No more REPS NO more SAC's

[Fraxinus]

Fraxinus
please read the link

Teagasc - Environment - NPWS Farm Plan Scheme

and you have not addressed my point re who is now to pay for conservation

It won't let me access the Farm Scheme leaflet.
And to answer your question I presume a farmer will get fined or prosecuted if he/she does not adhere fully to SAC guidelines.
I can't see the state handing out money for conservation. Hopefully NPWS will get in contact with farmers to reach a compromise.
Does a farmer really need to get paid extra to stop him/her spreading slurry in a turlough though?

[fiannafailure]

And another quote from the National Parks and Wildlife Service website

For Farmers & Landowners

In most cases where lands are included in a SAC, SPA or NHA, farmers will not have to change their farming methods; it is more likely that farmers will be requested to carry on in the traditional way. In some situations changes may be necessary. The Department consults with farmers and advises them on the appropriate changes that may need to be made. Where a farmer is required to take particular action to protect the wildlife interest of the site, compensation may be payable, either through the Rural Environment Protection Scheme, or the NPWS Farm Plan Scheme. In either scheme, a farm plan will be prepared and agreed.

* NPWS Farm Plan Scheme
* Cessation of Turf Cutting Scheme
* REPS (Rural Environment Protection Scheme)

It is the responsibility of NPWS to see that designated sites are protected from significant damage. Where a landowner is considering making changes on his farm that might affect wildlife habitat in a designated area, he must consult the local conservation ranger beforehand. 'Notifiable Actions' are activities or operations that might be damaging can only be carried out with the permission of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

So who is now to pay the bill

A contract has been broken by the government

[Malbekh]

SAC's (Special Area of Conservation) are determined by the Dept. of the Environment based on EU legislation. Failure to implement SAC's within an acceptable time frame leads to penalties by the EU on the government.

Cost to implement SAC's = you + me
Cost for non-implementation of SAC's = you + me x5

Before, farmers were paid compensation by the REPS or/and the NPWS Farm Plan Scheme to assist in protection of SAC's or other areas of concern. A good example of this is the conservation methods used to conserve the Natterjack Toad, where farmers are paid to dig and maintain ponds on their land to accommodate breeding. Farmers do not have to be in the REPS scheme to receive these grants, but they will have to be in FPS.



Landowners will still continue to get compensation for having any of their lands become part of an SAC, although obviously with the demise of REPS the compensation will be more arbitrary.

[fiannafailure]

It won't let me access the Farm Scheme leaflet.
And to answer your question I presume a farmer will get fined or prosecuted if he/she does not adhere fully to SAC guidelines.
I can't see the state handing out money for conservation. Hopefully NPWS will get in contact with farmers to reach a compromise.
Does a farmer really need to get paid extra to stop him/her spreading slurry in a turlough though?

I can see that you have an appreciation for the present situation, a farmer should not be paid to promote good civil behaviour. he should be paid compensation when the NPWS tell him he can no longer keep sheep, or he can no longer carry on any other normal farm activity and where there is no other viable way to make his living

[fiannafailure]

SAC's (Special Area of Conservation) are determined by the Dept. of the Environment based on EU legislation. Failure to implement SAC's within an acceptable time frame leads to penalties by the EU on the government.

Cost to implement SAC's = you + me
Cost for non-implementation of SAC's = you + me x5

Before, farmers were paid compensation by the REPS or/and the NPWS Farm Plan Scheme to assist in protection of SAC's or other areas of concern. A good example of this is the conservation methods used to conserve the Natterjack Toad, where farmers are paid to dig and maintain ponds on their land to accommodate breeding. Farmers do not have to be in the REPS scheme to receive these grants, but they will have to be in FPS.



Landowners will still continue to get compensation for having any of their lands become part of an SAC, although obviously with the demise of REPS the compensation will be more arbitrary.

