EU Biodiversity strategy 2030

Castlekeeper · 16-01-2021 12:40pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The fella below very obviously doesn't get it.

I'm getting plenty of it thanks

Say my name · 16-01-2021 12:49pm

Getting very confrontational in this thread.
Almost like the tone perpetuating from the communal communist type farming of Chris Newman attacking the grand ole master Savoury capitalist farming.

Are we not better than that to bring that schoolyard name calling and bullying into this forum?

Let them two gobsh1tes at it! Ye don't have to behave like them.

Take their practices if ye want but ye don't have to copy them as people.

Edit: just in case anyone wants to join there's religions where they grow their own food and everyone's income goes into the one pot and is redistributed among everybody.
Not saying it's right or wrong. But it's there with members in this country.

TheBoyConor · 16-01-2021 1:11pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure put in an offer to the owners, they may sell it to you to do as you please.

Can the government not just pay an attractively high enough rate to the owners for to leave the land idle?

Perhaps assess what maximum income could be generated from the land with intensive practices and then set a higher rate for leaving the land back to nature
If the numbers make it a viable proposition, people will do it.

Essentially, make it more lucrative to let land return to nature than for it is to farm it.

endainoz · 16-01-2021 1:17pm

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Can the government not just pay an attractively high enough rate to the owners for to leave the land idle?

Perhaps assess what maximum income could be generated from the land with intensive practices and then set a higher rate for leaving the land back to nature
If the numbers make it a viable proposition, people will do it.

Essentially, make it more lucrative to let land return to nature than for it is to farm it.

The issue here is that your assuming all farms are intensive, which is far from the case.

TheBoyConor · 16-01-2021 1:27pm

endainoz wrote: »

The issue here is that your assuming all farms are intensive, which is far from the case.

Well in terms of area, the larger farms are intensive ones.
It should be even easier to justify incentivise rewilding of non intensive farms and marginal land, as the potential income from those are even less, meaning the financial incentives will be even greater good the owner.

Especially in marginal land areas, the owners are often older and the young uninterested and perhaps would be happy to be freed from the drudgery of labouring on the land in exchange for very attractive rewilding payments.

NcdJd · 16-01-2021 1:30pm

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Can the government not just pay an attractively high enough rate to the owners for to leave the land idle?

Perhaps assess what maximum income could be generated from the land with intensive practices and then set a higher rate for leaving the land back to nature
If the numbers make it a viable proposition, people will do it.

Essentially, make it more lucrative to let land return to nature than for it is to farm it.

Farming is a way of life for a lot of people and has been around for thousands of years. There is no reason why farming and nature cannot exist in the same area. And does in alot of cases despite what you think. Farming is part of the solution not part of the problem.

All well and good saying your going to plant a forest. Good for you but at the end of the day Ireland's habits and landscapes are very localised, complex and unique. Alot of the proponents of the rewilding agenda I find have no comprehension of this fact.

Edit are farmers going to be paid more for their produce after a de- intensification exercise? I think not. That makes you part of the problem too. Consumers are tied into this too on the price they are willing to pay for food.

Capercaillie · 16-01-2021 1:57pm

endainoz wrote: »

The issue here is that your assuming all farms are intensive, which is far from the case.

Depends on the definition of intensive though which varies depending on who you ask.

Capercaillie · 16-01-2021 2:03pm

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Well in terms of area, the larger farms are intensive ones.
It should be even easier to justify incentivise rewilding of non intensive farms and marginal land, as the potential income from those are even less, meaning the financial incentives will be even greater good the owner.

Especially in marginal land areas, the owners are often older and the young uninterested and perhaps would be happy to be freed from the drudgery of labouring on the land in exchange for very attractive rewilding payments.

Rewilding works best on large areas, for example huge nature reserves like Okavango delta. The smaller the area you generally need more management. I have a small farm (25 acres), production wise I'm a useless farmer, but in terms of biodiversity I would be very good. I would put a lot of work/money into the biodiversity side and if i totally abandoned the site biodiversity would decrease.

