Locally Led Scheme Seminar

16th October 2015 in Heritage Hotel, Portlaoise

Four questions were asked:

  1. What’s the difference? How might/should a locally led scheme differ from GLAS, AEOS or other agri-environment schemes?
  • DAFM need to step back and allow local groups to run schemes, with help from advisors and steering groups. Some schemes will be experimental and this must not dissuade support from DAFM
  • Flexibility is important -must be freedom for farmers to implement actions in ways that suit them and their environment. Expert involvement is vital and must be encouraged and financed.
  • The penalty regime must be changed. Farmers must be encouraged to comply, the threat of penalties creates inertia. BPS ineligible areas can still deliver goods. Designated lands may not be eligible for certain works, so DAFM and NPWS need to resolve such issues to allow farmers benefit.
  • Predator control, burning, landscape mosaic, control of invasive species: The old rules must change in order to allow these activities happen in specific circumstances.
  • Schemes must be less bureaucratic – at least at farmer level. Planning is vital to avoid confusion.
  • Include farmers at every level.
  • Multi-functionality and additionality are key to the process: the same action can deliver benefits across a range of objectives and targets. Must show clear additionality, however.
  1. Themes and Scales: What thematic areas might thelocally led schemes address? At what scale could/should these be delivered?
  • Schemes could be region-based, rather that species-based. This will give regions, like the Burren for instance, an opportunity to deal with many local issues at once rather than focusing on one. Hen Harrier sites and needs will vary in different parts of the country and a national HH scheme could be impossible to implement.
  • Dept must outline what information a farmer needs to achieve environment benefits in his local area.
  • Farmers and planners will need guidelines on the scale of projects. Scale can vary from small groups of 10 farmers to hundreds of farmers.
  • More research is needed on grazing cycles on commonages.
  • Biodiversity, birdlife, multiple themes can be addressed if brought to sub-regional level.
  1. Methodology: How should the scheme operate? Results, action-based or a combination? Capital investments? What risks/challenges do we see with these approaches?
  • DAFM to step back. Have confidence in ability of local people to run their own schemes.
  • Focus on habitat assessment rather than a purely species-based focus. Therefore if species does not thrive as planned, it can still be shown that habitats have improved.
  • Actions and timescales need to be practical – weather might not allow an action to happen so schemes should be flexible enough to allow work to happen at best time.
  • Competitive process may not be best. Communities will be vying against each other.
  • Seed funding is critical. Important work can be done to enable communities come together and get professional advice on what is possible for their areas. Even though project might not be ready for this round, work is done to enable an application for next round.
  • Could be a role for EIP in development of plans.
  • Long term strategic thinking will ensure continuity of funding and of local effort.
  • The quality of the work done is important and needs to be maintained.
  • Barriers of bureaucracy should be removed. Time limits should be flexible. Penalties removed.
  • Look at other funding streams – could leader resources be used for concept development, co-ordination, or management?
  • Advice on steps involved in developing plans required (note 10 point plan from Sligo IT).
  • Lessons learned must be shared with all. Department must manage the dissemination of information throughout the process.
  • Give people room to make mistakes and fix them. A reasonable challenge will encourage a farmer to work towards a goal, but again fear of penalties could be very negative.
  • Capital payments must be carefully thought out.
  • Monitoring of change is important – especially in slow changes that happen in vegetation growth, and in breeding patterns in birds.
  • Manage expectations – these schemes could be years in gestation and will not yield results immediately
  1. Who is involved? What range of stakeholders could/should be involved in such a scheme?

Farmers / Gun Clubs / Teagasc
Farm bodies / Coillte / Local Heritage Groups
Fishermen / NPWS / Education groups
NGOs / Tourism groups / Scientists/researchers
  • All groups will need professional support to ensure that weaker groups who may have valuable ideas are not lost in the process.
  • It was repeated in all discussion groups that farmers must be the centre of any group of stakeholders involved in locally led schemes. Networking is important and Dept need to emphasise this to all stakeholders.
  • Participants wish to see a joint approach from the two Departments – DAFM and DAHG. It was appreciated that there is a different ethos in both departments and that policy and other differences must be resolved before stakeholder groups are set up. Both Departments need to work to build farmer’s trust.