I suggest the compensation will be non existent, what conservation enthusiasts do not seem to understand is that in many cases the REP's payments allowed disadvantaged farmers to be the conservators of SAC's

[ibis]

I suggest the compensation will be non existent, what conservation enthusiasts do not seem to understand is that in many cases the REP's payments allowed disadvantaged farmers to be the conservators of SAC's

No, I think people understand that well enough. You've been too definite in your original assertion, which looks like you are saying that REPS is a system of compensation for protection of SACs, and that such a system of compensation is an integral part of the legal existence of SACs. People are pointing out, correctly, that SACs exist entirely independent of the idea of compensation.

[cactusflower]

Conservation doesn't have to be paid for it just means leaving things alone. I'm not sure if the REPS has done much good for the environment. There's been a dubious practice egged on by Teagasc of "preparing for the REPS" by ripping out vegetation and filling wetlands, as once in the REPs they would have to be retained.

SACs have some protection - in theory would not normally be allowed to develop on them for example.

[TommyO'Brien]

No more REPs, no more conservation

The proposal to discontinue REPs payments will result in major challenges to Special Areas of Conservation.

These payments were a major part of the income of small farmers impacted by SAC's, the state in effect restricted the methods used by farmers to derive an income, as the REP's are no longer to be paid, can we expect these farmers to respect conservation measures.

Conservation costs, who is now to pay the bill

Correct.

It takes a particularly dumb government to withdraw payments that keep the rural economy afloat and create thousands of jobs in ancilliary industries assocated with environmental protection, and by withdrawing those funds lose the jobs and put the vast majority of farmers on REPs onto the dole.

And it beggars belief that the Greens are so clueless as to allow the scrapping of a scheme was central to protection of the environment. I used to dislike the practice of this site of some posters referring to John Gormley as Gormless, but this change of policy is so misjudged, and so contrary to all Green principles and environmental interests, it is like a Fr Ted script. Who would have thought of it - it would be a Green minister who would preside over the destruction of Tara and with the scrapping of REPS, the most environmentally successive initiative on the ground in a generation.

But all is not lost. The natural environment may suffer, pollution may increase, and thousands of people who work with farmers in companies all over the country was REPS work may be thrown out of work, but at least thanks to the Greens (*tug on forlock*) Leinster House will get its lawn back. Mmm. Let me see - which is more impressive? Destroying a crucial means of preventing destruction of the natural environment all over the country, or getting a lawn laid? In Gormley-land, the latter is obviously a bigger priority. That and banning old style lightbulbs (or trying to and making a muck of it).

Oh and BTW, when at a quarter of a million Euro Leinster Lawn is re-laid (with tens of thousands then being spent renting secure parking elsewhere for the staff who park where the lawn will be - and it is staff, not TDs who park there. TDs park at the Kildare Street side of the building. It is cleaners who are in at 5am, political staff who may be there for 15 hours, and ushers who on many nights may be there until 3am, who need those spaces!) the plan from the Greens is to plant vegetables on the lawn - no doubt the Minister for Lentils and Growing Things, when he is not posting his favourite recipes on the web and telling everyone how well his tomatoes are doing, Trevor Sargent, who will have the job of deciding what vegetables will be chosen to be planted. (Who says junior minister don't have their uses!)

[fiannafailure]

Conservation doesn't have to be paid for it just means leaving things alone. I'm not sure if the REPS has done much good for the environment. There's been a dubious practice egged on by Teagasc of "preparing for the REPS" by ripping out vegetation and filling wetlands, as once in the REPs they would have to be retained.

SACs have some protection - in theory would not normally be allowed to develop on them for example.

Everything has to be paid for
You are advocating a practise of compulsary purchase without the payment implied by the word purchase, in short you are advocating theft

[Malbekh]

Well, there's an easy way to settle this - I'll drop a line to my mate in the NPWS. I think you'll find that landowners will still get compensation for SAC's that interfere with their livelihood.

The element I think people want clarified is in what form and under what scheme this compensation takes place.

Removal of the REPS scheme will have no effect of the implementation of SAC's.