife habitats not protected under legislation, to facilitate commercial farming practices, is not prohibited.

Creation of additional space for wildlife is not a requirement of cross-compliance; therefore general farming practices are facilitated.

The opportunity cost of setting-aside 2per cent of land as wildlife habitat which otherwise could be used for commercial farming purposes

Conservation of habitats often leads to irregular shaped plots, resulting in inefficient use of modern machinery work practices.

The opportunity cost of setting-aside a minimum of 0.2ha or 4per cent, whichever is the higher, of land as wildlife habitat which otherwise could be used for commercial farming purposes

Trees improve the appearance of the landscape and help to conserve wildlife. Planting of non-native

320

Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Arable Crops(€/ha)

Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

4B. Tree planting 1 trees/ha of holding using native species, up to a max of 40ha. Cost of trees Protection of trees from livestock browsing Consequently, inefficient work practices will

arise.

4C. Nature corridors: increase field margins by additional 1.5m on whole farm Consequently, dry matter production will be

reduced on that area.

13

9.00

Planting of trees is not a requirement of cross-compliance.

Provision of field margins is not a requirement of cross-compliance; therefore general farming practices are facilitated.

trees is not permissible.The opportunity cost of setting-aside land for tree planting which otherwise could be used for commercial farming purposes.This will result in inefficient use of modern machinery and work practices.

Loss of production adjacent to field margins is estimated at 260 square metres per ha on which dry matter production will be reduced by 50per cent because of the restriction on the use of pesticides and fertilisers.

5.Maintain farm and field boundaries

National

4D. Establishment of farm woodland Provision of woodland (linear or patches) 2 per cent of 20ha, min 1000msq max 0.4ha

Retain and maintain boundary and roadside fences, stone walls and hedgerows in the interests of stock control, wildlife and the scenic appearance of the areaStonewall/hedgerow repair and maintenance, hedge planting and wire fencing may be required.

5A. Coppicing of hedgerows This is based on the active enhancement of

hedgerows at a rate of 3m/ha up to a 20 ha limit5B. Laying of hedgerows This is based on the coppicing or laying of

2m/ha up to a 20 ha limit.

5C. Plant new hedgerows This is based on the active enhancement of

hedgerows at a rate of 3m/ha up to a 20 ha limit Provision of fencing may be necessary when

carrying out the above practices to prevent livestock browsing during establishment/growth of new plant shoots.

5D. Repair/ maintain stone walls/stone banks This is based on the repair/enhancement of

traditional stone walls at a rate of 3m/ha/annum

8.5

23

31.5

30

32

While removal of field divisions, stone walls and hedgerow maintenance is not recommended, their maintenance is not mandatory under cross-compliance; thus their removal to facilitate commercial farming practice is not prohibited.

Coppicing of hedgerows is not a requirement of cross-compliance.

Laying of hedgerows is not a requirement of cross-compliance.

Establishment of new hedgerows is not a requirement of cross-compliance.

All boundary field divisions, fences, stone walls and hedgerows will be retained and maintained. Maintenance can involve hedge cutting, stockproofing of internal divisions with fencing, planting hedges and rebuilding stone walls. Average length of maintenance per hectare is 80m costing on average €0.13/m.

The intensive maintenance practices outlined such as laying, coppicing and planting involve labour and capital costs.

321

Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Arable Crops(€/ha)

Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

(up to a maximum of 20 ha.) above the basic option requirement.

23 While removal of stone walls/banks is not recommended, their maintenance is not mandatory under cross-compliance; thus the removal of field divisions to facilitate commercial farming practice is not prohibited.

The extra cost of maintaining 3m/ha over and above the basic maintenance requirement of the scheme.

6.Cease using herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers in and around hedgerows, ponds and streams

National Cease using pesticides and fertilisers within 1.5m of hedgerows, ponds and streams, except with the Minister’s approval.a) Consequently, dry matter production will be reduced on that area.

b) Clearing of vegetation from watercourses mechanically in accordance with environmental specifications

Total Cost

4.2

4.8

9.0

Safe storage and use of pesticides and chemicals. Use in accordance with product label instructions and statutory code of good plant protection practice. Comply with statutory maximum pesticide residue limits. i.e. SMR 9

Clearing vegetation from watercourses is not mandatory.

Loss of production adjacent to field margins and watercourses is estimated at 120 square metres per ha on which dry matter production will be reduced by 50per cent because of the restriction on the use of pesticides and fertilisers.

Fenced watercourses will require cutting of weeds and clearing of vegetation from watercourses in accordance with environmental specifications using manual tools. 18m @ €0.31/m/yr.

7.Establish biodiversity buffer strips surrounding features of historical and archaeological interest

National Retain and maintain biodiversity surrounding any features of historical or archaeological interest not listed in National records (i.e. lime kilns and ruins of traditional dwellings). No ground disturbance within 20m of such features to create a biodiversity buffer strip.Consequently, inefficient work practices will arise.

Total

7A - Increase biodiversity buffer strips around archaeological sites by 50per cent (all sites on farm)

No ground disturbance within 30m of such features

Consequently inefficient work practices

2.6

4.3

6.8

10

Comply with the National Monuments Act, 1994. Do not remove or damage archaeological monuments and sites listed on the Record of Monuments and Places. No GAEC requirement to establish buffer zone for biodiversity around such features.

Comply with the National Monuments Act, 1994. Do not remove or damage archaeological monuments and sites listed on the Record of Monuments and Places.

REPS protects other sites and features of historical and archaeological interest not listed on the Record of Monuments and Places, for example the ruins of traditional dwelling houses and lime kilns. This buffer strip surrounding the site shall be managed in the interests of biodiversity and landscape. The corresponding loss of production involved is based on one historical/archaeological feature per farm.

The loss of production involved on an extra 10m buffer area around the site

8. National Maintain farms including farmyards in a tidy state. Comply with the Litter Pollution Act, 1997 Remove deposits of litter on-farm and any other

322

Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Arable Crops(€/ha)

Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

Maintain and improve visual appearance of farm and farmyard

e) Maintain farmyard clear of litterf) Use appropriate roof, wall and door colours and

maintain in good state of repairg) Repair/ maintain traditional stone farm buildings

h) Landscaping/screening around farm and farmyard —loss of production on land used for landscaping

Total Cost

8A. Establish a traditional orchard of specified varieties of Irish origin 500m2 containing 12 trees

8B. Install bird or bat boxes To erect 8 nestboxs or equivalent at suitable

locations around/adjacent the farmyard

No claimNo claim

No claim

No claim

No claim

22/11

11

While removal of traditional stone farm buildings, gates, gatepost and piers are not recommended, they may be removed for reasons of safety, ease of access or maintenance. The painting of buildings is not mandatory.

Landscaping of farmyards is not a requirement of cross-compliance; thus general farming practices are permitted up to and surrounding the farmyard.

No mandatory requirement

No mandatory requirement under GAEC

unsightly feature, particularly those visible to the general public

Preservation of old farm buildings of limestone, granite or sandstone wall construction and/or with slated roofs, gates gate posts and piers. Retain all such features. Maintenance is often required to include essential repairs to the fabric of the structures.Use appropriate roof, wall and door colours on buildings, which blend in with the surrounding countryside, and maintain in a good state of repair.

The planting of trees around a farmyard softens the lines of buildings and helps to mould them with the landscape and provide a habitat for birds. Non- native trees are not eligible.

Protect our plant genetic resources and increase biodiversity around farmyards and the retention of traditional farm skills.Maintain and encourage bird and bat populations in and around the farmyard through the purchase and maintenance of bird/bat boxes.

9.Produce tillage crops according to REPS specification

National Produce tillage crops leaving a specified field margin and without burning straw or stubble.a) Prohibiting straw and stubble burning

b) Leaving a field margin resulting in land being left without crop output

c) Monitoring of soil management plan

Total Cost

9A. Tillage cropping: Establish satisfactory green cover by 15 Nov. with light cultivation post harvest or Winter sowing (excluding area under late

12.4

19.3

0.9

32.6

25

GAEC does not require uncultivated crop margins to be maintained. Straw and stubble burning is permitted but must be in compliance with statutory controls on the burning and destruction of vegetation provided in the Wildlife Act, 2001.

Baseline requires green cover: can be established from natural regeneration or establishment of winter cereal.

Prohibiting straw and stubble burning will increase fertiliser costs by about 19€/ha, pest and fungal disease control costs by 31€/ha. However, less than 25per cent of cereal stubbles are currently burned.Leaving an uncultivated field margin will result in 2per cent of land being left without crop output and loss in income.

Establish a selected winter cover crop using minimum soil cultivation techniques to minimise nitrate losses over winter and potentially benefit

323

Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Arable Crops(€/ha)

Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

harvested crops). No primary cultivation between 31 Oct. – 15 Jan. Based on 15 per cent of 20ha max 3ha min 0.75

– all cat 1 Option

9B. Environmental management of setaside. Min area of 0.3 ha or 10 per cent of holding (whichever is the higher), to a max of 4ha.

9C. Tillage margins – Min requirement for 3-metres wide tillage margins as a rate of 74 metres linear length per hectare.

9E. Min tillage crops Based on maintaining 14ha of land under eco-

tillage = cat 1 Option or 7ha for cat 2.

23

23

23

Set-aside managed in accordance with EU rules. However, machinery operations are carried out in a manner that ensures efficiency.

GAEC does not require uncultivated crop margins to be maintained. Maintenance of tillage crop margins is not a requirement under cross-compliance.

Soil quality to be maintained under GAEC but it is not mandatory to use min tillage techniques. Under Irish conditions it is considered that minimum cultivation techniques are not necessary to meet GAEC requirements.

soil invertebrates. Green cover must be ploughed into the soil in spring.

Management of set-aside ground for the benefit of birds and ground flora and invertebrates

Leaving 3-metre wide field margin will result in land being left without crop output and therefore loss in income.

Improved soil structure, increased soil organic matter and minimised runoff. Minimise field margins to maximise cropping area. Maintenance of tillage crop margins is not a requirement under cross-compliance.

10.Become familiar with environmentally friendly farming practice

National Participants in REPS are recommended to attend prescribed courses and farm demonstrations and acquire the knowledge and skill required to comply with all REPS measures. 3.8

Become familiar with requirements in relation to waste management, water, air, trees and wildlife, target areas, planning and building, use and control of plant protection products, national monuments and litter as outlined above.

REPS entails being familiar with environmentally friendly farming practices as outlined in the REPS specification which go beyond meeting the legislative provisions listed under GAEC.

11.Prepare, monitor and update agri-environmental records as may be prescribed by the Minister

National Preparation and updating of the REPS Agri-environmental planKeep such farm and environmental records as may be prescribed by the Minister.Records must be kept each year with the appropriate details entered in the Record book each month. 14.1

Record the date, type and quantity of chemical fertilisers, organic wastes and pesticides brought onto or leaving the farm.

REPS requires the hiring of professional agriculturalist/environmentalist advice in the preparation of an agri-environmental plan and for its update during the term of the plan. Advice is also required on the change in farm management practices required to comply with REPS specification. Annual records to be kept by the REPS applicant on farming operations carried out as specified in the plan.

Total Cost of Measures 1 to 11 above

National160.30 30

Incentive to participate

National Transaction cost 5.60

Total Cost National Overall Total Cost 165.9 25.60While actual cost of Measures 1 – 11 is €165.9 proposal is to pay €147.50.

324

Basis of Costing for REPS Supplementary Measures61

Supplementary Measure

Area REPS Specification Action Amount(€/ha/annum)

Cross-compliance: Baseline reference point: Farming practice as per cross-compliance

Long/Medium term justification in terms of extra cost and loss of income for farming beyond good practice.

Rearing animals of local breeds in danger of extinction

National In order to be eligible for aid a farmer must register the animals with the relevant breed society or approved conservation agency. Payment is based the average number of register LU of the relevant breed on the farm over the year

€234/LU62

Cross-compliance does not require the rearing animals of local breeds in danger of extinction. In general such production is not commercially viable.

The opportunity cost of maintaining livestock breeds in danger of extinction in place of commercial meat-producing breeds. The additional administrative costs of being a member of a breed society and keeping records prescribed for this measure.

Riparian zones63 Designated rivers and tributaries

Riparian zones and lake-side strips are strips of land extending on average at least 10m in width from a designated river to include salmonid, pearl mussel, fresh water crayfish. The land cannot be used for agricultural production. The area shall be permanently fenced to exclude livestock but with suitable entry points by hung gate(s) to facilitate machine entry for maintenance work and stiles for access to fishing.Agricultural production is prohibited on this area.

Complying with the prescribed management practices

Total Cost

391

333.5

724.5

Cross-compliance involves commercial agricultural production of land up to the prescribed edge of rivers.

Average loss of income per hectare is the opportunity cost of setting-aside one hectare of land which otherwise could be used for agricultural production. Payment shall be subject to a maximum area on any one holding, depending on the target species.

The high post and wire fencing specification that also includes access gates for machinery and stiles for fishing people is a major cost of complying with the prescribed management practices in this measure.

61 Participants can receive payment on one Supplementary Measure only.62 Payment is based on a livestock unit basis rather than on a per hectare basis.63 The increased rate of payment is intended to target the many Irish rivers and their tributaries which are habitats for important aquatic species, including salmonid and pearl muscle species which are coming under considerable pressure. The increased payment reflects the urgency in incentivising farmers to take up this measure. The high post and wire fencing specification that also includes access gates for machinery and stiles for fishing people is a major cost of complying with the prescribed management practices in this measure.

325

Supplementary Measure

Area REPS Specification Action Amount(€/ha/annum)

Cross-compliance Baseline reference point: Farming practice as per cross-compliance

Long/medium- term justification in terms of extra cost and loss of income for farming beyond good practice

LINNET sites64

National Conversion of grassland into low-input arable cover

Cost of cultivating/sowing land Cost of complying with the management

practices on the plot Loss of production

First hectare will be paid at €700From 1 to 2.5ha @ €400 per hectareMaximum payment will be € 1,300

Not applicable Average loss of income per hectare is the opportunity cost of setting-aside land which otherwise could be used for agricultural production. Payment shall be subject to a maximum of 5ha on any one holding. The maintenance of the cereal brassicas crop mixes for the 5-year duration of the REPS contract is a significant cost of complying with the prescribed management practices in this measure.

Low-input tillage crops

National Conversion of grassland to low-input cereals/root crops

Cost of cultivating/sowing land Cost of complying with the management

practices on the plot

€316/haMax area 2.5ha

Cross-compliance requires nationally no more than 10 per cent conversion of permanent grass to tillage.

The maintenance of the cereal or root crop for the 5-year duration of the REPS contract is a significant cost of complying with the prescribed management practices in this measure.

Minimum tillage

National Promote the use of min tillage technologies €21Max of 40ha

Cross-compliance requires farmers to maintain soil structure and organic matter status.

Encouraging of min tillage techniques is less intrusive on soil flora and fauna, builds soil structure and increases organic matter/humus levels. The use of minimum tillage techniques is more expensive than conventional operations.

Traditional Irish orchards

National Establishment of traditional orchardsA farmer must plant top fruit varieties as set out in the Native Irish Collection.

€256/orchard Cross-compliance does not involve the growing of top fruit in danger of extinction as it is generally not commercially viable to do so.

Orchards shall be fenced off and made stock proof for the duration of the contract. The capital costs of planting land with non-commercial fruit tree varieties and their subsequent maintenance is a major cost of complying with the prescribed management practices in this measure. Average loss of income per hectare is the opportunity cost of setting-aside prime land which otherwise could be used for agricultural production.

Traditional sustainable Grazing

National Maintenance of traditional Irish bovine breeds in marginal areas, e.g. Shorthorn, Hereford, and AA.Can be limited to marginal lands with high ecological value and at risk of abandonment.

Min SR of breed on farm

€43/haup to a maximum of 20ha

In general the production of beef from traditional breeds is less profitable than larger continental breeds.

The farmed landscape and associated flora and fauna of Ireland require continued active farming for its survival. Contribute to National Biodiversity Plan via maintenance of specific habitats for conservation of flora and fauna and prescribing grazing breeds most suitable to marginal land. Contribute to the maintenance of farming on lands most vulnerable to abandonment.

64 There has been increasing pressure on populations of farmland bird species due to reduced food supply over the winter months. The number of farmland birds continues to fall and the increased payment reflects the urgency in incentivising farmers to take up this measure. The maintenance of the cereal brassicas crop mixes for the five year duration of the REPS contract is a significant cost of complying with the prescribed management practices in this measure.

326

Mixed grazing

National The objective of this supplementary measure is to support sheep enterprises as the major component of mixed grazing management systems.

€43/haup to a maximum of 20ha

Cross-compliance does not require farmers to keep sheep for the maintenance of land under GAEC. Farmers can utilise the most economic methods of maintaining their land, whether it be by mechanical means or by grazing

It is estimated that maintaining sheep as part of a livestock enterprise increases the labour input by farmers by approximately 20per cent over and above other livestock types without any financial return for the work input. Therefore the income foregone based on 4 ewes per hectare is calculated as follows: 20per cent extra time estimated at 6 hours per hectare

@ €12.5 per hour = €75/hectare Therefore at 0.5 LU (proposed minimum stocking

level)= €62.5.

There is also extra cost associated with managing a mixed livestock enterprise

Addition administration costs €100/annum which when spread over 20 hectares is €5/ha

Additional fencing cost above what a bovine enterprise would require: €25/ha

Therefore total cost is €92.5Proposal is to pay €50/hectare to maximum of 20 hectares.

Sensitive lakes and catchments

Targeted to designated fresh water bodies

To encourage farmers in these areas to take up one or a combination of a suit of actions designed to contribute to water quality objectives.These actions are undertaken over and above the core requirements of REPS.

Whole-farm reduction of Organic N: stock density to be maintained at identified levels for environmental sustainability Minimum reduction of 30kg organic N/ha

across the holding from baseline of year preceding entry to commitment

Traditional hay meadows in fields surrounding lakeshores. Reduced crop production Reduced feeding value

Species-rich grassland management in adjoining fields. Reduced grass production/grazing potential Reduced grass quality

Increase watercourse margins Grazing restriction along additional 1m strip by

watercourse

68.00/ha

103.00/ha

103.00/ha

€3.00/100m

Comply with Nitrate Action Plan on spreading of organic and chemical fertilisers.

No requirement to reduce stock numbers under GAEC or cross-compliance

Forage conserved in a manner that maximises quality and yield. Adhere to the forage requirements for nutrients recommended by Teagasc.

Livestock grazed in a manner that avoids both under and overgrazing of grassland and meets the statutory requirements in relation to target areas5 and the Wildlife Act, 2001.

Bovines allowed access to one and a half metre strip of grazing along watercourse

Contribute to Water Framework Directives and National Biodiversity Plan.

To contribute to water quality by reducing the organic N load on land in sensitive catchments.

There will be additional costs on applicants by reverting to traditional forage-making practices. The quantity and quality of forage saved will fall below that normally made on commercial farms.

Normal practices for maintaining a highly productive sward will be prohibited such as reseeding, excess liming and fertilisation.

Primary objective of this sub-measure is to create additional habitat space alongside watercourses to allow natural regeneration of typical riverside vegetation structure, thus providing habitat for associated fauna. The increased margin also acts as a buffer strip with the potential to intercept nutrients and soil particles in overland flow. Loss of grazing

327

Installation of water troughs Provide alternative piped water source.

Interceptions of overland flow of nutrients and silt by establishment of planted buffer zones.

€4 per ha

€171/0.2 ha

No restriction preventing bovines drinking directly from watercourses

Baseline is as per basic measure 3. Therefore an unplanted buffer zone is maintained.

of 1m strip by watercourse

To improve water quality by preventing any physical damage to the banks of watercourses

The action of planting a buffer zone with willow or alder, which is stockproofed, goes beyond the baseline. The fact that the buffer is planted and stock-proofed prevents animals from grazing close to the water body. The planted buffer will also intercept nutrients from overland flow from adjacent land and contribute to creating additional space for biodiversity.

Clover swards

National Encourage farmers to incorporate clover in swards. 26/ha Max 40ha

Not applicable To contribute to the delivery of water quality by promoting the uptake of incorporating clover into suitable grassland to reduce the dependency on Nitrogenous fertilisers.

Measure for the conservation of wild birds – corncrake

Corncrake sites (in conjunction with BirdWatch Ireland)

In order to be eligible for aid a farmer must register with BirdWatch Ireland. The objective is to enhance the habitat structure and availability of breeding sites for the corncrake over the summer months. Loss of forage quality Loss of grazing potentialInefficient use of machinery

€85 Not applicable Loss of forage production/quality because of the restriction on the use of pesticides and fertilisers in BirdWatch-approved sites. Inefficient use of modern machinery because of the prescribed management practices in this measure.

328

Basis of REPS Costing for Options Measure No. REPS Specification Action Category Option

(€/ha)Cross-compliance corresponding to the action Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra

cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC.

2.Grassland and soil management plan

2A. Traditional hay meadows This is based on a farmer maintaining 0.4ha or

8per cent, whichever is the lesser, of his holding as hay meadows

Reduced crop production Reduced feeding value

2B. Species-rich grassland This is based on a farmer maintaining 0.4ha or

8 per cent, whichever is the lesser, of his holding as species rich grassland.

Reduced grass production/grazing potential Reduced grass quality

2D. Encourage the use of clover in swards This is based on a farmer reseeding

conservation ground to maintain high clover levels

Based on 20per cent of 20ha

2E. Encourage the use of trailing shoe technology This is based on a farmer availing of latest

technology for increasing N cycling efficiency.

2F. Control of invasive species in grassland, e.g. rushes and/or bracken This is based on a farmer controlling and

managing high rush/bracken populations Chemical and mechanical control Based on 10per cent of 20ha, min 0.5ha

1-2

1-2

1

2

2

7

7

23

10

12

Forage conserved in a manner that maximises quality and yield. Adhere to the forage requirements for nutrients recommended by Teagasc.

Livestock grazed in a manner that avoids both under and overgrazing of grassland and meets the statutory requirements in relation to target areas5

and the Wildlife Act, 2001.

Clover not normally part of Irish swards

No baseline requirement for the use of this technology

Baseline requires that encroachment of farmland by invasive species to the extent that the land is incapable of agricultural production be prevented. GAEC allows the non-selective control of these species with no requirement to consider its biodiversity benefits.

There will be additional costs on applicants by reverting to traditional forage-making practices. The quantity and quality of forage saved will fall below that normally made on commercial farms.

Normal practices for maintaining a highly productive sward will be prohibited such as reseeding, excess liming and fertilisation.

Reduced use of chemical N on conservation ground

Increased N cycling efficiency. Reduced use of chemical N on conservation ground.

Maintenance of grassland quality and landscape appearance

3.Protect and maintain watercourses and wells

3A. Increase watercourse margin by 1m with drinking access point Grazing restriction along additional 1m strip

by watercourse

2 8 Bovines allowed access to one metre strip of grazing along watercourse

Maintenance of watercourses according to REPS specification will require work with manual tools on an annual basis and the use of a mechanical digger once every five years. Average length of watercourse maintenance/ha is 21m @ €0.3/m/yr.

Loss of grazing of 1m strip by watercourse

329

Measure No. REPS Specification Action Category Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC.

4.Retain wildlife habitats

3B: No bovine access to watercourse: lay on troughs and relevant piping to replace Provision of alternative water source for

livestock

3C: Use of planted buffer zones Provision of willow/alder buffer strips 1per cent of 20ha, min 500msq

4A. Creation of a new habitat This is based on a farmer setting aside

additional land for wildlife habitat use; min 0.2 ha or 4per cent of his holding up to 20ha, whichever is the higher.

Consequently, inefficient work practices will arise.

4B. Tree planting 1 tree/ ha of holding using native species, up to a max of 40 ha Cost of trees Protection of trees from livestock browsing Consequently, inefficient work practices will

arise.

4C. Nature corridors: increase field margins by additional 1m on whole farm Consequently, dry matter production will be

reduced on that area.

2

2

1

1-2

2

10

8.5

23

13

9

Cattle are allowed to drink at any point along a watercourse.

Baseline is as per basic measure 3. Therefore a unplanted buffer zone is maintained

Creation of additional space for wildlife is not a requirement of GAEC. Therefore general farming practices are facilitated.

Planting of trees is not a requirement of GAEC.

Provision of field margins is not a requirement of GAEC. Therefore general farming practices are facilitated.

To reduce pollution of watercourse by the exclusion of all bovines from all watercourses. Piped water and drinking troughs must be provided.

To protect water quality from overland flow of nutrients and silt

The opportunity cost of setting-aside a minimum of 0.2 ha or 4per cent, whichever is the higher, of land as wildlife habitat which otherwise could be used for commercial farming purposes

Trees improve the appearance of the landscape and help to conserve wildlife. Planting of non-native trees is not permissible. The opportunity cost of setting-aside land for tree planting which otherwise could be used for commercial farming purposes. This will result in inefficient use of modern machinery and work practices.

Loss of production adjacent to field margins is estimated at 260 square metres per ha on which dry matter production will be reduced by 50per cent because of the restriction on the use of pesticides and fertilisers.

330

Measure No. REPS Specification Action Category Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC.

5.Maintain farm and field boundaries

4D. Establishment of farm woodland Provision of woodland (linear or patches) 2 per cent of 20ha, min 1000msq max 0.4ha

5A. Coppicing of hedgerows

5B. Laying of hedgerows This is based on the coppicing or laying of

2m/ha up to a 20ha limit.

5C. Plant new hedgerows This is based on the active enhancement of

hedgerows at a rate of 3m/ha up to a 20ha limit.

Provision of fencing may be necessary when carrying out all the above practices to prevent livestock browsing during establishment/growth of new plant shoots.

5D. Repair/ maintain stone walls/stone faced banks This is based on the repair/enhancement of

traditional stone walls at a rate of 3m/ha/annum (up to a maximum of 20ha.) above the basic requirement.

1

1

1

1

1

23

31.5

30

32

23

Planting of trees is not a requirement of GAEC.

Coppicing of hedgerows is not a requirement of GAEC.Laying of hedgerows is not a requirement of GAEC.

Establishment of new hedgerows is not a requirement of GAEC.

While removal of stone walls is not recommended, their maintenance is not mandatory under GAEC; thus the removal of field divisions to facilitate commercial farming practice is not prohibited.

Trees improve the appearance of the landscape and help to conserve wildlife. Planting of non-native trees is not permissible. The opportunity cost of setting-aside land for tree planting which otherwise could be used for commercial farming purposes. This will result in inefficient use of modern machinery and work practices.

The intensive maintenance practices outlined such as laying, coppicing and planting involve labour and capital costs

The extra cost of maintaining 3m/ha over and above the basic maintenance requirement of the scheme

7.Protect features of historical and archaeological interest.

7A -Increase margins around archaeological sites by 50 per cent (all sites on farm) No ground disturbance within 30m of such

features Consequently inefficient work practices

2 10 Comply with the National Monuments Act, 1994. Do not remove or damage archaeological monuments and sites listed on the Record of Monuments and Places.

The loss of production involved on an extra 10m buffer area around the archaeological site.

331

Measure No. REPS Specification Action Category Option(€/ha)

Cross-compliance corresponding to the action Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC.

8.Maintain and improve visual appearance of farm and farmyard

8A. Establish a traditional orchard of specified varieties of Irish origin 500m2 containing 12 trees

8B. Install bird or bat boxes To erect 8 nestboxs or equivalent at suitable

locations around/adjacent the farmyard

2

2

11

1

11

No mandatory requirement under GAEC

No mandatory requirement under GAEC

Protect our plant genetic resources and increase biodiversity around farmyards and the retention of traditional farm skills.Maintain and encourage bird and bat populations in and around the farmyard through the purchase and maintenance of bird/bat boxes.

9.Produce tillage crops according to REPS specification

9A. Tillage cropping – Establish satisfactory green cover by 15 Nov. with light cultivation post harvest or Winter sowing (excluding area under late harvested crops). No primary cultivation between 31 Oct. – 15 Jan. Based on 15 per cent of 20ha max 3ha min

0.75 – all cat 1 Option

9B. Environmental management of setaside. Min area of 0.3ha or 10 per cent of holding (whichever is the higher), to a max of 4ha.

9C. Tillage margins – Min requirement for 3-metres wide tillage margins as a rate of 74 metres linear length per hectare.

9D. Promote the growing of low-input cereals/root crops; covers both options The additional cost of growing spring cereals Inefficiencies of production system 10per cent of 20ha, min 0.5ha, max 2ha

9F. Min tillage crops Based on maintaining 14ha of land under eco-

tillage = cat 1 Option or 7ha for cat 2.

1-2

1

1-2

1-2

1

25

23

23

37

23

Green cover is not a requirement under GAEC.

Set-aside managed in accordance with EU rules. However, machinery operations are carried out in a manner that ensures efficiency.

Maintenance of tillage crop margins is not a requirement under GAEC.

Not mandatory

Not mandatory

Establish satisfactory winter cover using minimum soil cultivation techniques to minimise nitrate losses over winter and potentially benefit soil invertebrates.

Management of set-aside ground for the benefit of birds and ground flora and invertebrates

Leaving 3-metre wide field margin will result in land being left without crop output and therefore loss in income.

Benefits biodiversity and landscape and also preserves traditional farming skills.

Improved soil structure, increased soil organic matter and minimise run-off

332

Organic Farming CostingsArea Action Amount

(€/ha)Cross-Compliance corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

National To encourage producers to respond to the market demand for organically produced food

Assistance will be provided to participants converting to or continuing with organic farming production systems.

Applicants must register with DAF and have their operations inspected and approved annually by a body approved by DAF.

The payments for the in-conversion phase shall be for a maximum period of two years. Subsequent payments will be at rates applicable for full organic status.

Applicants with more than 6 hectares of utilisable agricultural area: In conversion status Full organic status

Applicants farming less than or equal to 6 hectares with at least 1ha under fruit or vegetables In conversion status Full organic status

€21265 €10666

283142

Cross-compliance involves farming without causing environmental degradation. Organic farming goes beyond Cross-compliance.

Organic farming involves a very high level of management and substantial losses occur when converting to this sustainable system of farming.

On average the difference in margins per hectare between producers in conversion to organic status and conventional producers is minus 700€/ha/yr.

Accordingly, it is proposed to pay approx. 50 per cent of the losses incurred during the conversion period over the 5 years of the undertaking as an annual payment of 212€/ha/yr for a maximum of 55ha for the two-year conversion period and 106€/ha/yr for a maximum of 55ha for full organic status, with rates of €30 and €15 per hectare, respectively, on areas above 55 hectares.

Losses sustained on converting to organic production by specialised fruit and vegetable producers on small holdings (<6ha) are significantly higher than those outlined above. Accordingly, a higher rate of compensation (approx. 30per cent) will be paid as an annual payment of 283€/ha/yr for 142€/ha/yr thereafter.

This payment is justified on the basis that there is no market return on the area during conversion. It is proposed to pay a contribution of 50 per cent towards the losses incurred during the conversion period.

Applicants applying green cover during the conversion period

€240 per ha per year for a maximum of 40ha for the two years of conversion.

Establishing the green cover @ €370 in 1st year = €185Maintenance – mulching 4 times annually @ €40/mulch = €160Opportunity cost, i.e. loss of income = €135Total = €480

65 €212 up to 55ha; €30 for each additional hectare66 €106 up to 55ha; €15 for each additional hectare

333

Basis of Costings for Commonage land outside Natura 2000 networkMeasure No. Area REPS Specification Action Amount

(€/ha)GAEC (GAEC) corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

Provide a compre-hensive approach to the conservation and/or regeneration of land farmed in common

Common-age areas not designated as Natura sites

a) DestockingReduction in ewes per hectare to an agriculturally sustainable level

b) Habitat Retention including prohibited practicesThe following practices are prohibited on commonage lands: Drainage, ploughing, cultivation, reseeding,

infilling or rock removal Turf cutting on unexploited bogs, planting trees or

other crops. No new tracks or paths to be created. Burning only allowed as a planned management

practice. Use of fertilisers and plant protection products

In addition, supplementary feeding practices will be restricted. The location of feeding points will have to be sited to encourage the dispersal of livestock throughout the outwintering area. To minimise heavy grazing, trampling and poaching, ‘feeding points’ should be moved every 3 weeks and sited on ground with least habitat and wildlife value, preferably on grassland well away from stands of heather. Feeding on steep slopes and on peaty soils should be avoided where possible. Restrictions on the application of organic nutrients in water quality sensitive areas also apply.

c) Grassland management planAdopt a grassland and soil management plan that avoids poaching, overgrazing/undergrazing, soil erosion and run-off leading to the damage of heather or other natural vegetation or wetlands habitats.

No claim

86

18

Stock ewes at an agriculturally sustainable level of 5 ewes/ha on commonage land while meeting the statutory requirements in relation to waste management, water, wildlife, and target areas.

Maximise land, labour and machinery productivity by improving land through reclamation, reseeding, burning vegetation, turf cutting, planting trees and creating paths which may involve the removal of wildlife habitats not protected under legislation.

Use of pesticides, fertilisers and lime in compliance with requirements of waste management, water, wildlife, target areas, and the Statutory Code of Good Plant Protection Practice and the Nitrate Code.Use the most cost-effective and convenient method of supplementary feeding and application of nutrients while meeting the statutory requirements in relation to waste management, water, target areas and wildlife.

Maximise stocking rate of animals outwintered up to the agriculturally sustainable level in order to minimise costs of overwintering animals while meeting the statutory requirements in relation to waste management, water, target areas and wildlife.

Average stocking rate of hill sheep is 5 ewes/ha. Target is to reduce this to 3 ewes/ha. Reduction in sheep numbers will be 2 ewes per hectare less than the agriculturally sustainable level. Proposed payment is based on market losses of €20. Alternatively, prevention of undergrazing may require maintenance of non–viable stock.These extensive series of restrictions and prohibitions taken together will have a significant impact on land and labour productivity and the viability of farming in these areas. Unless the opportunity costs arising from these restrictions are adequately compensated for, farming in commonage areas will not be sustainable and the area will be abandoned and the habitat value lost.

The opportunity cost from the loss of production due to the restriction on the use of applying fertilisers, liming material or pesticides

Extra labour cost arising from a change in current supplementary feeding practice which lead to damage to land and wildlife habitats to specified undertakings outlined under this measure. Additional costs will also arise due to restrictions on the application of organic nutrients in water quality sensitive areas.

Costings as outlined for in Measure (ii) in the basic REPS for Grassland Farmers, which involve increasing the length of the overwintering period of livestock in buildings/yards in order to reduce the risk of poaching of land leading to soil erosion and run-off.

334

Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Amount(€/ha)

GAEC (GAEC) corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

d) FencingComply with the fencing undertakings associated with the commonage framework plan and stockproofing the boundary between the commonage and privately-owned land.

e) Advisory involvement

f) Non-target impacts of commonage

9

11

90

Use minimal fencing on commonage.

Advice from environmentalist not compulsory Lowland is farmed in response to market demands.

Fencing costs associated with undertakings in the commonage framework plan and stockproofing the boundary between the commonage and privately-owned land. Average number of metres/ha of commonage to be fenced is 8 @ average cost/m/yr of 1€.

Additional costs associated with involving an environmentalist with the preparation of a REPS plan with commonageIt is estimated that the presence of commonage as part of a holding restricts the farmer’s ability to farm his/her lowland in response to market demands; thereby reducing the profitability of the lowland by approximately one third

Sub-total 214Transaction Cost 5.6Total Cost of above undertakings 219.6

Proposed payment of €219.60/ha on first 40ha with degressive payments of €24/ha on next 40ha, €18/ha on the next 40ha and €5/ha for each hectare over 120ha.

335

Basis of Costing for NHAs not designated under Natura 2000 – excluding commonage Measure No. Area REPS Specification Action Amount

(€/ha)GAEC (GAEC) corresponding to the action

Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

Provide a compre-hensive approach to the conservation and/or regeneration of designated target areas5

NHAs designated as Natura sites

a) Comply with the General Basic REPS Programme

b) Sustainable stockingMaintaining stock numbers at an environmentally sustainable level

c) Habitat retention and prohibited practicesThe following practices shall not be carried out in SACs and NHAs lands: The areas shall not be drained, ploughed cultivated

or reseeded. There shall be no infilling or rock removal. Planting trees or other crops is not permitted. No new tracks or paths shall be created. Burning will only be allowed as a planned

management practice. Invasive scrub may be controlled by cutting, spot

spraying or exceptionally by burning outside of the bird-nesting season (late February to 31 August).

d) Restrictions on the use of fertilisers, pesticides and plant protection productsSoil phosphate levels shall not exceed Index 2 Level.

€131.57

21

60

nil

Practise farming while meeting requirements in relation to waste management, water, air, trees and wildlife, target areas, planning and building, the Statutory Code of Good Plant Protection Practice, national monuments and litter.

Maintain livestock at an agriculturally sustainable level per hectare while meeting the statutory requirements in relation to waste management, water, target areas and wildlife.

Maximise land, labour and machinery productivity by improving land through reclamation, reseeding, burning vegetation and building roadways which may involve the removal of wildlife habitats not protected under legislation.

Maximise use of pesticides, fertilisers and lime while meeting the requirements in relation to water, target areas, wildlife, the Statutory Code of Good Plant Protection Practice and the Nitrate Code.

Advice from environmentalist not compulsory

REPS Programme 1 Costings are 179€/ha. See REPS Programme 1 for breakdown of costs.

Market losses based on average stock reduction of 2 ewes/ha to prevent overgrazing. Alternatively, prevention of undergrazing may require maintenance of non–viable stock.

There is a significant impact on land and labour productivity and the viability of farming in these areas.

Unless the opportunity costs arising from these restrictions are adequately compensated for, farming in commonage areas will not be sustainable, the area will be abandoned, and the

habitat value lost.

This costing is additional to the costs involved in the conservation of wildlife habitats that has already been accounted for under Measures 4 and 5 of the REPS Programme 1 Costings.

Where fertilisers are being applied the initial soil sampling will be relatively intensive with at least one sample per 2-4 hectares. The use of plant protection products is also restricted. The estimated opportunity cost of complying with these practices has already been accounted for under Measure 1 of the REPS Programme 1 Costings.

Additional costs associated with involving an environmentalist with the preparation of a REPS plan with privately-owned NH.

e) Advisory involvement

Total Cost of above undertakings.

7.0

219.6

336

Appendix 3A Basis of Agri-environment Costings for AEOS

Measure No. Area Type of Operation/Specified Actions

Amount (€/ha)67

Cross-Compliance corresponding to the action Long/medium term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement to farm beyond GAEC.

NEW CHALLENGE: BIODIVERSTY1.Commonage land outside Natura network

Commonage areas not designated as Natura sites

Conservation and regeneration of commonage land.

Production of a Sustainable Management Plan by a trained ecologist/agronomist professional.

Implement the management plan.

Total Cost

€17.00

€58.00

€75.00

Respect GAEC, Cross Compliance and conditions laid down in Commonage Framework Plans. There is no requirement to develop & implement a Sustainable Grazing Management Plan for the commonage

Adherence to a Sustainable Management Plan, including a stocking and grazing regime incurs opportunity and extra labour costs. Unless the costs arising are adequately compensated for, farming in commonage areas will not be sustainable and the area will be abandoned and the habitat value lost.

67 € per hectare unless otherwise specified

337

2.Establishment and maintenance of habitats

Establishment and maintenance of habitats continued

National New grassland habitat

Conservation & creation of areas of high biodiversity on farmland.

Create 2.5m uncultivated field margin resulting in loss of production

Fence habitat to restrict livestock access at certain points in the year.

Maintenance of margin by grazing with animals.

€0.05/m

€3.30/m 68

€0.03/m

New grassland habitatsCreation of additional areas for wildlife on farms is not a requirement of cross-compliance

The opportunity cost of retaining /setting aside land as a wildlife habitat which could otherwise be used for commercial farming purposes.

Conservation of habitats often leads to irregular shaped plots, resulting in inefficient use of modern machinery work practices.

68 Non productive investment under measure 216; total cost is annual payment x5

338

3. Tree Planting & Management

National Tree Planting & Management:Planting and maintenance of native trees in accordance with a specification, with particular emphasis on broad-leaved species.

a) Total cost per tree:Tree (broadleaf tree)9m of fence @ €3.30 /mSupporting stake & GuardPlanting 1 hr @ €10/hrTOTAL PER TREE

b) Planting whips (min 1.2m high) cost of whipsupporting staketree planting and guardTOTAL COST PER WHIP**these costs have been independently verified by Teagasc

€20.00€29.70 €3.00€10.00€62.70 (see footnote 52)

€2.50€2.00€5.00€9.50

The planting of trees is not a requirement under cross-compliance or National law.

Trees improve the appearance of the landscape and help to conserve wildlife. Planting of non-native trees is not permissible. The opportunity cost of setting aside land for tree planting which would otherwise be used for commercial farming purposes, plus the cost of the establishment and maintenance of trees is borne by farmer.

4.Traditional Hay Meadows:

National Traditional Hay Meadows:Enhancement of the conservation value and the continuation of traditional farming practice for traditional hay meadows.

Loss of production Inefficient work practicesSaving on fertiliser costsTransaction Cost

Total Cost

€302.00€100.00- €36.55 €73.09

€438.5469

There is no requirement to harvest forage as hay. There will be additional costs on applicants by reverting to traditional forage making practices. The quantity and quality of forage saved fall below that normally made on commercial farms.

Normal practices for maintaining a highly productive sward will be prohibited, such as reseeding, excess liming and fertilisation

339

5. Species Rich Grasslands

Species Rich GrasslandsMaintaining species rich grasslands via prescribed management prescription and practices:- fertilizer limited to 30kg per hectare-specific grazing regime to preserve the habitat.-topping permitted only after 15th July.Loss of productionInefficient work practicesSaving on fertiliserTransaction Cost

Total Cost

Inefficient work practices arise

€302.00€100.00- €62.00 -

€68.00

€410.0070

There is no legal requirement to maintain non-designated species rich grassland.

Normal practices for maintaining a highly productive sward will be prohibited, such as reseeding, excess liming and fertilisation

6.Animal Genetic Resources

National Conservation of animal genetic resources.

Rear and mate herbivore of specific native breeds.

Be a member of the approved breed society.

Register offspring with the relevant breed society.

Maintain monthly records

Total Cost €200.00/per LU.

Cross-compliance does not require the rearing of animals of local breeds in danger of extinction. In general such production is not commercially viable.

There are opportunity costs in maintaining and breeding these local breeds in danger of extinction. There are also administrative costs in maintaining records and registration with the relevant society.

69 Proposed Payment is €31470 Proposed Payment is €314

340

7. Traditional Orchards

National Traditional Orchards:Setting up and preservation of meadow orchards.

Establish non-commercial orchard with traditional top fruit varieties selected from a published list; on vigorous rootstocks.

10 trees planted at 7 m spacings, to a minimum of 0.05 ha. Income forgone.

€75.00 per tree (see footnote 52)

€5.00/tree

Cross-compliance does not involve the growing of top fruit in danger of extinction as it is generally not commercially viable to do so.

The capital costs of planting land with non-commercial fruit varieties and their subsequent maintenance is a major cost of complying with the prescribed management practices for this measure. Average loss of income is the opportunity cost of setting-aside land which could otherwise be used for agricultural production

8.Wild bird cover

National Wild Bird Cover:Establish, on suitable, grassland plots a low –input arable crop to provide cover and winter food source for farmland birds

Plough till and sowCost of seed Loss of production

Total Annual Payment

€183.00 €82.00€604.00

€869.00

No mandatory requirement There is a significant cost in complying with the prescribed management practices for this action.

341

9.Hedgerow Planting & Rejuvenation

National Hedgerow Planting & Rejuvenation

Plant new additional hedgerows on suitable sitesIncome forgone

Laying of existing hedgerows Labour

Total Cost

Coppicing of existing hedgerowsLabour and machine hire

Total Cost

€32.00/m (see footnote 52)€2.50 per linear metre

€8.00/m

€5.00/m

There is no cross-compliance requirement to plant or rejuvenate existing hedgerows.

Under the Wildlife Act the cutting of hedgerows in not permitted from March 1st – August 31st.

The establishment and intensive maintenance of hedgerows contributes to stock control and the encouragement of wildlife.

Planting of additional new hedgerows on suitable sites and the rejuvenation of existing hedgerows by laying or coppicing involve labour and capital costs.

All planting material must be of Irish Provenance.

10. Traditional Dry Stone wall Maintenance

Traditional Dry Stone wall Maintenance.

Follow an annual wall maintenance programme for the farm. Livestock must be present on the farm and commonage lands are not eligible.

Stonewall maintenance per 100m

Cost associated with letting the transaction take place per 100m

Total Cost per 100m/yr

€43.00/m

€7.00/m

€50.00 per 100m

There is no requirement under cross-compliance or National legislation to maintain traditional dry stonewalls.

Maintenance contributes to the retention of biodiversity associated with dry stone walls, as well as retaining a diverse landscape.

Extra costs are incurred in such maintenance

342

NEW CHALLENGE: WATER QUALITY11.Riparian Margins

National Creation of a permanently fenced margin adjacent to identified watercourses.This land cannot be used for agricultural production, but must be maintained annually.