TheBoyConor · 16-01-2021 2:23pm

I don't get how biodiversity would decrease if you abandoned the land to nature.. how is that?

In my view of you leave a block of land to nature you won't be cutting ditches anymore. That means more hedgerow habitat. If trees fall out into the field in a storm, well the deadwood provides habitat and substrate for insects, who in turn provide food for birds. Hedgerows would gradually encroach out into fields over the years, perhaps some isolated pockets of hazel would appear in the open. Drains would block up meaning some portions of the land would become wetland.

If some native trees are planted in pockets around the fields before abandonment the process will be accelerated.

The only intervention I would propose is checking for and eradicating any invasive or non native species if and when they do arise.

Removing the constant nutrient drain on the soil by grazing or crop harvest allows the soil fertility to recover. And the removal of sprays will allow insect life to thrive in the dense ground cover.

The field would become over run with "weeds" in between the planted pockets. But if these "weeds" are a native species then they are not a problem. Most provide a source of food for bees.

Capercaillie · 16-01-2021 2:28pm

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I don't get how biodiversity would decrease if you abandoned the land to nature.. how is that?

In my view of you leave a block of land to nature you won't be cutting ditches anymore. That means more hedgerow habitat. If trees fall out into the field in a storm, well the deadwood provides habitat and substrate for insects, who in turn provide food for birds. Hedgerows would gradually encroach out into fields over the years, perhaps some isolated pockets of hazel would appear in the open. Drains would block up meaning some portions of the land would become wetland.

If some native trees are planted in pockets around the fields before abandonment the process will be accelerated.

The only intervention I would propose is checking for and eradicating any invasive or non native species if and when they do arise.

https://youtu.be/zls6AwqkyWk short video on farm, everything you see in video has strict management to improve habitat.

16-01-2021 2:32pm

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Can the government not just pay an attractively high enough rate to the owners for to leave the land idle?

Perhaps assess what maximum income could be generated from the land with intensive practices and then set a higher rate for leaving the land back to nature
If the numbers make it a viable proposition, people will do it.

Essentially, make it more lucrative to let land return to nature than for it is to farm it.

The crux of this thread isn't payments. It's legal burdens which are outside of the CAP and dictated by the EU and a member state on to privately owned lands.

Payments, for whatever else, are voluntary and I have zero issue with what people voluntarily want to do with their own land, by their own decision.

As for assessing income, no thanks, that would come solely from conventional thinking.

TheBoyConor · 16-01-2021 2:33pm

Fair play to him that looks great. But it's very much targeted at the corn crake. Intensivelu produced cork crake habitat.

Huge clumps of wild nettle, thistle, briar and ragwort wouldn't be long getting established in most places with little effort.

Capercaillie · 16-01-2021 2:44pm

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Fair play to him that looks great. But it's very much targeted at the corn crake. Intensivelu produced cork crake habitat.

Huge clumps of wild nettle, thistle, briar and ragwort wouldn't be long getting established in most places with little effort.

Habitat for corncrake and entire traditional hay meadow habitat. Skylark, meadow pipit, twite, chough, orchids, barnacle geese, whopper swan, frogs, merlin, golden plover (winter). Large dense nettle beds are not easy to create and manage.....

TheBoyConor · 16-01-2021 2:54pm

I can't get my head around the need for everything to be managed. Nature is the absence of human intervention and interference.
My approach would be to plant a week planned mix of trees, shrubs and undergrowth and close the gate behind me. Only exceptional intervention after that would be keeping and eye out for invasive non native species and removing them.

gozunda · 16-01-2021 4:33pm

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I don't get how biodiversity would decrease if you abandoned the land to nature.. how is that?

In my view of you leave a block of land to nature you won't be cutting ditches anymore. That means more hedgerow habitat. If trees fall out into the field in a storm, well the deadwood provides habitat and substrate for insects, who in turn provide food for birds. Hedgerows would gradually encroach out into fields over the years, perhaps some isolated pockets of hazel would appear in the open. Drains would block up meaning some portions of the land would become wetland.

