No more REPS NO more SAC's

[adamirer]

Admirer
Your info is incomplete

Teagasc - Environment - NPWS Farm Plan Scheme

I quote to you the first paragraph of that link



So we are back to the description I have posted before, the government, in cancelling REP'S payments have in effect, cancelled the income of farmers affected by SAC's.

If the government of Ireland wish to impose, a severe curtailment of the right to earn a living, on land owners who have made their living on such land for generations, without a means of compensating those farmers for the cost of conservation, then that is THEFT.

Once again, conservation costs money, is it just, to expect the poorest farmers in the country to pay for the eco conscience of the rest of us.

You're reading too much into what it says. Read it from my pov. You dont need to be in an SAC to be in reps, its not a linkage, its an occasional coincidence. Ibis post was quite accurate, maybe you just were too definitive.

REPs means you are supposed to be actively farming in an environmentally constructive way, it has nothing to do with designated areas, though you may be in one.

Go to www.npws.ie and look at the notifiable actions in SACs, most farming activity is a NA and prohibited without consent of the Minister.

An SAC (or SPA) is about protecting listend Habitats such as the pearl muscle, raised bogs, corncrake, and other listed species under the birds and wildlife directives. Its about protection of biodiversity.

REPs is not and never has been a compensation scheme for carrying out/or not carrying out activities in SACs, its a national thing - not a designated areas thing. I'm trying to think of a suitable analogy... if you cancelled grant aid for (invented) promoting Irish across Ireland, it doesnt mean people in Gaeltacht areas dont still have to abide by the rules of being in a gaeltacht area.

Trust me, SACs are not dependent on REPs, REPs would have been in place across the country if SACs had never been invented and SACs would be in place if REPS was never designed.

[fiannafailure]

Admirer

I quote from the NPWS website

The Government is committed, as part of the social partnership process, to the payment of a fair and proper level of compensation to landowners and users who have lands proposed for designation as a NHA, SAC or SPA.
Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS)

Lands within a candidate SAC, designated SPA, proposed NHA or Commonages are defined as "Target Areas" under this scheme. Farmers in the target areas who participate in the REPS scheme receive higher payments than those elsewhere.

Farmers with small areas of land in a NHA, SAC or SPA can get REPS payments for that part of their farm. In either case, the farmer is subject to certain conditions regarding farming and land use practices, set out in the REPS plan for the farm.

So although SAC's are not the reason for REPs per se, they are/were promoted as a means of compliance

Where a farmer chooses not to participate in REPS, and is restricted in farming activities or required to change the farm operation due to the designation, the Department will pay compensation. This requires the farmer to join the NPWS Farm Plan Scheme and to have a farm plan prepared by a team of trained planners. The plan will normally be confined just to the designated lands, and will address the conservation requirements. It will set out the means for achieving these requirements and indicate the actual costs and/or losses to the farmer. As in REPS, the plan will become the basis for a 5-year contract.

So in effect the farmer becomes a serf to the minister, but only for 5 years so his bank manager is not really impressed

[Fraxinus]

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

I agree that the farmer must carry on normal activity if there is no other viable way to make a living. I would do the same. A common sense approach needs to be reached. I don't think a one rule fits all approach would work. But I would have no sympathy for a farmer showing blatant disregard for the environment.
Do farmers that entered the forestry scheme FEPS through REPS now lose some of their forestry grant if they cannot renew their REPS status?

[asset test]

I agree that the farmer must carry on normal activity if there is no other viable way to make a living. I would do the same. A common sense approach needs to be reached. I don't think a one rule fits all approach would work. But I would have no sympathy for a farmer showing blatant disregard for the environment.

Agree here. Can anyone tell me what inspection protocols are in place regarding all these schemes?

I am concerned that Bord Snip is cutting back on a lot of agriculture numbers.

We will rue the day that environmental protection is abandoned in this country.

[hippo]

I don't like the idea that farmers get to attack the environment and wildlife if they feel they aren't being paid enough to refrain from doing so.

In other countries, if you don't respect the ecosystem, you don't just face losing your subsidy, you'll lose your land and get no compo.

