Index Home Join IPCC

Crisis in the Hills

"Many of us remember picking bilberries on the moor and enjoying the plaintive cry of the curlew. Visit your favourite mountain or moor today and it's a different story. There is a crisis in the hills. Wildlife habitats are literally being gobbled up by millions of sheep that roam and are even foddered above the fence line" Professor David Bellamy.

A recently published Ph.D. thesis by Dr Andrew Bleasdale of University College Galway provides further support for IPCC claims that swathes of internationally important bogland are being irreversibly damaged by sheep overgrazing.

Over the past thirty years, farming practices have become highly intensive and have resulted in marked changes in the upland environment. Dr. Bleasdale, of University College Galway, found that overgrazing by sheep has had dramatic effects on the upland vegetation and has resulted in changes in species composition, a reduction in palatable species and, under certain circumstances, has led to peat erosion.

Overgrazing in the Maumtrasna Mountains of Galway. This site is a natural heritage area. Photo: A. Bleasdale

Agricultural statistics show that there has been a marked increase in sheep numbers in the west of Ireland over the last twenty years. A quarter of Ireland's sheep population, in excess of two million sheep, are located in the counties of Galway and Mayo.

The results of grazing studies using enclosures show that Agrostis-Festuca and Nardus-dominated grasslands are relatively insensitive to changes in grazing management, whereas Molinia-dominated wet heaths, heather communities and blanket bog communities appear to be particularly sensitive.

Bleasdale's study concentrated on the Connemara uplands - including the Twelve Bens, Maumturks and Maumtrasna Mountains all of which are Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs). These are among the worst affected areas by overgrazing. Preliminary analysis of satellite imagery and aerial photography of the study site showed that approximately 30% of the area had been seriously eroded.

REPS: the Way Forward!

REPS (Rural Environment Protection Scheme) offers a way of solving Ireland's overgrazing crisis. The scheme was launched in June 1994. It is a voluntary scheme under which farmers are paid for positive environmental measures on their farms.

The objectives of the scheme are three-fold: to establish farming practices which reflect the increasing concern with conservation and landscape protection, to protect wildlife habitats and endangered species of flora and fauna and to produce quality food in an environmentally friendly manner.

Participating farmers are paid £122 per hectare to a maximum of 40ha for managing their farms in accordance with a recognised REPS Agri-environment Plan for a period of 5 years. The maximum annual payment is £4,880. Farmers owning more than 40ha must implement the scheme on all their land. In addition, Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) within REPS farms are accorded a degree of protection. Annual payments under REPS are increased by 20% per annum per hectare for maintaining the site as an NHA in accordance with regulations from the Office of Public Works. In the future, proposed NHAs and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) will be further targeted for REPS.

REPS represents a significant departure from previous agricultural policy where the emphasis was on the intensification of agricultural practices to ensure increased output. Is REPS meeting its objectives? In November 1996 Teageasc hosted a one-day conference on REPS to examine whether REPS is meeting its objectives.

Two major concerns emerged:

The first involves the number of participants in REPS. Since its inception 20,000 farmers have joined REPS, a disappointing uptake according to Department of Agriculture officials. By the end of 1998 the Department of Agriculture hope to increase the uptake to 43,290 farmers. A further incentive to participate in REPS emerges in the light of the recent B.S.E. crisis and accompanying beef price reductions of over 20%. REPS has an important role to play in increasing farm incomes and providing stability in an uncertain beef industry. For example, a farmer's average income with 35 suckler cows on 40ha would stand at £10,500, while under the REPS provisions this income could be increased to £13,500.

The second concern is the quality of farm plans being submitted with REPS applications. The Department of Agriculture found that 22% of farm plans submitted were not meeting specifications laid down in the measures accompanying REPS, in 14% soil sampling methods were incorrect, 11% had mapping errors, in 10% fertilising regimes were not being enforced and 7% of plans were not given to the farmers involved. A penalty system is in place for planners that do not comply with the regulations. Under this system a number of planners have been suspended and better quality plans are being submitted, keeping the objectives of REPS to the forefront.

It is difficult to know whether the scheme is actually meeting its environmental objectives since there is no system of monitoring or evaluation in place and it is likely that many of the benefits to wildlife and the environment will only emerge in the long term. Therefore conclusions at this stage are premature - Gráinne O'Leary

Reversing the decline in Biodiversity the UK agriculture campaign

The UK Wildlife Trusts are campaigning to safeguard the uplands from overgrazing. They have come up with a series of solutions which can maintain upland farming and enhance upland diversity at the same time. These are particularly useful in the Irish context and include:

• enforcing environmental conditions and promoting good supplementary feeding practice.
• improving advice to farmers, providing training to advisers and changing the quota system.
• reviewing upland farming practice and making realistic stocking rate recommendations.
• integrating agri-environment schemes, producing new management prescriptions linked to biodiversity targets and increasing payment rates.
• ending the culture of secrecy and assessing overgrazing on an ecological basis.
• changing from headage payments to area based payments.
• the introduction of an integrated rural development policy replacing production subsidies and delivering biodiversity targets.