If some native trees are planted in pockets around the fields before abandonment the process will be accelerated.

The only intervention I would propose is checking for and eradicating any invasive or non native species if and when they do arise.

Removing the constant nutrient drain on the soil by grazing or crop harvest allows the soil fertility to recover. And the removal of sprays will allow insect life to thrive in the dense ground cover.

The field would become over run with "weeds" in between the planted pockets. But if these "weeds" are a native species then they are not a problem. Most provide a source of food for bees.

Because simply abandoning land does not equal nature and diversity. Look at any urban site that has been abandoned you will see a place rank with just a couple of rampant vegetative species and fek all else.

Wildlife requires a wide range of diverse habits- not just overgrown land. The flora and fauna here have evolved along with farming practices such as meadows and managed hedgerows. Get rid of a all management - you do so to the detriment of many present species.

In the Netherlands they attempted a rewilding experiment a few years back. This is part of a report on how that worked out.

But because the soil was so fertile, vegetation soon threatened to take over. Much of the Oostvaardersplassen was on its way to becoming a woodland — meaning all the wetland bird species would disappear.

What the site needed was open grassland, which could support grazing birds and would serve as a transition zone between the marsh and the developed areas farther inland.

You can read about the rest of that disastrous experiment here.

https://whyy.org/segments/the-netherlands-grand-rewilding-experiment-gone-haywire/

Birdnuts · 16-01-2021 6:45pm

gozunda wrote: »

You can read about the rest of that disastrous experiment here.

https://whyy.org/segments/the-netherlands-grand-rewilding-experiment-gone-haywire/

It didn't work cos they designed a project that required culling of the larger herbivores in the absence of top predators like wolves. They didn't bother to cull, hence the failure of the project(though ironically wolves have started to return to Holland since). As Caper mentioned a few post ago - true "rewilding" is only possible in large landscapes that can accommodate the return of top predators. Otherwise some level of "positive" human management will be required to achieve optimum results for rare species like Corncrakes etc.

Capercaillie · 16-01-2021 8:28pm

gozunda wrote: »

Because simply abandoning land does not equal nature and diversity. Look at any urban site that has been abandoned you will see a place rank with just a couple of rampant vegetative species and fek all else.

Wildlife requires a wide range of diverse habits- not just overgrown land. The flora and fauna here have evolved along with farming practices such as meadows and managed hedgerows. Get rid of a all management - you do so to the detriment of many present species.

In the Netherlands they attempted a rewilding experiment a few years back. This is part of a report on how that worked out.

You can read about the rest of that disastrous experiment here.

https://whyy.org/segments/the-netherlands-grand-rewilding-experiment-gone-haywire/

True rewilding introduces large predators or ar least culling as a proxy. That Dutch model is not a good example.

Water John · 16-01-2021 10:19pm

Land can provide the three things, produce for sale and human beings to eat, biodiversity and carbon sequestration. Only a managed land can maximise all three. Rewilding offers little or no opportunity to reduce GHG.

Say my name · 16-01-2021 11:20pm

What about if you don't like eating humans?

Water John · 16-01-2021 11:30pm

Got me there, SMN.
They're best when they are young and not after getting tough.

HillFarmer · 17-01-2021 1:00am

Interesting video here if you have a spare 15 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP3-TsRRSys&feature=emb_title

Not sure how they weren't making money on a farm that size before changing over.
I think its well worth a watch.

gozunda · 17-01-2021 3:20am

Capercaillie wrote: »

True rewilding introduces large predators or ar least culling as a proxy. That Dutch model is not a good example.

Considering the howls of outrage made about culling deer etc that ain't going to happen.

As for Mr Ryan's Wolves don't get me started ...

Birdnuts · 17-01-2021 3:25am

Water John wrote: »

Land can provide the three things, produce for sale and human beings to eat, biodiversity and carbon sequestration. Only a managed land can maximise all three. Rewilding offers little or no opportunity to reduce GHG.

