HEAD2HEAD: YESPádraig Walshe says farmers have a right to earn an income from their property NODavid Herman says farmers already receive substantial public funds and should not be paid for what most Europeans take for granted
Farmers' land has the same rights as Ruairí Quinn's front garden. It is the basis for the income of the owner and is an integral part of their livelihood. The Labour Party Access to the Countryside Bill is fundamentally flawed. Labour has ignored the partnership route and farmers have been presented with coercive legislation without any consultation.
In Collen -v- Attorney General(June, 2006), Judge Seán O'Leary ruled that rights of ways could not be created without the agreement of the land owner and that such rights of ways did not exist unless through the agreement of the landowner. It is also worth noting his concluding comment, "that the use of the concept of public rights of way as a mechanism for creating new or revising old rights for walkers is unlikely to be to a satisfactory overall solution".
Significantly, Comhairle Na Tuaithe, the forum of stakeholders set up by Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs Éamon Ó Cuív and which issued a final report in September 2006, did not propose any new legislation to deal with the walking issue.
The Irish Farmers' Association (IFA) recognises that the development of a network of countryside walks is in the interests of the wider society. Indeed, the development of walking routes is desirable as society recognises the need for additional recreational outlets and the development of activity-based tourism. Unfortunately, in the past number of years there has been a decline in the number of hill walkers, and the IFA has put forward proposals to address this.
In the development of hill walking, it is important that a scheme be put in place that would encourage farmers to open up their land. A good example of this is the Sheep's Head Way in west Cork, which was created through the involvement of landowners and tourist interests, in a scheme that encouraged the opening up of their land.
Wider society and especially walkers must appreciate that the farm is a working environment and that private property is respected. Legally recognised rights of way offer very limited access to land for recreational purposes and the IFA put forward detailed proposals on how a scheme should be put in place to address this. In July 2005, the IFA proposed the "Countryside Walkways Management Scheme", which addresses the issue of wider use of the countryside for recreational activity, while at the same time ensuring that farmers' legitimate rights are protected. The proposed scheme would create either linear walks or shorter looped walks in the countryside by opening a national network of walks.
The establishment of such a scheme would assist the development of walks to enhance the tourist potential of rural regions and boost their economic development. The scheme would provide both capital aid for the investment needed to bring the walks up to the required standards, as well as an annual payment for the upkeep and maintenance of the walks. The proposed scheme involves a payment of €1,000, plus €5 per metre. The payment would cover ongoing maintenance and would reward farmers for work to ensure the walks achieve the highest possible standard.
The IFA scheme was endorsed by walking groups at the public launch of the scheme. The IFA has costed the scheme at about €15 million when fully operational, covering about 30 walks and bringing them up to the standard of Waymarked Ways. This is far more modest than the wild estimates thrown about by Keep Ireland Open and other opponents in an attempt to denigrate a worthwhile initiative.
Payments to farmers would cover the ongoing costs of maintenance as well as rewarding the farmer who gives his time to ensure that the walk is kept to the standards that are required. The IFA proposal would have the potential to create something in the order of 2,000km of linear and looped walks throughout the country. In relation to insurance, the IFA is satisfied that the Public Liability Act of 1995, as a general rule, fully protects landowners where people access their land. However, where walks are created and payment made, the local authority would be required to fully indemnify landowners.
An opportunity now exists for the creation of such walks and through the IFA's involvement in Comhairle Na Tuaithe, the IFA has pushed this proposal. Ó Cuív has promised proposals since last November. In conclusion, farmers are prepared to play their part in the creation of walks through a scheme like the Countryside Walkways Management Scheme.
Already farmers have shown that these walks can be created through consultation and a co-operative approach. Ruairí Quinn's Access to the Countryside Bill fails to take account of the goodwill that already exists and will not succeed because it is an infringement of property rights.
Pádraig Walshe is president of the Irish Farmers' Association.
A year or so ago I met a farmer who has a large farm in lowland Scotland. Recreational users there can legally walk anywhere now, except the most obvious places, such as across growing crops and close to dwellings. I asked him how he felt about this. He looked at me quizzically. "It doesn't bother me," he said. "It's the law of the land now and anyway walkers are no trouble."
This man is not paid a penny to allow access, any more than any other landowner is in Scotland, except in special circumstances. It's the same all over western Europe, where there is freedom to roam over economically marginal land and a network of rights of way in farmed country. The state usually pays for stiles, footbridges, signposting, etc, but little else.
Walking tourism thrives, farmers can diversify into agri-tourism or work on infrastructure for walkers if they wish. There is little friction. It's win-win for farmers and walkers.
But not in Ireland. Here walkers have no legal right to put a foot on to private land and the farming organisations intend to keep it that way unless they get a king's ransom. The IFA have proposed a scheme of breathtaking audacity. To allow permissive paths (a legally inferior type of right of way), they are demanding €5,000 per kilometre plus €1,000 per farm. Per year! So if Ireland is to have a comprehensive network of rights of way (say 80,000km compared to the 225,000km in England and Wales), it would cost the State €400 million plus €1,000 per farm, every year.
And that's before the inventive minds in the IFA have considered freedom to roam, doubtless based on the number of square millimetres conceded. (Incidentally, please don't tell me of the farmers' generosity to date: only 14 per cent of Ireland's pathetically small network of 8,300km of waymarked routes is over private land.)