Fence to prohibit animal access

2.5metre wide uncultivated strip along watercourse resulting in quantifiable loss of production plus annual maintenance cost

5 metre margin resulting in loss of production plus annual maintenance cost.

10 metre margin resulting in loss of production plus annual maintenance cost.

30 metre margin resulting in loss of production plus annual maintenance cost.

€3.30/m (see footnote 52)

€0.14 per linear metre.

€0.34 per linear metre

€0.74 per linear metre

€2.70 per linear metre

Under cross-compliance a farmer cannot apply fertiliser within 1.5m of watercourse.

Riparian boundary strips contribute to water quality. Farmer incurs capital costs and maintenance costs and income foregone in terms of agricultural production.

12.Provision of alternative water source for bovines.

National Deny bovines access to drinking points on lands adjacent to watercourses.

Fence off any water access drinking points. Install water trough with piped water in suitable location 10 m from watercourse

No specification under cross-compliance. To reduce pollution of watercourse by the exclusion of all bovines from watercourse. Cost to farmer in provision water trough with piped water (non-productive investment under measure 216).

343

Total Cost €200.00 per trough (see footnote 52)

NEW CHALLENGE: CLIMATE CHANGE13.Arable Margins

National Create 3-metre margin around the periphery of arable fields.

Mow margin each year post 15th

August.

Loss of production

Cost of mowing

Total Cost

€0.18/m

€0.05/m

€0.23/m

There is no cross-compliance or national requirement to create 3-metre margins around arable fields.

The creation of arable margins contributes to carbon sequestration by grassing of arable land.

There are opportunity costs in loss of production as well as the cost of mowing.

14.Green Cover Establishment from a sown crop.

National Tilling to a management prescription which involves:--very light tilling of soil to prepare seedbed.--sowing specific green cover crop (e.g. mustard) at prescribed rate)-post sowing rolling- annual rotation may take place for the duration of the contract subject to the annual establishment of a Green Cover area at least equal to the area declared in year 1.

Total Cost

€30.00

€50.00

€80.00

Cross Compliance requires that arable land sprayed with a total herbicide between 1st July - 1st Dec must have green cover established within 6 weeks.Green cover can be derived from regeneration.No requirement to sow a specific green cover crop.

Green cover fixes the residual nitrogen in the soil after cropping.

Costs associated with establishment.

15.Use of trailing shoe technologyUse of trailing shoe technology

National Use of Trailing Shoe and injection technology to spread all slurry produced and imported on farm. All slurry on farm must be spread using

No baseline requirement to use this type of machinery to spread slurry onto land.

The use of the trailing shoe contributes to the reduction of Nitrous Oxide emissions. There is an increased cost to the farmer in using a contractor

344

trailing shoe or injection system by 1st June.

Total Cost €0.77/cubic metres

operating a trailing shoe instead of a splashplate.

16.Min Till

National To encourage the use of minimum tillage practices.

Total Cost €23.00

Cross-compliance requires farmers to maintain soil structure and organic matter status.

Encouragement of minimum tillage contributes to carbon sequestration in soil

Basis of Natura 2000 Costings for AEOS

Measure. Baseline: Cross Compliance etc. requirement

Basis of payment. Amount (€/ha)

Natura Under Cross- Compliance farmer must abide by the conditions (Notifiable Actions) of Site designations.Respect GAEC and relevant SMRs: 1and 5.There is no requirement to develop and implement a Sustainable Grazing Management Plan for the habitat.

Production of a Sustainable Management Plan by a trained ecologist/agronomist in order to enhance the conservation status of the site.

Implement management plan.

Total Payment**these costs have been independently verified by Teagasc

€17.00

€58

€75.00

Wild bird habitats(corncrake sites)

Farmer within this Natura site must abide by cross-compliance requirements.

There is no requirement to follow a detailed management prescription for the sites.

Income forgoneInefficient work practicesTransaction cost

Total

€162.25€100.00 €52.45

€314.7071

71 Proposed payment is €314

345

Table indicating Community Priorities addressed by each programme action

W = Water Quality C = Climate Change L = Landscape B = Biodiversity

(W, C, L & B are priorities set out in Community Axis 2 Guidelines) Opt. = Option only – no additional paymentSupp. = Supplementary Measure only – additional paymentOpt. / Supp. = Can be Option or Supp. Measure – No additional payment when selected as an Option

Measure W C L BNutrient management Core ● ●Grassland/soil management Core ● ● ●Protection of watercourses Core ● ● ●Retain wildlife habitats Core ● ● ●Maintain farm and field boundaries Core ● ● ●Restrict use of pesticides/fertilisers Core ● ● ●Establish Biodiversity Buffer Strips surrounding features of Historical and Archaeological Interest

Core ●

Visual Appearance of farm & farmyard Core ●Tillage crops respecting environment principles Core ● ● ●Training in environmentally friendly farming practice Core ● ● ● ●Farm plan preparation and record keeping Core ● ● ● ●

Conservation of Wild birds – Corncrake and Barn Owl Habitat Supp. ● ● ●Rare Breeds Supp. ● ●Riparian Zones Supp. ● ● ● ●LINNET Habitat Supp. ● ● ●Mixed Grazing Supp. ● ●Traditional Grazers Supp. ● ● ●Traditional Irish Orchard Supp. ● ● ● ●

Clover Swards Supp/Opt ● ● ●Low-Input Cereals Supp/Opt ● ● ● ●Farm Woodland Opt. ● ● ● ●Hedgerow Rejuvenation Opt. ● ●New Hedgerow Establishment Opt. ● ● ●Additional Stone Wall Maintenance Opt. ●Broadleaved Tree Planting Opt. ● ● ● ●Traditional Hay Meadows Opt. ● ● ●Species-Rich Grassland Opt. ● ● ●

Use of Trailing Shoe Opt. ● ●Use of Planted Buffer Zone Opt. ●Eco-Tillage Opt. ●Nesting Boxes/Apiaries Opt. ●Creation of New Habitat Opt. ● ● ●Green Cover Establishment Opt. ● ● ●Environmental set-aside Management Opt. ●Increased Arable Margins Opt. ●Increased Watercourse Margin Opt. ● ● ●Exclude Bovine Access to Watercourses Opt. ●Nature Corridors Opt. ● ● ●Increase Biodiversity Buffer Zone* Opt. ●

Organic Farming ● ● ●

346

Natura Commonage AreasMeasure No. Area REPS Specification Action Amount

(€/ha)GAEC Corresponding Action Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of

income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAECProvide a compre-hensive approach to the conservation and/or regeneration of land farmed in common

Natura Commonage Areas

a) DestockingReduction in ewes per hectare to an agriculturally sustainable level

b) Habitat retention including prohibited practicesThe following practices are prohibited on commonage lands: Drainage, ploughing, cultivation, reseeding,

infilling or rock removal Turf cutting on unexploited bogs, planting trees or

other crops. No new tracks or paths to be created Burning only allowed as a planned management

practice. Use of fertilisers and plant protection products

In addition, supplementary feeding practices will be restricted. The location of feeding points will have to be sited to encourage the dispersal of livestock throughout the outwintering area. To minimise heavy grazing, trampling and poaching ‘feeding points’ should be moved every 3 weeks and sited on ground with least habitat and wildlife value, preferably on grassland well away from stands of heather. Feeding on steep slopes and on peaty soils should be avoided where possible. Restrictions on the application of organic nutrients in water quality sensitive areas also apply.

c) Grassland and soil management planAdopt a grassland and soil management plan that avoids poaching, overgrazing/undergrazing, soil erosion and run-off leading to the damage of heather or other natural vegetation or wetlands habitats.

17

86

29

Stock ewes at an agriculturally sustainable level of 5 ewes/ha on commonage land while meeting the statutory requirements in relation to waste management, water, wildlife, and target areas.

Maximise land, labour and machinery productivity by improving land through reclamation, reseeding, burning vegetation, turf cutting, planting trees and creating paths which may involve the removal of wildlife habitats not protected under legislation.

Use of pesticides fertilisers and lime in compliance with requirements of waste management, water, wildlife, target areas, and the Statutory Code of Good Plant Protection Practice and the Nitrate Code.Use the most cost-effective and convenient method of supplementary feeding and application of nutrients while meeting the statutory requirements in relation to waste management, water, target areas and wildlife.

Maximise stocking rate of animals outwintered up to the agriculturally sustainable level in order to minimise costs of overwintering animals while meeting the statutory requirements in relation to waste management, water, target areas and wildlife.

Average stocking rate of hill sheep is 5 ewes/ha. Target is to reduce this to 3 ewes/ha. Reduction in sheep numbers will be 2 ewes per hectare less than the agriculturally sustainable level. Margin per ewe being €20. Market losses based on average stock reduction of 2 ewes/ha to prevent overgrazing. Alternatively, prevention of undergrazing may require maintenance of non–viable stock. These extensive series of restrictions and prohibitions taken together will have a significant impact on land and labour productivity and the viability of farming in these areas. Unless the opportunity costs arising from these restrictions are adequately compensated for, farming in commonage areas will not be sustainable and the area will be abandoned and the habitat value lost.

The opportunity cost from the loss of production due to the restriction on the use of applying fertilisers, liming material or pesticides

Extra labour cost arising from a change in current supplementary feeding practice which led to damage to land and wildlife habitats to specified undertakings outlined under this measure. Additional costs will also arise due to restrictions on the application of organic nutrients in water quality sensitive areas.

Costings as outlined for in Measure (ii) in the basic REPS for Grassland Farmers, which involve increasing the length of the overwintering period of livestock in buildings/yards in order to reduce the risk of poaching of land leading to soil erosion and run-off

d) Fencing 9 Use minimal fencing on commonage Fencing costs associated with undertakings in the commonage

347

Comply with the fencing undertakings associated with the commonage framework plan and stockproofing the boundary between the commonage and privately owned land.

e) Advisory involvement

f) Non-target impacts of commonage

11

90

Advice from environmentalist not compulsory Lowland is farmed in response to market demands.

framework plan and stockproofing the boundary between the commonage and privately owned land. Average number of metres/ha of commonage to be fenced is 8 @ average cost/m/yr of 1€.

Additional costs associated with involving an environmentalist with the preparation of a REPS plan with commonageIt is estimated that the presence of commonage as part of a holding restricts the farmer’s ability to farm his/her lowland in response to market demands; thereby reducing the profitability of the lowland by approximately one third.

Total Cost of above undertakings 242It is proposed that payment for designated commonage be degressive €242 on first 40ha; €24 on next 40ha and €18 on next 40ha and €5 thereafter. Note: No agri-environment (REPS) payment applies to designated commonage.

348

Privately-owned NaturaMeasure No. Area REPS Specification Action Amount

(€/ha)Long/medium-term justification in terms of extra cost, loss of income and financial inducement for farming beyond GAEC

Provide a comprehensive approach to the conservation and/or regeneration of designated target areas

Privately-owned SACs and SPAs

a) DestockingReduction of stock numbers to an environmentally sustainable level may be necessary.

b) Habitat retention and prohibited practicesThe following practices shall not be carried out in SAC and SPA lands. The areas shall not be drained, ploughed cultivated or reseeded. There shall be no infilling or rock/gravel/sand removal. Planting trees or other crops is not permitted. No new tracks or paths shall be created. Burning will only be allowed as a planned management practice. Gorse may be controlled by cutting, spot spraying or exceptionally by

burning outside of the bird-nesting season (late February to 31 August).

e) Ecologist advisory involvement

Total Cost of above undertakings

nil

60

6

66

Stock at an agriculturally sustainable level per hectare while meeting the statutory requirements in relation to waste management, water, target areas and wildlife.

There is a significant impact on land and labour productivity and the viability of farming in these areas. Unless the opportunity costs arising from these restrictions are adequately compensated for, farming in commonage areas will not be sustainable and the area will be abandoned and the habitat value lost.This costing is additional to the costs involved in the conservation of wildlife habitats that has already been accounted for under Measures 4 and 5 of the REPS agri-environment programme 1 costings.

Additional costs associated with involving an environmentalist with the preparation of a REPS plan with target area

349

Appendix 4The attached table outlines the appropriate national legislation that has relevance to the measures under this programme.National Legislation—EnvironmentStatutory Provision Implementing

BodyPenalties

Air Pollution Act, 1987The act provides for control of air pollution which may be injurious to public health, have a deleteriouseffect on flora and fauna or which may impair or interfere with amenities of the Environment.

Local Authorities

Fine, (a) on summary conviction, not exceeding €1,270 and €127 per day the offence is committed and (b) onconviction of indictment, a fine not exceeding €12,700 and €1,270 per day on every day the offence is committed.

Fisheries Acts, 1959 to 1999 and Amendment Act 2003These acts inter-alia provide for the establishment of the Central Fisheries Boards and define their functions.

Fisheries Boards

A fine, on conviction on indictment not exceeding €2,540 or 2 years imprisonmentor both.

Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977 and Amendment Act, 1990.Under the legislation it is an offence to pollute waters by chemicals, fertilisers, animal slurries, manures, silage effluent or other organic fertilisers.

Local Authorities

Contravention of bye-laws relating to water pollution carries a fine on conviction, not exceeding €1,270 and/or 6 months imprisonment and in certain cases a fine not exceeding €31,750 and/or imprisonment for up to 5 years.

Local Government (Water Pollution) Act, 1977 (Water Quality Standards for Phosphorus) Regulations, 1998These regulations provide for specified improvements in water quality conditions in rivers and lakes based on phosphorus concentrations or related water quality classifications. They give effect to certain requirements under Council Directive 76/464/EEC.

Local Authorities

Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963—1999Under the legislation, planning permission is required for certain on-farm building and structures.Planning permission is not granted unless adequate waste storage facilities are provided.

Local Authorities

Contravention of the statutory requirements carries a fine, on conviction, of €1,905 to €12.7m and/or up to 2 years imprisonment.

Waste Management Act, 1996 and Amendment Act, 2001The Act relates to the prevention, management and control of waste and provides Local Authorities with the powers to require the preparation of a farm Nutrient Management Plan where it is considered necessary. The Act also makes arrangement for the collection and disposal of recyclable waste material, including farm plastics.

Local Authorities

Fine, (a) on summary conviction, not exceeding €1,905 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or (b) on conviction or indictment not exceeding €12.7m and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

Waste Management (Use of Sewage Sludge in Agriculture) Regulations, 1998—2001. These regulations prescribe standards for use of sewage sludge in agriculture. The Regulations give effect to Council Directive 86/278 EEC of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture.

Local Authorities

Fine, (a) on summary conviction, not exceeding €1,905 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or (b) on conviction or indictment,not exceeding €12.7m and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

350

Statutory Provision Implementing Body

Penalties

Litter Pollution Act, 1997This Act provides for the prevention and control of litter pollution and the prevention of the defacement of certain places and matters relating thereto.

Local Authorities

(1) Fine on summary conviction, not exceeding €1,905 and(2) on conviction €127/day for each day during which the contravention continues.

Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992In addition to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Act provides for the protection of the environment and the control of pollution. An Integrated Pollution Control Licensing requirement has been introduced in respect of the intensive rearing of pigs and poultry.

Environmental Protection Agency

Fines, on conviction, from €1,270 to €12.7m

European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 1989—1999The Regulations require an Environmental Impact Assessment to be carried out in relation to intensive pig and poultry rearing installations above specified size thresholds.The requirements may also apply where the thresholds are not exceeded but where the planning authority considers that the project concerned would be likely to have significant effects on the environment.

Local Authorities

Fine, on conviction, from €1,905 to €12.7m.

European Communities (Authorisation, Placing on the Market, Use and Control of Plant Protection Products) Regulations, 1994—2001 and amendment Regulations 2004.These regulations specify the requirements and conditions for the authorisation of plant protection products, which must be complied with in relation to their placing on the market and use, in accordance with Council Directive 91/414/EEC as amended, as well as introducing relevant enforcement and financial provisions.

Department of Agriculture and Food.

A fine of up to €1,270 or up to six months imprisonment or both.

European Communities (prohibition of Certain Active Substances in Plant Protection Products) Regulations 1981–1990These Regulations provide that plant protection products containing certain active substances may not be placed on the market or used except in certain specified cases.

Department of Agriculture and Food

A fine of up to €1,270 or up to six months imprisonment or both.

Wildlife Acts, 1976 and 2001These Acts provide for the conservation of wildlife (including game) and for the protection of certain wild creatures and flora. The 1976 Act enables inter-alia a body known as the Wildlife Advisory Council to be established and defines its functions and enables wildlife reserves to be established and maintained.

National Parks and Wildlife Service

On summary conviction a fine not exceeding €1,905 or 12 months imprisonment of both.

European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997These Regulations give effect to Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (Habitats Directive). The Regulations empower the Minister to designate special areas of conservation (endangered species and habitats of endangered species) as a contribution to an EU Community network known as Natura—2000.

National Parks and Wildlife Service

On summary conviction a fine not ex-ceeding €1,905 or 6 months imprison-ment or both.

National Monuments Acts, 1930—1994 and Amendment Act, 2004These Acts make provision for the protection and

National Parks and Wildlife Service

Fine, (a) on summary conviction, not exceeding €3,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or (b)

351

Statutory Provision Implementing Body

Penalties

preservation of national monuments and for the preservation of archaeological objects in Ireland.

on conviction on indictment, not exceeding €10,000,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years

Hygiene and Animal Welfare

Statutory Provision Implementing Body

Penalties

European Communities (Hygienic Production and Placing on the Market of Raw Milk, Heat—TreatedMilk and Milk Based Products) Regulations 1996

Department of Agriculture and Food

A fine of up to €1,905 or up to 6 months imprisonment or both.

Diseases of Animals Act, 1966This Act provides the basic legislation for the control and eradication of animal diseases.The Act also provides for compulsory notification of a number of specified diseases.

Department of Agriculture and Food

Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes Act, 1984This Act extends the law relating to the protection of animals and, in particular, regulates the care and welfare of animals kept in intensive units.

Department of Agriculture and Food

A fine of up to €635 and/or 6 months imprisonment on summary conviction.

European Communities (Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes) Regulations, 2000 and 2006.These Regulations give effect to Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes and require owners and keepers to ensure the welfare of their animals.

Department of Agriculture and Food

A fine of up to €5,000 and/or up to 12 months imprisonment on summary conviction.

Care and Welfare of Poultry (Laying Hens) Regulations, 1990These Regulations, which lay down the minimum requirements for the protection of laying hens kept in battery cages and other intensive systems, give effect to Council Directive 88/166/EEC.

Department of Agriculture and Food

Penalties similar to those made under the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes Act, 1984.

European Communities (Welfare of Pigs) Regulations, 1995These Regulations lay down the standards for the protection of pigs kept in intensive or other systems of breeding, rearing, or fattening and give effect to Council Directive No. 91/630/EEC of 19 November 1991. The Regulations set down the rules for the accommodation of pigs and the general conditions to be met to assure the health and welfare of pigs.

Department of Agriculture and Food

A fine of up to €1,905 and/or 12 months impris-onment on summary conviction.

European Communities (Welfare of Calves) Regulations, 1998These Regulations give effect to Council Directive No. 91/629/EEC, as amended by Council Directive No. 97/2/EC.They specify the accommodation requirements for the rearing and fattening of calves. They also lay down rules regarding appropriate diet and inspection of the calves to ensure their health and welfare.

Department of Agriculture and Food

A fine of up to €1,905 and/or 12 months imprisonment on summary conviction.

352

Statutory Provision Implementing Body

Penalties

European Communities (Welfare of Calves and Pigs) Regulations 2002These Regulations give effect to Council Directive No. 91/629/EEC, as amended by Council Directive No. 97/2/EC and Council Directive No. 91/630/EEC. These Regulations specify the accommodation requirements for the rearing and fattening of calves and pigs. They also lay down rules regarding appropriate diet and inspection of the calves and pigs to ensure their health and welfare.

Department of Agriculture and Food

A fine not exceeding €2,000 and/or up to 12 months imprisonment.

European Communities Act, 2007This is an Act to amend the European Communities Act, 1972 for purposes of allowing offences under regulations of that Act to be prosecuted on indictment; to make provision in relation to the transposition of provisions of the treaties governing and acts of the institutions of the European Communities under Acts of the Oireachtas other than that Act and to provide for matters connected therewith.

Inter-departmental As set down by the regulations

European Communities (Good Agricultural Practice for Protection of Waters) Regulations, 2006These Regulations give effect to Council Directives Nos. 75/442EEC, 76/464/EEC, 80/68/EEC, 91/676/EEC, 2000/60/EC And 2003/35EC. They provide statutory support for good agricultural practice to protect waters against pollution from agricultural sources.

Inter-departmental As set down by the regulations

353

Appendix 5

State Aid

PART III.12.A SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SHEET ON SUPPORT FOR

INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS

This information sheet relates to investments in agricultural holdings discussed in point IV.A of the Community Guidelines for State Aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007—2013.

1. OBJECTIVE OF THE AID

1.1 Which of the following objectives does the investment pursue?

Reduce production costs

Improve and redeploy production

Increase quality

Preserve and improve the natural environment, comply with animal hygiene and standards

Promote the diversification of farm activities

Other (please specify):

If the investment pursues other aims, please note that only investments pursuing one or more of the objectives listed above are eligible for support for investments in agricultural holdings.

1.2 Does the aid concern simple replacement investments?

yes no

If yes, please note that simple replacement investments are not eligible for support for investments in agricultural holdings.

354

1.3 Is the aid linked to investments in products which are subject to restrictions on production or limitations of Community support at the level of individual farmers, holdings or processing plants under a common organisation of the market (including direct support schemes) financed by the EAGF, which would increase production capacity beyond these restrictions or limitations?

yes no

If yes, please note that, under point 37 of the Guidelines, no aid may be granted for such investments.

2. BENEFICIARIES

Who are the beneficiaries of the aid?

FarmersProducer groupsOther (please specify)……………………………………………………

3. AID INTENSITY

3.1 Please state the maximum rate of public support, expressed as a percentage of eligible investment:

(a) 40 per cent in less-favoured areas or the areas referred to in Article 36(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/200572 (max. 50 per cent)

(b) 40 per cent in other regions (max. 40 per cent)

(c) 50 per cent for young farmers in less-favoured areas or the areas referred to in Article 36(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Regulation (EC) No1698/2005, carrying out the investment within five years of setting up (max. 60per cent)

(d) 50 per cent for young farmers in other areas, carrying out the investment within five years of setting up (max. 50per cent);

(e) in the outermost regions and on the smaller Aegean islands within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 2019/9373 (max. 75 per cent)

(f) for investments entailing extra costs linked to the preservation and improvement of the natural environment or improvements in the hygiene of livestock farms or the well-being of livestock carried out within the time-limits for transposition of the newly introduced minimum standards (max. 75per cent in less-favoured areas or the areas referred to in

72Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1).73Council Regulation (EEC) No 2019/93 of 19 July 1993 introducing specific measures for the smaller Aegean islands concerning certain agricultural products (OJ L 184, 27.7.1993, p. 1).

355

Article 36(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and max. 60 per cent in other areas)

(g) for investments entailing extra costs linked to the preservation and improvement of the natural environment or improvements in the hygiene of livestock farms or the well-being of livestock carried out within three years following the date on which the investment must be authorised under Community legislation (max. 50 per cent in less-favoured areas or the areas referred to in Article 36(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Regulation (EC) No1698/2005, and max. 40per cent in other areas)

(h) for investments entailing extra costs linked to the preservation and improvement of the natural environment or improvements in the hygiene of livestock farms or the well-being of livestock carried out in the fourth year following the date on which the investment must be authorised under Community legislation (max. 25 per cent in less-favoured areas or the areas referred to in Article 36(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and max. 20per cent in other areas)

(i) for investments entailing extra costs linked to the preservation and improvement of the natural environment or improvements in the hygiene of livestock farms or the well-being of livestock carried out in the fifth year following the date on which the investment must be authorised under Community legislation (max. 12.5per cent in less-favoured areas or the areas referred to in Article 36(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and max. 10per cent in other areas, no aid can be granted for expenses incurred beyond the fifth year)

(j) for additional investment expenditure made by those Member States who joined the Union on 1 May 2004 and 1 January 2007 respectively, for the purposes of implementing Directive 91/676/EEC74 (max. 75per cent);

(k) for additional investment expenditure made for the purposes of implementing Directive 91/676/EEC and which is the subject of support under Regulation (EC) No1698/2005 (max. 50per cent in less-favoured areas or the areas referred to in Article 36(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and max. 40per cent in other areas)

(l) for investments made by young farmers in order to comply with Community or national standards in force (max. 60per cent in less-favoured areas or the areas referred to in Article 36(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, and max. 50per cent in other areas)

3.2 In the case of investments entailing extra costs linked to the preservation and improvement of the natural environment, improvements in the hygiene of livestock farms or the well-being of livestock, are the extra costs limited to investments either exceeding the minimum requirements currently prescribed by the Community or complying with newly introduced minimum standards? Are they strictly limited to eligible extra costs in connection with these objectives without resulting in an increased production capacity?

yes no

74Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1).

356

3.3 In the case of investments made for the purposes of implementing Directive 91/676/EEC, is the envisaged aid intensity limited to necessary and eligible extra costs, and does it exclude investments leading to increased production capacity?

yes no

3.4 In the case of investments made by young farmers in order to comply with Community or national standards in force, is the aid limited to extra costs as a result of implementing these standards and have these costs been incurred within 36 months after installation?

yes no

4. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

4.1 Is the aid limited to agricultural holdings not in difficulty?

yes no

4.2 Is the aid intended for the manufacture and marketing of products which imitate or substitute for milk and milk products?

yes no

5. ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURE

5.1 Do eligible expenses include:

construction, acquisition or improvement of immovable property;the purchase or lease purchase of machinery and equipment, including computer software up to the market value of the asset, exclusive of costs connected with a leasing contract (tax, lessor’s margin, interest refinancing costs, overheads, insurance charges etc)overheads connected with the two previous types of expenses (for instance architect’s fees, engineer’s fees, expert’s fees, feasibility studies, acquisition of patents and licences)?

5.2 Does the aid cover the purchase of second-hand machinery?

yes no

5.3 If yes, is eligibility limited to small and medium enterprises with a low technical level and limited capital?

yes no

5.4 Are any of the following excluded from the aid scheme: the purchase of production rights, animals and annual plants, or the planting of annual plants?

357

yes no

If no, please note that according to point 29 of the Guidelines no aid may be granted for such types of expenditure.

5.5 Is the share of purchases of land other than land for construction purposes in the eligible expenses for the planned investment limited to 10per cent?

yes no

If no, please note that this 10per cent ceiling is one of the eligibility criteria to be met under point 29 of the Guidelines.

6. AID FOR THE CONSERVATION OF TRADITIONAL LANDSCAPES AND BUILDINGS

6.1. Does the aid concern investments or capital works intended for the conservation of non-productive heritage features located on agricultural holdings?

yes no

6.1.1. If yes, what is the envisaged rate of aid (max.: 100per cent):

……………………………

6.1.2 Do the eligible expenses include remuneration for the work of the farmer or his workers?

yes no

6.1.3 If yes, will this remuneration be limited to a maximum of €10,000 per year?

yes no

6.1.4 If no, please give reasons for exceeding the above limit.

Grant-aid is payable on completed investment work which complies with the Department’s technical specifications for such buildings. These may exceed a sum of €10,000.

358

6.2. Does the aid concern investments or capital works intended to conserve the heritage features of productive assets on farms?

yes no

6.2.1 If yes, does the investment entail any increase in the production capacity of the farm?

yes no

6.2.2 What are the envisaged maximum aid rates for this type of investment?

Investments without increase in capacity:

Maximum rate envisaged for less-favoured areas or the areas referred to in Article 36(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (max. 75per cent):

Maximum rate envisaged for other areas (max. 60per cent):

Investments with increase in capacity:

Maximum rate envisaged in cases where contemporary materials are used (max.: see point 3.1): ………………….Maximum rate envisaged in cases where traditional materials are used, expressed as a percentage of the extra cost (max. 100per cent): …………..

7. RELOCATION OF FARM BUILDINGS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

7.1 Does the relocation result from expropriation?

yes no

7.2 Is the relocation justified on grounds of public interest specified in the legal basis?

yes no

Please note that the legal basis must explain the public interest served by the relocation.

7.3 Does relocation simply consist of the dismantling, removal and re-erection of existing facilities?

yes no

7.3.1 If yes, what it the intensity of the aid? (max. 100per cent)…………………………………………………….

359

7.4 Does relocation result in the farmer benefiting from more modern equipment and facilities?

yes no

7.4.1 If yes, what is the farmer’s own contribution, as a percentage of the added value of the facilities after relocation?

In less-favoured areas or the areas referred to in Article 36(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (min. 50per cent)…………………………In other areas (min. 60 per cent)…………………………………..Young farmers in less-favoured areas or the areas referred to in Article 36(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (min.45per cent)……………………………………Young farmers in other areas (min. 55per cent)

7.5 Does relocation result in an increase in production capacity?

yes no

7.5.1 If yes, what is the farmer’s own contribution, as a percentage of the expenditure linked to the increase?

In less-favoured areas or the areas referred to in Article 36(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (min. 50 per cent)…………………………In other areas (min 60per cent)…………………………………..Young farmers in less-favoured areas or the areas referred to in Article36(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (min.45 per cent)……………………………………Young farmers in other areas (min 55 per cent)

8. OTHER INFORMATION

8.1. Is the notification accompanied by documentation demonstrating how the state aid measure is consistent with the relevant rural development programme(s) concerned?

yes no

If yes, please provide this documentation below or in an annex to this supplementary information sheet.(See page 77 of this programme on the measure on the modernisation of agricultural holdings.)

...........................................................................................................................

360

If no, please note that this documentation must be provided under point 26 of the Guidelines.

8.2 Is the notification accompanied by documentation showing that support is targeted on clearly defined objectives reflecting identified structural and territorial needs and structural disadvantages?

yes noIf yes, please provide this documentation below or in an annex to this supplementary information sheet.

(See page 71 of this programme on the measure on the modernisation of agricultural holdings.)...........................................................................................................................

If no, please note that this documentation must be provided under point 36 of the Guidelines.

361

Part III.12. D Supplementary Information Sheet on Aid to Compensate for

Handicaps in Certain Areas

This form must be used for the notification of aid aiming to compensate for natural handicaps in certain areas, which is dealt with in point IV.D. of the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007—2013.

1. questions relevant for all notifications of aid to compensate for handicaps in certain areas

1. Describe the handicap in question:

In Ireland Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) are known as disadvantaged areas and are currently classified under Council Regulation (EC) No. 1257/1999 (as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005), which deals with support for rural development. These consist of (i) areas in danger of abandonment and where conservation of the countryside is essential (Article 19) and (ii) areas affected by specific handicaps (Article 20), e.g. island position and low soil potential. Under (i) these Less Favoured Areas are divided into:

about 4.075 million hectares of More Severely Handicapped Areas and,

about 1.053 million hectares of Less Severely Handicapped Areas

For (ii) there are about 0.027 million hectares of Coastal Areas with Specific Handicaps.

Within the More Severely and Less Severely Handicapped Areas some 1.501 million hectares of land is designated as Mountain Type Grazings, as it is of poor quality (normally a gley type or peat with impeded drainage and a low pH and totally unsuited for any type of arable production) growing inferior type vegetation (heathers, sedges, brackens and mosses). Although Mountain Type Grazings are normally found in elevated areas, some are found in lowland bogs also, as their soils fit this description precisely.

2. Provide proof that the amount of compensation to be paid avoids any overcompensation to farmers of the effect of the handicaps:

The Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No. 1257/1999 provides minimum and maximum rates in respect of Compensatory Allowances. For Ireland the rates are €25 (minimum) and €200 (maximum). The proposed rates per forage hectare for 2007 are:

Mountain Type Grazings: €109.71 More Severely Handicapped Areas: €95.99 Less Severely Handicapped Areas: €82.27

362

As these rates equate to 41per cent, 48per cent and 55per cent respectively of the maximum compensation payable, and because the Area-Based Compensatory Allowances Scheme is successful in achieving the objectives of:

ensuring continued agricultural land use and thereby contributing to the maintenance of a viable rural community maintaining the countryside maintaining and promoting sustainable farming systems, which take account

of environmental protection requirements

the Irish Authorities are satisfied that there is no over-compensation.

3. If there are areas of handicaps where the average impact of handicaps per hectare of comparable farms differs, demonstrate that the level of compensatory payments is proportionate to the economic impact of the handicaps in the different areas:

In Ireland the lands located within each of the three different types of Less Favoured Areas are by and large homogenous as regards the degree of handicap in each of the three types of areas. Therefore, the type of difference referred to above does not arise.

4. Is it within human control to reverse the economic impact of the permanent handicap?

yes no

If yes, please note that only the economic impact of permanent handicaps that lie outside of human control may be taken into account for calculating the amount of compensatory payments. Structural disadvantages open to improvement through modernisation of farms or factors like taxes, subsidies or the implementation of the CAP reform may not be taken into account.

If no, explain why it is outside human control to reverse the economic impact of the permanent handicap:

In Ireland almost 75per cent of total land area is designated as Less Favoured. Due mainly to the permanent natural handicaps affecting holdings in these areas, farmers earn lower farm incomes, which in turn is compounded by higher than normal production costs and/or lower than normal output. As a result, such areas became prone to land abandonment mainly due to migration in significant numbers away from rural areas, which in turn had a negative effect on the viability of rural communities and maintenance of the countryside. In the absence of the Compensatory Allowances system, which has operated in Ireland since 1975, it is the belief of the Irish Authorities that it would not be possible to reverse/partly reverse the negative economic impact of living in such areas.

Could you specify the size of the farms that will benefit from these payments?

In general these are small-scale farms with an average of 27 hectares, consisting of poor land in the main.

363

5. Is the amount of compensation established by comparing the average income per hectare of farms in areas with handicaps with the income of same-sized farms producing the same products in areas without handicaps situated in the same Member State, or when a whole Member State is considered as consisting of areas with handicaps, with the income of same-sized farms in similar areas in other Member States in which the production conditions can be meaningfully compared to those in the first Member state? The income to be taken into account in this respect shall be direct income from farming and notably leave aside taxes paid or subsidies received.

yes no

Describe how the comparison was made.

Income per hectare in Less Favoured Areas averages 66per cent of income in the non-Disadvantaged Areas. This figure increases to an average of 81per cent when the Compensatory Allowances are factored in. These figures are derived from data from the annual Farm Survey and used by the Irish Authorities to determine average Family Farm Income. Teagasc (Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority) conducts the survey and adjustments are made in respect of income from farm subsidies.

6. Is the aid measure combined with support under Articles 13, 14 and 15 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/199975?

yes no

7. Can you confirm that the total support granted to the farmer will not exceed the amount determined in accordance with Article 15 of Regulation No 1257/1999?

yes no

Specify the amount.

Maximum amount of Compensatory Allowance payable is €200 (Article 15(3) – see Table of Amounts Annex)

Proposed rates for 2007:

Mountain Type Grazings: €109.71More Severely Handicapped Areas: €95.99Less Severely Handicapped Areas: €82.27

If no, please note that, according to point 72 of the Agricultural Guidelines, the maximum aid that can be granted in the form of compensatory allowance cannot exceed the above amount.

8. Does the measure provide that the following eligibility criteria must be fulfilled?Farmers are required to farm a minimum area of land (please specify the minimum area)

Three hectares of forage

75 Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations; OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80–102

364

Farmers must undertake to pursue their farming activity in a less-favoured area for at least five years from the first payment of a compensatory allowance.

Farmers must apply the relevant mandatory standards established pursuant to Articles 4 and 5 of, and Annexes III and IV to, Regulation (EC) No 1782/200376 as well as minimum requirements for fertiliser and plant protection product use and other mandatory requirements established by national legislation and identified in the rural development programme.

yes no

9.Does the measure provide that, in the event of obstruction on the part of the owner or holder of the animals when inspections are being carried out and the necessary samples are being taken in application of national residue-monitoring plans, or when the investigations and checks provided for under Directive 96/23/EC are being carried out, the penalties provided for under question 4 shall apply?

yes no

10.In case of aid schemes still in force at the date of the entry into force of Articles 37 and 88(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/200577, will the aid scheme be amended to comply with the provisions of those articles as from that date?

yes no

If no, please note that from the entry into force of Articles 37 and 88 (3) of the above mentioned regulation new rules will be applied to measures aiming to compensate for natural handicaps in certain areas and that aid measures that do not fulfil all the criteria of these Articles and any implementing rules adopted by the Council or the Commission will have to be put to an end.

76 Council Regulation No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support scheme for farmers (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).77 Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD); OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1–40.

365

2 Other Information

Is documentation demonstrating that the State aid fits into and is coherent with the relevant Rural Development plan attached to the notification?

yes no

If yes, please provide that documentation hereunder or in an annex to this supplementary information sheet.

See Measure 212 [Payments to Farmers in Areas with Handicaps, other than Mountain Areas(Less Favoured Areas Compensatory Allowances Scheme)].

366

NATURA 2000 PAYMENTS AND PAYMENTS LINKED TO DIRECTIVE 2006/60/EC

This form must be used by Member States to notify aids under Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC78 as dealt with in Part IV.C.3 of the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013 79

1. Objective of the measure

1.1.1 Is the measure aimed to compensate farmers for costs incurred and income foregone resulting from disadvantages in the areas concerned related to the implementation of Directives 79/409/EEC 80, 92/43/EEC81 and 2000/60EC?

Yes No

1.1.2 If no, please note that Part IV.C.3 of the Agricultural Guidelines does not allow for aid to compensate for costs other than those related to the disadvantages related to the implementation of Directives 79/409/EEC, 92/43/EEC and 2000/60/EC.

2. Eligibility criteria 2.1 Are costs incurred and income foregone resulting from disadvantages in the areas concerned

related to the implementation of Directives 79/409/EEC, 92/43/EEC and 2000/60/EC?

Yes No

2.1.1 If yes, please provide all the details concerning the relevant provisions of the Directive(s) in question.Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, of Council Directive 79/409.Articles 1, 2, 3(3), 6, 10, 13, 15, 22(b) of Council Directive 92/43. See also attached notifable actions at Appendix 2 of the RDP.

2.1.2 If no, please note that Part IV.C.3 of the Agricultural Guidelines does not allow for aid to compensate for other costs than those resulting from disadvantages related to the implementation of Directives 79/409/EEC, 92/43/EEC and 2000/60/EC.

2.2 Arising from the Directive(s), are the planned compensation payments necessary to solve specific problems?

Yes No

78 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327,22.12.200. p.1).79 OJ C 319, 27.12.2006, p.1.80 Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979 p.1).81 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ) L 206, 22.7.1992, p.7).

367

X

X

X

2.2.1 If yes, please explain why this measure is necessary. On Natura 2000 sites the restrictions on farming practices result in reduced economic returns to the farmer. A real risk exists that the land would be abandoned with no farming activity being carried out. This would result in the total loss of the habitat and it is accordingly necessary to put this measure in place.

2.2.2 If no, please note that according to Part IV.C.3 of the Agricultural Guidelines only payments that are necessary to solve specific problems arising from these Directives can be authorised.

2.3 Is the support granted only for obligations going beyond cross-compliance obligations?

Yes No

2.3.1 If no, please justify its compatibility with the provisions of Part IV.C.3 of the Agricultural Guidelines.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2.4 Is the support granted for obligations going beyond conditions set out by Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003?

Yes No

2.4.1 If no, please justify its compatibility with the provisions of Part IV.C.3 of the Agricultural Guidelines.

………………………………………………………………………………...…………………………………………………………………………………

2.5 Is the aid granted in breach of the polluter pays principle?

Yes No

2.5.1 If yes, please provide all elements justifying its compatibility with the provisions of Part IV.C.3 of the Agricultural Guidelines and that it is exceptional, temporary and degressive.

3 Aid amount

3.1.1 Please specify the maximum amount of aid, based on the utilised agricultural area (UAA):

On privately owned Natura 2000 sites proposed payment of €77/ha.(beneficiaries may in addition draw down agri-environment payment under Measure 214)

368

X

X

X

X

For commonage Natura sites the proposed payment is €282/ha. Beneficiaries are not entitled to draw down any agri-environment payment on the Natura 2000 land under measure 214.(initial maximum Natura 2000 payment for a period not exceeding five years of 500 EUR/hectare of UAA)

On privately owned Natura 2000 sites proposed payment of €77/ha (beneficiaries may in addition draw down agri-environment payment under Measure 214)For commonage Natura sites the proposed payment is €282/ha. Beneficiaries are not entitled to draw down any agri-environment payment on the Natura 2000 land under measure 214.(normal maximum Natura 2000 payment of 200 EUR/hectare of UAA)

No payment is proposed for actions under this directive at present. Any payment proposed in the future will be subject to amendment of the programme and will be notified as state aid at that stage.(maximum amount of support linked to Directive 2000/60/EC is fixed in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 90 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005)

3.1.2 With regard to payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC please provide additional information.

No payment proposed under this directive.

3.1.3 If you intend to grant a higher amount of aid, please justify its compatibility with the provisions of Part IV.C.3 of the Agricultural Guidelines and Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1).

For commonage Natura sites the proposed payment is €282/ha. Beneficiaries are not entitled to draw down any agri-environment payment on the Natura 2000 land under measure 214.

3.1.4 Please explain the measures taken to ensure that payments are fixed at a level which avoids overcompensation.

See Appendix 2 of the RDP.

4. Other information

Is documentation demonstrating that the State aid fits into and is coherent with the relevant Rural Development plan attached to the notification?

Yes No

If yes, please provide that documentation hereunder or in an annex to this supplementary information sheet.

369

X

X

X

See Measure 213 (Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC) of the RDP.

If no, please note that this documentation is requested in conformity with point 26 of the agricultural guidelines.

370

Re: Agri-environmental payments (Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS) and Organic Farming)

Supplementary Information Sheet on Agri-environmental and animal welfare aid

This form must be used for the notification of any state aid measure to support agricultural production methods designed to protect the environment and to maintain the countryside (agri-environment) or to improve animal welfare covered by point IV.C. of the Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007-2013 (hereinafter called ‘the guidelines’) and articles 39 and 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.²82

Does the measure concern compensation to farmers who voluntarily give agri-environmental commitments (articles 39(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005?

yes no

If yes, please refer to the part of this SIS relating to ‘aid for agri-environmental commitments.’

Does the measure concern compensation to farmers who voluntarily enter into animal welfare commitments (article 40(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005?

yes no

If yes, please refer to the part of this SIS relating to ‘aid for animal welfare commitments’.

Does the aid only concern environmental investments (point 62 of the guidelines)?

yes no

If yes, please refer to SIS relating to ‘Investment aids in the agricultural sector’.

Does the environmental aid pursue other objectives such as training and advisory services to help agricultural producers (point IV.K of the guidelines)?

yes no

If yes, please refer to SIS relating to point IV.K of the guidelines.

Others

Please provide a complete description of the measure(s).

Is documentation demonstrating that the State aid fits into and is coherent with the relevant Rural Development plan attached to the notification?

82²? Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1

371

yes no

If yes, please provide that documentation hereunder or in an annex to this supplementary information sheet.

The aid fits into and is coherent with Measure 214 of the Rural Development Plan. The required documentation is set out under Measure 214 (Agri-environmental payments (Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS) and Organic Farming) of Axis 2 of the RDP.

If no, please note that this documentation is requested in conformity with point 26 of the agricultural guidelines.

372

Aid for Agri-environmental commitments (point IV.C.2 of the guidelines)

1. objective of the measure

Which one of the following specific objectives does the support measure promote?Ways of using agricultural land which are compatible with the protection and improvement of the environment, the landscape and its features, natural resources, the soil and genetic diversity, reduce production costsAn environmentally-favourable extensification of farming and management of low-intensity pasture systems, improve and re-deploy productionThe conservation of high nature-value farmed environments, which are under threat increase qualityThe upkeep of the landscape and historical features on agricultural landThe use of environmental planning in farming practice.

If the measure does not pursue any of the above objectives, please indicate which are the objectives aimed at in terms of environmental protection? (Please submit a detailed description) …………………………………………………………………If the measure in question has already been applied in the past, what have been the results in terms of environmental protection? Over two million hectares of agricultural land are being farmed by almost 60,000 farmers to environmental standards which go beyond the requirements of regulation 1782/2003. REPS has increased awareness among the farming community of the relationship between farming activity and the wider environment. The scheme has delivered in terms of habitat protection and the protection of watercourses. It has also delivered in biodiversity terms by establishment of new hedgerows, uncultivated field margins, the creation of wildlife habitats and providing crops for seed-eating birds. The table below sets out the main pro-active achievements since the amendment of the programme in 2004.