I suppose it depends on a number of factors including soil, climate type and whether the land was "traditionally" farmed. Your point is obviously valid on this island, but in the likes of Brazil and Indonesia, reversing the damage done in the past few decades from the likes of ranching and palm oil plantations by restoring rainforest cover can only be a good thing for the climate and biodiversity. As it is there are already NGO's in Borneo doing great work on restoring forest cover on degraded former palm oil plantations. Some have even managed to release endangered species like Orangutans into these areas which were originally rescued from the illegal wildlife trade

Capercaillie · 17-01-2021 10:20am

HillFarmer wrote: »

Interesting video here if you have a spare 15 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP3-TsRRSys&feature=emb_title

Not sure how they weren't making money on a farm that size before changing over.
I think its well worth a watch.

It was a tillage farm on wet ground that only managed to make a profit on occasional years. They make a profit now!

Capercaillie · 17-01-2021 10:22am

gozunda wrote: »

Considering the howls of outrage made about culling deer etc that ain't going to happen.

As for Mr Ryan's Wolves don't get me started ...

Proponents of rewilding don't want deer culling?

TheBoyConor · 17-01-2021 11:04am

I think the knepp project is fantastic.
It shows how real nature can be facilitated and allowed to thrive with minimaln intervention .

Its different from what that vet in mayo was doing by intensively cultivating a habitat for corn crake. That's all fine and good but it's a different type of conservation effort targeted at a particular species, as is talked about in the knepp video.

And the clincher is this,.....Knepp is making far more money now than it ever did as a farm.
I hope a lot of Irish farms follow the knepp protocol.

Its definitely the sort of theme which I intend to

Dinzee Conlee · 17-01-2021 11:13am

HillFarmer wrote: »

Interesting video here if you have a spare 15 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP3-TsRRSys&feature=emb_title

Not sure how they weren't making money on a farm that size before changing over.
I think its well worth a watch.

Very interesting...

I wonder what the minimum size farm you’d need for this to properly work?
I think they said they had 200/300 acres in Knepp?

I guess this is what the new CAP had in mind with fallow areas? But I suspect any payments for fallow areas would have a small enough upper limit...

Capercaillie · 17-01-2021 12:06pm

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I think the knepp project is fantastic.
It shows how real nature can be facilitated and allowed to thrive with minimaln intervention .

Its different from what that vet in mayo was doing by intensively cultivating a habitat for corn crake. That's all fine and good but it's a different type of conservation effort targeted at a particular species, as is talked about in the knepp video.

And the clincher is this,.....Knepp is making far more money now than it ever did as a farm.
I hope a lot of Irish farms follow the knepp protocol.

Its definitely the sort of theme which I intend to

The lad in Mayo isn't just managing the land for corncrake, its protecting an entire ecosystem.

gozunda · 17-01-2021 12:11pm

Capercaillie wrote: »

Proponents of rewilding don't want deer culling?

Yup. A lot of the pro rewilding brigade are anti hunting / culling They see a haven where all the little bunnies and bambies frolicking free living in harmony in forests where they can go for nice walks with none of that nasty farming ...

TheBoyConor · 17-01-2021 12:21pm

That is another think I have objections about. If an area is to be rewilded, then it should be just that....not a theme park for people to walk through letting their children run riot and letting dogs loose or dropping litter everywhere.
It should be off limits to the public, enforced by a physical barrier. Only people in there should be those who are overseeing it and taking care of whatever minimal interventions are necessary, eg, removing invasive non native species, culling of fauna in order to fill the gap left by the absence of large predators.

cosatron · 17-01-2021 12:26pm

Capercaillie wrote: »

The lad in Mayo isn't just managing the land for corncrake, its protecting an entire ecosystem.