The results of the farming organisations' greed are all too evident. Scotland and Ireland have broadly similar costs of living, surface areas and accessibility; though Scotland has a far greater mountain area, much of it is distant from roads. Yet Scotland has well over four times the walking tourism revenue of Ireland. The major cause of this huge discrepancy is, of course, access. Apart from an uncertain welcome, any informal rights we have can be withdrawn at any time: hence a paucity of stiles, signposts, guidebooks, and all the support that walkers rightly expect.
Let me make Keep Ireland Open's policy perfectly clear. We do not aspire to the idyllic Scottish situation. Instead we are campaigning for freedom to roam over only the 7 per cent of the land in rough grazing and a modest network of rights of way in lowland areas. We are not looking for the right to walk into people's back garden, as farm representatives so tediously repeat. We are not asking that areas with persistent problems of vandalism be opened to the public. We are prepared to pay for car parking if the proceeds were to go to improving facilities for all recreational users.
The facilities we are looking for are modest by international standards: they would just about revive hill-walking tourism and the requirements of an increasingly obese and ageing population, who want somewhere to walk other than frequently busy roads. The Labour Party's Access to the Countryside Bill 2007, which has attracted such a hysterical reaction from the farming organisations, admirably covers a major part of this issue.
However, under no circumstances are we as walkers going to pay simply for access, nor do we think the Government should. We are not going to step so completely outside European precedent. It is time for farmers to get real.
More than 70 per cent of their income, even more in the marginal areas of most interest to walkers, comes from the taxpayers of Europe and increasingly Ireland. It is time we got something back.
The public has shown sympathy with farmers' problems to date. However, it will find it increasingly galling that farmers live in the most pleasant, stress-free parts of the country at the tax payers' expense, but they will not make even a minimal concession towards the public good or even the good of their own rural communities.
As for the Government, it must reverse its discredited voluntary approach that has produced nothing but more extreme demands. Now is the time for a little stick and less carrot. The number of farmers is in long-term decline and the number of walkers is increasing. The Government should appeal over the heads of the farming organisations to the general public.
It even has a powerful weapon to hand: the introduction of EU cross-compliance measures to tie farmers' grants to providing reasonable access. What is it waiting for?
David Herman is a veteran Irish hill walker and is a leading member of Keep Ireland Open.
online: join the debate @ www.ireland.com/head2head
Last week, Dr Joe Barry and Michael Patton debated the question: Should alcohol advertising be banned? Here is an edited selection of some of your comments:
A ban on advertising would be a clear way "to fundamentally challenge our culture and attitudes to alcohol in certain parts of our society", according to the argument against a ban. It needs to be made more clear that alcohol is a (legal) drug which causes even more harm than illegal drugs. Measures to restrict the promotion of this drug would send a signal to challenge the culture, irrespective of statistical outcomes. - John G Faris, Ireland
I think we should introduce the same rules as the US: nobody under 21 is served drink. - Rita Morris, Ireland
Some of the advertising campaigns for Diageo in particular embrace our culture and heritage. One of my favourites is the Guinness-sponsored GAA advert which brought back to life the epic tale of Cuchulain.
Alcohol has always been a part of our games and our culture. Many of our icons are famed for drinking mead, others are famed for changing water into wine. Everything in life has positives and negatives; the delicate balance is only maintained when there is awareness of the negative aspects.
Irresponsible drinking should be knocked because it hurts people; it should not be permitted that our games or social events be drenched in alcohol overdoses. Most of the alcohol companies seem to appreciate this and over recent years have sponsored drink awareness campaigns. These have much scope for development. Guinness is to the Galway Oyster Festival what bread is to butter. And what would the Galway races be without a few scoops of the black stuff? - Mary Davey, Ireland
Advertising of alcohol needs to be banned. Alcohol is a huge part of Irish society, but much violence results from it and it also leads to addiction and sometimes death. Action needs to be taken to reduce consumption. Banning advertising will aid a reduction in alcohol consumption. With my age group of the mid-teens, it is illegal to drink alcohol, but the main reason we do so is because we see adults looking "cool" when drinking. As teenagers we want to act more grown-up and, with advertisements in place, we see alcohol as a way to be more adult-like, yet the reality is quite the opposite. - Ciarán Rogers, Ireland
Stop the supply of cheap alcohol in our supermarkets and off-licences. It's a disgrace. - Kate Fitzpatrick, Ireland
Restricting an industry is a big step to take but not excessive in this circumstance. It was interesting to see an industry representative claim (like the cigarette companies) that advertising does not increase overall consumption, merely brand selection. This is a hoary old cliche that never seems to be backed up by any research. Regardless of the advertising though, we are our own worst enemies. From the earliest age, we expose children, not only to advertising but to adults almost exclusively socialising with drink in hand. I like a drink, but even I can see this is inappropriate. - Tom Ennis, Ireland
Using sport to promote drink is perverse. Alcohol attacks, first and foremost, muscle. Guinness advertisements may be clever, but at the end of the day their purpose is to promote drinking, despite all disclaimers. - Ronan O'Brien, Ireland
It is fallacious to argue that alcohol is "different" because it is "legal". If it was invented tomorrow and subjected to the rigours of modern product safety testing, there is no way it would pass. - Duncan Martin, Ireland
Advertising normalises drinking and its place in society - and excludes those who don't drink. The problems alcohol creates mean advertising should seek to cut, not to increase, consumption. - M Woods