REPS FACTSHEET 2006

2A Hay Meadow 6889.309ha contracted

2B SP Rich Grass 11,793,646ha contracted

4B Tree Planting 221,666 trees contracted for planting

4C Nature Corridors 17,296 – participants who opted to increase field margins

7A Archaeological Buffer 37,782m of additional margins

373

Margins contracted

4A New Habitat 13,696.934ha contracted for creation

5A Hedgerow Rejuvenation Approx. 2,700km of hedgerow contracted for rejuvenation

5B New Hedgerow Establishment

Approx 4000km of new hedgerow contracted for establishment

2. Eligibility criteria

2.1 Will the aid be exclusively granted to farmers and/or other land managers (Article 39(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005) who give agri-environmental commitments for a period between five and seven years?

yes no

2.2 Will a shorter or a longer period be necessary for all or particular types of commitments?

yes noIn the affirmative please provide the reasons justifying that period…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

2.3 Please confirm that no aid will be granted to compensate for agri-environmental commitments that do not go beyond the relevant mandatory standards established pursuant to Articles 4 and 5 of, and Annexes III and IV to, Regulation (EC) No 1782/200383 as well as minimum requirements for fertiliser and plant protection product use and other relevant mandatory requirements established by national legislation and identified in the rural development programme.

yes no

If no, please note that Article 39(3) of Regulation 1698/2005 does not allow for aid for agri-environmental commitments that do not involve more than the application of these standards and requirements.

2.4 Please describe what the above mentioned standards and requirements are and explain how the agri-environmental commitments involve more than their application.

83 Council Regulation 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1

374

See APPENDIX 3 of the RDP.

3. Aid amount

3.1 Please specify the maximum amount of aid to be granted based on the area of the holding to which agri-environmental commitments apply:

for specialised perennial crops €234/ha (maximum payment of 900 €/ha)

for annual crops €376/ha (maximum payment of 600 €/ha)

for other land uses €376/ha (maximum payment of 450 €/ha)

for local breeds in danger of being lost to farming €234/ha (maximum payment of 200 €/livestock unit).

This payment is justified on the basis that the breeds for which support is available show no market return. In addition to production cost, beneficiaries must register with a recognised breed society for which there is an annual registration fee and a fee is also incurred in respect of each animal registered. It is estimated that the total expenditure for this undertaking for the programming period 2006 to 2013 will not exceed €500,000.

other? Riparian zones: Proposed payment €850/ha up to a max of 4 hectares.

The payment is justified on the basis that no agricultural production is permitted on the area as the objective is to create a riverbank environment that protects the breeding ground of specific aquatic species.

LINNET Plots: It is proposed to pay €700/ha up to maximum of 1 hectare per holding. This payment is justified on the basis that a crop is planted for seed-eating birds and is not harvested by the farmer.

It is estimated that in the programming period a total land area dedicated to linnet plots and riparian zones will be in the order of 6,000 hectares with an estimated total expenditure of €1.5 million.

If the maximum amounts mentioned are exceeded please justify the compatibility of the aid with the provisions of Article 39(4) of Regulation (EC) N° 1698/2005.

3.2 Is the support measure granted annually?

yes no

If no, please provide the reasons justifying other period…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

375

3.3 Is the amount of annual support calculated on the basis of:- income foregone,- additional costs resulting from the commitment given, and- the need to provide compensation for transaction costs

yes no

Explain the calculation method used in fixing the amount of support and specify the income foregone, additional costs and possible transaction costs

SEE APPENDIX 3 OF THE RDP.

3.4 Is the reference level for calculating income foregone and additional cost resulting from the commitments given, the standards and requirements as mentioned above under point 2.3?

yes no

If no, please explain the reference level taken into consideration.

3.5 Are the payments made per unit of production?

yes no

If yes please explain the reasons justifying that method and the initiatives undertaken to ensure that the maximum amounts per year eligible for Community support as set out in the Annex to Regulation (EC) N° 1698/2005 are complied with.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

3.6 Do you intend to give aid for transaction costs for the continuation of agri-environmental commitments already undertaken in the past?

yes no

3.7 If yes, please demonstrate that such costs still continue to be incurredAll beneficiaries under the REPS must have a farm plan drawn up by a professional planner. A new plan must accompany an application for a new 5-year contract. While the objectives of the scheme remain constant the work schedule detailed in the individual farm plan varies.

3.8 Do you intend to give aid for the costs of non-productive investments linked to the achievements of agri-environmental commitments (non-productive investments being investments which should not lead to a net increase in farm value or profitability) ?

yes no

3.9 If yes, which aid rate will be applied-75 per cent (max. 100 per cent)?

376

Appendix 6

Independent Verification of Costings

Independent Role and ExpertiseTeagasc carried out the independent verification of costings for the Natura 2000 and agri-environmental schemes. Teagasc is the Semi-State body with responsibility for providing agricultural research, advice and training in Ireland. In these roles it carries out a significant research programme in the areas of Agriculture, Rural Economics and Food to support the development of the agriculture and food industries and rural communities. It also supports the development needs of a high proportion of the farming community through its advisory and training services. Teagasc is functionally independent from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which calculated the payments at issue here.

Teagasc has considerable expertise and experience in relation to assessing the financial impact of policy measures at farm level. From a research perspective two key long term research projects provide much of the basis for this expertise, namely:

The National Farm Survey, completed annually to meet the needs of FADN and the national requirements of policy makers and those involved in the industry to have a comprehensive assessment of the financial and technical performance on Irish farms

FAPRI – This project provides detailed independent assessment of the impact of policy interventions on Irish (and European) agriculture.

The Teagasc Advisory service has considerable experience in supporting farmers in their decisions through the provision of detailed financial assessment and advice. It also produces detailed financial guidelines on an annual basis for farmers and those working on their behalf.

Qualifications and Expertise of the ReviewerThe assessment of costs was carried out by the Assistant Director of Advisory Services, Strategy and Planning. He holds the following qualifications:B.Agr.Sc (Economics)M.Agr.Sc He has over 20 years experience working in Teagasc in a variety of specialist roles prior to the current position including Farm Management, Systems Development and Public Management Reform.

Examination of CalculationsIn carrying out this assessment, the reviewer examined the documentation provided and, where necessary, sought clarification from responsible officials in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the measures involved. He also sought and received detailed background costings on the agri-environment measure so as to have a better understanding of the specific actions specified under the measure and the economic justification of the proposed payments. He discussed and sought clarification on many of the issues with research and advisory colleagues with specific expertise in the enterprises/issues so as to arrive at a conclusion as to the accuracy and adequacy of the calculations involved.

377

Appendix 7

379

Irelands Rural Development Programme 2007—2013Management & Control Structure

Implementing Divisions& Associated Inspectorate DAFF

1. Implements Schemes2. Certifies payments to beneficiaries3. Submits EAFRD claims to Finance

Division, DAFF

Finance Division DAFF

1. Oversees financial management and control system

2. Submits EAFRD* claims to European Commission

DCRGA & Local Area Action Groups

1. Delegated paying agency functions covering Axis 3 & Axis 4

2. Implements individual schemes3. Submits EAFRD claims to

Finance Division, DAF

Paying Agency

*DAF—Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food*EAFRD—European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development*DCRGA- Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs

Managing AuthorityCAP Rural Development DAFF

1. Has responsibility for efficient, effective and correct application of programme

2. Leads monitoring committee3. Ensures evaluation of programme, progress

reports & retention of documentation

Certifying BodyDeloitte & Touche

Has role as independent overseer and verifier of the completeness and accuracy of the paying agency’s accounts

Appendix 8

Glossary of AbbreviationsAWU Annual Work UnitBMW Border Midland and Western RegionBTS Biomass to LiquidBWI Bird Watch IrelandCAP Common Agricultural PolicyCAs Designated Areas (Less Favoured Areas) Compensatory AmountsCBS Countryside Bird SurveyCHP Combined Heat and PowerCOFORD Council for Forestry Research and DevelopmentCSO Central Statistics OfficeDAF Department of Agriculture and FoodDCGRA Department of Community, Gaeltacht and Rural AffairsDCMNR Department of Communications, Marine and Natural ResourcesDELG Department of the Environment and Local GovernmentDJELR Department of Justice, Equality and Law ReformDoEHLG Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local GovernmentDSL Digital Subscriber LineEAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural DevelopmentEAGGF European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee FundEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEPA Environmental Protection AgencyERS Early Retirement SchemeESF European Social FundFDT Food Drink TobaccoFETAC Further Education and Training Awards CouncilFFI Family Farm IncomeFP Framework PlanFTE Full-time employmentGAEC Good Agricultural and Environmental ConditionGFP Code of Good Farmer PracticeGIS Geographical Information SystemGVA Gross value addedIAS Young Farmer Installation Aid SchemeICT Information and Communication TechnologyKtoe kilo tons of oil equivalentLAG Local Area GroupLEADER EU Community Initiative for rural developmentLFAs Less Favoured AreasLSH Less Severely HandicappedLU Livestock UnitsMWU Manual Working UnitsNCCS National Climate Change StrategyNDP National Development PlanNFS National Farm Survey

380

NHA Natural Heritage AreaNRNP National Rural Development ProgrammeNRN National Rural NetworkNSS National Spatial StrategyNUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for StatisticsOPW Office of Public WorksPh Potential of HydrogenPPS Purchasing Power StandardRBD River Basin DistrictRD Strategy

Rural Development National Strategy Plan

RDP Rural Development ProgrammeREPS Rural Environment Protection SchemeSAC Special Areas of ConservationSE South and Eastern RegionSEA Strategic Environmental AssessmentSFP Single Farm PaymentSMs Special measuresSPAs Special Protection Area(s)SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, ThreatsUAA Utilisable Agricultural AreaWFD Water Framework Directive

381

Appendix 9

RURAL DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMME 2007– 2013

EX-ANTE EVLUATION

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2007-2013

EX-ANTE EVALUATION

AFCon Management Consultants with Jim Dorgan Associates

November 2006

382

Abbreviations

The Regulation Unless indicated otherwise this refers to Regulation 1698/2005

BMW Border Midland and Western Region

CAs Designated Areas (Less Favoured Areas) Compensatory Amounts

CAP RDP CAP Rural Development Programme 2000-06

DAF Department of Agriculture and Food

DCGRA Department of Community, Gaeltacht and Rural Affairs

EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

EAGGF European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund

EUA Environmental Impact Assessment

ERS Early Retirement Scheme

FFI Family Farm Income

GFP Code of Good Farmer Practice

IAS Young Farmer Installation Aid Scheme

LAG Local Area Groups

LEADER EU Community Initiative for rural development

LFAs Less Favoured Areas, Designated Areas

LU Livestock Units

NDP National Development Programme

NFS National Farm Survey

RD Strategy Rural Development National Strategy Plan 2007-13

RDP Rural Development Plan

REPS Rural Environment Protection Scheme

SAC Special Areas of Conservation

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

SE South and Eastern Region

SFP Single Farm Payment

SPA Special Protection Area

UAA Utilisable Agricultural Area

383

Table of ContentsSummary, Conclusions and Recommendations

I EX-ANTE EVALUATION OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Ex-Ante Evaluation

1.2 Council Regulation 1698/2005 and changes from previous Regulations

1.3 The regulatory framework for ex-ante evaluation

1.4 Structure of ex-ante Evaluation Repor

1.5 Sources of Information

2. DRAFT RDP (2007-2013) – RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

2.1. Structure of the Plan and compliance with EC Regulation EC

2.1.1 Evaluators comments on structure and content of plan

2.1.2 Summary of Plan

2.1.3 Problems RDP is expected to address

2.1.4 SWOT Analysis

2.2. Identification of Target Groups and Needs

2.3. Problems not addressed by the implementation of the Programme

3. OBJECTIVES OF PLAN

3.1. Overall policy objectives and expected impacts

3.2. Policy objectives and expected impacts – Axis 1

3.3. Policy objectives and expected impacts – Axis 2

3.4. Coherence of Programme objectives with NDP

4. PROPOSED MEASURES

4.1 Summary of Measures and their relationship to overall objectives.

4.2 Lessons Learned and taken into account in designing the draft programme

4.3 Measures Axis 1 – Competitiveness

4.3.1 Introduction

4.3.2 Early Retirement Scheme and Installation Aid Measures

4.3.3 Farm Improvement Measures

4.3.4 Afforestation Axis 1 Measures

4.4 Measures Axis 2

4.4.1 Introduction

4.4.2 Less Favoured Areas – Compensatory Amounts

4.4.3 Agri Environment (REPS) and Natura 2000

384

4.4.4 AFFORESTATION AXIS 2 MEASURES (221-227)

4.4.5 Animal Welfare, Recording and Breeding Scheme for Suckler Herds

4.5 Axis 3 and 4 Rural Quality of Life and LEADER Implementation

4.5.1 Introduction

4.5.2 Axis 3 Measures

5. ADDED VALUE OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

6. MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEMS

7. STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

7.1 Definition and Scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment

7.2 Outline description of the Measures proposed

7.3 Baseline Environmental Information

7.4 Anticipated Environmental Effects arising from Axis 1 Measures

7.5 Anticipated Environmental Effects arising from Axis 2 Measures

7.6 Anticipated Environmental Effects arising from Axes 3 and 4 Measures

7.7 Alternatives to the Programme

7.8 Monitoring of the Environmental Effects of the Proposed Programme

385

Executive Summary

1.1 Introduction

The ex-ante evaluation of the national Rural Development Plan (RDP) for the programming period 2007—2013 is based on and elaborates on the Ireland Rural Development National Strategy Plan (2007—2013) and Council Regulation 1698/2005 (the ‘Regulation’) on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The draft plan has now been subjected to an ex-ante evaluation and strategic environmental assessment covering:

Analysis of the problems that the proposed programme seeks to address The proposed response (measures)

The anticipated results and impact of the programme The extent to which the Community’s priorities have been taken into account in the

programme. The quality of procedures for programme management including monitoring and

evaluation.

The RDP is a plan that seeks to identify specific problems associated with the rural economy and rural environment and respond to those problems with measures that are appropriate, effective and in line with the requirements of the Regulation. The plan is not a comprehensive rural development plan and does not address each and every rural development issue and especially infrastructural deficits.

1.2 Conformity of RDP with Regulation 1698/2005

The draft plan conforms to the requirements of EC Council Regulation 1698/2005 and meets the priorities defined under ‘The Community Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development Policy’. It also reflects the priorities defined under the National Strategy Plan for Rural Development and government priorities for the development of agriculture and food as well as protection of the rural environment. It is consistent with other relevant strategy documents such as the DAF’s document, AgriVision 2015 and the White Paper on Rural Development. The draft plan examines the current issues and problems facing agriculture and the rural economy (Chapter 3) as part of a lead in to a SWOT analysis.

Based on the SWOT analysis a range of measures, are proposed under each Axis that address identified problems. The objectives, rationale and actions under each measure are elaborated as is the proposed financial allocation. The overall structure and content of the plan follows closely the provisions of the Regulation and reflects the requirement of the Regulation that development policy should accompany and complement the market and income support policies of the common agricultural policy and that rural development policy should also take into account the general objectives for economic and social cohesion policy set out in the Treaty and contribute to their achievement while integrating other major policy priorities as spelled out in the conclusion of the Lisbon and Goteborg European Councils for competitiveness and sustainable development.

1.3 Problem Identification

The draft plan provides significant background analysis of the socio-economic environment underpinning the plan and this informs the subsequent problem identification. The problems which need to be addressed can be summed up in terms of the three axes in the RDP: there is a threat to the competitiveness of Irish agriculture from a number of

386

sources, there needs to be incentives to preserve and enhance the rural environment and countryside, and supports are needed to create employment and generate economic and social activities and infrastructure in rural areas.

The competitive problems arise from, on the one hand the reduction in market aids and supports and the more open EU market for agriculture. On the other hand, demand for land for non-agricultural purposes and alternative employment is raising the cost of the principal inputs for commercial agriculture. These problems are superimposed on fragmented farm structures and a generally ageing agricultural work force.

The decline in price supports for agriculture and the introduction of decoupled payments will tend to reduce agricultural activity and the consequent agricultural load on the environment. Unless action is taken, this may tend to the abandonment of land, which generates other environmental problems. Meanwhile, there will be a core of active farms, which generate emissions, and the Nitrates Directive will raise the standards, which farms have to comply with.

In relation to rural society in general, many areas suffer from a poor demographic structure and from inadequate infrastructure, social facilities and employment opportunities. Many of these problems are not addressed by the ‘mainstream’ policies of national and local government entities.

1.4 Objectives

Axis 1

The first Axis of the RDP is aimed at improving the competitiveness of farm and forest enterprises through support for restructuring and innovation. This axis includes support for training, installation aid, early retirement, food quality and downstream food and forestry activities. Measures under this axis have the objective of promoting structural changes at farm level as well as investment in key sectors. This is supported by training measures that are seen as essential in meeting the challenges of an increasing competitive environment. Combined, the measures under Axis 1 respond to identified issues that impact on the competitiveness of the agriculture and food sectors and aim to progress restructuring and investment for the challenging era ahead.

Axis 2

The second Axis of the RDP is directed at preserving, and where possible enhancing the environmental, biodiversity and amenity values of the countryside. The Compensatory Amounts (CAs), previously paid on a headage basis in the LFAs, are now decoupled. Some farmers may respond by reducing agriculture to a minimum, but maintaining environmental standards will be a condition of the payment and this should, at least, conserve the countryside against abandonment. For the medium term, most farmers will probably continue farming on an extensive basis and the CAs should support them in doing so. On the other hand, major improvement in the management of the countryside is the role of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) and the afforestation measures. The REP scheme will be improved, which should make it more attractive to farmers, and make it more capable of providing environmental benefits. The forestry measures aim to expand forestry but subject to conditions which will ensure an enhancement of the countryside. Aid will be given for schemes likely to have a high value

387

in terms of appearance, environment or amenities.

Axis 3

The broad objectives of Axis 3 are to improve the quality of life in rural areas and encourage diversification of economic activity in rural areas including diversification into non-agricultural activities. The measures under Axis 3 encompass a range of initiatives that are designed to promote economic activity in rural areas and also stimulate broader community initiatives aimed at improving the overall quality of life for rural dwellers. The measures will be implemented using the LEADER approach that emphasises a ‘bottom up’ approach and area-based local development strategies.

1.5 Measures

The draft RDP proposes expenditure of €7.055 billion over a 7-year period of which €2.339 billion will be from the EAFRD and €4.716 billion from the National Exchequer. In line with the requirements of Council Regulation 1698/2005 the plan is structured around 3 core objectives of improving competitiveness, improving the environment and improving the quality of life in rural areas. This is reflected in the plan with measures allocated among 3 axes corresponding to the above objectives. The axes and financial allocations are as follows:

Axis 1

Competitiveness envisages total expenditure of €665 million of which €234 million will be from the EAFRD. Under this Axis issues relating to the competitiveness of the agriculture and food industry are addressed particularly structural problems. The proposed measures are in the main a continuation of measures included in the RDP but with some changes in approach and design. Most of the funding is allocated to the Early Retirement Scheme (€418) and a complementary scheme of Young Farmer Installation Aid (€63). In total the 2 measures account for 72per cent of total planned expenditure under the axis. Other measures planned under this axis are farm improvement – designed to promote investment in modern facilities in key sectors and support to the forestry sector.

Axis 2

Improving the environment envisages expenditure of €5,965 million of which €1,871 will be from the EAFRD. Measures under this Axis focus on ways of improving the environment but with farmers and farms at the core. The measures proposed are measures included in the current RDP but with modifications and improvements based on the up to-date problem analysis. The main measure proposed is the continuation of the REPS/Natura 2000 measure for which €2,982 has been allocated representing 50 per cent of expenditure under the axis. The next most important measure in terms of expenditure levels is the Compensatory Allowance measure with planned expenditure of €1,799 million or 30 per cent of expenditure under the axis. The remaining measures cover forestry initiatives with a predominantly environmental focus and for which €934 million is allocated and animal welfare with an allocation of €250 million.

Axis 3

Improving the quality of life in rural measures includes a range of measures that are aimed at having a more sustainable rural economy with an improved quality of life. The measures build on similar type measures implemented under the LEADER programme in previous programmes and have a total allocation of €425 million of which €234 million is

388

from the EAFRD. While the measures here are primarily aimed at improving the quality of life in rural areas they also support and complement the objectives of Axis 1 and Axis 2.

1.6 Impact Assessment

Axis 1

The issue of competitiveness is well analysed in the plan but the link between the proposed measures and the identified problems could be strengthened. 72 per cent of expenditure is allocated to the problem of age structure and farm size but it is unclear from the analysis if this is the main competitive issue facing agriculture and food. While the IAS is likely to achieve results in terms of attracting young farmers, the continuation of the ERS is problematic and the low uptake in the current scheme is of concern. While the measure is well intended it may be that uptake is opportunistic depending on the individual circumstances of farmers who may have been considering exiting.

The farm improvement measure is generally good and should achieve results, though there may be an issue with deadweight in some areas. Consideration could be given to increasing the allocation to organic farming. In relation to forestry the measures proposed are directed at encouraging actions which are important for ensuring that the potential of forestry are in line with the overall objectives of the Draft RDP and complementary to the forestry measures in Axis 2. However, the issue of whether the low rates of plantation now being recorded are capable of supporting a competitive industry needs further exploration.

Axis 2

With 80 per cent of expenditure under Axis 2 the RDP is primarily a plan to address environmental priorities, especially as some of the measures under Axis 1 and Axis 3 are also environmental in nature. While the measures under Axis 2 are directed towards the environment they also contribute significantly to farm incomes and thus to the maintenance of a farming community. The CAs are a valuable contribution to farm incomes in the Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) and as such help attain important Community and national objectives for rural development including population stabilisation and maintenance of farm land in good environmental condition. However, the reaction of farmers to decoupling needs to be monitored carefully and on farms where activity declines to minimal levels, the scheme may prove to be redundant. As it is the scheme is complementary to the Single Farm Payment (SFP) and consistent with most other policy initiatives such as REPS. It is not consistent with the ERS or with the Forestry Programme, although the adverse impact in both cases is likely to be small.

The proposed REPS measure builds on the success and experience of previous REPS measures but is not just a simple follow on from the previous programme. It will be implemented against a background of a totally changed CAP Pillar 1 and a new farming regime. Lessons learned from the previous measures have been taken into account in the design of the current measure and the current design is considered to be attractive both in terms of its flexibility and monetary reward.

The national forest programme is consistent with objectives of the EU in relation to forestry and supports national rural development policy in providing alternative income and employment in rural areas. Forestry also provides important carbon sequestration and alternative energy potential and, when carefully managed, can generate important amenity

389

and biodiversity values. The forestry measures will promote the size of the national forest, which is low by European standards, and will address some deficiencies of Irish forests and enhance some opportunities through targeted interventions. The forestry schemes are complex and expensive but there is no alternative to heavy subsidisation, backed up by careful supervision as envisaged in the draft RDP. The major difficulty with the programme at the moment is the low rate of take-up, which may be aided by the forthcoming increase in the premiums, and some deficiency in the management of the existing forest estate. Any additional resources for forestry that might become available should be focused on measures designed to enhance the commercial value of the forests, such as reconstitution and the measures in Axis 1.

Axis 3

The combined measures under Axis 3 represent an attempt to deliver a significant community based rural development programme using the LEADER approach. Unlike the other two axes, which are mainly comprised of existing and well proven measures, Axis 3 is quite innovative and challenging.

The general definition of Axis 3 including the problem identification would benefit from further analysis and a clearer outlining of the problem being addressed and overall objectives. Also the issues and measures covered under Axes 3 and 4 cover only a part of overall public support for development in rural areas and indeed part of the needs. In the context of a new National Development Plan 2007—2013 it would be very desirable to see a document, that incorporated all the proposals affecting rural development together, and evaluated together.

The specific proposals under Axes 3 and 4 are generally good but we feel the links between analysis, problem identification and proposed measures to respond to problems could be made clearer.

1.7 Community Added Value

A contribution of €2.339 billion is expected reflecting approximately 33per cent of the overall programme cost. However, the added value of Community involvement in the programme goes beyond the funding available. The programme is guided by the Community’s overall approach to rural development that seeks to combine objectives of competitiveness, improvement of the environment and improving the overall quality of life in rural areas.

1.8 Implementation Arrangements and Monitoring and Evaluation

While the proposed implementation arrangements are generally satisfactory and do not require changes there are significant concerns with the identification and selection of indicators. It would seem that this area of the plan is largely incomplete and that a systematic approach to defining useful indicators and agreeing how such indicators can be compiled is required. Particularly, in relation to assessing impact the use of special surveys may need to be considered.

1.9 Specific Recommendations

A Summary of the RDP setting out context, problems identified, proposed responses would significantly improve the subsequent reading of the plan. While the

390

programme has quite detailed analysis, the flow from problem identification to proposed response on an overall basis and at Axis level is not as clear as it could be.

The draft RTDP provides considerable analysis at 3.1 but the SWOT analysis and problem(s) identification following could be more comprehensive. Clearly identified problems under each axis should be identified so that the appropriateness of the measures as responses at Axis level can be better evaluated.

Expenditure on some elements of the Farm Improvement Measure should be reviewed to ensure absence of deadweight.

The Farm Improvement Measure and the level of funding should be reassessed at the Mid-Term stage in the light of the level of uptake. The measure is likely to prove attractive given the emphasis on restructuring at farm level.

The actual expected impact of the ERS on competitiveness should be more fully justified.

Despite decoupling CAs probably still work to support farming in the LFAs, thus helping to maintain the countryside. Some of the conditions for qualifying for the payment need to be reviewed. In cases where farmers reduce activity to minimal levels, the CA will probably not have a positive effect on countryside maintenance.

The overall objective of Axis 3 and how measures under it contribute to this objective should be more clearly elaborated.

Some issues not dealt with under the programme may need to be considered. There is a need to further define indicators of outputs, results and impact for each

of the measures proposed in the RDP. This will require a structured approach and co-ordination between the DAF and the implementing divisions.

391

I EX-ANTE EVALUATION OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of Ex-Ante EvaluationThis is the Ex-Ante Evaluation of the draft National Rural Development Plan 2007—2013 (RDP). In accordance with Regulation 1698/2005 a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the RDP has been prepared by Circa Consultants Europe and is published separately. The programme is to be implemented with EU support under Council Regulation 1698/2005 (‘the Regulation’) on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development—EAFRD. This provides the legal framework for the preparation and the implementation of rural development programmes in the Member States for the period 2007—2013. Following Art 16 and 85 of the Regulation, ex-ante evaluation is an obligatory task in establishing a rural development programme for a geographical region concerned. Ex-ante evaluation aims at improving programmes and contributing to capacity building for future monitoring and evaluation activities.

This ex-ante evaluation is carried out in accordance with the Guidelines issued by the EC and in accordance with the Terms of Reference prepared by the Department of Agriculture and Food (DAF).84

1.2 Council Regulation 1698/2005 and changes from previous RegulationsThe main changes in rural development policies in comparison with 2000-2006 relevant for ex-ante evaluation are set out in the Guidelines. These are:

1. A thorough simplification of policy implementation through the introduction of a single funding system, and the modification of programming, financial management and control framework for rural development programmes

2. The definition of three core objectives for rural development measures (Article 4)

Improving the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry by support for restructuring, development and innovation

Improving the environment and the countryside by supporting land management

Improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of economic activity.

A thematic axis corresponds to each core objective, around which rural development programmes have to be built, whilst a fourth horizontal and methodological axis is dedicated to the mainstreaming of the LEADER approach.

The Member States have to conceive their rural development strategies and, based on the analysis of their own situation, choose which measures are the most appropriate ones to implement each specific strategy. Rural development programmes will then translate the strategy into action through the implementation of these measures, which are foreseen in the four operational axes (Articles 20, 36, 52 and 63 of the Regulation. This ex-ante evaluation takes account of the draft Rural Development Strategy (RDS) and the Draft Rural Development Plan (RDP) prepared by the Department of Agriculture and Food. The evaluators are of the opinion that the RDP is consistent with the draft RD strategy.

84 European Commission. Ex Ante Evaluation Guidelines, DOC 25 Guidance note D V2.doc. European Commission

392

1.3 The regulatory framework for ex ante-evaluationAs stipulated by Article 85 of Council Regulation 1698/2005,

‘Ex-ante evaluation shall form part of drawing up each rural development programme and aim to optimise the allocation of budgetary resources and improve programming quality. It shall identify and appraise:

the medium and long term needs the goals to be achieved the results expected the quantified targets particularly in terms of impact in relation to the baseline

situation the Community value-added the extent to which the Community’s priorities have been taken into account the lessons drawn for previous programming; the quality of the procedures for implementation, monitoring, evaluation and

financial management’

Article 85 of the Regulation states that ‘ex-ante evaluations shall be carried out under the responsibility of the Member States’. Moreover, following Article 84(4) of the Regulation, ‘evaluations shall be carried out by independent evaluators’.

Ex-ante evaluation will also verify to what extent the assistance of the EAFRD is consistent with the objectives of Economic and Social Cohesion and those of the Community support instrument for fisheries in particular (Article 5), and the extent to which the proposed implementation system could promote equality between men and women, and prevent any form of discrimination (Article 8).

All of the above requirements have been taken into account in the Terms of Reference governing this evaluation and in the approach of the evaluators.

1.4 Structure of Ex-Ante Evaluation ReportAs noted above, the Ex-Ante Evaluation is accompanied by an SEA, which is published separately in a stand-alone document. A summary of the SEA is included in Chapter 7. The main ex-ante evaluation is structured as follows:

Summary of main conclusions and recommendations

Chapter 1 outlines the background and structure including the regulatory framework governing ex-ante evaluations.

Chapter 2 sets out an overview of the plan and examines the problems the plan is attempting to address.

Chapter 3 evaluates the overall objectives of the plan as well as the general and specific operational objectives and expected results. It also examines the proposed targets and indicators included for monitoring and evaluation purposes.

Chapter 4 presents the main measures and examines their objectives and intervention logic. It evaluates the cohesiveness and complementarily of the measures in meeting the overall objectives of the RDP. The Chapter also summarises and evaluates the expected impacts of the programme as a whole and of the individual measures.

393

Chapter 5 evaluates the draft programme in terms of overall EU objectives and how proportionality and subsidiarity have been taken into account in drafting the programme.

Chapter 6 evaluates the proposed monitoring and evaluation systems.

Chapter 7 summarises the Strategic Environmental Assessment.

1.5 Sources of InformationIn preparing the ex-ante evaluation the consultants interviewed personnel of the CAP Rural Development Division and the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture and Food (DAF) and of the Department of Community, Rural Gaeltacht Affairs (DCGA). The consultants also reviewed the results of the consultation with representative organisations conducted by the DAF.

Documentary sources consulted include:

AgriVision 2015 Action Plan, Department of Agriculture and Food, 2005

CAP RDP 2000—2006, Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, 2000

Evaluation of the Compensatory Allowances Scheme in Ireland. Kearney, B., Boyle, G. and Walsh, J., 1994

Expenditure Review of the Early Retirement Scheme

Ex-Ante Evaluation of the National Development Plan, 2007-13, FitzGerald et al, ESRI, 2006

Ex-Ante Evaluation of the CDP RDP 2000-2006, Jim Fitzpatrick Associates, 1999

Expenditure Review of the Compensatory Amounts, Department of Agriculture and Food, 2005

Forestry A Growth Industry in Ireland, Peter Bacon & Associates, 2003

Guidelines for Ex-Ante Evaluation 2007-13, European Commission

Growing for the Future: A Strategic Plan for the Development of the Forestry Sector in Ireland, Government Publications, 1999

Mid-Term Review of the CAP RDP 2000—2006, AFCon, University College Cork, Jim Dorgan Associates, 2003

Review and Appraisal of Ireland’s Forestry Strategy, Peter Bacon & Associates with Deloitte, 2004

A Strategy for Rural Development, Department of Agriculture and Food, 1999

RURAL IRELAND 2025 Foresight Perspectives

394

2. DRAFT RDP (2007—2013) – RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

2.1 Structure of the Plan and compliance with EC Regulation EC

The draft RDP consists of 16 Sections and is structured as follows:

Section 1 Title of Plan

Section 2 Geographical Area covered by Plan

Section 3 Analysis of the situation in terms of strengths and weaknesses, the strategy chosen to meet them and the ex-ante evaluation

Section 3.1 provides detailed background analysis relevant to each Axis in the plan and sets the context for the SWOT analysis provided at 3.2. The socio-economic situation and population structure is analysed in some detail though much of the data relates to 2003. Considerable information and analysis is provided on the rural economy with particular attention given to employment structures. All of this is particularly relevant in evaluating the measures included under Axis 1 and Axis 3. A paragraph on ‘looking to the future’ provides a summary of the opportunities and challenges facing Irish agriculture and the food industry.

Extensive background information and analysis is also provided in this section on all environmental issues as a backdrop to the proposed measures included under Axis 2. Key environmental issues ranging from air quality to climate change are discussed in some detail as are obligations under various international agreements. The approach under Axis 3, which in effect mainstreams the LEADER+ approach to rural development, is new to the RDP and the background information provided in paragraph 3.1 is comprehensive and examines the inter-relationships between the various facets of the rural economy and the broader rural way of life. Details of various rural development agencies are provided as is a summary of the LEADER programme.

The draft RDP is based on the EU framework for rural development and on the draft Rural Development National Strategy formulated in line with that framework. As noted in 1.2 the framework sets three main priorities: The first two priorities are directed primarily at the agricultural and forestry sectors. Their competitiveness and environmental focus reflects the multifunctional nature of the sectors. This theme is also evident in the AgriVision 2015 Action Plan for the agri-food sector. That plan is based on the vision of ‘an industry attaining optimal levels of efficiency, competitiveness and responsiveness to the market while also respecting and enhancing the physical environment’. The agricultural and forestry measures in this programme are fully consistent with that vision.

Section 3.2 of the draft plan describes the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for the rural economy based on the analysis in 3.1 and subsequently justifies the funding allocation allotted to each Axis in terms of the relative importance of the various issues identified. This is evaluated in paragraph 2.1.3 following.

395

Sections 3.3 refers to the ex-ante evaluation and will be completed when the ex-ante evaluation is available.

Section 3.4 provides a detailed overview of the programming period 2000—2006 and other relevant information on complementary programmes. This includes an analysis of impact from other programmes (e.g. Regional Operational Programmes, LEADER, Rural Social Scheme and the CLÁR Programme, etc) that are relevant to the current programme.

Section 4 Priorities chosen by regard to EU Strategic Guidelines, National Strategy Plan and ex-ante Evaluation

This elaborates on Section 3 in the draft strategy but with a clearer definition of the overall objectives of the programme and will reflect the contents of the Ex-Ante Evaluation.

Section 5 provides details of all of the proposed measures and sub-measures under each Axis. This is quite detailed and includes, for each measure, Rationale, Objective, Type of Support, Level of Support, Target Group, Target Area, Quantified Targets for EU common indicators, Transition from 2000—2006 period.

A comprehensive evaluation of each measure (or group of measures) is provided in Chapter 4 below of the Ex-Ante Evaluation.

Sections 6 and 7 provide information on the cost of the plan in total and EAFRD contribution per axis, and a breakdown of the indicative cost of each of the measures.

Section 8 not available at time of preparing the Ex-Ante Evaluation

Section 9 both available at time of preparing the Ex-Ante Evaluation. This will assess the compliance of the RDP with state aid requirements.

Section 10 assesses the complementarily of the RDP with other CAP instruments and EU policies

Section 11 details the designation of Competent Authorities

Section 12 outlines the proposed Monitoring and Evaluation arrangements

Section 13 outlines publicity arrangements

Section 14 outlines the consultation process to date. This will be revised at the end of the process of consultation on the draft RDP.

Section 15 describes steps taken to ensure Equality between men and women and non-discrimination during plan implementation

Section 16 provides details of Technical Assistance including evaluation and monitoring of the Programme and operation of the National Rural Network for activities in Axis 3.

2.1.1 Evaluators’ comments on structure and content of plan1 It is recommended that the programme should have some overview at the outset summarising (a) the context in which the plan is prepared, i.e. fast growing economy,

- 396 -

major changes in farming, etc and (b) summarising succinctly what the vision is, what are the problems and how the proposed measures will solve the problems. While this is contained in the strategy and in various sections of the draft plan the evaluators feel that such an overview at the outset would put the plan in context for subsequent reading.

2 Paragraph 3.1 covering 21 pages covers most of the issues required to put the programme in context, define the problem issues and explore the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing rural Ireland in the near future. However, some issues could be explored further including:

Strengthened analysis of problems of rural areas, bearing in mind that after substantial economic growth of recent years socio economic conditions in rural areas have improved

Performance of agriculture in terms of output, income, employment, structure and problems created by high cost of labour, cost of land and increased international competition

Issues arising from fast growing rural populations with little attachment to the local economy/society

Regional disparities Competitiveness versus Environment.

Paragraph 3.1 is key in terms of the further evaluation of the SWOT and defining what problem(s) are being addressed in the plan and whether or not the proposed responses in terms of measures are the most suitable. This section of the ex-ante evaluation examines the problems identified in the draft RDP and their consistency with the SWOT analysis. It also evaluates the stated causes of the disparities identified as a prelude to evaluating the validity of the measures proposed.

2.1.2 Summary of PlanThe draft RDP aims to respond to a number of key problems identified in the draft Strategy which itself is based on the White Paper on Rural Development. In this the Irish Government underlined its commitment to ensuring the economic and social well-being of rural communities. It defined the policy agenda as all Government policies and interventions that are directed towards improving the physical, economic and social conditions of people living in rural areas. It emphasised that policies would aim to facilitate balanced and sustainable regional development while tackling the issues of poverty and social inclusion. This is the core objective of the current RDP and the measures elaborated.

In deciding the policy measures to meet the above objective a comprehensive analysis of the current situation has been carried out during the preparation of the current plan and much of this analysis is contained in Paragraph 3.1 (see above). The approach to the plan is in line with the requirements of Council Regulation 1698/2005 with particular regard to recital (ii) which states ‘According to the Treaty, in working out the common agricultural policy and the special methods for its application, account is to be taken of the particular nature of agricultural activity which results from the social structure of agriculture and from structural and natural disparities between the various rural areas.’

The strategy identifies a number of problems at a strategic level and then seeks to address the problems under the three different Axes – competitiveness, improving the

- 397 -

environment and the country-side and improving the quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy. While individual measures aim to address specific identified problems there is an overall cohesion to the problem and the three Axes should be considered in their totality rather than as individual programmes. Common issues of competitiveness, environment and quality of life cut across all three Axes and this is recognised in the programme.

2.1.3 Problems RDP is expected to addressThere is an underlying assumption governing the whole plan that interventions are mainly implemented via farmers who are seen as central to the rural economy notwithstanding the decline in farm numbers. This is especially true in respect of Axes 1 and 2 and is consistent with the Regulation. In respect of Axis 3 the interventions are more applicable to the wider rural community.

Competitiveness in the agriculture, food and forestry sectors

The problems of competitiveness as identified in the plan are summarised as follows:

Structural problems resulting form the age profile of farmers, a shortage of well trained young farmers, and unsuitable land structures including farm fragmentation

Inadequate training of young farmers Inadequate investment at farm level especially in key sectors where

competition is increasing Low level of added value in the forestry sector.

The problems identified in relation to competitiveness in the agricultural and food sector are consistent with previous analyses and also with the problems identified in the AgriFood 2015 Report. However, as noted in 2.1 above, there are some areas, which would merit more attention. In relation to competition these include the challenge to the commercial sector from the increased cost of land, the cost of labour and the impact of stronger international competition. Also, in respect of the ERS, the extent to which structural problems in relation to the age profile of farmers are a significant factor in terms of competitiveness in disadvantaged areas with extensive agricultural practice is largely unproven. While the issue of competitiveness was examined as part of a public expenditure review of the Early Retirement Scheme in 200485 the extent to which improved farm structures actually contributes to competition was not clearly established. In relation to afforestation it has the capacity to address a number of commercial, environment, biodiversity and amenity objectives. But in respect of competitiveness measures a problem has been low standards of care and maintenance of forestry. The forestry measures in Axis 1 include planned actions to counter act this.

Improving the Environment and Countryside both in terms of improved food quality and in terms of environmental priorities and obligations.

The Draft Strategy and Plan outlines the following problems and/or priorities that require addressing:

Maintaining and improving biodiversity

85 Expenditure Review of the Early Retirement Scheme 2000 – Department of Agriculture and Food Johnstown Castle 2004

- 398 -

The preservation and development of high nature value farming and forestry systems

Preservation of traditional agricultural landscapes Improving water and air quality Climate change Renewable energy.

The Measures under Axis 2 will contribute to the implementation of the agricultural and forestry Natura 2000 network, to the Gotebörg commitment to reverse biodiversity decline by 2010, to the objectives laid down in Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy and to the Kyoto Protocol targets for climate change mitigation.

The main measures proposed are Compensatory Allowances, REPS and Forestry all of which are existing measures and can have environmental benefits. The environmental issues and problems facing Ireland are analysed in some detail and while the RDP is not expected to respond to all environmental problems the selected measures should have a significant impact. Issues relating to the various measures are discussed in more detail in part 2 and the SEA that accompanies this report.

Improving quality of Life in Rural Areas and Diversification of Rural Economy

At the outset it should be emphasised that the RDP does not attempt to address all problems in respect the rural economy, notably the issue of unbalanced regional development and infrastructural deficits. These are the responsibility of other Departments. The RDP seeks to address specific problems that can be tackled with the level of resources and measures available under the Regulation. Problems arising from infrastructure deficits and from natural disadvantages (remoteness) cannot be expected to be addressed within this RDP. Bearing this in mind the following are the problems/issues that have been identified as requiring addressing:

Inadequate local infrastructure and services essential to community well-being Lack of rural enterprise that will provide employment in rural areas Need for village and countryside enhancement Need to promote environmentally friendly initiatives and conservation of areas

of high natural and cultural value as a contribution to quality of life and/or tourism development

Inadequate or inappropriate skill levels among the rural population.

The identified problems are considered valid though not exhaustive. However, the nature of Axis 3 and in particular the use of the LEADER+ approach suggests that problem identification below the general level is not necessary at this stage since the LEADER+ philosophy promotes a bottom up approach whereby problems will be defined at local level. The above broad categories are considered appropriate, though further thought should be given to issues such as immigration, ageing rural population and issues of land use arising from the new post-CAP reform regime.

2.1.4 SWOT AnalysisChapter 3 of the draft plan provides considerable background information, commentary and analysis on the main issues impacting on rural development and the broader rural economy and environment and sets the basis for the SWOT analysis set

- 399 -

out in paragraph 3.2.

The SWOT is summarised as follows in the plan (with comments):

Strengths The agri-food sector is an important and dynamic indigenous sector, which

contributes significantly to the economic well-being of the country. Irish agriculture is mainly grass-based and extensive, which results in less

pressure on the environment and enhances biodiversity. Current measures such as REPS have reinforced the multi-functional nature of

agriculture and its related environmental responsibilities. The afforestation programme has contributed positively to the climate change

agenda and biodiversity. The LEADER approach to rural community development is fully established

and covers all of the rural territory.

The above strengths are consistent with the analysis and with other recent analyses of Irish Agriculture (AgriFood 2015) and the Rural Economy and Environment (Rural Ireland 2025 – Foresight Perspectives)86

Other strengths that could be considered are: The rich cultural heritage associated with rural life (including language, music

etc) Improved road infrastructure in recent years A visually attractive landscape that is internationally appreciated A rural community that still retains strong community values Strong community organisations in rural areas Natural amenities in rural areas including coastal areas and lakes.

86 Rural Ireland 2025—Foresight Perspectives – joint publication NUI Maynooth/University College Dublin and Teagasc 2005

- 400 -

Weaknesses Poor farm structures due to ageing farming population, lack of land mobility

and fragmented nature of some Irish farm holdings Decline in rural based manufacturing employment and over-reliance on

construction sector for rural employment Agriculture contributing negatively as well as positively to environmental

sustainability Low level of broadband availability to and usage by rural communities.

Stated weaknesses relating to farm structures provides most of the justification for the Installation Aid Scheme (IAS) and ERS but its actual negative effect is not clear (even in other studies). It may be less so in areas where intensive agriculture is not envisaged. Weaknesses under Axis 3 could be developed further beyond the low level of broadband availability – there is little about local social infrastructure, transport for elderly, etc. Also it would be useful to define in what context is something considered a weakness – agricultural development or quality of rural life.

Opportunities Consumer preference for high quality and safe products produced in an

environmentally sustainable manner Implementation of good farming practices which conserve and enhance the

environment Potential to significantly increase carbon sequestration and mitigate climate

change through growth in new afforestation Potential to improve the age profile of the farm population and average farm

size through continued farm rationalisation Potential exists in the area of ICT as a tool to ensure the efficient

implementation of policy. This can be exploited by measures developing the capacity of the client base to avail of the existing technology

Following the full decoupling of direct payments from production the potential exists for alternative land uses such as forestry, renewable energy crops and agri-tourism, which are environmentally and economically sustainable.

There are considerable opportunities for rural inhabitants to generate additional income from rural tourism enterprises and other local natural resources.

Threats Loss of markets due to absence of competitiveness at farm level with

consequent loss of skilled jobs The availability of agricultural land coupled with high land prices

limits the opportunities for young trained farmers to either enter the industry or increase scale. Problem accentuated by competition for agricultural land from non-farming sectors.