It costs me €300 each year to cut the verges/hedgerows on my land. Other costs involve keeping livesotck indoors due to bad weather or storing animal waste due to prohibitions on spreading, be it due to weather factors or dates when slurry spreading is prohibited.
Post and rail fencing costs alot. So do birdbboxes, batboxes, installation of badger gates, minimum sized trees to comply with REPS standards, stakes, ties,etc. Keeping up to the standards demanded in REPS is expensive. Let's see if the local authorities cut the roadsides, at all, not to mention taking care of saplings within the hedgerows.
Most farming in Ireland does not pay for itself, hence the importance of schemes such as REPS.
Farmers don't attack wildlife. As a townie, who as a kid moved to a farm and was raised there, I got a thorough education from the neighbouring farmers on the local flora and fauna.Almost all had a tremendous respect for nature, and with the exception of rats and foxes, were inclined to leave other animals go about their business.

[hippo]

I agree that the farmer must carry on normal activity if there is no other viable way to make a living. I would do the same. A common sense approach needs to be reached. I don't think a one rule fits all approach would work. But I would have no sympathy for a farmer showing blatant disregard for the environment.
Do farmers that entered the forestry scheme FEPS through REPS now lose some of their forestry grant if they cannot renew their REPS status?

No. The FEPS payment is only for the first 4 years;as REPS has been discontinued, people will simply see out their contracts.

[fiannafailure]

I agree that the farmer must carry on normal activity if there is no other viable way to make a living. I would do the same. A common sense approach needs to be reached. I don't think a one rule fits all approach would work. But I would have no sympathy for a farmer showing blatant disregard for the environment.
Do farmers that entered the forestry scheme FEPS through REPS now lose some of their forestry grant if they cannot renew their REPS status?

Farmers with blatant disregard for the environment dont tend to stay in business for long, once again I stress that SAC's are a good idea, but the state must either buy the land they reside on or a much more preferable solution, is to fund them properly so the local people who know their areas so well can make a living and conserve the environment.

And you are correct Fraxinus, one size most definitely does not fit all, each geographic area is different and needs different specifics and I am open to correction but that does not seem to be the situation at present.

Blind ideology was responsible for the greatest environmental mistake in history when DDT was banned globally, rather than by sector, millions of people died needlessly.

Environmentalist thinking, must bear in mind that people are part of the environment and their needs must be taken into account when plans are drawn up

[Malbekh]

Hello again, information back from my contact as follows:

With the demise of REPS 4 we are still a little in the dark as to how the SAC top up will be achieved - they are talking about a replacement its early days yet and how this will effect SACS & SPAS we just don't know.

In relation to the NPWS Scheme its still open but I haven't heard anything about its future god bad or indifferent. It was always envisaged however that REPS would be the main vehicle for compensation.

It basically works by the farmer/landowner engaging an approved NPWS Farm planner to draw up a plan the rate of compensation per Ha varies considerably and there is no single rate it costed on actual losses etc. The plan is draw up at the expense of NPWS.

So, basically everyone is in the dark and assumptions that I have made that farmers would be remunerated for any new SAC's are wide of the mark.

In relation to the original post however, the thread heading is factually incorrect as SAC's will still be declared and implemented as determined by EU law.

However, I am sure that Fiannafailure's heart is in the right place as 'his' main concern is to ensure that farmers are compensated adequately for loss of revenue from SAC's. And I fully support that stance.

Incidentally, I have been given the name of another more relevant contact so if people have any specific questions please PM me or post to this thread and I will endeavour to assist you.

[fiannafailure]

Malbekh

I am indeed a him

I will repay your honesty with more honesty, I first came across this problem with an email from a group of farmers who asked me to talk to them about S of I. I met them and found the following, they live in area bounded by an SAC and a national park, they have tried in the past to grow forestry, farm sheep, have had an application for a wind turbine turned down and now they are faced with no REPs, they are people who have come to terms with the fact that they will never be well off, but REPs gave them an income and they were eager to prove to me that it was not a handout by showing me the conservation work they had played their part in. They wanted to know what S of I could do for them and I had to be honest and say that at this stage I could do or promise very little, and so I started this thread to see if I could winkle any info for them. If you can help please do so

[joemomma]

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).

That had nothing to do with the Greens and everything to do with the Oireachtas's flouting of the planning laws coming to a very belated end.