Do you know that lad lol

Capercaillie · 17-01-2021 12:29pm

cosatron wrote: »

Do you know that lad lol

Of course I know him:P

Capercaillie · 17-01-2021 12:31pm

gozunda wrote: »

Yup. See a whole bunch green party type advocates for details. A lot of the rewilding brigade are anti hunting / culling They see a haven where all the little bunnies and bambies frolicking free living in harmony in forests where they can go for nice walks with none of that nasty farming ...

Rewilding groups advocate heavy culling of deer to promote native woodland regeneration.....

17-01-2021 12:57pm

Knepp is business that was started by the owners own decisions. It wasn't something that they didn't want which was forced on them.

gozunda · 17-01-2021 1:12pm

Capercaillie wrote: »

Rewilding groups advocate heavy culling of deer to promote native woodland regeneration.....

There are. However there are a whole range of groups who are strongly pro rewilding but remain vehemently against any form of culling.

The Oostvaardersplassen rewilding reserve is a case in point. When it was decided to initiate a cull - animal rights campaigners started massive protests - with rangers and ecologists receiving death threats.

In the UK Culling is a controversial method of population control and is opposed by a large number of animal rights extremists including parts of Scotland where rewilding initiatives have taken place.

Although not a rewilded area - It was noticeable that the The Phoenix Park deer culling debacle here was highly as contentious as was the culling of dear populations in the Killarney National Park.

Water John · 17-01-2021 1:19pm

The Knepp project is quite interesting. What is important I think, is a whole suite of options and levels. Each farm pitches to maximise both the land and the farmer, aiming to produce all three; produce, biodiversity and carbon sequestration.
Looks like an acre can sequester about 4t carbon/year. If someone at the end of this decade will pay me €80/100 per tonne, I'll farm what ever achieves that.

Capercaillie · 17-01-2021 1:28pm

gozunda wrote: »

There are. However there are a whole range of groups who are strongly pro rewilding but remain vehemently against any form of culling.

The Oostvaardersplassen rewilding reserve is a case in point. When it was decided to initiate a cull - animal rights campaigners started massive protests - with rangers and ecologists receiving death threats.

In the UK Culling is a controversial method of population control and is opposed by a large number of animal rights extremists including parts of Scotland where rewilding initiatives have taken place.

Although not a rewilded area - It was noticeable that the The Phoenix Park deer culling debacle here was highly as contentious as was the culling of dear populations in the Killarney National Park.

Your confusing animal rights groups with rewilding groups. There were objections to culling of red deer in Killarney from environmental groups because of the low numbers of red, not the culling of sika.

As you said Phoenix park is not even remotely a rewilded area, so not sure why you are bringing that up as an example.

The Dutch site is an outlier among rewilding proponents.

gozunda · 17-01-2021 2:04pm

Capercaillie wrote: »

Your confusing animal rights groups with rewilding groups. There were objections to culling of red deer in Killarney from environmental groups because of the low numbers of red, not the culling of sika.
As you said Phoenix park is not even remotely a rewilded area, so not sure why you are bringing that up as an example.The Dutch site is an outlier among rewilding proponents.

Nope. And yes I'm aware there are dedicated "rewilding groups"

Not sure what the counter argument is about tbh.

You asked

Capercaillie wrote: »

Proponents of rewilding don't want deer culling?

so let me explain again - apart from 'dedicated' rewilding groups there are many proponents / advocates of rewilding who are strongly anti culling. These include many extreme animal rights groups who support rewilding.

And no the killarney anti culling example was when both species of deer were being culled due to overpopulation

I brought those two example for the reason that there is a strong anti culling lobby whether that is in national parks or anywhere else. Ditto the Dutch rewilding park where they tried to bring in culling. Ditto Scotland.

'Dedicated' rewilding groups are going to face some issues with this down the line.

yosemitesam1 · 17-01-2021 2:09pm

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I can't get my head around the need for everything to be managed. Nature is the absence of human intervention and interference.
My approach would be to plant a week planned mix of trees, shrubs and undergrowth and close the gate behind me. Only exceptional intervention after that would be keeping and eye out for invasive non native species and removing them.