Threat to the environment from certain agricultural practices A potential negative public/policy reaction to farming if it harms the

environment

Again the evaluators feel it would be useful to differentiate between threats to agriculture, environment and quality of rural life. Opportunities and threats could also be looked at under each Axis as this would make subsequent evaluation of the responses under each axis more appropriate.

- 401 -

Identification of Target Groups and Needs

Virtually the whole rural population is a target for one or more of the measures in the RDP. While the competitiveness measures are mainly oriented towards farmers who are actually or potentially commercial operators, the environment measures in Axis 3 cover the whole agricultural community, active or not. The Compensatory Amounts are confined to farmers in the LFAs but these amounts to over 100,000 while the forestry schemes and REPS are open to farmers there and in the rest of the country. The non-farming rural community (as well as farmers) are eligible for measures in the third axis, quality of rural life. LEADER organisations cover the whole of rural Ireland and actions such as conservation of heritage conservation, village renewal and improvement basic services are beneficial to all rural dwellers.

Problems not addressed by the implementation of the Programme

It is clear that the programmes (measures) envisaged under the RDP which are prescribed by the Regulation, cannot address all issues relating to rural development. Nevertheless, it would seem that a number of problems not addressed by the programme merit discussion in the document with perhaps indication of how they are being addressed, e.g. in other programmes. Such problems include:

Regional imbalances Social infrastructure (schools, hospitals, etc) Transport services and infrastructure Land use issues such as ribbon development, one off housing, siting of

industrial and commercial developments

Issues of land access in the context of tourism development

OBJECTIVES OF PLAN

Overall policy objectives and expected impacts

Establishing clear objectives that will be addressed under the RDP and within the scope of Council Regulation 1698/2005 is quite challenging in the light of current developments in the Irish economy and the rapidly changing environment for agriculture. Economic growth in the wider economy impacts significantly on the agricultural and rural economy sectors and presents them with opportunities and threats. The RDP 2007—2013 will be implemented in a period of further significant change for Irish agriculture as the full effect of CAP reforms take place, further growth in the broader economy puts pressure on rural areas and the challenge of achieving balance between urban and rural economies becomes greater. The current CAP Rural Development Plan 2000—2006 has sought to address many of the issues involved in the changing landscape of the rural economy and this process will be continued in the new RDP but with increased emphasis on issues such as competitiveness, environment, and rural quality of life. Thus the overall economic and social context of elaborating the RDP 2007—2013 is more complex than that which prevailed in 2000.

While the importance of agriculture in Ireland has declined in relative terms over the past two decades the agri-food sector continues to be one of the most important indigenous elements in the Irish economy. In 2005 the sector accounted for over 8per

- 402 -

cent of GDP, employment and exports, and due to its strong export orientation and low import content it is a very important contributor to net foreign earnings. This importance will continue but in an increasingly competitive environment so that issues such as competitiveness and scale will become even more critical factors. Reconciling this need for competitiveness and scale with broader objectives such as maintaining family farms, improving quality of life in rural areas, maintaining the environment, and other non-economic desiderata presents challenges for policy makers. This difficulty is accentuated by the challenges of a fast growing non- agricultural economy and the impact this has on traditional rural structures and landscapes. While the overall impact of the RDP cannot be expected to radically curtail the impact of broader economic forces, it nevertheless is an important instrument in seeking to define and promote a concept of a rural economy that will remain important in the context of overall national economic, social and environmental objectives and the overall national quality of life.

Stated Government policy confirms the priorities of (i) ensuring the economic and social well-being of rural communities, (ii) providing the conditions for a meaningful and fulfilling life for all people living in rural areas.

The RDP 2007—2013 seeks to support these priorities in a global sense but within the framework of Regulation 1298/2005.

Policy objectives and expected impacts – Axis 1

Axis 1 measures are primarily intended to improve the efficiency of agriculture to enable it to confront the competitiveness issues resulting from domestic change and an open external trading environment as outlined in RDP Section 3.1. The results should be a better trained agricultural workforce, with an improved age structure, better animal health, produce quality, environmental protection and working conditions. The productivity of the forest estate should also be enhanced.

Policy objectives and expected impacts – Axis 2

The objectives of Axis 2 measures are to improve the rural environment, enhance biodiversity and increase appearance and amenity of the landscape. The measures include the most expensive in the RDP such as the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS), Contributory Amounts (CAs) and the afforestation programme. REPS is intended to incentivise farmers to maintain high standards of environment and appearance in their farming operations. On past experience the measure has been successful and the RDP will introduce a scheme with new and improved features. The objectives of REPS will be complemented by the Natura 2000 scheme, which is aimed at farmers in areas of high value natural habitats. The main element of the forestry programme – the support for afforestation - is included in this Axis. The programme will endeavour to maintain planting at a level sufficient to achieve economic and environment targets. Afforestation is complemented by a number of schemes targeting forest projects of particular environment or amenity value. The CA scheme is intended to support continued agricultural activity in Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) thus maintaining the countryside. This scheme has been existence since 1980s but faces particular challenges in the new era of decoupled payments. Finally reference should be made to an animal welfare scheme which has both efficiency and non-commercial objectives and impacts.

3.4 Policy objectives and expected impacts – Axis 3

- 403 -

Axis 3 of the Plan is concerned with ‘the quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy’. Recognising the fact that 40 per cent of the population consider themselves as rural residents and that most are unconnected to farming, Axis 3 measures seek to address problems relevant to all rural dwellers. The challenges in the wider context include the provision of alternative and suitable employment opportunities for people living in rural areas and a range of services that people require if rural communities are to have the same quality of life as urban areas. In the draft RDP actions centred on the wider rural community such as the development of rural enterprises based on local natural resources, tourism, village enhancement and environmental initiatives will be delivered in a manner that addresses these challenges and complements on-farm measures. The measures are consistent with the 1999 White Paper on Rural Development and its commitments relating to the economic and social well-being of rural communities. The measures build on similar type measures implemented under the LEADER programme in previous programmes and have a total allocation of €425 million of which €234 million is provided by the EAFRD. While the measures here are primarily aimed at improving the quality of life in rural areas they also support and complement the objectives of Axis 1 and Axis 2.

The Measures will meet the Axis 3 objective of improving the quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy through:

Increasing economic activity and employment rates in the wider rural economy through encouraging on-farm diversification into non-agricultural activities

Supporting the creation and development of micro-enterprises in the broader rural economy

Encouraging rural tourism built on the sustainable development of Ireland’s natural resources, cultural and natural heritage

Improving access to basic services by rural dwellers by, for example, addressing inadequate recreational facilities

Regenerating villages and their surrounding areas by improving their economic prospects and the quality of life

Maintaining, restoring and upgrading the natural and built heritage.

Coherence of Programme objectives with NDPThe draft NDP was not available at the time of the ex-ante evaluation.

- 404 -

4. Proposed Measures

4.1 Summary of Measures and their relationship to overall objectives

As set out in Ireland’s Rural Development National Strategy 2007—2013, the programme will contribute to each of the three objectives detailed in Article 4 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.

It will provide support through the following Measures:

MeasureCost €m

Cost as per cent Total Programme

EU Element €m

EU Element as per cent Total

Sub-Total Axis 1 665 9.4 248 37.3

Sub-Total Axis 2 5965 84.5 1857 31.1

Sub-Total Axes 3 & 4 425

6.0234

55.1

Overall Total 7055 100.0 2339 33.2

The proposed measures are designed to address the identified problems under each Axis and are largely based on existing measures but with some modification to take account of current priorities and the changing rural environment. The combined measures seek to address the overall objective of ensuring the economic and social well-being of rural communities, providing the conditions for a meaningful and fulfilling life for all people living in rural areas and striving to achieve a rural Ireland in which the rural environment will be respected and development in rural areas will take place in a sustainable manner.

The Regulation prescribes minimum percentages of 5 per cent each for Axis 1 and Axis 3 and 25 per cent for Axis 2. The allocation proposed in the RDP is justified as follows: The baseline analysis indicates the contribution of agriculture and forestry to

the environment. It is important to maximise that contribution and to compensate farmers for the public good aspects of their enterprises. It is hoped to build on the success of current relevant successful measures and to deliver results in the areas of climate change (forestry), water quality (agri-environment) and biodiversity (agri-environment, forestry, compensatory allowances in less favoured areas.)

The European model of agriculture emphasises its multi-functional role and that development must be underpinned by sustainability. Ireland endorses that view and considers that the actions foreseen under Axis 2 must underpin those allowed elsewhere in the Rural Development framework.

The measures under Axis 2 have proven their worth and are already co-funded by the EU. From the financial management and control viewpoint it makes sense to concentrate EU funding on them. There will also be a significant carry over of commitments to Axis 2 from the current round.

- 405 -

The Axis 2 funding is aimed at environmental enhancement, but it is also has an economic dimension that is relevant to the other areas. It is important as a platform for actions in other areas such as diversification, agri-tourism etc.

The ‘environmental’ support for farmers will be concentrated under this strategy whereas the other priorities will benefit from policies adopted outside of the specific EU rural development remit that will make an important contribution to the economic and social well-being of rural areas.

The evaluators accept the logic of allocating the predominant amount of funding to environmental measures given the centrality of farmers and farming to the maintenance of the rural environment and the success of environmental measures such as REPS under previous rural development programmes

4.2 Lessons Learned and taken into account in designing the draft programme

In 2000-2006, Ireland benefited from both EAGGF Guarantee and EAGGF Guidance. The guarantee element co-funded the four accompanying measures in Ireland’s CAP Rural Development Plan – agri-environment, compensatory allowances (less favoured areas), early retirement and afforestation. These measures – and particularly those co-funded by the EAGGF – have had a significant impact on agriculture and the wider rural economy. The following are considered as the main achievements: Increased emphasis on the environmental aspect of agriculture with

participation in the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme reaching 50,000. A substantial contribution to the continuation of sustainable farming in

disadvantaged agricultural areas. In 2000—2006, 108,000 farmers were supported under the Compensatory Allowances’ Scheme.

The national forestry estate expanded from 634,000ha in 1999 to 709,000ha at the end of 2005. The target of all new plantings to be 30per cent broadleaf by 2006 has been achieved.

The provision of some €160m towards capital investment at farm level. Under the LEADER programme, 3,100 new jobs have been created and 3,900

existing jobs sustained. LEADER companies have assisted 8,000 enterprises and trained over 30,000 people.

The CAP Rural Development Plan and the Regional Programmes were subject to mid-term evaluation in 2003. While the evaluators were largely positive regarding progress and impact, some areas of concern were noted. These concerns related to lower than anticipated uptake of REPS and Early Retirement and the long-term impact of the Forestry measure. As a result of this evaluation, changes were made to REPS and participation levels have increased to around the 50,000-farmer level. A review of the strategy for the forestry sector took place in 2004 and some of the recommendations have been adopted in the draft RDP. With regard to Early Retirement a major analysis of the measure was carried out as part of a public expenditure review and lessons learned from this review have been taken into account in devising the proposed measure in the current plan.

With regard to Axis 3 the main lessons are drawn from previous LEADER programmes. A mid-term review and update were carried out in 2003 and 2004. The reviews found that the implementation of a themed approach to territorial

- 406 -

development and subsequent project selection methodology was consistent and resulted in good physical progress across measures. In respect of LEADER the LEADER approach is now seen as a model for more community based rural development and there is a vast reservoir of competence and knowledge built up as a result of the previous programme. This experience will be essential in delivering Axis 3. Lessons learned from other initiatives such as the CLÁR Programme and the Rural Social Scheme have also informed the programming process for Axis 3 measures.

4.3 Measures Axis 1 – Competitiveness

4.3.1 IntroductionUnder Axis 1 the focus in terms of addressing competitive issues is a continuation of the Early Retirement Scheme (ERS) supported by the Young Farmer Installation measure and 72per cent of the allocation under Axis 1 is allocated to these two measures. In terms of funding the next most important measure is the Farm Improvement measure (23 per cent) aimed at encouraging investment in key sectors that will promote efficiency. The balance of expenditure under Axis (5 per cent) is allocated to various measures aimed at improving the forestry sector.

Measures proposed under Axis 1 are:

Axis 1 Proposed cost €m EU Element €m

Early Retirement 418

Installation Aid 63

Farm Improvement 150

Forestry and Woodland 34

Agricultural Training

Total 665 248

4.3.2 Early Retirement Scheme and Installation Aid Measures4.3.2.1 Identification of the Problem

Current Situation

The age profile of farmers in Ireland has been identified as a factor that negatively affects competitiveness of Irish agriculture. This problem has been identified in various analytical studies of structural problems of Irish Agriculture. The Agri-Food 2010 committee, in its Report identified the following weaknesses in Irish Agriculture:

Lack of commercial viability because of small size Low level of productivity due to poor age structure and low education level Lack of land mobility.

- 407 -

The problem is seen as twofold – a disproportionate number of elderly farmers farming relatively small and often fragmented holdings and a lack of young farmers with modern skills entering farming. While the age structure of Irish farmers improved somewhat over the 1993—2003 period (13 per cent of Irish farmers are under 35 years compared to an EU average of 11 per cent, and 20 per cent of Irish farmers are over 65 years compared to 28 per cent for the EU as a whole) further land consolidation and increased skills are necessary to compete in key sectors such as dairying, especially in the current post-CAP reform environment

The Early Retirement measure has operated since 1994 with the following:

Period No of Transferors No of Transferees Hectares Transferred

1994—1999 10,300 11,000 283,000

2000—2006 2,890 3,280 91,570

Total 13,190 14,280 374,570

In the Annual Report of the CAP RDP presented to the EC it was reported that there were 2,875 applications under the Early Retirement (ERS2) 2000 Scheme. Of these 2,665 were approved — 499 in 2001, 807 in 2002, 665 in 2003, 368 in 2004 and 326 in 2005. Expenditure on the Scheme in 2005 was €29.03 million. In addition some 3,400 beneficiaries were still receiving pension payments under the 1994-1999 Scheme at a cost in 2005 of €32.79 million.

The level of applications under the current (ERS2) Scheme is down on expectations. Applications dropped significantly in 2003 to 540 (from about 830 in each of the two previous years) and continued to decline in 2004 and 2005 with just 324 and 310 applications received respectively. It is evident that many potential applicants postponed making decisions about their future until they had activated their Single Payment entitlement. For some, staying in farming (particularly given the break with production with the Single Farm Payment) and retaining the Single Farm Payment proved more attractive than transferring the land to receive an early retirement pension.

Problems to be addressed

The problem of poor age structure, coupled with low levels of appropriate education, has been identified as a structural problem for Irish agricultural development and remains valid. With the decoupling of farm supports from production it is expected that there will be increasing competitive pressures to produce more efficiently for those involved in intensive farming. Current farm sizes combined with age structure and education levels are unlikely to be adequate to meet the demands and accelerated reform is required. This requires having more land available so that overall farm size increases and younger and more relevantly educated farmers take up farming. This problem has been identified previously and some progress was achieved in the period 1994—2004. A slow down in the uptake of Early Retirement has occurred in the past 2 years as farmers considered the relative advantages of opting for early retirement or staying in farming and retaining the Single Farm Payment.

- 408 -

For young farmers or farmers wishing to expand land availability either by way of sale or lease is an increasing problem and may be accentuated at least in the short term by the Single Farm Payment and high process for development lands (including sites for houses). This is a major barrier to the evolvement of agriculture holdings into larger and more viable units.

Identification of Target Groups

Two groups are targeted under the measures:

(a) Existing Farmers who have reached 56 and wish to retire

The measure is designed for farmers who wish to retire and transfer their land. Eligibility as a transferor is confined to farmers between the ages of 56 and 66 on the date of admission to the scheme, pension and have (i) practised farming for at least ten years immediately before retirement, (ii) be farming an area of not less than 5 hectares of UAA, except in the case of intensive enterprises (e.g. pigs or poultry) and (iii) undertake to cease all commercial farming.

(b) Young Farmers

To be eligible as a transferee under the ERS eligible an applicant must have submitted a second stage application (IAS2) for the Installation Aid Scheme and fulfil the conditions of that Scheme which include (i) be less than 35 years of age, (ii) succeed the transferor(s)/owner(s) as head of an agricultural holding which must be at least 20 hectares of UAA (Utilisable Agricultural Area) (non less favoured area) or, at least 15 hectares (less favoured area) of UAA. If an applicant is not eligible for IAS then among other criteria he/she must be under 45 and meet certain educational requirements.

The IAS is aimed at young farmers with potential to farm commercially with a view to encouraging them to set up in farming. The measure is aimed at young farmers between the age of 18 and 35 setting-up in farming for the first time on or after 1 January 2007 and not later than 31 December 2013 and subject to compliance with off-farm income ceiling. The applicant must be set up on at least 20ha (non less favoured area) or 15ha (less favoured area) for a minimum period of ten years and be an applicant for a herd number or other Department identifier. The provisions in relation to minimum land areas shall not apply, however, in the case of intensive enterprises (e.g. pigs or poultry). The target group for the measure is consistent with the overall objective of Axis 1 and also complements the ERS.

The requirements of both measures are complementary and the requirements of ERS by definition promote the IAS. The important target group is the young farmers as it is through these that the benefits of the measure will be realised.

4.3.2.2 Objectives of the Measures

Overall Objective

- 409 -

The overall objectives of the 2 measures are to promote and accelerate necessary structural change. The strategy for the development of a competitive agricultural structure in the coming years provides for the introduction of policies, that will target structural change with a view to improving productivity and competitiveness. The priority measures to be implemented, in line with the policy areas agreed under Council Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005 on Support for Rural Development (Axis 1) are the Installation Aid Scheme for Young Farmers and the Scheme of Early Retirement from Farming. Both schemes are linked to target the transfer of land to younger farmers who commit to the development of their holdings. The Early Retirement Scheme will also release land to established farmers who wish to enlarge their holdings.

The overall objective is in line with Articles 13, 16 and 17 of Council Regulation 1698/2005 that outline measures that will enhance competitiveness and promote structural change.

Specific Objective

(a) Early Retirement Measure

The objectives of the Early Retirement Scheme are to complement the Scheme of Installation Aid for Young Farmers by encouraging the transfer of holdings from older farmers to young farmers setting up in farming under that Scheme and to reassign land from retiring farmers to established farmers who wish to enlarge their holdings. This objective emphasises the linkage between the ERS and the IAS and the priority of enlarging holdings and encouraging younger and better trained farmers to enter farming. The objective of providing an income for older farmers that was one of the objectives of ERS2 is no longer a stated objective and thus the measure is focused solely on Axis 1 priorities.

(b) IAS

The continued rejuvenation of the Irish farming sector is one of the priorities of Irish agricultural policy. This Scheme will assist those interested in pursuing farming as a career by offsetting the set-up costs associated with such set-up and also provide a mechanism for encouraging investment on such farms. The objectives of the Scheme are (i) to achieve the transfer of land to young trained farmers better able to meet the new challenges facing Irish agriculture, (ii) to off-set the set-up costs faced by young people when establishing themselves in farming and (iii) to provide assistance for the investments required on such holdings.

Coherence with RDP

The two measures taken together are totally coherent with the overall objectives of the RDP, which emphasises the need to enhance efficiency and competitiveness so that agriculture and the food industry remain competitive in the face of increased competition. The measures are justified by the analysis underpinning the RDP and respond to real problems of competitiveness identified in a range of studies and reports.

Baseline and Impact Indicators

The indicators proposed in the NDP for ERS are as follows:

- 410 -

Quantified targets for EU common indicatorsType of indicator Indicator Target

Output

Number of farmers early retired

700 p.a. (2007–2013);

4,900 in total

Number of farm workers early retired

1 p.a. (2007–2013);

7 in total

Number of hectares released

32,000 ha. p.a.(2007-2013);224,000 in total

ResultIncrease in agricultural gross value added in sup-ported farms

Impact

Net additional value expressed in PPS

Change in gross value added per annual work unit

The output indicators are appropriate though it would be useful to show the baseline situation as at 2006. With regard to impact indicators the situation is more problematic and even with a successful ERS the impact in terms of additional value may take some time to materialise. The proposed indicators of (i) net additional value expressed in PPS and (ii) change in gross value added per annual work unit needs to be reassessed in terms of how this can be calculated and if accurate data that will isolate the additional benefits of the consequences of ERS can be produced. It may be that some on-going studies (perhaps in conjunction with research institutions) may produce more valuable information.

In respect of IAS the following indicators are proposed:

Quantified targets for EU common indicators

Type of indicator Indicator Target

Output Number of assisted young farmers 4,200

ResultIncrease in agricultural gross value added in supported farms €8.5m per annum

Impact

Net additional value added expressed in PPS €1.5 million per annum

Change in gross value added per annual work unit €1,020 per annual mwu

Information on hectares farmed and farming activities would also be useful. Again in conjunction with ERS, some on-going surveys may produce more valuable information for assessing impact.

- 411 -

4.3.2.3 Proposed Measures

Actions Proposed

The measures are broadly in line with similar measures included in the RDP (2000—2006) and can be summarised as follows:

In the case of ERS the measure consists of the payment of a pension at a flat rate of €6,888 per annum plus €338 per ha. Payment will calculated on a maximum of 24 hectares, giving a maximum pension per annum of €15,000 per annum. (While the maximum pension in the current Scheme was set at €13,515, this was increased to €15,000 in November 2006. Consequently the rate in the new Scheme represents no change.) Eligibility requires participants to be between the ages of 56 (increased from 55 in current measure) and 66 on the date of admission to the scheme and have practised farming for at least ten years immediately before retirement. The measure requires that eligible transferees must be under 35 if availing of the IAS and other potential transferees must be under 45.

For the IAS the scheme will encompass a single payment of €15,000 (paid on completion of education, property and income requirements) to eligible applicants. A business plan will be required from each applicant. Participants will be required to continue farming for five years from the date of set-up and to farm the land transferred or its equivalent during that period. The measure is designed to meet the setting up costs of new entrants to farming, though there is no requirement to provide evidence of actual costs.

Lessons Learned from Earlier Measure

Early Retirement Schemes have been implemented in Ireland since 1965 but with little success until the introduction of the State/EU co-funded ERS in 1994. As indicated in Table 1 a total of 10,300 transferors transferred 283,000 hectares to 11,000 transferees. For the following scheme (ERS2) targets of 8,300 transferors and 8,200 transferees were set in the CAP RDP 2000—2006. It is now estimated that by the end of 2006, there were 2,890 transferors, a shortfall on the original target. While this may be viewed as disappointing and calls into question the merits of the ERS it must be pointed out that the changes that have taken place over the past 4 years in Irish agriculture were not foreseen when the targets in the 2000—2006 RDP were established. Uncertainty over entitlements under the Single Farm Payment and the effect of retirement from farming on one’s entitlements has a major negative impact on the uptake of the measure.

In respect of incentives for encouraging young farmers to enter farming an Installation Aid measure has been included in the two Regional Operational Programmes for the period 2000—2006. The Mid-Term evaluations of the measures showed that in the BMW region there was little evidence of linkage between the ERS and the IA measure, but in the SE region there were indications that the availability of the IAS did complement the ERS. This regional disparity is not surprising as the ERS is more attractive in areas more suitable to intensive farming. In terms of promoting education the scheme has a strong role in ensuring the installation of well-educated young farmers and the relatively high percentage of beneficiaries with a certificate in farming is a very positive aspect of this scheme. A significant percentage of installed farmers are under 25 years of age. While overall numbers are small, this is an important indication of the role of the measure in assisting the installation of young,

- 412 -

educated farmers.

4.3.2.4 Expected Impacts

The combined impact of the two measures is expected to accelerate structural reform in agriculture, improve the competitiveness of the agriculture and food sectors and promote innovation and enterprise. Specifically 4200 trained young farmers will take up farming in viable holdings. At the same time 224,000 hectares of land will become available to be farmed by younger and better trained farmers in larger holdings. The impact of this structural reform is expected to impact positively on farm incomes, productivity, and innovation.

Results from previous programmes cast some doubt as to whether the expected impact can be achieved especially in relation to increasing the size of farm holdings. The expected impact in terms of upskilling of farmers can reasonably be expected to materialise through both measures. In fact given the CAP reforms and the introduction of the SFP it can be expected that many farmers will now for the first time take a much more analytical look at their farming operation and make decisions as to what type of farming activity they should continue in or indeed if they should continue at all. The period 2007—2013 should be a period of significant change in the structure of agriculture in Ireland as farmers prepare for the period post-2013. In this context it can be expected that the ERS will be more relevant and the IAS of even greater value as the need for younger and more innovative farmers becomes more pressing.

4.3.2.5 Added Value of Community Involvement in the Measure

Relevance to Community Objectives

The objectives of both measures are consistent with EU objectives in the field of rural development and in particular the objectives under Axis 1 of Council Regulation 1698/2005. Overall community objectives of having a more efficient and competitive food industry are addressed via the measure.

4.3.2.6 Cost-Effectiveness of Measure

The draft programme is based on an assumption that approximately 500 farmers per annum over a 7-year period will apply to join the ERS and they will be eligible for an annual pension. In respect of IAS it is estimated that 4,200 applicants will benefit under the scheme over the 7-year period, each qualifying for the maximum grant. In line with this expected level of uptake an allocation of €63 million has been made. As the IAS grant is paid to all eligible applicants a certain level of deadweight is inherent but unavoidable.

The question of whether the results and impact of the combined measures could be achieved more cost-effectively is a valid question and brings in the question of deadweight. This has been discussed in various studies of the measure including two expenditure reviews. There is no doubt that some farmers who will avail of the ERS would have retired anyway and likewise young farmers will enter farming whether or not the IAS exists. In the case of IAS it is also unlikely that the availability of a grant under IAS will be a significant factor for any young person in deciding whether of not to enter farming. Issues such as the relative attractiveness of other occupations, perspectives on the future of farming and lifestyle issues are likely to be of far greater

- 413 -

significance. There is also the question that the impact of a farmer retiring early in a disadvantaged area will have little impact on competitiveness. The expenditure review of the measure carried out in 2004 concluded ‘that the concentration of ERS in the more commercial farming areas of the South and East suggests a large element of deadweight in the Scheme, given the greater likelihood of earlier succession where the farming operation is already viable. The incentive provided by the Early Retirement pension, in these circumstances, may just be an added bonus rather than a catalyst for retirement.’ A review of the IAS suggests something similar though in the case of IAS it main impact is in ensuring that farmers take up farming with appropriate educational and skill levels. This is seen as increasingly important in terms of competitiveness.

The level of pension is considered adequate to ensure the measure remains attractive.

4.3.2.7 Monitoring and Evaluation

In terms of monitoring and management of both measures existing procedures will be continued. For IAS an initial application, including business plan, shall be required to be submitted within six months of the date of set-up. A penalty of 10per cent per month, or part thereof, will apply to applications received more than six months after set-up. Entitlement to aid will be lost where application is not received within sixteen months of date of set-up. Review shall be carried out by the applicant’s agricultural adviser/ Department official in fifth year following date of set-up. Grant will be recouped if applicant is not farming land transferred or its equivalent at time of review.

In respect of evaluation of measures some indicators are included in the draft RDP that would facilitate evaluation of the impact of the 2 measures and the extent to which it meets overall objectives. Targets have been set in respect of numbers availing of the measures and the overall land transaction level that might arise.

4.3.2.8 Conclusions

Both measures have considerable merit and can assist in the development of a more competitive agricultural and food sector. The relatively low level of uptake of the ERS during the current programme, while understandable, does mean that assessment of the impact of ERS since introduction is difficult. The attractiveness of ERS in the future is also still uncertain in the new era of SFP. Regional disparities in the uptake of ERS suggest that the measure is more attractive in the areas where intensive farming with larger viable farms is more likely. As is pointed out in the expenditure review of the ERS this suggests that the ERS’s relevance now appears to be more centred on commercial farming areas of the South and East and that the objectives of the measure are only being met in certain areas. It is also likely that natural succession and transfer of land would occur in these areas and that a degree of deadweight is inherent in the measure. The argument that current structures in terms of farmer age and farm size will lead logically to the evolvement of agriculture holdings into larger units has a high degree of validity. While accepting this, others argue that the ERS will accelerate the handover or transfer of farms to a younger generation earlier than might occur in its absence and thus the amount of deadweight may not be as great as may be feared.

In disadvantaged areas or areas where extensive agriculture is only possible the

- 414 -

rationale for the ERS is weak and indeed some of the environmental objectives may well be more effectively realised by having older farmers remaining involved in agriculture.

With regard to the IAS this measure is considered a pro-active measure to attract young farmers to agriculture and to ensure they are properly trained and approach farming in a business-like manner. It is a useful incentive at a time when job opportunities outside of farming are attractive and there is an increasing reluctance on the part of young people to take up farming as a career. The emphasis on training as part of the measure is one of its strong points. Again the measure is likely to be more attractive to farmers in the more commercial areas who can envisage farming a viable unit that will provide them with an income comparable with what can be earned in other sectors. For potential young farmers in more disadvantaged areas the problem of viability will not be overcome by the assistance under IAS.

4.3.3 Farm Improvement Measures4.3.3.1 Identification of the Problem

Analysis of the Present Situation

As noted in earlier sections, agriculture remains one of the most indigenous Irish industries comprising about 50,000 full-time farms and another 85,000 part-time enterprises. It has a strong expert orientation and a small import dependency and thus contributes significantly to GDP. A large processing sector is supported and agri-food exports amount to about €7.5 billion. Although non-agricultural employment in rural areas has increased, agriculture remains one of the most important forms of employment in these areas, together with the downstream and upstream processing and supply industries that depend on it.

Problems to be Addressed

The reforms of the CAP have changed the context on which agriculture is operating by reducing direct production incentives and market supports and opening up the sector to international competition. While a certain minimum income is guaranteed for the time being in the form of the SFP, to maximise opportunities farmers have to be competitive in the production of hygienic, high-quality products attractive to demanding consumers while at the same time respecting tight environmental and animal welfare conditions. To the extent that competitiveness is not maintained the value of agricultural output will decline and with it incomes and employment in both agriculture and agri-processing.

Identification of Target Group

The target group for these measures are commercial farmers, mainly full-time and actively engaged in the management and development of their farm as financially viable enterprises. It is likely that their holdings will be above average in size, heavily capitalised and engaged in intensive forms of agriculture. The measures target specialist sectors such as horticulture and the organic sector as well as energy crops including the planting of miscanthus and associated costs.

- 415 -

4.3.3.2 Objectives of the Measures

Overall Objective

The overall objective of these measures is to improve the efficiency of the target group, to encourage some diversification into commercially promising sectors and at the same time provide assistance to help ensure that environmental, food safety and animal welfare standards are observed.

Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the schemes are to improve investment buildings and equipment related to environmental, food safety and animal welfare. The measure will have four strands or sub-measures with the following objectives:

General farm improvement has the objective of ensuring that the general agriculture sector becomes more competitive and market oriented and places greater emphasis on quality. It promotes diversification of activities. It also promotes higher safety and animal welfare standards as well as higher environmental standards.

Modernisation of horticultural holdings has the objective of promoting diversification of on-farm activities, improving the quality of the products, facilitating environmentally friendly practices and improving working conditions.

Investment aid for the development of the potato sector aims to speed up improvements in the marketing infrastructure and to improve efficiency and productivity of the potato sector.

Investment aid for the development of the organic sector is intended to assist in the development of the Organic sector. The scheme aims to ensure a regular supply of high-quality organic produce to the market.

Coherence with Draft RDP

The measures will help the viability of the commercial sector of agriculture, thus supporting employment in rural areas, directly and indirectly, and supporting the agri-food processing sector. The measures will therefore support the income and employment objectives of the RDP while at the same time helping intensive operations to comply with environmental and health standards. The measure is consistent with Axis 3 objectives of greater diversification and development of alternative enterprises and supports the environmental objectives of Axis 2.

Baseline and Impact Indicators

The Draft RDP proposes a number of indicators of outputs, results and impacts. As in other sectors it is sometimes difficult to conceive of indicators of output, results and impact. In the case of animal welfare, for example, there appear to be no impacts. Most indicators of impact of these Measures will need to be gathered periodically from beneficiaries’ accounting systems. Indicators of environmental impact may be difficult to link to the Farm Improvement projects given that they will be applied to individual holdings scattered throughout the country. The consultants recommend a coordinated approach to the identification and implementation of measures. (See Chapter 6 below)

- 416 -

4.3.3.3 Actions Proposed in the Measure and Sub Measures

The actions proposed are grant assistance towards the cost of plant and equipment, which improves environmental protection, animal welfare, produce quality and working conditions. Grants are up to 40 per cent of the investment and applicants have to show that the operation is likely to be viable and that it does or will conform to high environmental standards.

Farm Improvement Scheme

Measure Actions Proposed Scale of Actions

(Holdings)

General Farm Improvement Investment in facilities designed to improve an-imal health and welfare, protect the environment and encourage diversifica-tion

10,000

Modernisation of Horticultural Holdings Investment in facilities which improve product quality and working conditions and protects the environment

1,400

Investment in the Potato Sector Investment in facilities which improve product quality and working conditions and protects the environment

350

Investment in Organic Farming Investment in facilities for processing organic products

4.3.3.4 Expected Impacts from Measures

The sub-measures are all targeted at specific requirements and opportunities for Irish agriculture. On the one hand there is the need to attain high standards in relation to the environment and food safety. At the same time there is a need to increase productivity and to diversify agriculture into new product areas, still relatively small in Ireland, like horticulture and organic farming. Quality standards also need to be improved and the schemes proposed are intended to cover plant and equipment that improve handling and storage of produce. Investments in expansion per se are not grant aided but it is expected that some expansion investment will take place in tandem with the aided projects. The new regime of SFP is likely to prompt many farmers to assess their future in agriculture and to try and identify possible long-term viable enterprises that their farms can sustain. The measures proposed will assist this structural change and help develop farms that will be viable in any post-SFP scenario.

- 417 -

4.3.3.5 Added Value of Community Involvement in the Measure

Administration and Subsidiarity

The schemes are administered on a national basis by the DAF. Inspections will be carried out by personnel from local offices of the Department.

Relevance to Community Objectives

These objectives are consistent with the EU economic objectives in the field of rural development. The measures should help support the rural economy while upgrading environmental and other standards.

Complementarity to Other Interventions

These measures, aimed at assisting investment in plant and equipment, are complemented by other elements of the RDP including the training and the ERS and Young Farmer Installation schemes, which are also aimed at raising productivity and competitiveness. The advisory and research services provided by the Department through Teagasc, which are not in the RDP, are also an important complementary service.

4.3.3.6 Cost-Effectiveness of Measure

Financial and Human Resource Costs

The budget for the Measure is €150 million.

Cost-Effectiveness

The measures could stimulate significant investment from the private sector. The inspection system should ensure that the projects are completed to a high standard and will achieve their immediate objectives. Therefore the schemes should be cost-effective in nominal terms.

Whether the schemes are all cost-effective in economic terms depends on a variety of factors including the viability of the enterprises, which is more at risk now than before. Co-financing by the private farm owner is some assurance against that. However, another problem is deadweight: the possibility that the farmer might have undertaken the schemes in any case. The horticultural and potato schemes seem particular exposed to this risk. These schemes of modernisation have been in existence for some time and some of the operators involved are large-scale diversified enterprises. The consultants consider that schemes should be administered in such a way as to ensure that grants are availed of by enterprises who genuinely need assistance—perhaps through application of means tests.

On the other hand the consultants feel that support for general farms and organic farming could be more extensive, having regard to the pressures the commercial farming sector is likely to be under in the future and likely restructuring for a post-SFP era.

- 418 -

4.3.3.7 Monitoring and Evaluation

Applications for assistance have to be approved by Departmental Inspectors and all projects are vetted after completion before grants are paid. As noted above, some extra steps may have to be taken to measure the proposed indicators for environmental and commercial impacts.

4.3.3.8 Conclusions

In general the scheme and its actions are aimed at attaining important objectives of RDP as defined by national and EU authorities. They are targeted at particular areas of need and should improve performance of enterprises with respect of the environment, food safety, animal welfare and working conditions. They should complement investment by the operators in expansion and productive efficiency. The schemes should also stimulate interest in sectors that are not well developed, especially organic and energy crops.

The allocation of €150 million under the measure is quite modest and may not be adequate to meet demand. Restructuring at farm level consequent on the CAP reforms, the broad range of activities covered by the measures and some of the innovative features (organic, energy crops, etc) is likely to stimulate investment in on-farm improvement at a level above what is envisaged by the financial allocation for this measure.

The actions of the scheme are coherent and complemented by other measures in Axis 1 and by other non-aided actions by the Department. The actions should be effective in producing the desired improvement in facilities, but care should be taken to minimise the danger of deadweight.

4.3.4 Afforestation Axis 1 Measures4.3.4.1 Identification of the Problem

Analysis of the Present Situation

Forestry Measures in the RDP have been divided into Axis 1 and Axis 2 measures, broadly reflecting the duality of their economic and non-economic objectives. The most important scheme in the draft RDP is the First Afforestation of Agricultural Land and this, and five measures with strong environmental actions, are dealt with in Axis 2. As these Measures account for by far the largest part of the combined budget for forestry most of the discussion about objectives and background material relating to the sector as a whole is dealt with in Axis 2. A restricted discussion is given here for convenience.

The main policy document in the area of forestry is Growing for the Future: Strategic Plan for the Development of the Forestry Sector. The Strategy defined the objective as ‘To develop forestry to scale and in a manner which maximises its contribution to national economic and social well-being on a sustainable basis and which is compatible with the protection of the environment’. The main orientation of the policy was towards economic objectives and the main instrument was and remains grants towards the cost of establishing plantations and annual premiums thereafter for 20 years.

- 419 -

Problems to be Addressed

It has become increasingly clear that the development of the forestry sector needs more than incentives to afforest land. Forestry is a relatively new industry in Ireland, given that only a small proportion of Irish land has traditionally been afforested. Consequently knowledge of all aspects of the industry from plantation, through maintenance to felling and processing is not very widespread. Absent also are significant cash flows from felling mature forests to support maintenance and forest development. As a consequence there is concern that maintenance of the forests has tended to be sub-standard.

Identification of Target Group

The intended beneficiaries of the proposed measures are farmers who are entering the industry for the first time and who lack knowledge and experience. It is also intended to provide assistance to farmers who are undertaking thinning operations, which are essential for the development of a productive stand of timber, but are usually not remunerative in the early stages of a plantation. At the output end of the chain, the measures include two schemes to promote innovative use of forest products by forest owners.

4.3.4.2 Objectives of the Measures

Overall Objective

The overall objective of the measures is to enhance the economic potential of the forest sector through improved education and training, maintenance and productive use of timber products.

Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the schemes are to provide:

Training, information and advice for new forest owners to enable them to manage their holdings productively

Support for maintenance and development of estates to facilitate productive development and economic exploitation

Promote innovative uses of timber.

Coherence with Draft RDP

The Forestry measures in Axis 1 will help support the economic aspect of the development of forests and thus contribute to the objective in the draft RDP of promoting alternative employment and income in rural areas.

Baseline and Impact Indicators

The Draft RDP proposes a number of indicators of outputs and results but does not feel that it is possible to quantify impact in terms of economic values such as output per worker or additional income. The consultants suggest that indicators for forestry should be developed within the context of the general recommendation at the end of this report (Chapter 6) concerning indicators for monitoring the RDP and its individual measures.

- 420 -

4.3.4.3 Actions Proposed in the Measure and Sub-Measures

Actions Proposed

The actions proposed are summarised in the table below. Assistance will be given by the Forest Service directly to applicants and also, where appropriate to, agencies and associations such as Teagasc and farmers organisations.

Axis 1 Forestry Measures

Code Measure Action Scale of Measures

111 Vocational Training and Information Actions

Organising and implementing training and information events for forest owners

5,000 owners

121 Use of Advisory Services Advice and consultancy for actual and putative forest owners

9,000 farmers

122 Thinning, Shaping, Pruning and Tending Scheme

Assistance for thinning operations on maturing forests

2,000 forests

123 Adding Value to Forestry Products Assistance to micro-enterprises to develop innovative uses of timber products

24 projects

124 Cooperation for Development New Products, etc

Assistance for projects aimed at improving vertical cooperation in the forest chain

24 projects

125 Forest Infrastructure Assistance for roads and related forest infrastructure

Assistance for infrastructure for recreational use

198 projects

Lessons Learned from Earlier Measure

The measures proposed continue many of the forestry support activities covered in the Woodland Improvement and Forest Roads sub-measures in the Regional Operational Programmes 2000—2006, as also the training, information and consultancy activities funded by the Forest Service directly. There has been some widening of the scope in the draft RDP 2007—2013 to facilitate innovative and recreational projects. The measures respond to concerns in, inter alia, Bacon and Deloitte (2004) that maintenance of the forest estate needs to be improved.

- 421 -

Needs and Objectives of Measures/Operations

As already noted, the forestry sector in Ireland is still immature in terms of knowledge and experience of those involved and also there is inadequate cash flow to support activities (e.g. thinnings) which are easily funded from timber sales in countries with more mature resources. The training, thinning and forest road measures proposed in the Draft RDP will make a substantial difference to the productivity of forests which in the absence of other forest revenues would be most unlikely to be funded by private owners.

Coherence between Measures and Operations

The six measures are complementary to each other and to the Axis 2 Measures. The training and the advice measures are closely related as also are the thinning and road measures since roads are needed for (inter alia) thinning operations.

4.3.4.4 Expected Impacts from Measures

The impacts should be a greater level of expertise in the management of the forests by their owners and therefore an enhanced capacity to identify opportunities, to manage predation and disease, to identify the need for thinning and other maintenance operations. This will help correct a tendency to complacency among many forest owners who assume that forests, once established, can take care of themselves. Appropriate thinning and shaping makes an important contribution to the productivity of forests and the value of the final timber. Early thinnings are usually not remunerative so assistance is essential if they are to be carried out. Infrastructure will help provide forest roads, which will facilitate entry of machinery for thinning and for felling.

4.3.4.5 Added Value of Community Involvement in the Measure

As in the case of the Axis 2 measures, the relative absence of revenue from existing forestry operations means that these measures impose a heavy financial burden on the national finances, which is alleviated by the EU contribution.

Administration and Subsidiarity

The schemes are administered on a national basis by the Forestry Service of the Department of Agriculture. Previously the predecessors of these measures were devolved to the Regional Assemblies, but in practice this was nominal as there appears to be little to be gained from administration of national schemes on a decentralised basis. However, actual implementation will be carried out by a number of different agencies including Teagasc, the IFA and other representative organisations, which are dispersed throughout the country as also the Forest Service.

Relevance to Community Objectives

These objectives are consistent, particularly with the EU economic objectives in the field of rural development. The measures should help to support a viable forest industry with downstream potential for felling, transportation and processing.

- 422 -

Complementarity to Other Interventions

Although intended as contributions to the competitive aspects of forestry, the Axis 1 Forestry Measures include actions that are strongly complementary to the Axis 2 Measures. These include training and advice, which address an important need in a country with little forestry tradition amongst landowners. Two other schemes support thinning operations which are not otherwise economical, and neglect of which would endanger the quality of the national forest, and investment in infrastructure, especially roads for harvesting and access for amenity purposes. However, an important concern is that the scale of afforestation will not be sufficient to make the processing industry commercially competitive. In that event measures aimed at efficiency would have little point. The draft RDP needs to show that intended rates of establishment now being recorded are capable of supporting a competitive industry in the long run. Other Operational Programmes will provide assistance for research and development in forestry through funding for COFORD. The development of the processing sector will also be eligible for assistance with training and product development.

4.3.4.6 Cost-Effectiveness of Measure

Financial and Human Resource Costs

Financial implications are shown in the attached table.

Axis 1 Forestry Measures

Code Measure Total Expenditure

2007—2013

€m

111 Vocational Training and Information Actions

1.7

121 Use of Advisory Services 2.7

122 Thinning, Shaping, Pruning and Tending Scheme

18.0

123 Adding Value to Forestry Products 1.2

124 Cooperation for Development New Products, etc

1.2

125 Forest Infrastructure 9.1

33.9

Cost-Effectiveness

Given the problems in identifying impacts it is inevitably difficult to assess the cost-effectiveness of the measures. The consultants’ judgement is that the returns from training, advice, thinning and infrastructure are likely to be high because, though small, the measures are essential for realising the large potential of the national forest.

- 423 -

The innovation measures could also prove useful but the scale of the proposed measures is so small as to raise doubts about their impact.

Scope for Attaining Objectives at Less Cost

The only theoretical possibility for reducing costs would be to increase the private sector contribution. But this is difficult to envisage in a context in which it is already difficult to ensure that forest owners maintain their estates properly. In any case, the budgets for these schemes are minimal, having regard to the work that needs to be done.

4.3.4.7 Monitoring and Evaluation

Applications for assistance have to be approved by Forest Inspectors and all projects are vetted after completion before grants are paid.

4.3.4.8 Conclusions

The measures proposed are directed at encouraging actions that are important for realising the potential of forests. They are fully in line with the overall objectives of the draft RDP and are complementary to the forestry measures in Axis 2. The draft should provide more argument for the two innovation measures, which seem too small to be effective.

4.4 Measures Axis 2 4.4.1 IntroductionUnder this Axis, Measures are designed to protect and enhance natural resources and landscapes in rural areas. In so doing they will contribute to the EU priority areas of:

Biodiversity and the preservation and development of high nature value farming and forestry systems and traditional agricultural landscapes;

Water and Climate change.

The Measures will contribute to the implementation of the agricultural and forestry Natura 2000 network, to the Gotebörg commitment to reverse biodiversity decline by 2010, to the objectives laid down in Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy and to the Kyoto Protocol targets for climate change mitigation.

The Measures chosen are designed to meet the Axis 2 objective through: Ensuring continued agricultural land use, thereby contributing to the

maintenance of a viable rural society Promoting environmental services and animal-friendly farming practices Preserving the farmed landscape Encouraging the development of new and existing forests and woodlands.

- 424 -

The following table shows the Measures Proposed under Axis 2 and allocations:

Measure Total Cost

€m

EU element

€m

Less Favoured Areas – Compensatory Allowances 1,799 671

Agri-Environment/Natura 2000 2,982 1,200

Animal Welfare/Breeding 250 -

First Afforestation of Agricultural Land 898

First Establishment of Agro-forestry systems

First Afforestation of non-agricultural land 36 -

Forest environment payments

Reconstitution and protection of woodlands

Non-productive investments – forestry

Sub-Total Axis 2 5,965 1,871

4.4.2 Less Favoured Areas – Compensatory Amounts4.4.2.1 Identification of the Problem

Analysis of the Present Situation

The original Treaty of Rome recognised that agriculture in less advantaged areas of the Community faced particular difficulties by reason of poor soil or climatic conditions and that in the interests of equity special assistance could be accorded in those areas. The Disadvantaged Areas scheme was subsequently introduced under Directive 75/268 and was subject to a number of amendments up to and including the latest, which is Regulation 1698/2005. As currently defined in accordance with the EU’s guidelines governed by the legislation, Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) in Ireland constitute 75per cent of the land area of the country mostly in the south west, west and north west, and comprise 100,600 farmers out of a national total of 136,000.

Problems to be Addressed

The LFAs are in regions that have traditionally been under-developed economically, and have suffered heavily from relative low incomes, high unemployment, and high levels of emigration. The rural population in these areas is relatively high, and historically there have been limited off-farm opportunities. Though conditions have improved in recent years, relatively and absolutely, there is still a gap between these regions and the rest of the country in income, employment and demographic terms.

Land in these areas comprises islands, coastal and mountain land and low productivity lowland exposed to flooding. Agriculture in these areas is mainly extensive livestock operations: beef cattle and sheep. Poor conditions mean that there are few alternative

- 425 -

viable farm enterprises. With respect to incomes, the National Farm Survey (NFS, 2005) shows that Family Farm Income (including Compensatory Amounts), per work unit is 28per cent below the average in the rest of country (Based on data from Objective One and Non Objective One regions). The problems of these rural areas need to be addressed by a range of general economic and social policies of which comprehensive rural development policies are a part. At the same time the importance of agriculture cannot be neglected: it remains an important rural economic pursuit in the LFAs.

Identification of Target Group

The original Directive 268/75 outlined the general criteria for qualifying LFAs. These were subsequently translated into detailed guidelines. They included measures of operational intensity, income and demographic criteria. As applied in Ireland these guidelines originally prescribed an area of 3.98 million ha. Subsequent adjustments have increased the LFAs to 5.155 million ha or, as noted above, 75per cent of the land area. Likewise, the number of persons in receipt of the CAs has risen from 68,000 in 1981 to 100,600 in 2005.

At present in Ireland LFAs are District Electoral Divisions with the following characteristics:

Less than 7.8per cent of the land ploughed Stocking density less than 1 LU per forage ha Family farm income per male farm worker less than 80per cent of the national

average Population density less than 27 persons per square km At least 30per cent of the working population engaged in agriculture.

These criteria give a high importance to socio-economic weaknesses relative to agronomic conditions in determining LFAs.

The legislation also allowed differentiation of the LFAs depending on the severity of their handicaps. Most of the Irish LFAs are in the Most Severely Handicapped category.

4.4.2.2 Objectives of the Measure

Overall Objective

The objectives of the scheme are set out in the 1975 Directive:

Offset the impact of natural handicaps on production costs Combat large-scale depopulation of rural areas leading to farm abandonment Protect and maintain the countryside.

It is an important consideration that the criteria for designation of LFA was reviewed by the Commission in the light of a recommendation from the European Court of Auditors and proposed a reformulation, which excluded socio-economic considerations. This proposal was not agreed but it was agreed that the issue would be revisited in 2008 with the intention of changing the criteria in 2010.

In the meantime Regulation 1698/2005 refers (recital 33) to the use of ‘natural

- 426 -

handicap payments in mountain areas and payments in other areas with handicaps should contribute through continued use of agricultural land, to maintaining the countryside, as well as to maintaining and promoting sustainable farming systems.’ This indicates that environmental considerations are uppermost and maintenance of population is a consequence rather than an objective.

Specific Objectives

The specific objective is to help raise the income of farmers in the targeted areas so as to help ensure that their farms are sufficiently viable to attain the overall objective. Initially the scheme was a headage payment topping up other payments to which farmers in LFAs were entitled. However, in 2001, the CAs were consolidated into a payment per ha and decoupled from actual production. The rates of payments permissible and other conditions are laid down in implementing legislation.

Total payments under the scheme have averaged €200 million during the RDP 2000-2006. This compares with a total of about €1,250 million per annum for the SFP in the country as a whole. In terms of impact in the LFAs, the average payment is about €2,500 per farm and the results of the NFS shows that CAs account for between 10per cent and 30per cent of Family Farm Income, with an average of about 15per cent.

Coherence with Draft RDP

The Draft RDP aims to fulfil the Government’s objective, as set out in the White Paper, of ensuring economic and social well-being of the rural communities. This includes measures that are aimed at ensuring the sector’s contribution to wider environmental and social objectives. By helping to maintain agricultural activity in the LFAs, the CA scheme will ensure that the condition of the countryside will be maintained even for those farmers not wishing to participate in schemes like REPS or the afforestation programme which offer higher returns. At the same time the extra income will help sustain living standards and contribute to the stabilisation of population in rural areas.

Baseline and Impact Indicators

The draft RDP proposes some indictors for the CA scheme. However, the indicators of results and impact are exclusively focused on environment and there does not appear to be any data available for them. No measure of results and impact with respect to maintaining the rural population or the countryside is proposed. It is clear that work is required to identify appropriate measures. It may be that survey and sampling systems may need to be set up to provide measures which are relevant and readily available.

4.4.2.3 Proposed Measure

Actions Proposed

As before, the action consists in the payment of a CA per ha on all farms in the LFAs, which exceed 3ha, up to 45ha. Other than stratification of payments in respect of different types of disadvantage there are no sub-measures. The current rate of payments and the extent of relevant areas is shown in the table below. From next year an 8per cent increase will apply. Payment is conditional on farmers observing the principles of Good Farming Practice (GFP) and maintaining a minimum of 0.15

- 427 -

livestock units per hectare (LU/Ha).

Less Favoured Areas

Ireland (2005)

Category Million ha Compensatory Amounts Payable

Less Severely Handicapped and Coastal Areas

1.053 €82.27 subject to maximum of 45ha

More Severely Handicapped

4.075 €95.99 subject to maximum of 45ha

Mountain Type Grazings 0.027 €109.70 first 10ha

€95.99 subsequent ha up to maximum of 45

Lessons Learned from Earlier Measure

The Measure had been evaluated by Kearney et al in 1995 and later was included in the Ex-Ante Evaluation of the CAP RDP (1999). A third evaluation was the Mid-Term Evaluation in 2003. Since then there has been (2005) an Expenditure Review of the CAs by the DAF. These evaluations made a number of proposals to reduce the payment in line with farm or farm income, age or otherwise concentrate the payment on low income groups. These proposals have not been taken up.

4.4.2.4 Expected Impacts from Measure

As noted, in the past the CAs have contributed between 10 per cent and 30 per cent to FFI in LFAs and the lower income groups gain disproportionately. Thus, the payment has relatively significant income effects.

At the moment the total number of beneficiaries is 100,600. It was thought that with the passage of time the number would fall due to farm consolidation. In fact numbers have increased from 98,500 in 2001. It is thought that there may yet be another 3,000 farmers who might be eligible, which would suggest that a further increase might be possible before demand levels off. A planned increase in the rates next year, which will not be matched by a change in the SFP, makes a further increase in take up more likely.

With decoupling, the effect of CAs, and the SFPs, could be to reduce farm activity to the minimum consistent with Good Farming Practice (GFP) unless sales at market prices exceed marginal costs, in which case normal farming would be logical. For the moment, however, it seems that many farmers who are not covering their direct costs with market sales, and those which are doing so to a minimal extent, are using the SFP and the CAs to offset overheads and help ensure that total revenues exceed total costs. This may not be sustained in the long term. Should farmers decide to reduce farming to the minimum (i.e. 0.15 LU/Ha) then there might be a question of the utility of the scheme. For in that event the CAs would probably not be enough by themselves

- 428 -

to offset the cost of minimal activity, and maintain the countryside, while for those farmers also receiving the SFP, the SFP payments, being three or four times more than the CAs, would be more than enough to cover the cost of basic farm maintenance. In that case the CAs would seem to be redundant.

As regards the environment: a condition of continued receipt of the CAs is conformity with the principles of Good Farming Practice. This condition is easy to observe on extensive farms. From 2007 onwards recipients must conform to the terms of Cross-Compliance of which GFP is one of 18 criteria. This will impose a higher standard of environmental management.

4.4.2.5 Added Value of Community Involvement in the Measure

Administration

The CA scheme is centrally administered by the Disadvantaged Areas and SFP Units of the Department of Agriculture. There is no scope for regional differentiation or for any other administrative activity that would justify devolution of the scheme to sub-national authorities.

Relevance to Community Objectives

The scheme has contradictory effects on Community Objectives. In principle, with decoupling it should, as noted above, encourage some farmers to cut down activity and so aid the environment. But the discussion above suggests that in that respect it will either be ineffective or redundant. It is more likely to be effective – at least in the medium term—in encouraging farmers who can generate a marginal profit from market sales, to continue in agriculture. In that case the measure will not contribute to attaining Kyoto targets on limitation of carbon emissions, though compliance with GFP, especially from 2007 onwards, will help ensure attainment of other EU environmental objectives. And the measure will help encourage productive activity in the LFAs.

Complementarity to Other Interventions

The CA is intended as a top-up and is not designed to ensure farming activity in LFAs by itself. The most obvious complementarity is therefore with the SFP without which farming activity in the LFAs would collapse.

The relationships of the CAs to other schemes have been reviewed in previous evaluations. One evaluation considered it as in conflict with the Early Retirement Scheme and recommended that the CAs be withdrawn from elderly farmers. With decoupling the CA cannot be regarded as having a real pro-competitive objective so any deterrent effect it has to agricultural productivity cannot be regarded as a disadvantage. Even if production was the objective, as it probably actually is the result, it cannot be faulted since anything that supports existing activities—e.g. training and advice – would have that tendency.

Two other important schemes in the RDP are REPS and afforestation. Entitlements to CAs are not affected by participation in REPS. Consequently they should be seen as an enhancement of the returns and an encouragement to participate in that scheme. CAs are not payable on afforested land and the two schemes are therefore in conflict. However, the SFP is not affected by afforestation, provided it does not exceed 50 per

- 429 -

cent of the holding. Therefore assuming the farmer is minded to afforest his/her land, the loss of the CAs on the afforested element is not likely to sway the decision, given that forest premiums are four to five time larger than CAs per ha.

4.4.2.6 Cost-Effectiveness of Measure

Financial

Financial implications are show in the attached table. Expenditure under the scheme is a simple function of the rates of payment and the number of hectares that meet the criteria. Subject to a small possible increase in the number of qualified applicants, the overall level of expenditure is determined – at least until the review in 2010. The financial projections are on the basis that the scheme will continue until 2013.

Programme Total

€m

EU

€m

2000-2006 1,432 737

2007-2013 1,799 NA

Financial and Human Resource Costs

Administration of the scheme is now a comparatively simple matter and is merged with the administration of the SFP. There is an obligation to carry out on-site inspections on 5 per cent of the applicants. Overall, about 300 persons are estimated to be involved in the administration of both the ACs and the SFPs. Considering the sums involved in the two schemes—about €1.5 billion per annum—this is small.

However, two items give rise to difficulty. The first is the requirement that a minimum of 0.15 LU/HA is observed. This condition does not apply to the SFP and the inconsistency causes difficulties with some beneficiaries. Given the over-riding requirement of beneficiaries to observe GFP, to be followed by full Cross-Compliance next year, this could be dropped. The other item is the requirement that beneficiaries should reside within 70 miles of the farm. This was designed to ensure that beneficiaries are rural dwellers. But the radius would seem too long to do that. In any case the requirement is difficult to administer and should be deleted.

Scope for Attaining Objectives at Less Cost

Previous evaluations have made a number of suggestions which would have the effect, though this was not necessarily the objective, of reducing the cost of the scheme. These proposals related to the ERS (see above) or were based on equity considerations. Since there is an almost one-to-one relationship between the cost of the scheme and the impact on incomes, it is not possible to envisage significant economies without equal adverse welfare effects. However, in the case of beneficiaries who are receiving the SFP and who are minimally active there must be a question whether the income effect justifies payment of the CAs. As noted, the SFPs

- 430 -

are adequate to compensate for the cost of minimal maintenance and the CAs would be redundant in such cases.

4.4.2.7 Monitoring and Evaluation

At the present moment the monitoring and evaluation system is exclusively based on ensuring compliance with the rule of financial administration. No socio-economic or environmental information is obtained on a systematic basis for the purposes of the CA scheme. The only regularly available source of socio-economic data is the NFS, which can provide a breakdown for LFA farms.

More information could be extracted from the CA administrative system to provide information on agricultural practices. The inspection system, which simply checks for compliance, could also, with minimum adjustment, be expanded to add to understanding of farming and demographic conditions in the LFAs.

With respect to financial administration, compliance with the legislation is aided by the use of administrative databases such as the Cattle Movement and Monitoring System and the Land Parcel Identification System. In addition, as noted, 5per cent of all farms are physically inspected. The results of these inspections show that there is a high degree of compliance.

4.4.2.8 Conclusions

The CAs are a valuable contribution to farm incomes in the LFAs and as such help attain important Community and national objectives for rural development including population stabilisation and maintenance of farmland in good environmental condition. However, the reaction of farmers to decoupling needs to be monitored carefully, and on farms where activity declines to minimal levels the scheme may prove to be redundant. As it is, the scheme is complementary to the SFP and consistent with most other policy initiatives such as REPS. It is not consistent with the ERS or with the Forestry Programme, although the adverse impact in both cases is likely to be small. The scheme is easy to administer and monitoring is carried out through using computerised databases and on-site inspections. Both systems show minimal levels of infractions. Improved strategic monitoring of the scheme in terms of on and off farm activities of beneficiaries could be obtained through the use of the administration and inspection system.

4.4.3 Agri-Environment (REPS) and Natura 2000

4.4.3.1 Identification of the Problem

Analysis of the Current Situation

Protection of the environment is now accepted as essential and farmers are seen as central to any intervention designed to protect and improve the environment. The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) has been in existence since 1994 and was Ireland’s response to Council Regulation 2078/92 on community aid towards agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside. The role of farmers in maintaining the rural environment is now widely recognised and Agri-environmental payments play an important role in supporting sustainable development in rural areas

- 431 -

and in responding to society’s increasing demand for environmental services. The REPS measure is designed to encourage farmers to introduce or continue to apply agricultural production methods compatible with the protection of the environment, the landscape and its features. The environmental dimension to rural development has 3 priorities – Natura implementation and biodiversity trend reversal, water protection, contribution to climate change mitigation—and the REPS measure is designed to address all 3. The measure is designed to achieve additionality over and above a basic level of good farming practice and thus make a serious contribution to achieving environmental goals.

Support for farmers is considered necessary to help address specific environmental issues especially in the areas concerned with the implementation of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora87 in order to contribute to the effective management of Natura 2000 sites.

Problems to be addressed

Threats to various aspects of the rural environment exist as a result of agricultural practices as well as pressures from economic development. These threats concern air and water quality, biodiversity as well as the visual landscape. Other broader environmental issues including climate change and the need for renewable energy are also recognised. The interventions under this measure address a recognised problem in a holistic manner covering a range of environmental issues that are set out in considerable detail in the RDP. The measure consists of a set of 11 mandatory undertakings and a number of supplementary measures for which beneficiaries can draw down additional payment plus a dedicated stand-alone Organic Farming sub-measure. Two pro-active biodiversity measures must be included in the farm plan.

Identification of Target Group

The measure is a nationwide measure and is targeted at all farmers who meet the eligibility conditions. At the beginning of 2005 there were approximately 43,000 active participants in REPS, representing one-quarter of all farms, and approx. one-third of all land in the country is being farmed in accordance with REPS specifications. The numbers have increased to 51,000, currently reflecting the increased attractiveness of the measure. Adoption of the measure has been highest in areas where extensive farming is the norm. In fact the 6 Western Counties plus Kerry and Donegal account for 55per cent of participants.

Changes to the proposed measure from the current one will broaden the target group and for the first time more intensive farmers will be eligible to participate. This is as a result of (a) an expected derogation in respect from the provisions of the Nitrates Action Programme and (b) a stand-alone organic farming sub-measure for which intensive farmers will be eligible. In the light of this and other changes made to the measure that makes it more attractive, a target of 64,000 participants is considered realistic and in line with the results of a Teagasc survey in 2005 of farmers’ intentions on joining any new REPS measure.

87 OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, pg 7. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, pg 1)

- 432 -

4.4.3.2 Objectives of Measure

REPS (Rural Environment Protection Scheme) is a Measure designed to compensate farmers for carrying out their farming activities in an environmentally friendly manner and to bring about environmental improvement on existing farms. The specific objectives of the measure are outlined in the plan and are described as follows:

To promote ways of using agricultural land which are compatible with the protection and improvement of the environment, biodiversity, the landscape and its features, climate change, natural resources, water quality, the soil and genetic diversity

To promote environmentally-favourable farming systems To promote the conservation of high nature value farmed environments that

are under threat To promote the upkeep of historical features on agricultural land To promote the use of environmental planning in farming practice To protect against land abandonment To sustain the social fabric in rural communities To promote conversion to organic production standards To contribute to positive environmental management of farmed Natura 2000

sites and river catchments in the implementation of the Birds Directive, the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive.

The objectives are consistent with the overall objectives of the RDP and with Council Regulation 1698/2005 Articles 36, 38 and 39.

The objectives of the measure are set out in quite a lot of detail and expand on the overall objectives of Axis 2 of protecting and enhancing natural resources and landscapes in rural areas.

4.4.3.3 Proposed Measure

Actions Proposed

The proposed REPS scheme builds on the success of actions in the 2000–2006 programming period, with an increasing emphasis on pro-active environmental and biodiversity objectives. Significant revisions to the measure were implemented in 2004 with positive results in terms of numbers joining the measure. The design of the proposed measure builds further on this but with some additional features designed to make the measure more attractive and also to address issues identified in previous programmes. Payment rates under the proposed measure are increased by 17 per cent–an increase that is justified by the costings attached to the plan.

Under the general programme participants must apply eleven core measures in respect of the total area of their holding for a five-year period, together with two additional undertakings to be selected from a menu of 26 optional measures. The increased emphasis on biodiversity is reflected in the fact that two biodiversity options must be included in the farm plan, one of which must be a category 1 option. To achieve increased biodiversity at farm level, enhancement of the eleven basic measures is desirable. By providing farmers with a choice from a series of optional undertakings,

- 433 -

each farmer is given the opportunity to select the works most appropriate to the environmental or landscape features of the farm in question.

Increasing the number of farmers converting to organic production methods is prioritised in the plan. Farmers complying with Council Regulation 2092/91 as amended on Organic Farming shall be eligible for financial support through a standa-lone organic sub-measure.

The measure is well described in the plan, with a high level of detail on how the measure will operate. There is now a well-developed platform for delivering REPS and this is taken into account in the design of the measure. The opening up of the possibility for more intensive farmers to participate is a welcome development as this has the potential to deliver significant results in a very cost-effective manner. Current estimates are that 3,000-4,000 farmers previously ineligible are now likely to participate in REPS. Additionally it is hoped that the organic farming stand-alone measure will attract intensive tillage farmers to allocate some land for organic purposes. This measure is also aimed at small-scale horticulture operations for whom full participation in REPS is not economic. The Irish organic sector is deficient in both cereals and vegetables and heavily reliant on imports.

Natura 2000

Natura 2000 sites are protected habitats for flora and fauna of European importance. They comprise Special Areas of Conservation, designated under the Habitats Directive and Special Protection Areas, designated under the Birds Directive. The Habitats Directive was transposed into national legislation by the European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations, 1997 S.I. No. 94 of 1997. These regulations also cover the Birds Directive. Natura 2000 sites comprise over 10 per cent of the country and have management implications for farmers with sites on their land.

To address these implications a separate measure (Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000/60/EC) is proposed. This support for farmers is necessary to help address specific disadvantages in the areas concerned with the implementation of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora88 in order to contribute to the effective management of Natura 2000 sites. The payment is in addition to payments under REPS.

The proposed methodology to implement both the REPS and the Natura 2000 measures at farm level in a single integrated farm plan will ensure full complementarity between both measures.

4.4.3.4 Expected Impact

The expected impact of REPS/Natura 2000 is not set out specifically in a narrative in the draft RDP. However, there is detailed analysis of all of the environmental issues that are being addressed in Paragraph 3.1 and also in the Strategy document. The measure is expected to impact positively on a range of environmental issues – water quality, biodiversity, visual landscape, heritage, etc. The measure, while essentially

88 OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, pg 7. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, pg 1)

- 434 -

one that compensates farmers, is increasingly seen as important in terms of farm income and also impacts significantly on the objective of maintaining people in farming and rural areas.

Some specific targets are included in the draft plan as follows. The suitability of the proposed indicators are discussed in Part 2 and also in the SEA.

Type of indicator Indicator Target

Output

Number of farm holdings and holdings of other land managers receiving support 64,000

Total area under agri-environmental support 2.25m ha

Total number of contracts 64,000

Physical area under agri-environmental support 2.25m ha

Number of actions related to genetic resources

Result Areas under successful land management 2.25m ha

Impact

Reversal in biodiversity decline Decline halted

Maintenance of high nature value farmland and forestry 750,000ha

Improvement in water quality Increase

Contribution to combating climate change Positive

4.4.3.5 Added Value of Community Involvement in the Measure

Increasingly environmental matters are assessed in an international context rather than with a narrow national focus. The REPS measure is designed to meet both international and national environmental issues within the framework of 1698/2005 but tailored to operate effectively in the context of farming structures in Ireland. The measure will be co-funded to a level of 40per cent by EU funds. Other EU environmental directives have also been taken into account in the design of the measure.

4.4.3.6 Cost-Effectiveness of Measure

Details of the costing that justifies the REPS compensation levels are attached in significant detail at Appendix 3 of the draft RDP. Preliminary analysis of the costings indicates that the proposed payments under the measure are reasonable.

While some deadweight is inherent in the measure, this is likely to be modest. Some arguments are put forward that some of the required actions should be mandatory and that farmers should not be compensated for doing what is right. While in a narrow context these have some validity they miss the essential point that REPS as a measure has brought environment awareness to the farming community and has acted as catalyst for a range of desirable environmental actions that would not have occurred without the REPS measure.

- 435 -

A detailed assessment of the financial impact of REPS was presented at the National REPS Conference in November 2005.89 This shows that REPS has been a significant contributor to farm income for participating farmers. Based on 2004 data90 it is shown that farmers in REPS had an average Family Farm Income (FFI) of €15.990 of which REPS payments contributed €5,638. This compared with a FFI of €12,986 for extensive farmers not in REPS. There are of course considerable differences in the levels of FFI across different farming systems and the average FFI on Dairy and Tillage systems is far higher than that on drystock based systems. Almost 74 per cent of farms that participate in REPS are in a drystock system. Outside of dairying and tillage (where FFI is higher) FFI on REPS farms was higher than on non-REPS farms. It is clear from this that the REPS payment represents important incremental income for many farmers and thus contributes not just to the environmental objectives of REPS but also to wider objectives of maintaining the rural population.

REPS now has a well-developed platform for delivery, is widely understood and there is a significant body of knowledge built up at all levels – farmers, planners and implementing bodies. This impacts positively on the delivery of the measure including its cost-effectiveness.

4.4.3.7 Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and Evaluation is considered at 2 levels. First there is the ongoing monitoring of the programme in terms of compliance, etc and in this respect existing procedures and practices are well established and appropriate.

In terms of programme monitoring and evaluation in the context of assessing results and impacts, the situation is more complex. While some of the impact of REPS is immediate (visual landscape) much of the impact can be expected over a longer period. Establishing a suitable and appropriate evaluation system is an issue that needs to be addressed notwithstanding that significant progress has already been made in identifying a range of indicators that will facilitate evaluation. This issue is dealt with in more detail in the SEA.

4.4.3.8 Conclusions and Recommendations

The proposed REPS measure builds on the success and experience of previous REPS measures but is not just a simple follow-on from the previous programme. It will be implemented against a background of a totally changed CAP Pillar 1 and a new farming regime. Lessons learned from the previous measures have been taken into account in the design of the current measure, and the current design is considered to be attractive both in terms of its flexibility and monetary reward. Currently there are approx 51,000 participants and this is targeted to rise to 64,000 by 2013. The proposed payment rates represent an increase of approximately 17 per cent on the current rates and reflect the cost to the farmer of adhering to the REPS requirements.

The REPS measure (and Natura 2000) is now a well-established environmental measure with an established platform for delivery. Changes reflected in the draft programme demonstrate that the programme is evolving and responsive. The supplementary measures proposed are imaginative and cover a range of environmental priorities. The accompanying SEA concludes that these measures will, as is the intention, make a ‘Significant’ contribution to the conservation of natural

89 Financial Impact of Rural Environment Protection Scheme Liam Connolly, Teagasc November 200590 Source: National Farm Survey, Teagasc, 2004

- 436 -

habitats and to the conservation of the floral and faunal species these habitats support. As such the Measures represent the single most important element of the Draft RDP as regards the protection of biodiversity. With sufficient resources and application the Measures should be at least capable of arresting the rate of decline in biodiversity in these areas while also providing for the possibility of regaining some species lost to Ireland and strengthening the status of others. This Measure will have positive impacts on biodiversity beyond national boundaries in that it affords protection to a range of migratory species and acts to conserve the habitats such species use for that part of their life cycle spent in Ireland.

Impacts of ‘Some Significance’ are the Measures’ contribution to the conservation of soil and water that low intensity, environmentally driven, informed agricultural practices can achieve. (Ensuring that informed agricultural practices are applied is provided for by way of the training and technical advice elements that are an inherent part of the Measures.) Through the financial supports the Measure provides it also has the positive impact of reducing land abandonment, protecting existing landscapes and maintaining a local human population within and in the locality of the subject areas. The prevention of land abandonment also serves to resist the colonisation of land by invasive non-native plant species such as rhododendron in and around forested areas.

REPS is now seen as an increasingly attractive measure for farmers to participate in, with the perceived benefits outweighing the costs and underlying prejudices being gradually overcome. In late 2004 Teagasc carried out a sample survey on attitudes to REPS among farmers. Responding to the question ‘Will you join REPS3’ 56 per cent indicated that they would – an increase of 16 per cent over the then levels. If this was to happen it would represent approximately 63,000 participants in REPS3, which is broadly in line with the number projected in the RDP of 64,000.

- 437 -

4.4.4 Afforestation Axis 2 Measures (221-227)

4.4.4.1 Identification of the Problem

Analysis of the Present Situation

The main policy document in the area of forestry is ‘Growing for the Future: Strategic Plan for the Development of the Forestry Sector’. The Strategy defined the objective as ‘To develop forestry to scale and in a manner which maximises its contribution to national economic and social well-being on a sustainable basis and which is compatible with the protection of the environment’. The policy was adopted at a time when economic opportunities in other forms of land use were diminishing due to reforms of the CAP, and forestry was seen as a possible alternative in the context of a broader concept of rural development. The policy was also set against a background of low levels of afforestation in Ireland. The primary emphasis was on the economic potential of afforestation in terms of timber production, though there was recognition of the environmental and amenity benefits. The Strategic Plan proposed a target of 20,000ha of afforestation every year to 2030, which it considered necessary to sustain a viable processing industry in the long run. These targets were embedded in the Operational Programme for 1994—1999 and again in the current CAP RDP 2000—2006.

Problems to be Addressed

The long-run target has not been achieved largely because of competition from alternative uses including the REP scheme which is also supported by the CAP RDP, inertia in the farming community faced with an irreversible decision, high land values, and environmental constraints. A relevant consideration is that premiums for afforestation have not been improved in recent years while general returns from agriculture have. Changes to the CAP since the CAP RDP was initiated have led to a net reduction in the attractions of alternative enterprises and these can be further reduced by adjustments to the terms and conditions of schemes like REPS. On the other hand, environmental constraints have arisen from increased awareness of the environmental threats but they also reflect higher valuations on environmental benefits which forests, suitable planned and managed, can supply. The most important of these is the value of forests as carbon sinks, a value which can now be quantified since the growth of trading in carbon credits. The problem which forestry policy has to address is therefore to promote the development of afforestation, which enhances environmental values, generates other non-market values and is viable in commercial terms.

Identification of Target Group

Up to the mid-1980s, afforestation was almost exclusively undertaken by the public sector. With the introduction of incentives in the mid-1980s the private sector became more active while at the same time Coillte, the state forestry enterprise, was obliged to cut back when it was no longer entitled to receive forest premiums. The private sector, most of whom are farmers, is now the dominant element – about 90 per cent. Which farmers and what land was afforested were heavily influenced by incentives for alternative enterprises. Initially, marginal land was exploited since the opportunity cost was low. Elderly farmers or farmers with off-farm employment, and therefore unable or unwilling to undertake intensive agriculture and farmers in LFAs were important participants – though inertia seems to have been an inhibiting factor even in

- 438 -

these categories. With the introduction of decoupling, and the decline in market returns, forestry becomes in principle attractive to a wider range of farmers. However, an important obstacle is the REP scheme, which provides attractive returns for extensive agriculture without a major change in use. An important priority for the further development of forestry will be opening the REP scheme for an afforestation element.

4.4.4.2 Objectives of the Measure

Overall Objective

The overall objectives of the Forestry Measures is to increase the percentage of land under forest, through improved management in order to maximise the delivery of a range of public goods i.e. economic, social, environmental and commercial timber, thereby supporting economic and social activities in rural areas. With improvement in economic conditions in rural areas, the significance of environmental and amenity benefits has increased relative to economic values. The environmental benefits include carbon sequestration and the promotion of biodiversity. Economic benefits include employment and income generated by forestry operations, downstream processing and expansion of indigenous energy resources. Afforestation also has the capacity to deliver important recreational and amenity benefits.

Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the schemes are to:

Expand the total area of afforested land including non-agricultural as well as standard agricultural and REPS farms

Maintain the quality of existing forests through repairs, reconstitution and preventative measures

Promote forest schemes with high environmental and amenity values.

Coherence with Draft RDP

The Draft RDP aims to fulfil the Government’s objective, as set out in the White Paper, of ensuring the economic and social well-being of the rural communities. This includes measures that are aimed at ensuring the sector’s contribution to wider environmental and socio-economic objectives. The measures proposed in Axis 2 Forestry will expand the total area of afforested land but in a manner which will contribute to improvements in the environment from a number of stand points, carbon sequestration, water quality, biodiversity. At the same time the largest elements of the Axis 2 measures will expand the total area under forest, thereby increasing present and future incomes and economic activity in rural areas.

Baseline and Impact Indicators

Indicators of performance have been proposed in the draft RDP but they are not sufficient to measure impacts, especially with respect to amenity and environmental benefits. The consultants have proposed that a coordinated effort be made across the range of RDP measures to establish relevant indicators.

- 439 -

4.4.4.3 Actions Proposed in the Measure and Sub-Measures

Actions Proposed

The main actions proposed are grants for the capital cost of the establishment or reconstitution of forests with annual premiums also payable on First Afforestation of Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Land (221,223) and the FEPS (225) schemes. All schemes are to be planned and implemented to attain high environmental, biodiversity and amenity values.

Axis 2 Forestry Measures

Code Measure Action Ha Affected

221 First Afforestation of Agricultural Land Cost of establishment of forests on non-agricultural land and premiums (for 20 years) on new plantations

70,000

223 First Afforestation of Non-Agricultural Land

Cost of establishment of forests on non-agricultural land and premiums (for 5 years) on new plantations

790

222 First Establishment of Agro-Forestry Systems on Agricultural Land

Small-scale plantations aimed at targeted environmental benefits

500

225 Forest Environmental Payments Scheme (FEPS)

High nature value forestry for REPS farmers

16,800

226 Reconstitution and Protection of Woodlands Scheme

Grant towards cost of repairs of land affected by fire, wind blow, and predation and cost of protective measures

1,460

227 Non-Productive Investments Amenity schemes in forests aimed at improving access

16,400

Lessons Learned from Earlier Measure

Forestry policy has been subjected to a number of evaluations in the recent past, including the Ex-Ante Evaluation in 1999, the Mid-Term Evaluation in 2003 and a major review of the original policy, commissioned by the Department and published in 2004. In general, the evaluations have endorsed the policy of expanding the national forestry estate but have been critical about certain shortcomings that have led to sub-optimum environmental results or even damage and others that may lead to reduced economic returns. The 2004 Report (by Bacon Associates and Deloitte) noted defects in the policy, which ‘arise from poor management of the crop, failure to develop aspects of supporting infrastructure, lack of proper information to guide

- 440 -

development and an over-emphasis on the timber value as compared to the non-timber value.

Benefits of forestry

These criticisms have led to substantial changes in the forestation policy over the years, including an increase in conditions on grant awards in respect of species and location with the aim of protecting water, promoting biodiversity and improving the appearance of forests. These improvements have helped ensure a better return from forests in non-timber terms, though evidently more remains to be done, and have probably led to a reduction in potential economic returns.

Needs and Objectives of Sub-Measures/Operations

The object of the measures is to expand forest coverage so as to ensure important economic benefits and at the same time to attain important environmental and non-economic benefits. The largest measure is 221, First Afforestation of Agricultural Land, which will increase the number of hectares of forestry by 70,000 or 10,000ha per annum, thus securing important timber and carbon sequestration benefits. However, the terms and conditions of the grants and premiums are such that a high standard of environmental quality will also be attained. Thus, this measure can be said to have dual commercial and non-commercial objectives. However, the FEPS and the other smaller schemes (222 and 227) are specifically designed to attain environmental or amenity objectives through small-scale interventions in the form of carefully designed plantations. The hectarages involved are small and they are unlikely to deliver significant timber benefits.

Coherence between Measures

The six measures support the environmental and economic objectives of the national forestry Programme with an increased emphasis on environmental and amenity benefits by comparison with earlier Programmes. They are all therefore coherent in their objectives. With the exception of Measure 226, reconstitution and prevention, the measures are operationally independent. The Reconstitution and Maintenance measure provides a range of supports to repair and/or prevent accidental and predatory damage to forests and is strongly complementary to the others.

4.4.4.4 Expected Impacts from Measure

The total planting envisaged in Measure 221 (First Afforestation of Agricultural Land) will add about 70,000ha to the national forest estate. The rate of planting will be well short of the 20,000ha which had been proposed in Growing for the Future and this implies a smaller impact on rural employment than had been envisaged. However, the Department believes that the 10,000ha planting target is at least sufficient to maintain the viability of the industry infrastructure, such as nurseries, to maintain positive levels of carbon sequestration and sustainable wood energy markets.

Although the other measures are small-scale, it can be expected that by careful identification of opportunities and needs and planning they will lead to relatively large environmental and amenity benefits, having regard to the small hectarages involved.

- 441 -

4.4.4.5 Added Value of Community Involvement in the Measure

Investment in forestry in the Irish context, where there is little revenue from existing operations, imposes a heavy financial burden on the public finances. The EU contribution alleviates the heavy financial costs of the long-term investment in developing forestry, thereby helping to maintain a high volume of activity.

Administration and Subsidiarity

The scheme is administered on a national basis by the Forestry Service of the DAF. There appears to be no need for regional devolution of administrative functions. However, an important element is the Forestry Inspectorate who are located throughout the country and who are responsible for vetting applications from the environmental point of view and for ensuring that conditions are observed. Other elements in the administration include Forestry specialists in the regional offices of the agricultural advisory service – Teagasc. Important elements of administration are also provided by private sector forestry consultants who prepare afforestation plans and who advise owners about the management of the forests.

Relevance to Community Objectives

These objectives are consistent with EU economic, social and environmental objectives in the field of rural development. The afforestation process generates employment in nurseries, establishment companies, harvesting and processing, almost all of which is in rural areas. Likewise, the premiums and receipts from harvesting support farm incomes when alternative farm activities offer diminished returns. Afforestation helps with the attainment of the Kyoto targets on net carbon emissions. Properly planned, afforestation, including the supplementary environmental forestry measures, will contribute to biodiversity, landscape and amenity values.

Complementarity to Other Interventions

The Axis 1 Forestry Measures include actions that are strongly complementary to the Axis 2 Measures. These include training and advice which address an important need in a country with little forestry tradition amongst landowners. Two other schemes support thinning operations which are not otherwise economical, and neglect of which would endanger the quality of the national forest, and investment in infrastructure, especially roads for harvesting and access for amenity purposes. In other Operational Programmes there is support for research and development through COFORD, the state forestry research agency. Assistance for the processing industry is also available under the Human Resources Operational Programme and the Enterprise Operational Programme. Improvements to the efficiency of the processing industry will have an important effect in ensuring commercial returns to forest owners.

4.4.4.6 Cost-Effectiveness of Measure

Realism of Financial projections

The schemes are dependent on funding from the Department and the financial targets can be regarded as reliable as an upper limit. However, demand for afforestation has been weak, as noted above. The increase of 15per cent in the premiums, which has been agreed, should help to improve the relative returns to forestry. Farmer resistance may also be gradually undermined by the SFP. However, it is still possible that rates

- 442 -

of planting and therefore absorption of the budget could fall below what is programmed in the RDP.

Financial and Human Resource Costs

Financial implications are shown in the following table.

Axis 2 Forestry Measures

Code Measure Total Expenditure

2007-13

€m

221 First Afforestation of Agricultural Land 898.1

223 First Afforestation of Non-Agricultural Land 4.9

222 First Establishment of Agro-Forestry Systems on Agricultural Land

1.5

225 Forest Environmental Payments Scheme (FEPS)

11.8

226 Reconstitution and Protection of Woodlands Scheme

7.3

227 Non-Productive Investments 11.0

The administration of the forestry programme, from promotional work by the Forest Service to the felling and processing of timber, is a complex one. This is for a variety of reasons including (i) the absence of forestry traditions, which therefore requires intensive promotion, education and training, (ii) the environmental implications which requires careful planning and management and (iii) the absence of a self-financing private sector which could relieve the state of many of the functions it has to shoulder – such as investment in forest roads, reconstitution, and thinning.

Cost-Effectiveness

The Bacon and Deloitte report was able to assign economic values to the non-timber outputs of the forestry programme, including the value of carbon sequestration, amenities and biodiversity. The report concluded that the programme would generate a net benefit in discounted terms of €571 million. However, this was on the basis of planting 20,000ha per annum. The overall implication of a slower rate of planting is not clear since both costs and benefits are reduced. The commercial benefits would seem to be the most at risk if it is the case that scale effects are important for the realisation of returns from timber.

- 443 -

Scope for Attaining Objectives at Less Cost

The consultants also note that the Reconstitution Measure (226) provides funds for forests that have been affected by natural disasters like wind blow and fire. Landowners are obliged to maintain their forests in good condition and this should be taken to include insurance against disasters. Savings could be allocated to expanding other activities under the Reconstitution Measure or to other measures.

4.4.4.7 Monitoring and Evaluation

All forestry schemes must be submitted to the Forest Inspectorate before approval can be given for grant assistance and work can commence. Larger plantations and those in sensitive areas are subject to planning permission by the local authority. Most projects are carried out by contractors who are certified to high environmental standards. These contractors and a sample of their plantations are inspected by the Forest Inspectorate. Other projects are also inspected by the Inspectorate. Projects are reviewed after completion and the final payment of the establishment grant can be withheld if restorative work is required. Inspections occur periodically thereafter. Thinning and felling requires permission and conditions can be attached so as to ensure that there is no environmental damage.

4.4.4.8 Conclusions

The national forest programme is consistent with objectives of the EU in relation to forestry and it supports the national rural development policy in providing alternative income and employment in rural areas. Forestry provides important carbon sequestration and alternative energy potential and, when carefully managed, can generate important amenity and biodiversity values. The forestry measures will promote the size of the national forest, which is low by European standards, and will address some deficiencies of Irish forests and enhance some opportunities through targeted interventions. The scheme is complex and expensive and there is no alternative to heavy subsidisation backed up by careful supervision as envisaged in the draft RDP. The major difficulty with the programme at the moment is the low rate of take up. This may be helped in the immediate future by a planned increase in incentives. Alternatively, in the event of a shortfall in take up, surplus funds in the budget for establishment and premiums could be diverted to measures designed to enhance the commercial value of the forests, such as reconstitution (226) and the measures in Axis 1.

- 444 -

4.4.5 Animal Welfare, Recording and Breeding Scheme for Suckler Herds

Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 and Article and Regulation (EC) No …/2006, and Annex II, point 9. (Code of the measure: 215)

Under Axis 2 a measure to support the suckler herd is proposed, with an allocation of €250 million. The measure is primarily designed to encourage farmers to adopt high standards of animal welfare by providing support for farmers whose animal husbandry goes beyond the relevant mandatory standards and working practices on farms at present. In this respect the animal welfare component of the proposed measure is consistent with Article 40 of the Regulation.

The rationale for intervention is well set out in the plan. It emphasises the importance of the role of the suckler herd in Ireland’s rural economy, in particular in the less advantaged areas. There is an identified need to improve animal welfare standards as part of a process to improve the quality of the national beef herd. Thus while the measure is included under Axis 2 it also strongly complements Axis 1 and Axis 3 objectives. An improvement in animal welfare standards will assist quality and productivity. As a consequence, the direct animal welfare support is being linked to related assistance to encourage recording of data in breeding, which also has animal welfare components, and to the use of such data for breeding purposes.

The Objectives of the measure are to encourage farmers to:

Adopt high standards of animal welfare by providing support for farmers whose animal husbandry goes beyond the relevant mandatory standards and working practices on farms at present

Improve the quality of their cattle breeding by providing incentives for them to participate in the Animal Events Recording System and to upgrade the genetic merit of their female cattle breeding stock, using the results of the data collected.

There are seven proposed actions under the measure on animal welfare, related animal recording and breeding and associated training. These are relevant mainly to the ‘absence of systematic mutilations, isolation or permanent tethering’ mentioned in Article 27 of the Commission implementing regulation. The various actions under this measure are linked and participation in all (i.e. animal welfare, events recording, training) shall be obligatory and the breeding element shall be an added option (the replacement of female breeding stock with high genetic merit heifers).

The measure is consistent with the overall objectives of the RDP and promotes the objectives of all 3 axes. It seeks to compensate farmers for the additional costs (including training) in adapting to programmes that will have benefits both in terms of better animal welfare standards and longer term for the overall beef industry. The linkage between the measure and the SWOT analysis in the RDP is tenuous and the specific need for this measure could be more clearly identified in the RDP. The rationale for the measure is well set out in the section dealing with the description and proposed actions but the link back to the earlier analysis could be improved. No monitoring and evaluation systems for the measure are outlined but it is understood that some details of the proposed measure were still under consideration at the time of this ex-ante evaluation.

- 445 -

4.5 Axes 3 and 4: Rural Quality of Life and LEADER Implementation4.5.1 Introduction

Axis 3 of the Plan is aimed at improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of economic activity. Six specific measures and two training and skill acquisition measures are proposed and these measures are closely linked to three further measures, in Axis 4, details below and involve a total expenditure over seven years, over both axes, of €425m or 10 per cent of the total programme. The priorities chosen in the plan are in accord with the Rural Development strategy document and with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.

Measures under Axis 3 seek to address issues that are broadly considered as important in improving the quality of life in rural areas and that promote a greater sense of community involvement. Since 1994 the LEADER programme – the EU Community Initiative for rural development—has operated in Ireland and has developed as a successful model for implementation of initiatives whereby problems in rural areas are addressed by responses appropriate and designed at local level. The objective of LEADER is to foster the development of rural areas through the implementation of innovative, locally based, bottom-up development strategies designed by local groups/bodies made up of a range of local actors (statutory and non-statutory). Such groups typically operate in small towns and rural areas with a population of up to 100,000, which are seen to represent a natural rural ‘region’ in socio-economic and geographic terms. Under Axis 3 the aim is to deliver a number of measures that would previously have been delivered under LEADER using the LEADER, approach but ensuring that the measures are part of mainstream rural development policy rather than actions of a pilot nature.

- 446 -

Table 1: Proposed Expenditure in Axes 3 and 4 2007—2013

Axes 3 & 4 Cost as per cent Total Programme

€m

EU Element €m

On-farm diversification 16.66

Creation and development of enterprise

48.26

Tourism development 45.40

Improve access to basic services 49.61

Village renewal 54.20

Conserving the natural and built heritage

51.70

Training 21.55

Animation of local communities 34.63

Local development strategy 4.10

Co-operation among local groups 10.70

Local group administration 80.73

Technical assistance, e.g. Network 7.90

Sub-Total Axes 3 & 4 425 234

4.5.2 Axis 3 Measures4.5.2.1 Problem Identification

Axes 3 and 4 addresses issues and problems of a broader nature associated with rural development and beyond agriculture and the farming community. They seek to respond to challenges associated with ‘the quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy’. The need to maintain and develop an efficient and effective agriculture and food industry is accepted as paramount in terms of rural development policy. But reconciling this need for competitiveness and scale with broader objectives such as maintaining family farms, improving quality of life in rural areas, maintaining the environment, and other non-economic desiderata presents challenges for policy makers. This difficulty is accentuated by the challenges of a fast-growing non-agricultural economy and the impact this has on traditional rural structures and landscapes. While the overall impact of the RDP cannot be expected to radically curtail the impact of broader economic forces, it nevertheless is an important instrument in seeking to define and promote a concept of a rural economy that will remain important in the context of overall national economic, social and

- 447 -

environmental objectives and in the overall national quality of life.

Six specific measures and two training and skill-acquisition measures are proposed in the draft RDP. These measures are closely linked to three further measures, in Axis 4, and involve a total expenditure over seven years, over both axes, of €425m or 10 per cent of the total programme. The priorities chosen in the plan are in accord with the Rural Development strategy document and with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.

Table 1: Proposed Expenditure in Axes 3 and 4 2007—2013

Axes 3 & 4 €m

On-farm diversification 16.66

Creation and development of enterprise 48.26

Tourism development 45.40

Improve access to basic services 49.61

Village renewal 54.20

Conserving the natural and built heritage 51.70

Training 21.55

Animation of local communities 34.63

Local development strategy 4.10

Co-operation among local groups 10.70

Local group administration 80.73

Technical assistance, e.g. Network 7.90

Sub-Total Axes 3 & 4 425

The context of the plan is discussed in Chapter 1 of the RDP and strengths and weaknesses are considered. Most of the key issues relating to broader rural development and rural quality of life issues are discussed in some detail within the limitations of what the draft RDP can address. Broader rural development issues including infrastructure, communications, social inclusion, etc are for the most part outside the remit of the RDP and can be expected to be addressed in the NDP.

The problems identified and the measures proposed under Axes 3 and 4 follow closely the philosophy on rural development as set out in paragraphs 46-51 of the regulation. The need to accompany changes in rural areas by seeking to diversify farming activities towards non-agricultural activities and carry out investments making rural areas more attractive in order to reverse trends towards economic and social decline and depopulation of the countryside are central in the proposed measures. At the same time the proposed measures are sufficiently flexible to recognise that the problems associated with quality of life in rural areas vary

- 448 -

significantly across the country, are not static and often can be impacted on by events outside of the measures, e.g. private-sector investment.

The proposed measures deal with only some of the weaknesses identified in the analysis and that is acknowledged in Chapter 4 (Priorities chosen by regard to EU Strategic Guidelines, National Strategy Plan and ex-ante evaluation) where it states: ‘The measures were also chosen to maximise value add impact on existing complementary programmes in the DCRGA such as Community Development Programmes, Small Farm Holders Initiative, Rural Social Scheme, CLÁR infrastructure programme and Department initiatives supporting the Gaeltacht and the Islands.’ While the limitations of what can be addressed in this plan are understood, it would be useful at some stage if a more comprehensive rural development document is elaborated that examines all the issues and dynamics impacting on rural Ireland. This would also facilitate the ongoing evaluation of the impact of Axes 3 and 4 measures.

Previous Rural Development plans and Other Schemes

In previous programmes the priority given to general rural development issues (outside those linked to farming and forestry) was low, amounting to an expenditure of €171m (General rural development with LEADER +) out of an overall programme of €4,691m in the period 1999—2006. The LEADER + element was evaluated at mid-term and the results of this evaluation are reflected in the new programme. Two other programmes not formally part of past national Rural Development plans (CLÁR and the Rural Social Scheme) have been introduced in recent years. The objectives of these schemes are defined and some qualitative evaluation carried out. The CLÁR objectives complement both the economic and quality of life objectives of rural development well and there has been significant expenditure. The expenditure of €151m over four years (though not all from public sources) is greater per annum than the amount spent under the General Rural Development and LEADER + programmes.

Proposed Measures

Specific Measures: Objectives, Expected Impact, Target Group, and Indicators

Each of the measures proposed is now considered in turn, with assessment of the objectives, expected impact, target groups and indicators of outcomes, inputs, results and impacts.

On page 140 there is a summary of the measures in Axis 3 and a list of ‘Targets for Axis 3’. These targets include indicators, how they will be measured, a baseline and a target. This approach is highly recommended. We think, however, that some improvements to these targets (and to others elsewhere in the programme) are required if the targets are to be used later to evaluate the success or otherwise of the measures proposed.

Firstly, baseline data in this table should indicate clearly the year to which these data relate (it can be found after some searching in appendices). Likewise target data should relate to a particular year—say 2015. Economic data should assume a 1-2 per cent p.a. productivity improvement, before accounting for the impact of specific measures.

Secondly, indicators should be chosen which allow if possible for the specific impact

- 449 -

of the measures to be evaluated. An indicator which shows progress in rural development has its uses but if this progress can be attributed to strength in the wider economy, to general demographic developments or to some other source, separate from the measures, its value as an indicator in this plan is much reduced, as it will not be possible to separate the impact of the specific action or measure.

The indicators and targets set out are generally relevant for measuring progress in rural development but few could be attributed specifically to the success of individual measures. Development of tourism walkways, subscriptions to the Internet, life-long learning and net migration are examples of indicators that are only tenuously related to the programme of measures in Axis 3. Additionally the percentage of added value arising in the services sector, while highly relevant, should relate to regional rather than national data.

Diversification into non-agricultural activities: The rationale for this proposal is well explained. The target group is well defined. We feel that the objective could be clarified as it appears to restrict enterprise developments to those that use the fixed assets of the farm. Enterprises which use the skills of the farmer, his/her spouse or children but which do not use the fixed assets of the farm could be ruled out. The indicators proposed for measurement of output, impact and results are appropriate.

Support for business creation and development: The rationale for this proposal is well explained. The target group is well defined. The indicators proposed for measurement of output, impact and results are in general appropriate. However, provision should be made in the evaluation of results for the fact that some enterprises will fail within a few years and that ‘gross jobs created’ could be a misleading indicator. Preference should be for net jobs created. Likewise care should be taken with the use of regional economic growth data as an evaluator of the impact of the measure, as it could be derived from other factors.

It is not clear (but is implied) that support under this heading will be confined to micro-enterprises.

Encouragement of tourism activities: The rationale for this proposal is well explained. The target group is well defined. The objectives and content are clear. We note with approval that the proposal is not limited to agri-tourism. We consider, however, that the indicators need some revision. In relation to output, the classification is across three dimensions, which differ from the elements included in the content. The latter appear preferable. In relation to impact, we feel that economic growth data, even at a regional level are too macro to capture the impact of the programme and should be excluded. Employment creation data are the most appropriate indicator but we wonder whether it is necessary to class them as on and off-farm.

Basic services for the economy and rural population: This proposal relates to the provision of cultural, amenity and leisure facilities in rural areas, where their absence may contribute to continued population decline or to an inability to attract migrants. It is a quality of life issue, only indirectly economic. As stated earlier the justification for this and similar measures (which we accept are necessary) has been underplayed in the opening chapter. Subject to that the rationale for this proposal is well explained here. The target group is well defined. The objectives and content are clear. Again we feel the indicators proposed under the headings of ‘result’ and ‘impact’ need revision. The result indicator suggested is the ‘Number of Communities benefiting from actions’, which seems to duplicate the number of actions. Some measure of uptake or

- 450 -

use of the facilities provided seems appropriate here, such as is included under impact. Likewise, the impact indicator requires revision. Economic growth is not an appropriate indicator in this case, and neither is the number benefiting from training support (which seems misplaced here). We acknowledge that it is extremely difficult to devise an appropriate indicator for a ‘quality of life’ issue. This may be an issue where Local Groups could benefit from an exchange of views with similar groups in other Member States or from some wider research project at the outset of the programme.

Village renewal and development: The objective here is to provide appropriate small-scale infrastructure to enhance the economic and social attractiveness of villages, small towns and the surrounding countryside. It is predominantly a quality of life issue but has some economic benefits, e.g. in tourism and farmers’ markets. As stated before the undoubted case for improving the quality of life in rural areas requires more elaboration and discussion in the opening chapter, with a clearer definition of what the problems are and how they can be addressed. Subject to that, the rationale for this proposal is well explained here. The target group is well defined. The objectives and content are clear. However, there are again some problems with the indicators. We find it confusing that the classification of activity under the output and results indicators is different from those included in the ‘content’. As before, we have problems with the use of economic growth as an impact indicator.

Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage: The objective here is ‘To provide an integrated approach to the protection of the local heritage complemented by a range of initiatives designed to develop the sustainable economic contribution of the natural heritage’. Clearly, conservation is the primary objective, while there is a subsidiary economic objective. Conservation of heritage is related to local pride and is a ‘quality of life’ objective. The rationale for this proposal is well explained and the target group is well defined. The objectives and content are clear. However, there are again some problems with the indicators. We find it confusing that the classification of activity under the output and results indicators is different from those included in the ‘content’. As before, we have problems with the use of economic growth as an impact indicator but recognise the difficulties in devising appropriate indicators for ‘quality of life’ issues.

Training for economic actors: The objective of this measure is to equip rural dwellers and communities with the appropriate range of skills and training to derive maximum social and economic benefit from the initiatives available under this axis. It is based on the assumption that the successful implementation of these measures also requires training in adapted and new skills for all rural dwellers and communities. The provision of a wide range of training courses in new technology and ICT is proposed as is the provision of new training facilities and distance learning opportunities.

While this is undoubtedly an important area for investment, the link with the analysis in Chapter 1 is not as clear as it could be. This Chapter does refer to the educational qualifications of rural and urban dwellers, showing that rural dwellers have a disparity in educational attainment, which may be largely attributed to differences in the age structure of the population. The argument for skills training should be further elaborated.

Among the list of skills proposed to be provided, entrepreneurship is noticeably

- 451 -

absent. Given the professed need for new businesses and developments, this seems surprising. Without entrepreneurs there would be no market for other new technologies.

The output indicators are appropriate. The results indicator should differ from these. It is suggested that the results indicator would quantify the extent to which those who attended the courses had used the new skills in existing or new enterprises. Likewise the impact indicator would quantify the extent to which these new or existing enterprises had increased in employment or turnover in subsequent years.

Animation of local communities: The objective of this measure is to utilise the bottom-up structures of the LEADER methodology to create awareness, understanding and motivation in rural communities so as to enable their full participation and input into the preparation of local development strategies. Since all Axis 3 measures will be delivered through the LEADER methodology by Local Action Groups, the animation and capacity building needs of the rural territory are central to a successful uptake of the programme in all rural areas. The objectives and content of the proposal is clear.

Implementing local development strategies: This measure under Axis 4 is concerned with the selection of the LEADER Groups who will administer the various programmes under Axis 3. The criteria for selection and the timetable are set out and the maximum number of groups laid down. An expenditure of €4.1m is foreseen but it is not clear what is covered. The preparation of business plans by each prospective LEADER Group will be necessary and subsequent negotiations with Government departments and local authorities before their final approval as a LEADER Group. It is presumed that the budget figure relates to these activities. Indicators are proposed here for the overall activity of these LEADER Groups under Axes 3 and 4. These indicators are appropriate.

Co-operation among local groups: Under axis 4, LEADER Groups will be required to co-operate with each other, including the implementation of joint projects. Projects in tourism and the environment seem particularly appropriate for adjoining groups. Groups will be required to reserve at least 3per cent of their overall budget allocation to co-operation. The activities to be funded under this heading will include preparatory activity, co-ordination and animation. Inter-territorial co-operation has the twin aims of achieving the critical mass necessary for a joint project to be viable and encouraging complementary actions in adjoining LAGs. In relation to the targets, we note that co-operation projects are envisaged to account for 3per cent of all projects (150/5,000) but that the employment generated is envisaged as 5per cent of the total (100/2,000). In view of the likely high share of environmental projects among the ‘co-operative’ projects it seems unlikely that co-operative projects would yield a higher than average share of jobs created.

Local group administration: The objective of this measure is to provide LAGs with sufficient resources and expertise to efficiently administer all measures under Axes 3 and 4 throughout all of the rural territory. A limit of 20per cent of all funding is to be applied to administration. Provision is made for some training for board members and LAG staff.

The rationale for this proposal is well explained here. The target group is well defined. The objectives and content are clear. The indicators proposed, however, do

- 452 -

not appear appropriate, since they relate only to training activities. The output from the expenditure here is surely a network of professionally run, local action groups, with strong local participation, and a portfolio of innovative projects which contribute significantly to local development. Given that most of the current LAG groups are likely to continue, it might be appropriate to carry out a benchmarking study of existing LEADER groups in 2006 and to carry out similar studies at the time of mid-term evaluation and at the end of the programme. This would provide a good basis for evaluation.

We see one potential problem with the arrangements for the Local Action Groups. This relates to their relationship with County Development Boards. The text states that Local Action Groups will be obliged to have cross-representation arrangements with County Development Boards and have business plans endorsed by them. The latter requirement could in certain circumstances create difficulties. It is at least possible that where relations are strained between a LEADER Group and a County Development Board the approval of business plans might unreasonably be withheld or unreasonable and restrictive conditions be placed on it. A modification of this requirement may be necessary.

Technical support: The final proposal is to allow the provision of specific ‘technical support’. While this is probably an excellent idea the objectives are not clearly defined and the rationale is not explained. Likewise, there are no indicators of results or impact. While consultants studies may be confidential, some indicator that the work was indeed done is necessary and if appropriate some indicator of actions taken as a result (even if such action is to abandon a proposal).

Implementing Arrangements

The Implementing arrangements appear appropriate (apart from the issue in relation to County Development Boards referred to above).

Conclusions, Key Issues and Recommendations

A fundamental difficulty with evaluating Axes 3 and 4 Measures is that the RDP and the earlier draft Rural Development Strategy both approach the overall issue of Rural Development with the requirements of EC Council Directive 1698/2005 very much in mind. While the requirements of 1698/2005 is more appropriate for Axis 1 and Axis 2, it would appear that a more holistic and comprehensive Rural Development Plan is necessary when one starts to address rural quality of life issues. This difficulty in evaluation is accentuated by the fact that other interventions in addressing rural development included in the NDP were not available to the evaluators. Thus the evaluation has to look at what is a somewhat partial picture.

The issues and measures addressed under Axes 3 and 4 cover only a part of overall public support for development in rural areas and indeed only a part of the needs. In the context of a new National Plan it would be very desirable to see a document which incorporated all the proposals affecting rural development together, and evaluated together. Specific proposals such as the CLÁR programme to overcome disadvantage, and proposals for expanding the broadband network and for rural transport, have predominantly rural impacts. Others such as R and D investment, industrial development, rail and road networks and the national spatial strategy all have major implications for rural areas. The evaluators feel that a Strategy and Plan with a wider vision of rural development needs to be produced to outline the totality of

- 453 -

Government’s proposed interventions. In the absence of this the current plan should endeavour to show what other initiatives are contained in the NDP that address other identified priorities and problems in rural areas.

However, within the limitations of the current RDP the Axes 3 and 4 measures are considered as appropriate and reasonable responses to identified problems. The overall approach and proposed measures show that the requirements of Council Regulation 1698/2005 have been well-understood and taken into account in an imaginative yet realistic manner. In particular the need to clearly define the principles of coherence and complementarity of the axis for the improvement of the quality of life in rural areas and the diversification of the rural economy with other Community financial instruments, and especially with those of cohesion policy, has been addressed. The objective of ‘mainstreaming LEADER’ and to transfer the basic principles of the LEADER approach to the programmes is inherent in the draft programme.

Our main criticisms predominantly relate to targets, some of which require to be changed. We acknowledge again the difficulty of setting impact targets on quality of life issues. While impact could possibly be measured ex-ante and ex-post through a survey of residents, this is something that needs to be assessed in terms of cost/benefit.

5. Added value of Community involvement

The total cost of the RDP is estimated at €7.1 billion of which €4.3 billion is co- funded by the EU at the rate of 50 per cent to 55 per cent, making a total contribution amounting of €2.3 billion. As noted, 80 per cent of the total is devoted to the support of activities which provide public goods in the form of general environmental protection, promotion of biodiversity, landscape appearance and public amenities. By definition these goods cannot be charged for and must therefore be paid from public funds. Finding finance for activities with intangible benefits is greatly aided by the availability of heavy co-funding from the EAFRD.

6. Monitoring and evaluation systems

The RDP was drawn up on the basis of a wide-ranging consultation with interested parties. The RDP will be subject to an Ex-Ante Evaluation (the present report) and a Mid-Term Evaluation. Individual measures of the Programme may also be subject to evaluations or expenditure reviews under the Government’s Strategic Management Initiative procedures or otherwise. A major EU-wide review of the CA scheme is due in 2010 and at the moment a report is being prepared by consultants.

The implementation of the RDP will be the responsibility of the CAP Rural Development Division of DAF with the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs having responsibility for Axis 3 measures. The RDP will be subject to periodic review by the Monitoring Committee, which will include representatives of agricultural and rural interests as well as of the two Departments concerned.

An essential element in the monitoring of the RDP is the identification of an appropriate set of performance indicators. These indicators need to be relevant, accurate and readily available. Where public goods are concerned, such as amenities, environment and biodiversity, indicators of impact, in particular, can be difficult to define. The consultants urge a coordinated approach to development of indicators by

- 454 -

the two Departments in order to ensure a consistent and comprehensive set of indicators which are relevant to the individual measures and to the programme as a whole. Primary reliance for the derivation of indicators will rest with the administrative and management system – at least as far as inputs and results are concerned. But indicators of impacts – especially those relating to the environment— may require the development of specific systems of measurement. Considering that the RDP will amount to €7 billion, investment in special measurement systems and surveys should be highly justifiable.

7. Strategic Environmental Assessment

As required by the Terms of Reference a Strategic Environmental Assessment that assesses the likely impact on the environment of the measures proposed in the RDP has been prepared by the evaluators. This is summarised below. The full version is found in appendix 10.

7.1 Definition and Scope of Strategic Environmental Assessment

The SEA is the formal, systematic evaluation of the significant environmental effects of a plan or programme before a decision is made to adopt and implement it. As part of that process an Environmental Report is prepared and is included as part of the overall ex-ante evaluation. The SEA identifies those aspects of the proposed Programme that are likely to have a significant environmental effect and establishes the necessary control and monitoring measures that will apply in reducing such adverse effects.

7.2 Outline description of the Measures proposed

As set out in Ireland’s Rural Development National Strategy 2007—2013, the Programme will contribute to each of the three objectives detailed in Article 4 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.

7.3 Baseline Environmental Information

Irish agriculture is predominantly extensive and grass-based. Tillage occupies some 10 per cent of utilisable agricultural area; most of the remainder is devoted to cattle and sheep farming. 75 per cent of the utilisable area is currently categorised as disadvantaged, and 77 per cent of farmers qualify for Less Favoured Areas payments.

Ireland’s water quality compares well with that of most other EU countries although there is evidence of slight or moderate pollution in certain rivers and lakes. In the case of air the Environmental Protection Agency reports that serious outdoor air quality problems no longer exist in Ireland. They also note, however, that emissions from road traffic are the primary threat to the quality of air in Ireland.

Emissions from the agricultural sector are forecast to fall substantially through the Kyoto commitment period 2008–2012 to some 12 per cent below 1990 levels. These projections assume the full decoupling of agricultural support from production, as is now underway.

Ireland’s National Biodiversity Plan envisages a major role for agriculture and forestry. This includes the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) that now places a far greater emphasis on biodiversity and, for example, has specific measures

- 455 -

for the conservation and maintenance of hedgerows. 75 per cent of our agricultural land is classed as ‘Less Favoured Areas’ and a similar proportion of High Nature Value areas are situated in them. Forestry, and in particular well-planned forestry, can contribute positively to biodiversity.

Forestry also has a significant contribution to make to Renewable Energy. For example, based on the level of afforestation established since the mid-1980s, the contribution of forestry thinnings to the national energy supply chain will increase ten-fold between 2006 and 2020.

7.4 Anticipated Environmental Effects arising from Axis 1 Measures

‘Traditional’ lower intensity farming with fewer inputs may be replaced by more efficient and productive agricultural practices, and the potential for adverse effects on the environment may increase somewhat. However, the Axis 1 objective of having a younger, better trained farming community should have positive benefits as they are more likely to be environmentally aware and to have the necessary farm management skills and capability to reduce or eliminate any significant (negative) environmental effects that increased farm productivity might have.

The central theme of the Farm Improvement Measures is to promote diversification of farm activities that are supported in a manner that promotes higher standards for environmental protection, health, safety and animal welfare. Maintenance of diversification of land use also has an impact of maintaining and protecting established landscapes. These all have potentially positive environmental effects of varying significance.

In the case of forestry, extensive areas of single species plantations have been the norm in the past and these can in many instances have adverse implications for biodiversity. In this instance the Programme seeks to shift to more dispersed, better managed, plantations. This provides the opportunity for the creation of greater diversity of habitat for flora and fauna at forest margins and consequent benefits for the encouragement of biodiversity.

Adherence to the Code of Best Forest Practice will be of key importance in the case of protection of water quality as there is real potential for adverse impacts as described in more detail under Afforestation Related Measures below.

The Programme also proposes to encourage the manufacture of downstream value-added forest products. Where production facilities result these will be subject to development consent from the local authority in whose administrative area the enterprise is to be established. Where large-scale downstream projects (e.g. paper or board mills) arise that are likely to have significant environmental effects. These are subject to detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on a project-by-project basis under the EU EIA Directive.

7.5 Anticipated Environmental Effects arising from Axis 2 Measures

(a) Improving the Environment and the Countryside (Primarily Nature Conservation Related Measures)

The Programme plans to continue a range of extensive supports for habitat and

- 456 -

species conservation. Measures include the strengthening of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS), Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to the Water Framework Directive and the Less Favoured Areas compensatory allowances and thus promote and support farming practices that are environmentally sensitive and sustainable. Under the new programme it is now proposed to expand the scheme to include eligibility to intensive farming activities, thereby bringing a greater and wider degree of biodiversity protection, and environmental protection generally, than applied heretofore.

The Measures will, as is the intention, make a ‘Significant’ contribution to the conservation of natural habitats and to the conservation of the floral and faunal species these habitats support. As such both the REPS and Natura 2000 Measures for the protection of designated sites (a full listing of which is provided in Appendix 3 of the Draft RDP) are Environmental Protection Measures and represent the single most important elements of the Draft RDP as regards the protection of biodiversity. With sufficient resources and application the Measures should be at least capable of arresting the rate of decline in biodiversity in these areas, while also providing for the possibility of regaining some species lost to Ireland and strengthening the status of others. The Measures will have positive impacts on biodiversity beyond national boundaries in that they afford protection to a range of migratory species and act to conserve the habitats such species use for that part of their life-cycle spent in Ireland.

(b) Improving the Environment and the Countryside – Afforestation Related Measures

There are a number of ‘Afforestation Related Measures’ proposed under Axis 2.

In promoting afforestation, including broadleaf woodlands, the Measures will afford the opportunity for greater diversity of land use and the greater biodiversity that can follow over time. Insofar as the forests and woodlands are also intended to be promoted as recreational assets, they have the potential to provide benefits of some significance for encouraging an active lifestyle and consequent benefit to human health.

Climatic benefits will also accrue, as tree growth sequesters carbon while also providing substitute materials for a wide range of products including construction products such as timber-frame housing, all in a manner that is essentially carbon neutral.

Forest output will include wood fuel. As elsewhere in Europe, Ireland is making rapid strides towards the use of carbon neutral wood as a substitute for imported hydrocarbons as a fuel source.

The principal potential adverse effects of forestry are in relation to watercourses. Strict adherence to appropriate planting practices such as adequate set back from watercourses are essential for avoidance of siltation, soil disturbance, acidification of waters and nutrient runoff. It is noted, however, that the Code of Best Forest Practice addresses both the issue of water quality protection in particular and also archaeological issues (deep soil disturbance) that might arise.

- 457 -

7.6. Anticipated Environmental Effects arising from Axes 3 and 4 Measures

The overall priority for the Axes 3 and 4 Measures is to stimulate economic and social activity in all rural areas. The range of actions to deliver this priority was chosen to deliver the optimum economic and social impact while demonstrating internal as well as external complementarity at Axis level.

The essential objective of the various Measures is to make a useful contribution to maintaining a viable rural population while also maintaining quality of life in a valued rural environment. As such the Axes 3 and 4 Measures will make a positive contribution to population and health. Similarly, by supporting the retention and development of a viable rural community, aspects such as the existing built environment and the rural landscape can be maintained and enhanced. Equally, adverse environmental impacts such as significant land abandonment and the loss of material assets that such abandonment represents can be reduced or avoided.

The principal possible negative impact identified is the inevitable growth of traffic as a consequence of a more vibrant rural community. As a counterbalance to this, however, it is recognised that by rooting jobs and social infrastructure locally the necessity to commute long distances can be greatly reduced.

Environmental impacts associated with the development of the various tourism facilities, recreational buildings, small business premises etc will all be subject to planning consent prior to construction and as administered by the relevant Local Authority in each area. This affords the opportunity to apply (as is the norm) appropriate planning consent ‘Conditions’ to reduce any adverse effects.

7.7 Alternatives to the Programme

An examination of the Draft RDP suggests that collectively the Measures proposed will do much to progress rural development in both an economically sustainable and environmentally sustainable manner. The principal alternative to the Draft RDP would be not to implement the Programme, (termed the ‘Do-Nothing Scenario’) or to drop substantial elements of it. Of particular concern in the absence of the Programme would be the potential for widespread abandonment of farmland and its environs as a consequence of a further more pronounced shift to off-farm income activity in response to the decline in more traditional farm output and income. It is self evident that the Do-Nothing Scenario would likely result in significant adverse environmental effects across a wide range of environmental parametres (biodiversity, population, climate etc).

7.8 Monitoring Environmental Effects of Proposed Programme

It is a requirement under SEA that provision is made for monitoring the environmental effects of a plan or programme over its lifetime. This is central in ensuring that adverse environmental effects are quickly identified, quantified and addressed in a timely and effective manner. To this end this Environmental Report makes a number of Recommendations in respect of monitoring. The principal Recommendation is that: The Department of Agriculture and Food should establish and oversee a comprehensive, integrated, environmental monitoring programme. That programme should ideally be based on a sophisticated Geographical Information System (GIS).

- 458 -

Appendix 10

RURAL DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMME 2007—2013

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) OF THE RURAL DEVELOPMENTAL PROGRAMME

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTOF THE

DRAFT RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

Circa Group Europe

- 459 -

Abbreviations

The Regulation Unless indicated otherwise this refers to Regulation 1698/2005BMW Border Midland and Western RegionBWI BirdWatch IrelandCAS Designated Areas (Less Favoured Areas) Compensatory amounts CAP RDP CAP Rural Development Programme 2000—2006CBS Countryside Bird SurveyCHP Combined Heat and PowerDAF Department of Agriculture and FoodDCGRA Department of Community, Gaeltacht and Rural AffairsDELG Department of the Environment and Local GovernmentEAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural DevelopmentEAGGF European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee FundEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEPA Environmental protection AgencyERS Early Retirement SchemeFFI Family Farm IncomeGFP Code of Good Farmer PracticeIAS Young Farmer Installation Aid SchemeLAG Local Area GroupsLEADER EU Community Initiative for rural developmentLFAs Less Favoured Areas, Designated AreasLU Livestock UnitsNDP National Development ProgrammeNFS National Farm SurveyNHA Natural Heritage AreaNSS National Spatial StrategyRD Strategy Rural Development National Strategy Plan 2007—2013RBD River Basin DistrictRDP Rural Development PlanREPS Rural Environment Protection SchemeSAC Special Areas of ConservationSEA Strategic Environmental AssessmentSE South and Eastern RegionSFP Single Farm PaymentSPA Special Protection AreaUAA Utilisable Agricultural AreaWFD Water Framework Directive

- 460 -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3 SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OBJECTIVES

5 BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

6. DESCRIPTION OF AXES AND MEASURES PROPOSED FOR EACH AXIS

7 IDENTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

8 AXIS 1: IMPROVING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY SECTOR

9 AXIS 2: IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE COUNTRYSIDE

10 AXIS 3 & 4 MEASURES

11 PROMOTION OF EQUALITY

12 ALTERNATIVES

13. MONITORING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROGRAMME

14 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

15 RECOMMENDATIONS

- 461 -

1. INTRODUCTION

The Department of Agriculture and Food (DAF) has prepared a Draft Rural Development Programme (RDP) for the entire area of the Republic of Ireland. This Programme is subject to an ex-ante Review. As this is a ‘Programme’ prepared by a Government Body and has a potential for significant environmental effects it is required to be subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in accordance with EU Directive 2001/42/EC (commonly referred to as the SEA Directive). The relevant implementing Regulations in Ireland are: the European Communities (environmental assessment of certain plans and programmes) Regulations, S.I. 435 of 2004 and the Planning and Development (strategic environmental assessment) Regulations, S.I. No. 436 of 2004.

Strategic Environmental Assessment is the formal, systematic evaluation of the significant environmental effects of a plan or programme before a decision is made to adopt the plan or programme. A key element of SEA is the Environmental Report. This is an overarching document that takes a strategic overview of the plan or programme and as such is positioned at the top of a hierarchy of assessment measures and requirements that are to be applied at implementation level. These downstream assessment measures and requirements include assessment at planning consent stages, conditions, payment levels and formal agreements (between ‘donor’ and ‘recipient’) for the various support mechanisms and includes the assessment of feedback from monitoring of programme implementation for further adapting those conditions and payments where required.

For this reason the Department sought tenders for the preparation of an SEA in accordance with the requirements of the SEA Directive and Regulations. AFCon Management Consultants were commissioned by the Department to conduct an ex-ante Review of the Draft RDP and to prepare, as a parallel task, the Environmental Report element of SEA. The required Environmental Report has been prepared by Circa Group Europe in association with AFCon.

The Environmental Report is structured in a way that it can be read as a stand-alone document independent of the ex-ante Review of the Draft RDP. If a deeper understanding of the non-environmental issues associated with the Draft RDP is required then that Draft document should be consulted.

The preparation of the Environmental Report took into account the Guidelines on Strategic Environmental Assessment issued to Planning Authorities by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in November. 2004. The principal elements within the Environmental Report may be summarised as follows:

Outline of the Programme with a focus on those aspects that have a potential environmental impact

Description of the environment which may be effected Identification of the likely significant environmental effects Consideration of alternatives with a view to preventing any adverse

effects Mitigation measures to reduce the significance of the potential effect

- 462 -

Monitoring proposals to measure the environmental effects of the Programme.

It should be noted that under S.I. 435, 2004, Section 168 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 is amended to state that SEA should be carried out for all plans or programmes ‘which are not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a European site but, either individually or in combination with other plans, are likely to have a significant effect on any such site.’ As Natura 2000 and much of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) are directly connected with and necessary for the management of European site(s) the clear intent is that SEA in relation to a programme such as Natura 2000 or REPS, in whole or in part, is not a requirement. That an environmental assessment of a scheme/programme specifically formulated to protect the environment is not a mandatory requirement is self-evident. However, for completeness of the assessment of the Draft RDP it was decided to address these environmental protection measures in the Environmental Report.

The RDP, when adopted, will complement and interact with a range of other Plans including the future National Bio-Energy Action Plan, the National Spatial Strategy, the future National Development Plan, the various statutory County Development Plans and Local Area Plans.

No difficulties of note were encountered in preparing the Environmental Report. Under the SEA Directive only readily available, existing data are required for the assessment and no new data were therefore generated or were necessary.

Scoping of the SEA ReportThe Report was prepared in late 2006 and was based on information contained in the Draft RDP, meetings with staff of the Department and information gathered from a range of other technical sources. Relevant staff from various Government Departments and Agencies, including the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DoEHLG), the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (DCMNR) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were advised of the Draft RDP and their views sought. In the case of the DoEHLG a number of issues were raised and are addressed in this Report. Some highly detailed ones, however, were considered to be more appropriate to the implementation stage rather than to the strategic overview stage as applies in SEA. In addition, organisations/groups such as the Irish Farmers Association, Comhar, Tipperary Institute, County Councils and various local voluntary bodies were consulted. In all over 70 such organisations/bodies responded with comments. The scope of the Report was also guided by the identified Environmental Protection Objectives of the draft RDP.

- 463 -

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2.1 Strategic Environmental Assessment

The Department of Agriculture has prepared a Draft Rural Development Programme (RDP) for the entire area of the Republic of Ireland. Under EU Directive 2001/42/EC (commonly referred to as the SEA Directive) this Programme is subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). SEA is the formal, systematic, evaluation of the significant environmental effects of a plan or programme before a decision is made to adopt and implement it. This is the report on the SEA. It identifies those aspects of the proposed Programme that are likely to have a significant environmental effect and establishes the necessary control and monitoring measures that will apply in reducing such adverse effects.

2.2 Outline description of the Measures proposed

As set out in Ireland’s Rural Development National Strategy 2007—2013, the Programme will contribute to each of the three objectives detailed in Article 4 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, namely:

Improving the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry by supporting restructuring, development and innovation (Axis 1)

Improving the environment and the countryside by supporting land management (Axis 2)

Improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of economic activity (Axes 3 and 4).

In order to achieve these objectives the Programme proposes a number of Measures under each Axis. In summary, some of the principal elements they include as follows:

Axis 1 Agricultural and forestry training Progressing the age profile of farmers to younger farmers through Measures

such as early retirement schemes. Farm improvement Adding value to forestry products Forest infrastructure

Axis 2 Less Favoured Areas – Compensatory Allowances Agri-Environment/Natura 2000 aimed at conserving biodiversity Animal welfare/breeding Various forestry measures including afforestation of agricultural and non-

agricultural land, protection of woodlands etc.

Axes 3 and 4 Farm diversification Promotion of farm-related small enterprises Development of tourism based on the agri-environment and rural communities Village renewal and local conservation

464

Promotion of local community initiatives Training.

2.3 Baseline Environmental Information

Irish agriculture is predominantly extensive and grass-based. Tillage occupies some 10 per cent of utilisable agricultural area; most of the remainder is devoted to cattle and sheep farming. 75 per cent of the utilisable area is currently categorised as disadvantaged, and 77 per cent of farmers qualify for Less Favoured Areas or Compensatory Amounts payments.

Ireland’s water quality compares well with that of most other EU countries, although there is evidence of slight or moderate pollution in certain rivers and lakes. In the case of air, the Environmental Protection Agency reports that serious outdoor air quality problems no longer exist in Ireland. They also note, however, that emissions from road traffic are the primary threat to the quality of air in Ireland.

Emissions from the agricultural sector are forecast to fall substantially through the Kyoto commitment period 2008–2012 to some 12 per cent below 1990 levels. These projections assume the full decoupling of agricultural support from production, as is now underway.

Ireland’s National Biodiversity Plan envisages a major role for agriculture and forestry. This includes the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) that now places a far greater emphasis on biodiversity and, for example, has specific measures for the conservation and maintenance of hedgerows. 75 per cent of our agricultural land is classed as ‘Less Favoured Areas’ and a similar proportion of High Nature Value areas are situated in them. Forestry, and in particular well-planned forestry, can contribute positively to biodiversity.

Forestry also has a significant contribution to make to Renewable Energy, for example based on the level of afforestation established since the mid-1980s; the contribution of forestry thinnings to the national energy supply chain will increase ten fold between 2006 and 2020.

2.4 Anticipated Environmental Effects arising from Axis 1 Measures

Axis 1 measures are intended to enhance the competitiveness of benefiting farms and this may increase adverse environmental effects on these farms. While ‘traditional’ lower intensity farming with fewer inputs are now being replaced by more efficient and productive agricultural practices, the potential for adverse effects on the environment may increase somewhat. However, the Axis 1 objective of having a younger, better trained farming community should have positive benefits as they are more likely to be environmentally aware and to have the necessary farm management skills and capability to reduce or eliminate any significant (negative) environmental effects that increased farm productivity might have.

The central theme of the Farm Improvement Measures is to promote diversification of farm activities that are supported in a manner that promotes higher standards for environmental protection, health, safety, and animal welfare. Maintenance of

465

diversification of land use also has an impact of maintaining and protecting established landscapes. These all have potentially positive environmental effects of varying significance.

The Programme also proposes to encourage the manufacture of downstream value-added forest products. In principle downstream timber processing can have environmental effects, but the scale of these measures is relatively insignificant. Potential adverse effects, if any, will be controlled by the normal planning process. Other forest measures will be monitored by the Forest Inspectorate. Where production facilities result these will be subject to development consent from the local authority in whose administrative area the enterprise is to be established. Where large-scale downstream projects (e.g. paper or board mills) arise that are likely to have significant environmental effects these are subject to detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on a project-by-project basis under the EU EIA Directive.

2.5 Anticipated Environmental Effects arising from Axis 2 Measures

(a) Improving the Environment and the Countryside (Primarily Nature Conservation Related Measures)

The Programme plans to continue a range of extensive supports for habitat and species conservation. Measures include the strengthening of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS), Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to the Water Framework Directive which promote and support farming practices that are environmentally sensitive and sustainable. Under the new programme it is now proposed to expand the scheme to include eligibility to intensive farming activities, thereby bringing a greater and wider degree of biodiversity protection, and environmental protection generally, than applied heretofore.

The Measures will, as is the intention, make a ‘Significant’ contribution to the conservation of natural habitats and to the conservation of the floral and faunal species these habitats support. As such both the REPS and Natura 2000 Measures for the protection of designated sites (a full listing of which is provided in Appendix 3 of the Draft RDP) are Environmental Protection Measures and represent the single most important elements of the Draft RDP as regards the protection of biodiversity. With sufficient resources and application the Measures should be at least capable of arresting the rate of decline in biodiversity in these areas while also providing for the possibility of regaining some species lost to Ireland and strengthening the status of others. The Measures will have positive impacts on biodiversity beyond national boundaries in that they afford protection to a range of migratory species and act to conserve the habitats such species use for that part of their life cycle spent in Ireland.

(b) Improving the Environment and the Countryside –Afforestation Related Measures

There are a number of ‘Afforestation Related Measures’ proposed under Axis 2. These are:

First Afforestation of Agricultural Land

466

First Afforestation of Non-Agricultural Land First Establishment of Agro-Forestry Systems on Agricultural Land Forest Environment Payments Reconstitution and Protection of Woodlands.

In promoting afforestation, including broadleaf woodlands, the Measures will afford the opportunity for greater diversity of land use and the greater biodiversity that can follow over time. Insofar as the forests and woodlands are also intended to be promoted as recreational assets they have the potential to provide benefits of some significance for encouraging an active lifestyle and consequent benefit to human health.

Climatic benefits will accrue as tree growth sequesters carbon while also providing substitute materials for a wide range of products including construction products such as timber-frame housing, all in a manner that is essentially carbon-neutral.

Forest output will include wood fuel. As elsewhere in Europe, Ireland is making rapid strides towards the use of carbon-neutral wood as a substitute for imported hydrocarbons as a fuel source.

The principal potential adverse effects of forestry are in relation to watercourses. Strict adherence to appropriate planting practices such as adequate set back from watercourses are essential for avoidance of siltation, soil disturbance, acidification of waters and nutrient runoff. It is noted, however, that the Code of Best Forest Practice addresses both the issue of water quality protection in particular and also archaeological issues (deep soil disturbance) that might arise.

2.6 Anticipated Environmental Effects arising from Axes 3 and 4 Measures

The overall priority for the Axes 3 and 4 Measures is to stimulate economic and social activity in all rural areas. The range of actions to deliver this priority was chosen to deliver the optimum economic and social impact while demonstrating internal as well as external complementarity at Axis level.

The Measures proposed include actions to:

Support for diversification into non-agricultural activities Support for business creation and development Encouragement of tourism activities Basic services for the economy and rural population Village renewal and development, and conservation and upgrading of the rural

heritage Training and information measures including skills acquisition.

The essential objective of the various Measures is to make a useful contribution to maintaining a viable rural population while also maintaining quality of life in a valued rural environment. As such the Axes 3 and 4 Measures will make a positive contribution to population and health. Similarly, by supporting the retention and development and of a viable rural community, aspects such as the existing built environment and the rural landscape can be maintained and enhanced. Equally,

467

adverse environmental impacts such as significant land abandonment and the loss of material assets that such abandonment represents can be reduced or avoided.

The principal negative impact identified is the inevitable growth of traffic as a consequence of a more vibrant rural community. As a counterbalance to this, however, it is recognised that by rooting jobs and social infrastructure locally the necessity to commute long distances can be greatly reduced.

Environmental impacts associated with the development of the various tourism facilities, recreational buildings, small business premises etc. will all be subject to planning consent prior to construction and as administered by the relevant Local Authority in each area. This affords the opportunity to apply (as is the norm) appropriate planning consent ‘Conditions’ to reduce any adverse effects.

2.7 Alternatives to the ProgrammeAn examination of the Draft RDP suggests that collectively the Measures proposed will do much to progress rural development in both an economically sustainable and environmentally sustainable manner. The principal alternative to the Draft RDP would be not to implement the Programme (termed the ‘Do-Nothing Scenario’) or to drop substantial elements of it. Of particular concern in the absence of the Programme would be the potential for widespread abandonment of farmland and its environs as a consequence of a further more pronounced shift to off-farm income activity in response to the decline in more traditional farm output and income. It is self-evident that the Do-Nothing Scenario would likely result in significant adverse environmental effects across a wide range of environmental parametres (biodiversity, population, climate etc).

2.8 Monitoring Environmental Effects of Proposed ProgrammeIt is a requirement under SEA that provision is made for monitoring the environmental effects of a plan or programme over its lifetime. This is central in ensuring that adverse environmental effects are quickly identified, quantified and addressed in a timely and effective manner. To this end this Environmental Report makes a number of Recommendations in respect of monitoring. The principal Recommendation is that the Department of Agriculture and Food should establish and oversee a comprehensive, integrated, environmental monitoring programme. That programme should ideally be based on a sophisticated Geographical Information System (GIS).

468

3. SUMMARY OF THE DRAFT RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

The RDP is a plan that seeks to identify specific problems associated with the rural economy and rural environment and respond to those problems with measures that are appropriate, effective and in line with the requirements of EC Council Directive 1698/2005. The plan is not a comprehensive rural development plan and does not address each and every rural development issue and especially infrastructural deficits.

The draft RDP proposes expenditure of €7.055 billion over a 7-year period of which €2.339 billion will be funded from the EAFRD and €4.716 billion from the National Exchequer. In line with the requirements of Council Regulation 1698/2005 the plan is structured around 3 core objectives of improving competitiveness, improving the environment and improving the quality of life in rural areas. This is reflected in the plan with measures allocated among 3 Axes corresponding to the above objectives. The axes and financial allocations are as follows:

Axis 1 Competitiveness envisages total expenditure of €665 million of which €248 million will be EU funded. The Measures are: Agricultural and forestry training Progressing the age profile of farmers to younger farmers through Measures

such as early retirement schemes Farm improvement Adding value to forestry products Forest infrastructure.

Under this Axis issues relating to the competitiveness of agriculture and food industry are addressed, particularly structural problems. The proposed measures are in the main a continuation of measures included in the RDP but with some changes in approach and design. Most of the funding is allocated to the Early Retirement Scheme (€418m) and a complementary scheme of Young Farmer Installation Aid (€63m). In total the 2 measures account for 72 per cent of total planned expenditure under the axis. Other measures planned under this axis are farm improvement – designed to promote investment in modern facilities in key sectors and support to the forestry sector.

Axis 2 Improving the environment envisages expenditure of €5,965 million of which €1,857 million will be EU funded. The Measures in this Axis are: Less Favoured Areas – Compensatory Allowances Agri-Environment/Natura 2000 aimed at conserving biodiversity Animal welfare/breeding Various forestry measures including afforestation of agricultural and non-

agricultural land, protection of woodlands etc.

Measures under this Axis focus on ways of improving the environment but with farmers and farms at the core. The measures proposed are measures included in the current RDP but with modifications and improvements based on the up-to-date problem analysis. The main measure proposed is the continuation of the REPS/Natura 2000 measure for which €2,982 million has been allocated, representing 50 per cent of expenditure under the axis. The next most important measure in terms of

469

expenditure levels is the Compensatory Amounts measure, with planned expenditure of €1,799 million or 30 per cent of expenditure under the axis. The remaining measures cover forestry initiatives with a predominantly environmental focus and for which €934 million is allocated, and animal welfare with an allocation of €250 million.

Axes 3 and 4 Improving the quality of life in rural areas includes a range of measures that are aimed at having a more sustainable rural economy with an improved quality of life. These include:

Farm diversification Promotion of farm-related small enterprises Development of tourism, based on the agri-environment and rural

communities Village renewal and local conservation Promotion of local community initiatives Training.

The measures build on similar type measures implemented under the LEADER programme in previous programmes and have a total allocation of €425 million of which €234 million is EU funded. While the Measures here are primarily aimed at improving the quality of life in rural areas, they also support and complement the objectives of Axis 1 and Axis 2.

Axis 1Measure Cost €mAgricultural Training (Teagasc) AwaitedInstallation Aid 63Early Retirement 418On-Farm Investment 150Use of Advisory Services (Forestry)

34Forestry Training Woodland Improvement Adding Value to Forestry ProductsCo-operation for new products/processes – forestryForest InfrastructureSub-Total Axis 1 665*

Axis 2Less Favoured Areas – Compensatory Allowances 1799Agri-Environment/Natura 2000 2982Animal Welfare/Breeding 250First Afforestation of Agricultural Land 898First Establishment of Agro-Forestry Systems

36First Afforestation of Non-Agricultural LandForest Environment PaymentsReconstitution and Protection of WoodlandsNon-Productive Investments – ForestrySub-Total Axis 2 5965

Axes 3 and 4Diversification 16.66

470

Enterprise 48.26Tourism 45.40Basic services 49.61Village renewal 54.20Conservation 51.70Training 21.55Animation 34.63Local Strategy 4.10Co-op 10.70LAG Administration 80.73Technical Assistance, e.g. Network 7.90Sub-Total Axes 3 and 4 425Overall Total 7055*

* Excludes training for which figure awaited.

471

4. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OBJECTIVES

A range of environmental policy measures and objectives has been formulated at international and national level and these serve to focus the assessment on those aspects of the environment that are in particular need of attention.

In terms of the Draft RDP, the environmental assets potentially affected include: Land use Water quality Biodiversity Landscape Cultural heritage.

On the basis of the above it is considered that the objectives contained in the following documents are relevant to the circumstances of the Programme.

National Biodiversity Plan (2002): This Plan, prepared in response to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, covers the 3 levels at which biodiversity may be considered, namely ecosystem, species and genetic diversity. The overall objective is to secure the conservation, including where possible the enhancement and sustainable use, of biological diversity in Ireland and to contribute to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity globally. Deriving from the plan is provision for the establishment of a National Biological Records Centre to manage collected data on the state of Ireland’s biological diversity and with a view towards providing baseline and up-to-date information on the distribution and frequency of biota, both plant and animal, in Ireland.

EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC): Transposed into Irish Law by the EU (Natural Habitats) Regulations 1997. The Directive lists certain habitats and species that must be given protection. Irish habitats include raised bogs, active blanket bogs, turloughs, sand dunes, machair, heaths, lakes, rivers, woodlands, estuaries and sea inlets.

EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC): Transposed into Irish Law mainly by the European Communities (Water Policy) Regulations 2003. This legislation aims to prevent any deterioration in the status of any waters and to achieve at least ‘good status’ in all waters by 2015. The Regulations require, in respect of each River Basin District, the establishment (by 2009) by the relevant local authorities of environmental objectives and a programme of measures to meet these objectives and a River Basin Management Plan.

European Landscape Convention (2000): The Convention, ratified by Ireland in 2002, encourages public authorities to adopt policies at local, national and international level to protect and manage landscapes throughout Europe.

European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (1992): This convention, ratified by Ireland in 1997, requires that appropriate consideration be given to archaeological issues at all stages of the planning and development process.

Sustainable Development: A Strategy for Ireland (1997): This strategy has as its overall aim ‘to ensure that the economy and society in Ireland can develop to their full

472

potential within a well protected environment, without compromising the quality of that environment, and with responsibility towards present and future generations and the wider international community.’

Irelands Environment 2004—the State of the Environment: This third State of the Environment Report by the Environmental Protection Agency brings together the most recent information on the quality of Irelands environment. It assesses the factors that affect the environment and discusses protection policies, both national and international.

5. BASELINE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION

The objectives of the Draft RDP are strongly associated with the protection, maintenance and enhancement of the quality of rural life and the natural assets (across all environmental media) that the countryside supports. As such the Draft RDP has a strong environmental focus. Consequently the Draft RDP in identifying the priority Measures to be undertaken provides extensive detail on current baseline environmental conditions. The key environmental baseline characteristics presented in this Report therefore are largely taken directly from the Draft RDP. In conjunction with this the principal Mitigation Measures in respect of environmental pressures associated with agriculture and forestry are presented. Within the assessment section for each of the Axis Measures of this Environmental Report additional key Mitigating Measures are also listed.

Environment and Land ManagementIrish agriculture is predominantly extensive and grass-based. Tillage occupies some 10 per cent of utilisable agricultural area (UAA); most of the remainder is devoted to cattle and sheep farming. 75 per cent of UAA is currently categorised as disadvantaged, and 77 per cent of farmers qualify for Less Favoured Areas payments.

Ireland has opted for full decoupling of direct payments from production, with effect from 1 January 2005. While trends are not yet apparent, a general reduction in stocking levels is forecast. The likelihood, therefore, is that, in general, a sector which is already predominantly extensive will now put even less pressure on the environment and biodiversity. However, a minority of farmers mainly in the dairying and tillage sectors are likely to become more intensive in response to market opportunities.

The position in relation to the various environmental elements is set out below.

Water QualityIreland’s water quality compares well with that of most other EU countries although there is evidence of slight or moderate pollution in certain rivers and lakes. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) presented the most recent overview of conditions in the state’s rivers and water bodies in the national report on water quality for the period 2003–2005. The last EPA report, for the period 2001–2003, had shown an improvement over the 1995–1997 reporting period and reversed a decline in water quality that had been in evidence since this length of channel was first characterised in the late 1980s. The most recent report indicates that Ireland’s water quality continues to be of a high standard.

473

The national implementation report on the Phosphorus Regulations published by the EPA in 2005 concluded that of the 496 lakes with updated trophic status information available, 401 (80.8per cent) currently comply with the targets set. The EPA considered that agricultural activities were the source of the nutrient enrichment affecting most of the non-compliant lakes but pointed to other sources such as sewage discharges in the other cases. Flood management and soil erosion are not significant issues for Ireland and no measures to address them will be proposed in the Draft RDP.

Water Quality—Mitigation MeasuresIreland is currently on target with regards to meeting its commitments under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). There have been some local improvements in water quality as a result of the implementation of local authority measure programmes under the Phosphorus Regulations although the improvement has not been universal. Local authorities will play a key role in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Ireland, including in the development and implementation of measures. The River Basin Management projects, which have been established to facilitate implementation of the Directive, will help provide local authorities with the information necessary to protect and improve water quality within their functional areas.

The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) was transposed into national law in 2003. Implementation is being led by the competent authorities, namely the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and local authorities. River Basin District (RBD) projects have been established by local authorities to implement the requirements of the WFD in National River Basin Districts. In December 2006, programmes of monitoring was made operational (led by the EPA). In June 2007, local authorities will publish a summary overview of the significant water management issues in each RBD for the purpose of consultation. In June 2008, local authorities will publish a draft River Basin Management Plan for consultation. In June 2009, local authorities will adopt and publish the final River Basin Management Plan (including objectives for all water bodies and programmes of measures to meet those objectives) following consultations and amendments as appropriate. In December 2012, the programmes of measures will be made operational by the relevant public authorities; and in June 2015 and every six years thereafter the local authorities will review and if necessary update the River Basin Management Plan and the programmes of measures.

In 2003 the Government decided to adopt a whole-territory approach to the implementation of the Nitrates Directive and the necessary regulations were made, identifying the whole national territory as the area for which an action programme would be established and applied in accordance with the Directive. The Directive itself was transposed into national law in February 2006. A revised farm waste management scheme, introduced in March 2006 following the receipt of the required EU state aid approval, provides grant aid to farmers towards investment in, inter alia, additional waste storage if they need it to comply with the Regulations giving effect to the directive. A further scheme provides grant aid, on a pilot basis, for new technology to process animal manures and to spread them in a more environmentally friendly way. Both schemes close for applications at the end of 2006.

474

The whole-territory approach was designed to ensure a comprehensive approach to the reduction and prevention of pollution from all agricultural sources, from phosphorus as well as from nitrogen.

In relation to the farmyard and the prevention of pollution arising from it, under the Regulation all farmers will be legally obliged to: Minimise the amount of soiled water produced on the holding and take all

reasonable steps to ensure that rainwater from roofs, unsoiled paved areas and water flowing from higher ground is diverted to a clean water outfall and prevented from entering onto soiled paved areas, etc

Ensure that storage facilities for livestock manure, other organic fertilisers, soiled water and effluents from dungsteads, farmyard manure pits and silage pits are maintained free of structural defect and are of such standard as is necessary to prevent run-off or seepage into ground or surface water

Ensure that new storage facilities meet the above criteria Meet the minimum manure storage capacity requirement for livestock manure

produced by cattle of 16, 18, 20 or 22 weeks, depending on location. A general requirement of 26 weeks applies for pig and poultry units.

In addition to storage and prevention of pollution, the Regulations place exacting requirements on all farm holdings in terms of the land spreading of organic and chemical fertilisers: Limits on application of fertilisers determined by soil type and crop

requirements; Timing and method of land spreading, including closed periods for application

of organic and chemical fertilisers Specific buffer zones for wells, watercourses and lakes within which the

spreading of fertiliser is prohibited.

While the most recent EPA Report shows that Ireland’s water quality is still, in general, of a high standard, Ireland will take the opportunity presented by the new RDP to introduce voluntary measures designed to improve water quality in a number of areas: specifically, certain salmon rivers and pearl mussel habitats, and the catchments of certain western lakes.

Air QualityThe EPA’s third State of the Environment Report ‘Ireland's Environment 2004’ states that: ‘Serious outdoor air quality problems do not exist in Ireland. The winter smog problems associated with coal combustion that were common in some cities during the 1980s and early 1990s have been eradicated’. It also notes that, ‘owing to the success of pollution control, related to stationary sources, emissions from road traffic are now the primary threat to the quality of air in Ireland.’

Air Quality—Mitigation MeasuresAgriculture accounts for most ammonia emissions within the Irish economy, arising primarily from animal manure and nitrogen-based fertilisers. Reductions in ammonia emissions from organic wastes are taking place due to declining numbers of animals. Decoupling under the Common Agricultural Policy is likely to maintain the downward trend in livestock populations in Ireland and the ammonia emissions ceiling of 116,000 tonnes set by the EU’s National Emission Ceiling Directive

475

2001/81/EC is likely to be achieved without further major changes in farming practice. Ammonia emissions from agriculture in 2004 amounted to 110,725 tonnes.

The main reason for this loss of ammonia is inefficient use of fertiliser. The Regulations giving effect to the Nitrates Directive lay down fertiliser limits which will give farmers an economic incentive to use nutrients as efficiently as possible, both through more careful selection of spreading periods and by using spreading technology that reduces exposure to the air.

Climate ChangeIreland’s National Climate Change Strategy, published in 2000, provides for a reduction in methane emissions from the national herd equivalent to a reduction in livestock numbers by 10 per cent below 2010 projected levels. The Strategy provides for an appropriate balance to be maintained between direct reductions in stock numbers and intensification of other measures, including a prioritised research programme to identify means of reducing emissions. It also provides for N2O emissions arising from nitrogenous fertiliser spreading to be reduced by 10 per cent below expected 2010 levels, supplemented by other measures to reduce N2O emissions from soils.

Climate Change—Trends and Mitigation Measures Emissions from the agricultural sector are forecast to fall substantially through the Kyoto commitment period 2008–2012 to an average 17.644 Mt per annum — some 12 per cent below 1990 levels. These projections assume that full decoupling of agricultural support from production, which began on 1 January 2005, will lead to significant reductions in animal numbers on Irish farms, with a consequent reduction in emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency has reported that emissions from agriculture decreased from 20.07 Mt in 2003 to 19.88 Mt in 2004, due largely to a reduction in emissions of nitrous oxide from fertiliser use. Agriculture remains the single largest contributor to the overall emissions, where emissions of methane and nitrous oxide account for almost 29 per cent of the national total of CO2 equivalents. However, this is significantly down from 1990 when agriculture contributed 36 per cent of the total.

Forestry has a significant role to play in combating climate-change, with a target set in Ireland’s National Climate Change Strategy of 1.01 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestered per annum by 2010. The latest estimates indicate that the level of sequestration in Kyoto-eligible forests, which are mainly those newly established since 1990, will actually reach some 2.1 million tonnes of CO2 per annum during the first Kyoto commitment period 2008-2012. Forestry also represents a secure and renewable source of energy, which can help reduce our dependence on imported oil, and which has the added advantage of being carbon-neutral.

Biodiversity Status and Protection-Mitigation MeasuresThe protection of air, water and soil quality and structure including appropriate and diverse land use are each important factors for sustaining biodiversity. As such agriculture and forestry and the nature/extent of human settlement and its supporting infrastructure are all sources of potential conflict with the objective of maintaining biodiversity.

476

At present there are two interlinked programmes of government action designed to protect our natural heritage, i.e. Natura 2000 and REPS. Further detail on these is set out at Appendix 3 of the Draft RDP. The area designated under the Wild Birds and Habitats Directives is some 650,000 hectares of the whole territory, and 15 per cent of agricultural land. Ireland’s National Biodiversity Plan was published in 2002 and an Interim Review was published in 2006. The Plan envisages a major role for agriculture and forestry and the Interim Review records actions already taken. These include: The rollout of REPS 3—the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme – in

2004 which now includes a far greater emphasis on biodiversity and, for example, has specific measures for the conservation and maintenance of hedgerows, with options to rejuvenate existing hedgerows and to establish new ones

The implementation by the Department of Agriculture and Food of a co-ordinated programme for the conservation and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture, food and forestry, overseen by a National Advisory Committee on Plant and Animal Genetic Resources

The employment of forest ecologists by both Coillte and the Forestry Service of the Department of Agriculture and Food

The completion of over 4000 Commonage Framework Plans—designed to eliminate overgrazing resulting from excessive sheep stocking levels.

Traditional landscapes in Ireland reflect the fact that Irish agriculture is predominantly grass-based and extensive. Though a small proportion of the more intensive dairy and tillage farmers may intensify further, there are a number of factors that will preserve traditional landscapes:

Decoupling, which will encourage farmers to keep their production at existing levels or even to reduce it

The continued high level of participation in the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme

The continued growth of part-time farming.

Any risk to the preservation of traditional landscapes is in fact more likely to take the form of abandonment of land as a result of decoupling and the trend towards part-time farming. That risk will be offset by the obligation under the Single Farm Payment scheme to keep land in good agricultural and environmental condition, but this will be supplemented in the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme that sets a high standard of conservation of landscapes by participants.

Forestry, and in particular well-planned forestry, can contribute positively to biodiversity. Existing Guidelines describe practical measures to achieve biodiversity objectives. These include the need to identify existing habitats and fauna of particular interest; the importance of species selection; and the incorporation of open area and retained habitat in the forest. The pattern of Irish forestry is changing to one of smaller forests with greater species diversity, embedded in a mixed landscape of cropland, pasture, wetland and upland. This is yielding a mosaic of different habitat types. Taking account of recent research on biodiversity, the rural development programme will develop this trend and will address ways to support forestry with enhanced environmental objectives such as the extension of wildlife corridors,

477

riparian planting and a scheme based on the provision for forest-environment payments.

Less Favoured Areas account for 75 per cent of our agricultural land and a similar proportion of High Nature Value areas are situated in them. The maintenance of farming in these areas is therefore extremely important from a biodiversity perspective. Biodiversity trends in bird life are measured by BirdWatch Ireland. Their Countryside Bird Survey 2005 does not show dramatic changes in bird populations. For the 1998–2004 period, BWI measured trends for 57 species. Overall there were significant increases in 18 species and declines in 10. They summarise the results of their Survey as follows:

‘The CBS has shown that most common bird populations have remained stable over the past seven seasons. Relatively few species show significant declines, and it appears that there is some consistency among species occupying similar habitats. However, these results are based on just seven seasons, which is still a relatively short time period. Nonetheless, it is a good baseline for future comparisons. These results will assist in greatly implementing measures to help protect breeding bird populations in Ireland.’

Ireland’s agri-environment measure, REPS, protects wild bird and animal populations through several of its elements, particularly the requirements for retention and management of hedgerows and habitats, and supplementary measures designed specifically to conserve bird populations, such as measures for protection of the corncrake and for the growing of food for wild birds through the LINNET project described later in this Report.

Other REPS measures aimed at enhancing and protecting biodiversity generally also benefit bird populations through preserving habitats and food supplies e.g. measures dealing with hedgerows, habitats, field margins, and biodiversity options such as nature corridors, species-rich grassland, tree planting and environmental management of set-aside. The emphasis on biodiversity will be retained and increased in the agri-environment and Natura measures in the new Programming Period.

Renewable Energy While the potential contribution from agriculture is still under examination, it is already clear that forestry has a significant contribution to make. Ireland is still reliant on imported energy to the tune of 87 per cent. In order to reverse this trend, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has launched an initiative to increase the use of renewable energy technologies in electricity production. Under this, electricity production from renewable sources will increase from 5.2 per cent in 2004 to 13.2 per cent by 2010. Wood fuel has a significant contribution to make towards this target through CHP (Combined Heat and Power) plants. Perhaps the biggest contribution of wood fuel will be in the area of heat provision. A scheme to support commercial scale wood-chip boilers in the 100 to 1,000 kW range using small-dimension timber will be announced in the near future by Sustainable Energy Ireland.

478

Based on the level of afforestation established since the mid-1980s, the contribution of forestry thinnings to the national energy supply chain will increase from 0.2 PJ (Peta Joules) in 2006 to 2.0 PJ in 2020. This is indicative also of the potential future contribution of forestry to energy needs.

6. DESCRIPTION OF AXES AND MEASURES PROPOSED FOR EACH AXIS

As set out in Ireland’s Rural Development National Strategy 2007—2013, the programme will contribute to each of the three objectives detailed in Article 4 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, namely: Improving the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry by supporting

restructuring, development and innovation (Axis 1) Improving the environment and the countryside by supporting land

management (Axis 2) Improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of

economic activity (Axes 3 and 4).

It will provide support through the various Measures presented below. The associated funding is also given to provide an indication of the scale of the Measures proposed.

Measure Cost €mAxis 1

Agricultural Training (Teagasc) AwaitedInstallation Aid 63Early Retirement 418On-Farm Investment 150Use of Advisory Services (Forestry)

34Forestry Training Woodland Improvement Adding Value to Forestry ProductsCo-operation for New Products/Processes – ForestryForest InfrastructureSub-Total Axis 1 665*

Axis 2Less Favoured Areas – Compensatory Allowances 1799Agri-Environment/Natura 2000 2982Animal Welfare/Breeding 250First Afforestation of Agricultural Land 898First Establishment of Agro-Forestry Systems

36First Afforestation of Non-Agricultural LandForest Environment PaymentsReconstitution and Protection of WoodlandsNon-Productive Investments – ForestrySub-Total Axis 2 5965

Axes 3 and 4Diversification 16.66Enterprise 48.26Tourism 45.40Basic services 49.61Village renewal 54.20Conservation 51.70Training 21.55Animation 34.63

479

Local Strategy 4.10Co-op 10.70LAG Administration 80.73Technical Assistance, e.g. Network 7.90Sub-Total Axes 3 & 4 425Overall Total 7055*

* Excludes training for which figure awaited.

480

7. IDENTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The SEA Directive states that the evaluation of the impact on the environment must include consideration of issues such as: Biodiversity, Population, Human Health, Fauna, Flora, Soil, Water, Air, Climatic Factors, Material Assets, Cultural Heritage including Architectural and Archaeological Heritage. Effects to be considered should include Secondary, Cumulative, Synergistic, Short, Medium and Long-term, Permanent and Temporary, Positive and Negative Effects.

While any plan/programme may have a very large number of environmental effects this is particularly the case for the RDP as it covers the total territory of Ireland and involves a wide range of development elements including social, physical infrastructure and land use. The key issue from a SEA perspective is to identify those effects likely to be significant.

To identify the potential significant environmental effects arising from implementation of the proposed RDP an initial assessment for environmental significance in respect of each of the proposed Measures under the three Axes was carried out. Subsequent to that, those Measures with a sufficient degree of commonality were aggregated under working headings and further assessed in detail for their potential environmental significance, mitigation, monitoring etc.

To assist in the assessment, implications and understanding of the very wide range of Measures, each with a varying degree of potential environmental significance acting on a diversity of receptors/issues (biodiversity, population etc.) an Assessment Matrix was prepared in respect of each of the aggregated measures. The Assessment Matrix took into account the current information on the Programme, its goals and policies, and the environmental sensitivity of the receiving environment. The positioning of positive and negative environmental effects in the Matrix of ‘Environmental Significance’ assumes the effective implementation of the Mitigation Measures proposed.

481

8. AXIS 1: IMPROVING THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY SECTOR

Summary of Axis 1 MeasuresUnder this Axis, Measures are designed to meet the objective of improving the competitiveness of the agriculture sector through: Providing farmers and farm families with innovative education and training

actions Achieving the transfer of land to young trained farmers better able to meet the

new challenges facing Irish agriculture; encouraging the transfer of holdings from older farmers to young farmers setting up in farming through support of capital improvements in farm structures, ensuring that primary agriculture becomes competitive and market-oriented

Supporting afforestation as a viable land use in compliance with the principles of sustainable forest management.

8.1 Agricultural and Forestry Training

RationaleContinued support for agricultural training is required in response to the increased competitive pressures in farming. Decoupling of support payments has created an environment that encourages market-focused efficient businesses. Many farm families, previously considered to be economically viable, are now facing serious challenges due to changes in policy and economic environment. There is a strong correlation between education and training levels and farm business competitiveness. The increasing pace and potential impact of current changes mean that farmers will require a broader range of management skills to allow them to adapt more quickly and compete more successfully. This Measure will support the innovative approaches to design and delivery of training that are required to increase participation.

Objectives To equip young prospective full and part-time farmers with the skills

necessary to embark on a career in farming To improve the competitiveness of agriculture through the provision of a

range of innovative and focused training actions.

TargetYoung people entering farming, adult farmers, agricultural contractors, and migrant workers.

482

8.1.1 Assessment of Likely Significant Effects

AXIS 1ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Agricultural and Forestry TrainingNo/Little Significance

Some Significance

Significant Uncertain

Biodiversity +

Population +Human Health

+

Fauna +Flora +Soil +Water +Air +Climatic Factors

+

Material Assets

+

Cultural Heritage (Archaeology, architecture)

+

Landscape +Materials consumption (-)

Note: Positive environmental effects are denoted by a +. Negative effects are denoted by a (-).

Material AssetsMaterial Assets can most simply be defined as those assets in the environment that have an economic value such as can be bought/sold or otherwise charged for use or required an investment of money or effort to create. Examples include roads, buildings, clean water, forests, agricultural land etc.

Comments on the Matrix—Agricultural and Forestry Training

The intention is to raise the level of training of those engaged in agriculture, including forestry. It is long recognised that levels of ‘Environmental Awareness’, particularly in relation to the protection of the natural environment, is greatly enhanced through education in general. Increased levels of environmental awareness coupled with a greater understanding and abilities in the area of farm and forestry management also have the potential to greatly improve the knowledge base for reducing adverse

483

impacts on the environment (e.g. improved nutrient and soil management including knock-on benefits to surface and groundwater quality etc.)

Similarly studies on human health and education show that levels of health associated with lifestyle (smoking, eating habits, exercise etc.) are strongly linked to education generally, with educated individuals scoring more highly on healthy lifestyle indices than those less well-educated.

These strongly positive benefits may be slightly reduced through some negative impacts. Principal among these would be greater wealth/disposable income that is generally associated with improved education levels and with the stated objective of improved farm business competitiveness being achieved. Increased levels of disposable income for farmers, agricultural contractors and migrant workers will likely give rise to increased levels in the consumption of goods (including house construction/upgrading, car purchase etc) and the associated consumption of materials, energy and generation of waste. Another indirect effect of education will likely be some increased levels of traffic generated through increases in off-farm employment that further education will facilitate. Even taking these latter negative impacts into account it is reasonable to conclude that the overall impact of Training and Education will be positive for the environment as a whole.

8.1.2 Mitigation Measures for Significant Adverse EffectsThe objective of the Measure is to raise the level of education of those engaged in agriculture and/or forestry. By raising awareness through education, including environmental awareness, the Measure in effect is of itself a Mitigation Measure as regards the protection of the environment against those minor adverse associated effects identified.

8.1.3 Monitoring Environmental Effects of Proposed Measure(s)The indicators for monitoring the environmental effects arising from the application of the Measure(s) are set out below.

Indicators Degree to which Environmental Awareness elements are incorporated in the

training and education course(s) The level of uptake by the target group (including numbers, age profile,

gender, farm size and farm/forestry activity mix) The level of course completions The duration of the course(s).

The measured output of these indicators could be usefully integrated with the monitoring results of various environmental quality indicators (biodiversity, water quality etc.)

484

8.2 Age Structure in Agriculture (Young farmers installation scheme and Early retirement from farming)

RationaleThe continued rejuvenation of the Irish farming sector is one of the priorities of Irish agricultural policy. This Scheme will assist those interested in pursuing farming as a career by offsetting the set-up costs associated with such set-up and also provides a mechanism for encouraging investment on such farms. This Measure is closely linked to the Early Retirement Scheme for farmers.

Objectives The objectives of the Scheme are (i) to achieve the transfer of land to young trained farmers better able to meet the new challenges facing Irish agriculture, (ii) to off-set the set-up costs faced by young people when establishing themselves in farming and (iii) to provide assistance for the investments required on such holdings. Ultimately the aim of these measures is to increase farm productivity.

TargetBoth young and old farmers

AXIS 1

ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Age Structure in Agriculture and Productivity MeasuresNo/Little Significance

Some Significance

Significant Uncertain

Biodiversity +

Population +Human Health

+

Fauna +Flora +Soil +Water +Air +Climatic Factors

+

Material Assets

+

Cultural Heritage (Archaeology, architecture)

+

Landscape +Note: Positive environmental effects are denoted by a +. Negative effects are denoted by a (-).

485

Comments on the Matrix—Age Structure in Agriculture and Productivity MeasuresAssuming the primary objective of increasing the ratio of young trained farmers to older, less-skilled farmers is achieved there are a number of potential environmental effects arising. With ‘traditional’ lower intensity farming with fewer inputs now being replaced by more efficient and productive agricultural practices the potential for adverse effects on the environment may increase somewhat. However, the objective of having a younger, better trained farming community should have the same positive benefits that are expected to be associated with the Training and Education in Agriculture Measure, i.e. young, trained farmers are more likely to be environmentally aware and to have the necessary farm management skills and capability to reduce or eliminate any significant (negative) environmental effects that increased farm productivity might have. Also it is worthy of note that in terms of impacts on the environment losses of nutrients, soil erosion and water pollution all represent losses to the agricultural system. As such these losses work against true agricultural productivity and for the latter stated objective of the RDP to be achieved the education and training measures should, and do, take account of these issues. It is concluded therefore that overall this Measure can have a positive environmental effect.

8.2.2 Mitigation of Significant Environmental EffectsNo significant environmental effects are anticipated, consequently mitigation is considered unnecessary for this Measure

8.2.3 Monitoring Environmental Effects of Proposed Measure(s)While no significant environmental effects are anticipated from this Measure some useful monitoring could be undertaken. The indicators for monitoring are set out below. All values are to be compared to current ‘baseline’ values in order that the magnitude and rate of change can be assessed.

Indicators: Level of farm transfers Uptake of financial supports (the amount of financial support per participant) Numbers of participants as a proportion of the target group (including numbers, age profile, gender, farm size and farm/forestry activity mix) Farm productivity (farm output and income per participant).

The measured output of these indicators could be usefully integrated with the monitoring results of various environmental quality indicators (biodiversity, water quality etc.)

8.3 Farm Improvement Schemes

Rationale The agri-food industry faces significant opportunities and threats. There must be a focus on market orientation and competitiveness at all levels. This must be done in a manner that ensures the highest level of food safety and with regard to the environment and animal welfare. This measure addresses the need for associated capital investment at farm level.

486

Objectives The measure will have four strands or sub-measures:

General farm improvementThe objectives of this sub-measure are (i) to ensure that the agriculture sector in Ireland becomes more competitive and market-oriented; (ii) to promote higher quality production on Irish farms; (iii) to promote diversification of activities on Irish farms, thereby providing other sources of agricultural income; (iv) to promote higher standards of animal welfare and protection of health and safety on Irish farms; and (v) to ensure higher environmental standards on Irish farms.

Modernisation of horticultural holdingsThis sub-measure is intended to assist in the development of the horticulture sector (including bee-keeping) by grant-aiding capital investment in specialised plant and equipment in commercial horticulture. The scheme aims to promote the diversification of on-farm activities; improve the quality of the products; facilitate environmentally friendly practices and improve working conditions.

Investment aid for the development of the potato sectorThis sub-measure is intended to assist in the development of the potato sector. The scheme aims to speed up improvements in the marketing infrastructure and to improve efficiency and productivity of the potato sector. This will be achieved by providing grant aid to potato producers towards the capital costs of equipment and facilities for the production, storage and marketing of potatoes.

Investment aid for the development of the organic sectorThis sub-measure is intended to assist in the development of the organic sector. The aim is to ensure a regular supply of high quality organic produce to the market. Elements of this organic produce promotion scheme also appear under Axis 2 and the environmental effects are dealt with in that Section (Section 9.5).

The key elements of environmental relevance as regards this assessment of the Farm Improvement Schemes are:

Diversification of activities on farms (horticulture, potato growing, organic farming, bee-keeping etc.)

Higher standards of health and safety Improved environmental practices Improved animal welfare.

487

8.3.1 Assessment of Likely Significant Effects

AXIS 1ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Farm Improvement MeasuresNo/Little Significance

Some Significance

Significant Uncertain

Biodiversity +

Population +Human Health +

Fauna +Flora +Soil +Water +Air +Climatic Factors +

Material Assets +

Cultural Heritage (Archaeology, architecture)

+

Landscape +Note: Positive environmental effects are denoted by a +. Negative effects are denoted by a (-).

Comments on the Matrix – Farm Improvement MeasuresAs a general principle it is recognised that diversity in agricultural land use also leads to diversity in the associated flora and fauna. This is in stark contrast to the decline in biodiversity that is so closely associated with areas where large tracts of contiguous lands have been devoted to monoculture as has been amply demonstrated in other parts of the world.

The central theme of the Farm Improvement Measures is to promote diversification of farm activities that are supported in a manner that promotes higher standards for environmental protection, health, safety, and animal welfare. Maintenance of diversification of land use also has an impact of maintaining and protecting established landscapes. These all have potentially positive environmental effects of varying significance. While some minor negative environmental effects may be associated with demands for an increase in unit output that will inevitably accompany farm modernisation, these are considered to be more than offset by the positive effects identified. It is noted also that much of the emphasis of the schemes is devoted to improved quality, higher value produce rather than simply increased quantity of farm output.

488

Benefits of ‘Some Significance’ will also apply to ‘Material Assets’ insofar as the Measures will assist in maintaining the productive use of land and help offset any trend towards land abandonment.

8.3.2 Mitigation of Significant Environmental EffectsAs no adverse impacts of any significance are predicted, specific mitigation measures are not considered necessary.

8.3.3 Monitoring of the Environmental Effects of Proposed Measure(s)As no adverse impacts of any significance are predicted, specific monitoring measures are not considered necessary. Useful indicators of the rate of progress towards obtaining the objectives are presented below.

Indicators Level of uptake of supports Land use patterns Output of organic (certified) produce Veterinary inspections (animal health).

8.4. Forestry Related MeasuresUnder Axis I there are a number of Measures proposed to promote forestry related activity. Note: There are also a number of related Measures for forestry proposed under Axis 2 ‘Improving the Environment and the Countryside’—Afforestation Related Measures” that are assessed under that section later in this Report.

Use of forestry advisory services Woodland improvement –thinning, shaping, pruning and tending scheme Adding value to forestry products Co-operation for development of new products, processes etc. Forest infrastructure scheme.

(a) Use of Forestry Advisory Services

RationaleOver 90 per cent of all new planting in Ireland is by farmers, most with very little background in forestry. There is a need to provide vocational training and information actions to educate and inform new forest-owners in order to achieve the best return on their investment and to improve the competitiveness of the forestry sector.

Objectives To promote knowledge on the sustainable management of forests. To support vocational training and information actions. To provide vocational training and information actions which will assist forest

owners to adapt, improve and facilitate forest management and improve the overall performance and competitiveness of their forests.

489

(b) Woodland Improvement (Thinning, Shaping, Pruning and Tending Scheme)RationaleThe private forest estate in Ireland has increased in size over the past 15 years and has now reached a level of maturity where shaping and thinning operations are necessary in order to improve its economic value. Thinning increases the total volume yield of usable timber over the lifetime of the crop and provides an intermediate source of timber before final clear fell.

Objectives The funding of shaping, tending and thinning operations at year 4 to 15 of

plantation cycle to improve quality of crop and therefore increase its economic value. The operations will be conducted under the principles of ‘Sustainable Forest Management’ and as per the ‘Code of Best Forest Practice – Ireland’

To support investment in equipment for thinning and/or harvesting where appropriate.

(c) Adding Value to Forestry Products Rationale Adding value to forestry products at the level of the micro-enterprise will

maximise the contribution of forestry to the local/regional economy Recent studies (e.g. Foresight) have highlighted the growing importance of

innovation for continued rural development New uses for forestry products are emerging (foliage, plant oils, wood

energy) and these should be encouraged.

Objectives To increase the gross value added from the forestry sector To encourage innovation To support wood energy initiatives including investment in capital

equipment To develop new processes and products within the forestry sector. To improve management of seed stands and seed orchards.

(d) Co-operation for Development of New Products, Processes etcRationale There is scope for improved efficiency in the Irish forest industry in areas such as the supply chain. The industry is quite fragmented and greater co-operation between primary producers and downstream industry would improve efficiencies.

Objectives To promote better vertical integration To improve efficiencies in the supply chain To optimise the use of ICT in the sector.

(e) Forest Infrastructure SchemeRationale To improve the competitiveness of Irish forests. As the private forestry estate matures, further investment in infrastructure is required to improve access to forests for development/management and harvesting purposes. Infrastructural supports are also necessary for recreation and amenity purposes where there is scope for the

490

development of forest-based enterprises. In the case of management roads, these roads are generally constructed before planting. However, some may be built prior to canopy closure, for the purpose of forest management. With this in mind, and due to the increase in Ireland’s forestry cover over the past 15 years, the need for further investment in forest infrastructure, including roads, has increased accordingly. The construction and improvement of forest infrastructure also has a safety consideration in that forest roads are required for fire fighting equipment access as specified in the Fire Plans contained within Forest Management Plans.

8.4.1 Assessment of Likely Significant Effects

Objectives To provide funding for the construction of development/management and harvesting roads and other infrastructure (bell-mouths, turn-tables, drains, culverts and bridges) to improve the economic value of the forests, improve competitiveness and provide access for emergency vehicles. Management roads are an essential element of forest management operations, providing access for equipment and labour in order to implement shaping, thinning and tending operations. As the life of plantation progresses the management roads are maintained and ultimately become part of the harvesting road infrastructure. In order to facilitate successful thinning and clearfell of a forest crop, access by timber trucks is essential. The optimum road density for a given site is dependent on a number of factors such as volume of timber to be harvested and extraction method to be used. In order to avail of funding for a harvesting road, the timber must be ready for clearfell within 5 years of construction of the road. To support the development of new forest-based enterprises centred around recreation and amenity. For the optimum development of forests for these purposes, it is necessary to provide support for essential infrastructure such as power supply, lighting, signage and sanitary services.

The overall result of these various Measures in the forestry sector will be to increase the level of forest with a concurrent improvement in forest quality, output quality and value. It will likely achieve a shift in the current balance of extensive plantations in poor soils/remote regions towards higher quality, better-managed plantations in more dispersed groups and located on higher quality lands. Harvesting and extraction will also be improved by the provision of access roads. In many instances the Measures will make forestry a viable alternative to more traditional forms of land use (e.g. grazing, beet production etc.), the income aspects of which are coming under increasing pressure for a variety of reasons. As a consequence of decoupling, sugar beet industry decline, and similar measures result from international/global agreements on the liberalisation of trade.

There is a close similarity between these various forestry related Measures in terms of their overall environmental effect. Consequently the Matrix as presented below is based on an initial assessment of the likely significant environmental effects for each of these Measures, using similar assessment matrices. The results were then aggregated to give the overall environmental significance for each environmental parametre.

491

AXIS 1ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Forestry Related MeasuresNo/Little Significance

Some Significance

Significant Uncertain

Biodiversity +

Population+

Human Health

+

Fauna +Flora +Soil +Water (-)Air +Climatic Factors

+

Material Assets

+

Cultural Heritage (Archaeology, architecture)

(-)

Landscape +Note: Positive environmental effects are denoted by a +. Negative effects are denoted by a (-).

Comments on the Matrix – Forestry Related Measures

The environmental effects of these changes are primarily positive and include the following:

Extensive areas of single species plantations have been the norm in the past and these can in many instances have adverse implications for biodiversity. In this instance the shift to more dispersed, better-managed plantations provides the opportunity for the creation of greater diversity of habitat for flora and fauna at forest margins and consequent benefits for the encouragement of biodiversity. Achieving this result will be dependent on the provision of an appropriate mix of tree species, extent of plantations, open clearings etc. The intended training and educational supports proposed under many of the Measures should greatly assist in achieving this.

Other positive effects are the maintenance of populations in rural locations both at plantation level and in downstream use such as in the (potentially local) production of a range of wood products including wood energy products (production of wood pellets), the latter from forestry thinnings. Associated aspects for maintaining a rural population are the promotion of sustainable tourism based on forest recreation. These population positive Measures will help offset ‘flight from the land’ that is an increasing global trend and will assist in the prevention of land abandonment.

492

In respect of ‘Climatic Factors’ and the Kyoto Protocol targets for climate change mitigation, the promotion of afforestation is of ‘Some Significance’ in that firstly forest growth captures carbon dioxide while, secondly, the creation of wood product substitutes such as timber-frame housing and wood pellets have the benefit of being carbon neutral.

The Measures will afford the opportunity for greater diversity of land use and the greater biodiversity that flows from that. This benefit to biodiversity is dependent on the effective adherence to the Code of Best Forest Practice (See mitigation Measures below). Similarly ‘Cultural Heritage’ and ‘Landscape’ are dependent on best practice being adhered to.

Adherence to the Code of Best Forest Practice (see Mitigation below) is of key importance in the case of protection of water quality as there is real potential for adverse impacts. Sufficient setback from water courses, strict adherence to avoidance of: undue soil disturbance, fertiliser application and acid runoff (conifer plantations) are important factors if water quality is not to be compromised.

While the Measure also involves the promotion of downstream forest product production, this is considered to have little potential for significant adverse environmental impacts. All such associated developments will be subject to assessment and control (See Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects below).

8.4.2 Mitigation of Significant Environmental Effects

All planting in Ireland is done in compliance with the Code of Best Forest Practice – Ireland, and a suite of environmental and forestry practice guidelines (relating to water quality, landscape, archaeology, biodiversity, harvesting, aerial fertilisation and forest protection), as well as by the work of the Forest Service Inspectorate. The Code of Best Forest Practice – Ireland, and the environmental and forestry practice guidelines are an integrated package for forest practitioners, which outline operational procedures that help to protect the environment. Availing of the knowledge of the Forestry Advisory Services also has an important role to play in mitigating negative impacts.

Where production facilities for the manufacture of downstream forest products arise these will be subject to development consent from the local authority in whose administrative area the enterprise is to be established. Such development consents contain binding conditions that can include conditions aimed at environmental protection that are specific to the project. Where large-scale downstream projects arise that are likely to have significant environmental effects. These are subject under the EU Directive 85/337/EEC ‘on the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment’ (otherwise known as the EIA Directive), and implementing Regulations and amendments to a formal, detailed Environmental Impact Assessment on a project-by-project basis.

493

8.4.3 Monitoring Environmental Effects of Proposed Measure(s)Monitoring of the effects of this measure could most effectively be carried out by the Forest Service Inspectorate.

Indicators Uptake of supports Land use patterns Water quality Growth in the number/output of sawmills Number of development consents for forest product related production

facilities.

494

9. AXIS 2: IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE COUNTRYSIDE

Summary of Axis 2 Measures

Under this Axis, Measures are designed to protect and enhance natural resources and landscapes in rural areas. In so doing they will contribute to the EU priority areas of:

Biodiversity and the preservation and development of high nature value farming and forestry systems and traditional agricultural landscapes

Water Climate change.

The Measures will contribute to the implementation of the agricultural and forestry Natura 2000 network, to the Gotebörg commitment to reverse biodiversity decline by 2010, to the objectives laid down in Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (the Water Framework Directive) and to the Kyoto Protocol targets for climate change mitigation.

The Measures chosen are designed to meet the Axis 2 objective through:

Ensuring continued agricultural land use, thereby contributing to the maintenance of a viable rural society

Promoting environmental services and animal-friendly farming practices Preserving the farmed landscape Encouraging the development of new and existing forests and woodlands.

EU Directives—Nature, Biodiversity and Water Quality ProtectionEU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) and the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC

The key nature and biodiversity protection measures in Ireland are the designation of specified lands as protected areas within the Natura 2000 Network. The Natura 2000 Network is a network of important ecological sites across the European Union. It is comprised of areas known as Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservations (SACs). SPAs are designated areas for the protection and conservation of birds under the EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) while SACs are wildlife conservation areas that are considered to be important in both a national and European context. The SACs are selected according to the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), which lists certain habitats and species that must be protected.

The total land and freshwater area within the Natura network in Ireland is some 11,644km2: this includes some 2,300km2 of designated marine areas. In Ireland the Natura 2000 designations largely relate to Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs). This is a national designation and many of the NHA sites have overlapping Natura 2000 designation. Some NHA sites, however, are not designated under Natura 2000 but are important in a national context. (Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government).

EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)The primary Directive for the protection of surface and groundwaters in Europe is the EU Directive 2000/60/EC (also known as the Water Framework Directive or the WFD). This overarching Directive seeks to protect waters on the basis of an ‘integrated river basin management’ approach.

495

Relationship of Natura 2000 Network to the RDPThe designation of an area as a site in the Natura 2000 Network does not mean the limitation of activities within the site and surrounding area if these are environmentally sustainable and do not affect the integrity of the area or its habitats, or the objectives of species conservation.

The Draft RDP does not set out to ‘develop’ (in the conventional sense of increased production, altered land use) or to intensify existing land-use practice within these designated areas. Rather a central objective of the Draft RDP is to ensure that in the context of rural development these areas are proactively encouraged to apply land management practices that are not only compatible with their nature conservation status but improve that status over time. This objective is to be achieved by a number of Measures under Axis 2. Those Measures primarily related to Nature Conservation are as follows:

Less Favoured Areas Compensatory Allowances Scheme Natura 2000 (and linked to the Water Framework Directive) Payments

Scheme Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) Commonage Land Outside the Natura 2000 Network Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) Outside the Natura 2000 Network.

9.1 Less Favoured Areas Compensatory Allowances Scheme

RationaleIn order to avoid land abandonment, compensatory allowances seek to compensate those farming in agriculturally disadvantaged areas. The compensatory allowances scheme encourages sustainable use of agricultural land in less favoured areas and takes account of environmental protection requirements. The scheme ensures continued agricultural land use, thereby contributing to maintaining the countryside.

ObjectiveFarmers in Less Favoured Areas face significant handicaps deriving from factors such as remoteness, difficult topography and poor soil conditions. They tend to have lower farm productivity and higher unit production costs than farmers in other areas. Without financial support, these lower returns from farming would pose a significant threat to the future viability of these farming communities.

Support under the scheme, therefore, will contribute to: Ensuring continued agricultural land use, thereby contributing to the maintenance

of a viable rural society Maintaining the countryside Maintaining and promoting sustainable farming systems which in particular take

account of environmental protection requirements.

496

9.2 Natura 2000 Payments and Payments Linked to the WFD

Rationale Support for farmers is necessary to help address specific disadvantages in the areas concerned with the implementation of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in order to contribute to the effective management of Natura 2000 sites.

Objectives To contribute to positive environmental management of farmed Natura 2000 sites and river catchments in the implementation of the Birds Directive, the Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive.

Scope and actionsPayments under this measure will only be available to farmers participating in the Agri-Environment Measure, the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) and are additional to those under the latter Scheme (For a more complete description of REPS see below). Farmers electing to remain outside of REPS shall not be entitled to payment under this measure but may apply to National State-funded Scheme operated by the National Parks and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for payment.

Farmers participating in the agri-environment measure REPS with utilisable agricultural land in Natura 2000 sites will be obliged to subscribe to this measure.

The actions required at farm level will be incorporated into a farm plan for all the land of the holding to include both the Natura 2000 and the Agri-Environment measures.

Preparation of the Natura 2000 element of the farm plan must have environmentalist input and will provide for:

Stocking regime for sheep and other stock, including limits on numbers Conditions for the conservation of landscape and other environmental features Restrictions on use of inputs and control of unwanted scrub and plants Measures to regenerate overgrazed areas of land Specific conditions relating to cultivation on machair Where necessary, additional conditions which may be added to the agreement

to cover particular environmental needs Appropriate conditions for the protection of Birds listed in the Birds and

Habitats Directives.

Participants in this Measure must comply with the farming conditions for these specific areas.

Farming conditions for the following specific habitat types have been agreed and must be complied with: Conditions for the conservation of the Burren Blanket bogs, heaths and upland grasslands Sand dune and machair areas Shannon Callows, Wet Grassland and Corncrake Habitat

497

9.3 Rural Environment Protection Scheme

Rationale Agri-environmental payments play an important role in supporting sustainable development in rural areas and in responding to society’s increasing demand for environmental services. This measure should encourage farmers to introduce or continue to apply agricultural production methods compatible with the protection of the environment, the landscape and its features. The Measure includes pro-active elements so that a farmer does not simply conserve the existing environment but restores or enhances it.

It is noted also that a consultative process for the revised REPS scheme as part of the Rural Development Plan 2007-2013 was launched towards the end of 2005. This consultative process canvassed the views of a wide range of stakeholders including not only the farm organisations, but environmental groups, fisheries boards, local authorities and many others also. This process is continuing in 2006.

Objectives To promote ways of using agricultural land which are compatible with the

protection and improvement of the environment, biodiversity, the landscape and its features, climate change, natural resources, water quality, the soil and genetic diversity, environmentally-favourable farming systems, the conservation of high nature-value farmed environments which are under threat, the upkeep of historical features on agricultural land, the use of environmental planning in farming practice

To protect against land abandonment To sustain the social fabric in rural communities To promote conversion to organic production standards.

Summary Description of REPS Measures

Measure 1—Follow a farm nutrient management plan prepared for the total area of the farm.

Measure 2—Adopt an appropriate grassland and soil management plan for the total area of the farm.

Measure 3—Protect and maintain watercourses, waterbodies and wells.

Measure 4—Retain wildlife habitat.

Measure 5—Maintain farm and field boundaries.

Measure 6—Restrict the use of pesticides and fertilisers in and around hedgerows, lakes, ponds, rivers and streams.

Measure 7—Protect features of historical and/or archaeological interest.

Measure 8—Maintain and improve visual appearance of the farm and farmyard.

498

Measure 9—Produce tillage crops respecting environmental principles.

Measure 10—Undertake training in environmentally friendly farming practices.

Measure 11—Prepare, monitor and update agri-environmental plan in consultation with planner and keep such farm and environmental records as may be prescribed by the Minister.

There are also a number of additional Supplementary Measures and some Biodiversity Undertakings required.

9.3.1 Supplementary Measures

Supplementary Measure – Conservation of animal genetic resourcesThe objective is to assist farmers participating in REPS to rear farm animals of local breeds, indigenous to the area, that are in danger of being lost to farming.

Supplementary Measure – riparian zonesThe objective is to provide shade to overly exposed designated river channels and water bodies, to stabilise riverbanks and to intercept nutrients transported in overland flow.

Supplementary Measure – LINNET (land invested in nature, natural eco-tillage) habitatsThe objective is to alleviate the trend of landscape homogenisation and simplification by encouraging the small-scale production of cereal plots, especially in areas dominated by grassland.

Supplementary Measure—Low-input tillage cropsThe objective is to alleviate the trend of landscape homogenisation and simplification by encouraging the small-scale production of cereal plots, especially in areas dominated by grassland.

Supplementary Measure – eco-tillageContinuous arable production can deplete soil organic matter (carbon), leading to a weakening of soil structure and an increase in the potential for soil erosion, run off and associated loss of soil biota.

Supplementary Measure – importation of organic nitrogenThe objective is to improve and protect soil structure and increase soil biota on arable farms by reducing cultivations and increasing organic matter. This will also contribute to the delivery of water quality objectives by promoting the use of organic fertilisers as a means of meeting the crop nutrient requirements

Supplementary Measure – traditional farm enterprisesThere has been a trend away from traditional farm enterprises with the associated loss of biodiversity around farm homesteads. The objective is to encourage target actions around farmyards for the production of homegrown food and traditional small farm enterprises.

499

Supplementary Measure –traditional Irish orchardsThe objective is to recreate orchards containing traditional varieties of native fruit trees. This will increase the biodiversity of the local landscape and provide a habitat for wildlife on the farm.

Supplementary Measure – traditional sustainable grazing.The objective is to contribute to the National Biodiversity Plan via maintenance of specific habitats for conservation of flora and fauna and prescribing grazing breeds most suitable to marginal land and the maintenance of farming on lands most vulnerable to abandonment.

Supplementary Measure – clover swardsThe objective is to contribute to the delivery of water quality by promoting the uptake of incorporating clover into suitable grassland to reduce the dependency on nitrogenous fertilisers.

Supplementary Measure – conservation of wild bird habitat The objective is to enhance the habitat structure and availability of breeding sites for the corncrake. BirdWatch Ireland will be directly involved in the delivery of this supplementary measure.

Supplementary Measure – lake catchmentsThe objective of this supplementary measure is to contribute to cross-sectoral actions aimed at improving water quality.

Supplementary Measure – heritage buildingsTraditional farm buildings are important features on the landscape. While maintenance of existing structures is required under Measure 8 of the general scheme no provision is made for buildings of architectural, historical or heritage value in need of restorative intervention.

The objective of this supplementary measure is the identification and selection of prime examples of local vernacular traditional farm buildings for retention and conservation, utilising traditional materials and crafts.

The Irish Heritage Council will have direct involvement in the delivery of this supplementary measure.

9.3.2 Commonage Land outside the Natura 2000 NetworkThe farming conditions for commonage land are set out in Commonage Framework Plans. These plans set out the environmental condition of the commonage and appropriate agricultural activity to ensure environmental sustainability, including where necessary a reduction in the grazing pressure to be achieved by destocking of sheep. Approximately 60 per cent of commonage land is designated under Natura 2000 and will be included in the proposed complimentary Natura 2000 measure. Areas of commonage not within the Natura 2000 network are subject to similar farming conditions.

9.3.3 Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) outside the Natura 2000 NetworkThe basic designation for wildlife in Ireland is the Natural Heritage Area. This is a national designation and many of the NHA sites, have overlapping Natura 2000

500

designation. Some NHA sites, however, are not designated under Natura 2000 but are important in a national context.

TrainingThe provision of training in farming systems compatible with good environmental practice is an important requirement of the scheme. Under the scheme, farmers will be required to attend approved education courses.

These courses are designed to provide new or prospective applicants to the REPS scheme with: An introduction to the scheme and an understanding of its objectives and

measures Explanation of such requirements in general and under the individual

measures, covering areas such as nutrient management, farming practices, record keeping, etc.

General scheme information such as compliance checks and penalty provisions

Education on the consequences of agricultural pollution and its avoidance An appreciation of the importance and preservation of National Heritage

Areas, Natura 2000 sites, archaeological features, wildlife habitats, etc. A practical demonstration involving a visit to an approved REPS

demonstration farm.

AXIS 2ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Improving the Environment and the Countryside(Primarily Nature Conservation Related Measures)

No/Little Significance

Some Significance

Significant Uncertain

Biodiversity +

Population +

Human Health +

Fauna +

Flora +

Soil +

Water +

Air +

Climatic Factors +

Material Assets +

501

Cultural Heritage (Archaeology, architecture)

+

Landscape +Note: Positive environmental effects are denoted by a +. Negative effects are denoted by a (-).

Comments on the Matrix—Improving the Environment and the Countryside (Primarily Nature Conservation Related Measures)These Measures will, as is the intention, make a ‘Significant’ contribution to the conservation of natural habitats and to the conservation of the floral and faunal species these habitats support. As such the Measures represent the single most important element of the Draft RDP as regards the protection of biodiversity. With sufficient resources and application the Measures should be at least capable of arresting the rate of decline in biodiversity in these areas while also providing for the possibility of regaining some species lost to Ireland and strengthening the status of others.

This Measure will also have positive impacts on biodiversity beyond national boundaries in that it affords protection to a range of migratory species and acts to conserve the habitats such species use for that part of their life-cycle spent in Ireland.

Impacts of ‘Some Significance’ are the Measures’ contribution to the conservation of soil and water that low-intensity, environmentally-driven, informed agricultural practices can achieve. (Ensuring that informed agricultural practices are applied is provided for by way of the training and technical advice elements that are an inherent part of the Measures.) Through the financial supports the Measure provides it also has the positive impact of reducing land abandonment, protecting existing landscapes and maintaining a local human population within and in the locality of the subject areas. The prevention of land abandonment also serves to resist the colonisation of land by invasive non-native plant species such as rhododendron in and around forested areas.

Provision is made under the Rural Environment Protection Scheme to protect features of historical or archaeological interest and this should assist in making a positive contribution under ‘Cultural Heritage.’

The key Mitigation Measures in achieving this favourable outcome are detailed below. For a more comprehensive description the Draft RDP should be consulted.

9.3.4 Mitigation Measures for Significant Adverse EffectsAs noted above the ‘development’ elements of the RDP in the context of specified areas for conservation of habitats and species are in effect ‘Mitigation Measures’ aimed at reducing adverse environmental effects that might result from promoting rural development over the wider geographical land area of Ireland. The Axis 2 Mitigation Measures in respect of the protection of designated habitats and species for conservation are as set out in detail in the Draft RDP. In summary these are:

Less Favoured Areas Compensatory Allowances Scheme

502

Natura 2000 (and linked to the Water Framework Directive) Payments Scheme

Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) Commonage Land Outside the Natura 2000 Network Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) Outside the Natura 2000 Network.

9.3.5 Monitoring Environmental Effects of Proposed Measure(s)These Measures relate to nature conservation in the context of land use. Recommendations on monitoring this element of the Draft RDP are made in this Environmental Report (See Section 13, ‘Monitoring Environmental Effects of Proposed Programme’).

Indicators Number of REPS participants (by age, gender, land holding type and size) Land use patterns Receiving environment quality (air, water, soil etc.) Biodiversity Status of designated sites for conservation (extent, ‘site quality’ trends etc).

9.4 Organic FarmingFarmers may opt to convert all or part of the holding to organic farming and may participate in this measure on a stand-alone basis outside of the general REPS programme. (See also Section 8.3 Farm Improvement Schemes—Investment aid for the development of the organic sector)

RationaleOrganic food is quality food produced to strict, legally based internationally recognised standards. Organic farming represents a different view of farming systems, which places a strong emphasis on environmentally friendly practices, with particular concern for animal welfare.

ObjectiveThe aim of promoting the organic sector is to address the shortfall in the availability of high quality organic produce including organic cereal crops. It is expected that this will provide a significant impetus to the organic food sector, driving it into more mainstream production (in contrast to the current level of around 1per cent). Financial assistance will be directed at both on and off-farm projects. The principles and methods employed in organic farming promote practices that co-exist with natural systems and help protect and enhance the environment.

9.4.1 Assessment of Likely Significant EffectsOrganic farming requires close management of soil structure, application of natural fertilisers and the substitution of natural biological measures for the control of weed and insect pests and diseases. These requirements all have positive environmental benefits in terms of soil and water quality protection. However, a potentially (minor) negative aspect is that, as is generally acknowledged, to produce the same level of farm output a substantially greater land area is required than in the case of intensive farming with the associated use of artificial fertilisers and pesticides/herbicides. On balance, however, the benefits to the environment of organic farming far outweigh any minor negative aspects.

503

9.4.2 Mitigation of Significant Environmental EffectsAs no significant adverse environmental effects are anticipated no mitigating measures are necessary. However, it is noted that the registration requirements as described under Monitoring below provide an added level of protection against unforeseen adverse effects.

9.4.3 Monitoring Environmental Effects of Proposed Measure(s) Participants of this measure must hold a licence issued by one of the approved Organic Certifying Bodies, be registered as an organic producer with the Organic Unit of the Department of Agriculture and Food, comply with the provisions of Council Regulation 2092/91 as amended on the organic production area of the holding and be subject to annual inspection.

Indicators Rate of change in number of registered organic farmers compared to current

‘baseline’ organic farming numbers Quantity of certified organic produce.

9.5 Improving the Environment and the Countryside – Afforestation Related Measures

There are a number of ‘Afforestation Related Measures’ proposed under Axis 2. These are: First Afforestation of Agricultural Land First Afforestation of Non-Agricultural Land First establishment of Agro-Forestry Systems on Agricultural Land Forest Environment Payments Reconstitution and Protection of Woodlands.

The environmental significance of these various Measures are assessed below.

Note: There are also a number of ‘Forestry Related Schemes’ proposed under Axis 1 and these are assessed in that section of this Report.

9.5.1 First Afforestation of Agricultural and of Non-Agricultural Land

Rationale Ireland’s forest cover is one of the lowest in Europe with only 10 per cent of total land cover as opposed to the EU average of 38 per cent. Since the early 1990s, Ireland has engaged in an afforestation programme in order to stimulate the flow of a range of benefits to the wider community, including enhanced environmental, economic and social returns. Ireland has always been active in promoting the multifunctional role of forests. Against this background, the Forest Service published its long-term strategy Growing for the future in 1996, which set out to establish a planting programme of 20,000ha per annum in order to achieve critical scale, which would ultimately lead to a sustainable and well-developed forestry sector.

504

Forest recreation is a major non-timber benefit of woodlands and forests. In Ireland, forests are already one of the most popular and widely used amenities. An estimated 11 million visitors utilised forests in 2004. There is scope for growth in this area through the establishment of new, purpose-built, strategically located recreational forests. Forest recreation can contribute significantly to rural income, development, employment and health. The leisure and recreational aspects of Irish forestry has been valued at €38m per annum. The development and improvement of woodland amenities for public enjoyment, located in and around villages, towns and cities, will create social and environmental benefits for communities.

The up-front costs of investing in forestry are significant in view of the long lead-in time before revenue streams are established. In addition, forests provide a range of public goods but these are not accounted for in the operation of the market. Without grant aid, virtually no planting would occur within the State.

Objectives of the measures To increase the area under forest in Ireland to contribute towards climate

change mitigation To provide a sustainable source of timber for energy purposes To provide a sustainable basis for development of the rural economy To increase the area of purpose-designed recreational and amenity forests To improve water quality through riparian planting To increase overall biodiversity by providing woodland habitat which is

under-represented in the complex of habitat types.

Scope and actionsThe provision of 100 per cent establishment grant and annual premiums, up to 20 years, for projects approved by the DAF that are compliant with national and EU legislation and operational and environmental guidelines. The scheme will be open to farmers. However, non-farmers may also be eligible, and will support the following operations: Ground preparation Scrub clearance Cost of plants Planting Fertiliser First cleaning/spraying Mapping Fencing Establishment of firelines Plan and manage forests for recreation in a sustainable manner.

The proposed schemes will also improve on the current measure by encouraging the use of improved and adapted planting stocks and providing supports for the cultivation of wood energy crops.

505

9.5.2 First establishment of Agro-Forestry Systems on Agricultural Land

Rationale There is considerable potential on many Irish farms to plant trees in ways which contribute actively to a better environment, and which complement existing farming practice. This measure provides an opportunity to promote and encourage such planting.

Objectives Support the production of good quality timber products while providing environmental benefits in a mixed farm context.

9.5.3 Forest Environmental Payments Scheme

Rationale Potential exists to target REPS farmers with a view to increasing the area of land under forest cover with a particularly high nature value forestry. Potential also exists to provide funding to all existing forest owners who wish to enhance and/or adapt their existing woodlands to maximise their contribution to the environment and biodiversity.

Objectives To encourage landowners to establish and maintain high nature value forestry on their farms and support existing forest owners wishing to enhance or adapt their holdings to yield greater environmental benefits. To establish/provide habitat for wildlife such as the lesser horseshoe bat, red squirrel etc and to encourage provision of protective forestry, for example riparian planting.

Scope and actionsThe payment of annual premiums at a higher rate than those paid under the Afforestation Scheme, in return for the establishment of specifically designed, high-nature value forestry or the enhancement of existing forest-plantations in a way that exceeds existing environmental requirements. [Additional non-productive investments for forest owners in order to enhance the environmental benefits of forests (to be provided under Article 49), including the enhancement of the public amenity value of forests.]

9.5.4 Reconstitution and Protection of Woodlands Scheme

RationaleMany thousands of hectares of forests are damaged or destroyed every year in Ireland through natural causes such as fire, frost, disease, windthrow and predation. If the plantation has been well maintained and managed prior to the incident, grant aids for the restoration of the forest’s potential are appropriate. This will restore the overall potential of the forest. New threats to Ireland’s forest cover are emerging with the rapid growth in the populations of deer and grey squirrel. Further to this the Forest Service intends to introduce preventative actions to limit the potential for damage, in particular predation.

Objectives

506

To repair the damage to plantations caused by the reasons outlined above, by replacing those damaged elements without compensating for timber or increment loss. The same silvicultural standards, environmental guidelines and best practice as the afforestation scheme will be applicable for these restorative operations. However, depending on the natural disaster, drainage, fencing and cultivation may not be required. This Scheme will also introduce preventative measures to ensure that the commercial viability of the plantation is not compromised. These measures will include actions to prevent predation including deer fencing.

As with the Axis 1 Forestry Related Measures there is a close similarity between these various Afforestation Related Measures in terms of their overall environmental effect. Consequently the Matrix as presented below is based on an initial assessment of the likely significant environmental effects for each of these Measures using similar assessment matrices. The results were then aggregated to give the overall anticipated effect.

AXIS 2ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Improving the Environment and the CountrysideAfforestation Related Measures

No/Little Significance

Some Significance

Significant Uncertain

Biodiversity +

Population+

Human Health +

Fauna +Flora +Soil +Water (-)Air +Climatic Factors +

Material Assets +

Cultural Heritage (Archaeology, architecture)

+/-

Landscape +Energy +Note: Positive environmental effects are denoted by a +. Negative effects are denoted by a (-).

Comments on the Matrix – Afforestation Related MeasuresIreland’s forestry strategy conforms to the Forestry Strategy for the European Union – COM (1998) 649, whereas: ‘The EU Forest Strategy is based on the recognition of the diversity of Europe’s forests, their multifunctional role and the need for ecological, economic and social sustainability.’ In common with the Measures under

507

Axis 1 (Forestry Related Measures as assessed earlier in this Report) the environmental effects of the changes these Measures seek to achieve are compatible with the desirable effect of the Forestry Strategy and, on balance, can be regarded as having a positive environmental effect of significance.

In promoting afforestation, including broadleaf woodlands, the Measures will afford the opportunity for greater diversity of land use and the greater biodiversity that can follow over time. The key Measures in relation to enhancement of biodiversity are the Forest Environment Payment Scheme and the Reconstitution and Protection of Woodlands Scheme. This benefit to biodiversity is dependent on the effective adherence to the Code of Best Forest Practice (see mitigation Measures below). Insofar as the forests and woodlands are also intended to be promoted as recreational assets they have the potential to provide benefits of some significance for encouraging an active lifestyle and consequent benefit to human health.

Climatic benefits will also accrue as tree growth sequesters carbon while providing substitute materials for a wide range of products including construction products such as timber-frame housing, all in a manner that is essentially carbon neutral.

Forest output will include wood fuel. As elsewhere in Europe, Ireland is making rapid strides towards the use of carbon neutral wood as a substitute for imported hydrocarbons as a fuel source. Recent energy grant related measures undertaken in Ireland, coupled with recent advances in the technology of wood fired burners of both industrial and domestic scale, will ensure a demand for wood-based fuels into the future.

The principal potential adverse effects are in relation to watercourses. Strict adherence to appropriate planting practices such as adequate set back from watercourses are essential for avoidance of siltation, soil disturbance, acidification of waters and nutrient runoff. It is noted, however, that the Code of Best Forest Practice addresses both the issue of water quality protection in particular and also archaeological issues that might arise.

It is uncertain what the potential for adverse effects may be in the area of ‘Cultural Heritage’, specifically ‘Archaeology’. Afforestation of agricultural lands can involve soil disturbance to a significant depth by root growth and any subsequent grubbing out of post-harvest trees roots. (With the possible exception of the installation of drainage ditches deep soil disturbance is not usually a feature of traditional agricultural practices such as grazing and tillage.) In lands that are not covered in forest either today or in the distant past by earlier natural native forest cover, there may be some risk to disturbance or destruction of unrecorded archaeological remains. While much of the Irish landscape originally consisted of extensive native woodland, open grassland plains did exist and may hold archaeological potential. This issue will particularly relate to the Axis Measure ‘First establishment of Agro-Forestry Systems on Agricultural Land’.

9.5.6 Mitigation of Significant Environmental EffectsThere are two key control measures relating to afforestation that have the capacity to substantially mitigate against the generation of any significant adverse environmental effects arising from the proposed Measures. These are: the ‘Code of Best Forest Practice’ and the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 85/337/EEC.

508

Code of Best Forest PracticeAll planting in Ireland is done in compliance with the Code of Best Forest Practice – Ireland, and a suite of environmental and forestry practice guidelines (relating to water quality, landscape, archaeology, biodiversity, harvesting, aerial fertilisation and forest protection), as well as by the work of the Forest Service Inspectorate. The Code of Best Forest Practice – Ireland, and the environmental and forestry practice guidelines, are an integrated package for forest practitioners, which outline operational procedures that help to protect the environment. Availing of the knowledge of the Forestry Advisory Services also has an important role to play in mitigating negative impacts.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)While the Programme recognises the need to introduce voluntary measures designed to improve water quality in a number of areas: specifically, certain salmon rivers and pearl mussel habitats, and the catchments of certain western lakes, the DCMNR sees scope for more detailed plans for rivers and lakes to be included:

Agriculture, Silviculture and Aquaculture

(a) Projects for the restructuring of rural land holdings where the area involved would be greater than 100 hectares

(b) The use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas for intensive agricultural purposes where the area involved would be greater than 100 hectares

(c) Water management projects for agriculture, including irrigation and land drainage projects, where the catchment area involved would be greater than 1,000 hectares, or where more than 50 hectares of wetland would be affected

(d) (i) Initial afforestation where the area involved, either on its own or taken together with any adjacent area planted by or on behalf of the applicant within the previous three years, would result in a total area planted exceeding 70 hectares and for the purposes of this subparagraph an area, other than an area planted before 1 October 1996 shall be deemed to be adjacent if its nearest point lies within 500 metres of any part of the area involved

(ii) Replacement of broadleaf high forest by conifer species, where the area involved would be greater than 10 hectares

(iii) Deforestation for the purpose of conversion to another type of land use where the area involved would be greater than 10ha of natural woodlands or 70 hectares of conifer forest.

EIA can also be required in respect of developments that are below these specified thresholds where the permitting authority considers that the development is likely to have significant environmental effects.

9.5.7 Monitoring Environmental Effects of Proposed Measure(s)These Measures primarily relate to land use, environmental quality (water quality and biodiversity) and form the indicators of relevance.

Indicators

509

Level of uptake of supports over time Ratio of broadleaf to conifer acreages Changes in land use patterns Woodland/forest cover and quality Recreational use patterns Water quality Biodiversity.

9.6 Animal Welfare, Recording and Breeding Scheme of Suckler Herds

Rationale The importance of the suckler herd in Ireland’s rural economy and cattle sector should be noted. It plays a major role in the social and economic well-being of rural areas and in particular areas of natural disadvantage. There is a need to improve animal welfare standards up to and including weaning stage in the suckler herd and generally to improve the quality of the national beef herd. Given competitive pressures on production margins, it is felt that desired improvement in welfare standards and breeding may not occur if some incentives are not provided. An improvement in animal welfare standards will assist quality and productivity. As a consequence, the direct animal welfare support is being linked to related assistance to encourage recording of data in breeding, which also has animal welfare components, and to the use of such data for breeding purposes.

Objectives:To encourage farmers to: Adopt high standards of animal welfare by providing support for farmers

whose animal husbandry goes beyond the relevant mandatory standards and working practices on farms at present

Improve the quality of their cattle breeding by providing incentives for them to participate in the Animal Events Recording System and to upgrade the genetic merit of their female cattle breeding stock using the results of the data collected.

9.6.1 Assessment of likely significant effectsDecoupling under the Common Agricultural Policy is expected to maintain the downward trend in livestock numbers in Ireland. The emphasis to produce higher value, higher quality agricultural output (and to which improvements in animal welfare under this Measure are closely linked) will facilitate the rate of progress and the acceptability of the decline in livestock numbers. From an air and water quality perspective this will bring about a corresponding beneficial reduction in both methane and ammonia emissions. It is concluded therefore that the Measure will have some (minor) positive environmental benefits (air and water quality). No negative environmental effects are anticipated.

9.6.2 Mitigation of Significant Environmental EffectsNo significant adverse environmental effects are anticipated. Consequently mitigation is not considered necessary for this Measure.

9.6.3 Monitoring Environmental Effects of Proposed Measure(s)

510

While no significant environmental effects are anticipated from this Measure some useful monitoring could be undertaken. The indicators for monitoring are set out below.

Indicators Suckler herd numbers and quality of output Number of participants Routine veterinary inspections

511

10. AXES 3 AND 4 MEASURES

Summary of Axes 3 and 4 MeasuresThe overall priority for the Axis 3 and 4 Measures is to stimulate economic and social activity in all rural areas. The range of actions to deliver this priority was chosen to deliver the optimum economic and social impact while demonstrating internal as well as external complementarity at axis level. Each Measure is summarised below.

Diversification into non-agricultural activitiesA growing feature of farming is the increase in the number of farms no longer able to sustain farming families without additional on-farm income supplementation. However, as few as 3 per cent or so of all farms are currently involved in some form of non-agricultural or forestry activity. The main focus of the supports under this Measure is to significantly change this percentage through the creation of alternative on-farm employment opportunities in non-agricultural activities and services. These include: activity based tourism, self-catering accommodation, arts/crafts, food, open farms, farm shops for home/local produce and products.

The target group is all agricultural holdings.

Support for business creation and developmentFocuses on supporting the economic development of rural resources. Supports include: rural enterprise space, assistance for start-up/ expansion of enterprises, adding quality and value to local produce/products, business networks/collective marketing/local branding.

The target group is all rural dwellers.

Encouragement of tourism activitiesLack of regional balance in tourist activity is a challenge to the future viability of rural tourism. The focus of this measure must also extend wider to embrace other aspects of rural recreation including infrastructure needs and synergy with the Countryside Recreation Strategy. Environmental awareness and protection is an intrinsic feature of this measure. Supports include development of activity-based tourism infrastructure such as walking trails, bases of air sports, water sports etc. Supports development of niche tourism such as genealogy, eco-tourism etc.

The target group is all rural dwellers.

Basic services for the economy and rural populationQuality of life issues including the availability of services and living conditions significantly influence the extent to which people are willing to return or re-locate to rural areas to live and work. Certain quality of life initiatives specifically targeted towards rural communities can be addressed under this measure.

The focus of this Measure is to provide appropriate cultural and leisure facilities to local communities, not otherwise available to them. Examples include support for provision of amenity and leisure facilities, cultural activities, social and information networks etc.

The target group is all rural community groups.

512

Village renewal and developmentThe focus for improvement will extend to the enhancement of villages, small towns and the surrounding countryside particularly in the context of tourism and conservation of the local heritage. Supports are essentially for local small-scale infrastructure and environmental amenities such as civic areas, river walks, street lighting etc.

The target group is all rural dwellers in the countryside, villages and small towns.

Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritageThe focus of the Measure is provide support for an integrated approach to the protection of the local heritage through a suite of related preservation actions, complemented by a range of initiatives designed to develop the sustainable economic contribution of the natural heritage. Support will extend to actions to preserve and develop local architecture, cultural traditions, community actions to protect and restore locally significant natural areas, features and areas of environmental significance, waste reduction, alternative or renewable energy actions etc.

The target group is the rural population.

A training and information measure for economic actors operating in the fields covered by axis 3The successful implementation of the Axis 3 Measures requires training in adapted and new skills for all rural dwellers and communities. The objective of this Measure therefore is to equip rural dwellers and communities with the appropriate range of skills and training to derive maximum social and economic benefit from the initiatives available under this Axis. Training and support is to be provided for elements such as: flexible learning opportunities in new technology for women, young people and minority groups in particular, development of training facilities in rural areas (fixed/mobile), developing the capacity of rural dwellers to utilise ICT including Internet and broadband to access ℮services and other public/commercial electronic applications etc.

The target group is all rural dwellers.

A skills-acquisition and animation measure with a view to preparing and implementing a local development strategyThe objective of this measure is to utilise the bottom-up structures of the LEADER methodology to create awareness, understanding and motivation in rural communities so as to enable their full participation and input into the preparation of local development strategies. Actions will include: animation activities at group and individual level to encourage community involvement in a broad range of social and economic activities, capacity building measures aimed at community and minority groups to foster the spirit of social capital and self-help, initiatives aimed at geographically disadvantaged communities or those lacking in sufficient mass to enhance cohesion and capacity to develop, and initiatives to animate specific interest or marginal groups to harness unique potential.

The target group is to be community groups and all forms of local partnership.

513

Implementing local development strategiesThrough successive rounds of the LEADER programme, local action groups have developed through the bottom-up approach to an extent where LEADER now delivers a local development strategy in all rural areas. To achieve further integration of programming in the wider rural community and avoid duplication of actions, it is appropriate that the LEADER methodology is introduced to mainstream rural development programming to deliver all measures under Axes 3 and 4. The objective of this Measure is to deliver integrated value-added measures in the whole of the rural territory across Axes 3 and 4.

Implementing cooperation projects involving the objective selected under point (a) (Article 63(b) of Reg. (EC) No 1698/2005)Transnational and inter-territorial co-operation will be supported under this measure. Only projects addressing one or more of the measures in Axis 3 will be eligible for support. Special emphasis will be placed on co-operation at the regional level, particularly in relation to tourism and environmental initiatives that naturally span a number of local area group territories.

Running the local action group, acquiring skills and animating the territoryThe objective of this Measure is to provide local area groups with sufficient resources and expertise to efficiently administer all measures under Axes 3 and 4 throughout all of the rural territory.

It is also envisaged that action in relation to ‘Coastal Erosion’ can be undertaken where the action is to be based on local area response tailored to meet the specific coastal erosion issue on a case-by-case basis.

The individual Axis 3 and 4 Measures acting in isolation have little potential to present any likely significant environmental effects. However, as a collective group of Measures, environmental effects are likely. Consequently the degree of significance of these effects was assessed. The Matrix is based on an initial assessment of the likely significant environmental effects for each Axis 3 and 4 Measure using similar assessment matrices. The results were then aggregated to give the overall environmental significance for each environmental parametre as presented below.

514

AXES 3 and 4 MeasuresASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

No/Little Significance

Some Significance

Significant Uncertain

Biodiversity+

Population +Human Health +Fauna +Flora +Soil +Water +Air +Climatic Factors +Material Assets +Cultural Heritage (Archaeology/architecture) +

Landscape +

Traffic-related issues(-)

Note: Positive environmental effects are denoted by a +. Negative effects are denoted by a (-).

Comments on the Matrix The essential objective of the various Measures is to make a useful contribution to maintaining a viable rural population while also maintaining a quality of life in a valued rural environment. As such the Axes 3 and 4 Measures will make a positive contribution to population and health. Similarly, by supporting the retention and development and of a viable rural community, aspects such as the existing built environment and the rural landscape can be maintained and enhanced. Equally, adverse environmental impacts such as significant land abandonment and the loss of material assets that such abandonment represents can be reduced or avoided.

Many of the Measures are directly linked to conserving, enhancing and sensitively developing (where appropriate) the ‘natural’ rural environment to provide quality of life for the resident population and to attract tourists to the locality. Services such as waste disposal, water supply and sewage treatment for the resultant resident and peak visitor populations can normally be readily catered for, provided sufficient resources are made available. The same in not necessarily true of traffic.

In this assessment it is considered that traffic represents the most significant, negative, indirect environmental effect arising from the Axes 3 and 4 proposals, and a number of the submissions received at the scoping stage of this Report make this point. It is apparent that in recent years significant numbers of towns are already suffering from serious traffic congestion. The maintenance and growth in rural populations and tourism has the potential to exacerbate this problem. As a counterbalance to this, however, it is recognised that by rooting jobs and social infrastructure locally the necessity to commute long distances can be greatly reduced.

515

10.2 Mitigation of Significant Environmental EffectsThe issue of traffic cannot be readily resolved. The provision of town by-passes, while providing some relief for rural town residents, may simply shift the problem into the wider rural community and often results in fragmentation of farms. In any event if tourists are to be attracted to a rural area they will likely come with their cars and clearly will not wish to bypass what they have come to visit. Similarly, the issue cannot be readily resolved by the provision of public transport in dispersed rural locations where services, other than those that are heavily subsidised, have little prospect of survival. As noted in the Environmental Protection Agency State of the Environment Report ‘Ireland’s Environment’ 2004 ‘Inadequacies in public transport systems and in the national road network threaten regional development and cost-competitiveness.’

In current rural programming increased traffic and lack of mobility due to remoteness is already partially addressed through the Rural Social Scheme (RSS). Under this nationally funded scheme, in rural areas, farmers of the RSS can participate in the Rural Transport Initiative as bus drivers. In many cases the actual absence of a qualified driver with time to spare for the bus runs results in a diminished service so the availability of drivers under the RSS can make a small but positive contribution.

Mitigation of traffic issues requires road construction and traffic management planning at a national level for which the National Roads Authority (NRA) has overall responsibility. This transport planning role is linked to the National Spatial Strategy (NSS) (DoELG, 2002) which forms the blueprint for the national spatial development in the country. Implementation of the NSS will be pursued by means of Regional Planning Guidelines, which provide the basis for coherent planning in relation to land use and transportation by the eight Regional Authorities in Ireland. Local authorities have a statutory obligation to take account of the guidelines when framing their development plans.

Environmental impacts associated with the development of the various tourism facilities, recreational buildings, small business premises etc. will all be subject to planning consent prior to construction and as administered by the relevant Local Authority in each area. This affords the opportunity to apply (as is the norm) appropriate traffic management considerations in the consent ‘Conditions’ to mitigate any adverse effects.

10.3 Monitoring Environmental Effects of Proposed Measure(s)There is a very wide range of Measures to be undertaken under Axes 3 and 4. The progress and impact of many of these can be readily tracked and monitored using a number of primary indicators. These are:

516

Measure IndicatorsDiversification into non-agricultural activities

Uptake of diversification into non-agricultural supports

Support for business creation and development

Number of development consents granted

Uptake level for supports Encouragement of tourism activities Tourism numbers (Fáilte Ireland

data) Number of planning consents for

tourism facilitiesBasic services for the rural economy and rural population

Level of uptake of supports Number of development consents

for community facilitiesVillage renewal and development Number of development consents

granted Uptake level for supports

Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage

Number of development consents granted

Level of uptake for supports Training and information measure/Skills acquisition

Number of training initiatives and level of uptake/participation

LEADER /Local Action Groups Level of uptake of supportsAll Measures combined Traffic level in rural

towns/villages

11. PROMOTION OF EQUALITYWhile not an ‘Environmental Effect’ and as such is not subject to Environmental Assessment, it is noted that the Draft RDP makes provision for the promotion of gender equality, non-discrimination and social inclusion.

12. ALTERNATIVESSEA requires the consideration of ‘Alternatives’ to any given Plan, Programme, or elements of either, such that the Environmental Effects of implementation would be lessened or avoided.

Firstly, it should be recognised that the central elements of the Draft RDP are essentially ‘environment focused’ insofar as they seek to enhance, improve and protect the environment in its broadest sense. Many of the Measures presented in the Draft Plan, such as the Rural Environment Protection Scheme, have been in place in generally similar form for many years. Consequently the Measures proposed in the current Draft have had the benefit of feedback from these earlier applications, thereby affording the opportunity to build in appropriate improvements where deemed necessary. In the event that adverse environmental effects arise that were not anticipated at the time of formulation the proposed monitoring over the lifetime of its implementation should afford the opportunity to generate a meaningful response.

An examination of the Draft RDP suggests that collectively the Measures proposed will do much to progress rural development in both an economically sustainable and environmentally sustainable manner. The principal alternative to the Draft RDP would be not to implement the Plan, (termed the ‘Do-Nothing Scenario’), or to drop

517

substantial elements of it. Of particular concern in the absence of the Plan would be the potential for widespread abandonment of farmland and its environs as a consequence of a further more pronounced shift to off-farm income activity in response to the decline in more traditional farm output and income. It is self-evident that the Do-Nothing Scenario would likely result in significant adverse environmental effects across the entire range of environmental parametres (biodiversity, population, climate etc).

13. MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROGRAMME

Given the magnitude and complexity of the proposed RDP it is of the utmost importance to comprehensively and effectively monitor environmental effects of the Programme as it progresses. Appropriate monitoring arrangements therefore need to be put in place prior to commencement of implementation of the adopted RDP.

While comments on Monitoring and Indicators are presented in this Report in the assessment section for each of the proposed Axes, this key element, ‘Monitoring of Environmental Effects’ is further elaborated on below in respect of some environmental receptors.

13.1 Monitoring of the Natural Environment

BiodiversityBiodiversity data could be effectively sourced and monitored by a range of bodies including: The National Biological Records Centre (to be established under the National

Biodiversity Plan 2002) Fish population data gathered by the various Regional Fisheries Board and

those of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources Local angling groups fish catch data Biodiversity trends in bird life using Bird Watch Ireland survey data 1

Note 1 Bird population data is considered to be a key indicator of overall biodiversity in that bird numbers, distribution and diversity are critically dependent on both plant and invertebrate diversity being adequately maintained. These are in turn closely linked to sustainable land use.

Water QualityData sources could include: EPA’s national water quality surveys Monitoring components of mandatory river basin management plans.

Air QualityData sources could include: EPA air quality monitoring data Certain local authorities.

518

Climate ChangeData sources could include: EPA’s CO2 management responsibilities (including under carbon trading) Sustainable Energy Ireland data on renewable energy initiatives uptake.

SoilData Sources (and which need to be linked to water quality monitoring) could include: Teagasc soil data Fertiliser usage (annual fertiliser sales by type i.e. N, P, etc.) Biocides (annual sales by insecticide, herbicide type and purpose/application).

13.2 Monitoring of Land Use and Integration of Environmental Quality DataUnder the Draft RDP there are numerous Measures that impact on land use, including in particular: REPS, the various afforestation Measures (broadleaf, woodland reinstatement, conifer plantations etc.), commonage, organic farming and animal breeding. It is in relation to Land Use that the greatest monitoring complexity exists. While indicators such as uptake of supports provide some measure of impacts to be effective in determining actual impacts they need to be correlated with regular geographical land use data.

To be fully usable and effective in managing the environmental impacts of the RDP, monitoring data on land use also needs to be integrated with the data gathered for biodiversity, water, air and soil. The most effective and efficient means of achieving this, and ensuring comprehensive, understandable, usable outputs, is to utilise a Geographical Information System (GIS). GIS allows detailed mapping using OS maps/satellite imagery and integration of multi-source, multi-form data. A case example would be where grant-supported forestry lands can be integrated with water quality data and the status of the required setback from watercourses established through the detailed and comprehensive aircraft/satellite imagery the system supports. Once established, GIS can provide significant data manipulation and display capabilities on a readily updatable basis. Note: The EPA recently funded a project on the development of a comprehensive ‘Data Management and Geographical Information System’ to support the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and related ongoing research and monitoring in Ireland. The development stage that this is now at could be usefully investigated.

13.3 Monitoring—Management and Responsibility Establishing, integrating and managing a nationwide GIS-based monitoring system specifically for the RDP (possibly adapted from other ongoing national GIS work) is an important task. It is only with a comprehensive system in place that the environmental effects of the RDP can be adequately evaluated and adjusted to respond through modifications where appropriate. The establishment of an integrated monitoring system is only likely to happen where the Department of Agriculture and Food (the promoter of the RDP) assumes overall responsibility for this action.

There are numerous private-sector service companies that specialise in the field of GIS-based-data handling and while the cost can be high it is small both in the context of the RDP expenditure of over €7 billion and in the context of the significant environmental benefits to be gained.

519

It is at this monitoring stage that the detailed level of the implementation mechanisms, and feedback from the various Measures, can best be evaluated and addressed by corrective measures where appropriate. This includes evaluation of the relevant implementation detail of REPS and/or issues of Cultural Heritage etc., as raised by the DoEHLG, and others.

Given the extensive geographical nature and diversity of Measures proposed under the four Axes, it is inevitable that some unforeseen negative environmental effects will result. Consequently for the monitoring to be useful the Measures and the agreements arising between the ‘donor’ Department/Agency and the ‘recipient’ should be sufficiently flexible and adaptable to be capable of speedily responding to ongoing feedback from the environmental monitoring programme.

14. OTHER CONSIDERATIONSThere are a number of other considerations that derive from the environmental assessment of the Draft RDP. These are elaborated on below and, where appropriate, incorporated in the Recommendations section.

14.1 Energy from Agriculture, Forestry and WindThe sourcing of energy from agriculture and forestry is now of strategic importance for Ireland, in addition to having important environmental contributions to make in respect of the ‘Kyoto Agreement.’

The recently published Energy Green Paper entitled ‘Towards a Sustainable Energy Future for Ireland’ – October 2006 (Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources) commits to the delivery of ambitious targets for renewable energy. The Government’s 15 per cent target of 1,650MW by 2010 provides the foundation for the 30 per cent target by 2020.

Bio-energy is regarded as having significant potential and the newly established Ministerial Task Force on Bio-Energy will finalise a National Bio-Energy Action Plan, assessing optimum targets for the market penetration of biomass heating, electricity and bio-fuel transport to 2020. This plan will be developed in the context of the European Commission’s Biomass Action Plan.

Arising from this Plan, it is likely that a significant shift to the growing of bio-fuel tillage crops will occur. Unlike forestry where bio-fuels largely arise indirectly (from forest thinnings and downstream processing of wood) bio-fuel crops are purpose grown and are set to provide a substitute activity on tillage and grazing lands. Examples of bio-fuels include elephant grass (miscanthus) and willow. Until these bio-energy plans are more fully developed the Draft RDP cannot take appropriate account of the resultant land-use changes and the environmental consequences (likely to be primarily positive) that will inevitably flow from them. It can be expected that since the Bio-Energy Plan is a ‘Plan or Programme’ by government with self-evident significant environmental effects, it too will be subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment in due course.

Also of importance, but of less significance, is the implication of the proposed magnitude of the wind-generated component of renewable energy. An expansion of the agricultural land area devoted to wind farms will likely significantly increase as suitable offshore sites are known to be limited.

520

14.2 Access to LandsA significant portion (approximately €6 billion under Axis 2 of the total budget of just over €7 billion) of the financial supports relate to improving the diversity of the environment, protecting biodiversity, promoting more sustainable agriculture/forestry and ultimately improving ‘Quality of Life’. Much of this expenditure is aimed at the enhancement of the countryside and the nature it supports with the stated objective, among others, of promoting its enjoyment by both visitors and locals alike. There is no reference of note in the Draft RDP to the issue of public access to these environmental assets that they, the public, have helped finance through taxation.

15. RECOMMENDATIONSThe Department of Agriculture and Food should establish and oversee a comprehensive, integrated, environmental monitoring programme. That programme should ideally be based on a sophisticated Geographical Information System (GIS).

The Measures under the four Axes and the support agreement conditions arising between the ‘donor’ Department/Agency and the ‘recipient’ should be sufficiently flexible and adaptable to be capable of speedily responding to any negative environmental feedback from the monitoring programme.

Due to the differing timelines of the RDP and the National Bio-Energy Action Plan the bio-fuels issue should be addressed at the Interim Review stage of the proposed RDP.

The role of wind farms both as a land use and as a source of employment and local income should be evaluated for inclusion in the Draft RDP.

The issue of access by the public to lands that have directly benefited from the financial supports under the relevant. Measures should be addressed in terms of ultimately improving ‘Quality of Life.’ Much of this expenditure is aimed at the enhancement of the countryside and the nature it supports with the stated objective, among others, of promoting its enjoyment by both visitors and locals alike. There is no reference of note in the Draft RDP to the issue of public access to these environmental assets that they, the public, have helped finance through taxation.

521