An awful lot of biodiversity is reliant on disturbance to habitats. People have provided that disturbance for >10,000 years. Whether through burning, coppiceing, hedge laying, managed grazing/cutting, cultivation (pre chemical era) etc.
There are also natural factors that keep the worlds great natural grasslands healthy from a diversity pov in the abscence of human intervention.
But in Europe, many species are actually dependent of people and would not be here without us. As great as old growth forests are, if the whole island was composed of them many species would become extinct and biodiversity would suffer.
Disturbance (especially if it is actively managed) creates the conditions that many species need to survive. Most traditional farming systems across the world provided this disturbance as a byproduct of producing food.

With good hedge management, sympathetic grazing/cutting management and creating other small areas of habitat (whether thats a small woodland, constructed wetland etc, that can provide other non habitat benefits to the owner). It would be possible to generate far better outcomes for nature than saying x amount of land is to be abandoned and allow the rest of the land to make up for any output reductions as a result

Waffletraktor · 17-01-2021 2:53pm

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

Very interesting...

I wonder what the minimum size farm you’d need for this to properly work?
I think they said they had 200/300 acres in Knepp?

I guess this is what the new CAP had in mind with fallow areas? But I suspect any payments for fallow areas would have a small enough upper limit...

Knepp is 3,500 acres iirc, typical old money estate slowly going broke.

Water John · 17-01-2021 4:09pm

This proposed legislation in NI, an Environment and Nature Restoration Bill is worth keeping an eye on:
https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/rspb-new-bill-could-turn-the-tide-on-nis-devastating-nature-decline/

17-01-2021 5:30pm

Water John wrote: »

The Knepp project is quite interesting. What is important I think, is a whole suite of options and levels. Each farm pitches to maximise both the land and the farmer, aiming to produce all three; produce, biodiversity and carbon sequestration.
Looks like an acre can sequester about 4t carbon/year. If someone at the end of this decade will pay me €80/100 per tonne, I'll farm what ever achieves that.

I know two knowledgeable people who visited Knepp, with a view to incorporating it into a training program. They didn't. When I asked why, they said the amount of bare soil there was astounding, that it could be much improved with the proper grazing of livestock. So while it may have it's pluses in some senses, I wouldn't put it on a pedestal for all things.

Water John · 17-01-2021 6:46pm

Yeah, mob grazing would look like a natural fit. There is no natural predator there to move the cows.

17-01-2021 7:09pm

Water John wrote: »

Yeah, mob grazing would look like a natural fit. There is no natural predator there to move the cows.

That's the rub, electric fencing would look too farmerish to suit the business model, and what would the animal rights crow say to virtual fencing collars. Perhaps they could employ some of the peasants that lost their tenancies to facilitate Knepp Safari as herders.

Bare soil is a very bad thing for many reasons.

Birdnuts · 17-01-2021 10:13pm

Water John wrote: »

This proposed legislation in NI, an Environment and Nature Restoration Bill is worth keeping an eye on:
https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/rspb-new-bill-could-turn-the-tide-on-nis-devastating-nature-decline/

Good to see - but an awfull lot of work to do given that NI's record in this area is even worse than ours eg. the Environmental agency there reported last year that only one out of 50 lakes surveyed was of "good" status:(

17-03-2021 11:19pm

Paywall but sure...

The most impactfull line in it IMO

“In reality the designations effectively prevent farmers from diversifying and evolving, which all farmers must do in order to ensure farm viability.”

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/forestry-enviro/environment/full-planning-permission-for-fencing-drainage-and-digger-work-on-selected-lands-by-2030-40206494.html

22-04-2021 10:13pm

An important contribution from Michael Fitzmaurice. People farming, or even coming from, areas described need to pay attention.

https://www.facebook.com/videoparliamentireland/videos/4140163369361357

eire23 · 22-04-2021 10:51pm

Deleted User wrote: »

An important contribution from Michael Fitzmaurice. People farming, or even coming from, areas described need to pay attention.

https://www.facebook.com/videoparliamentireland/videos/4140163369361357

That does not make for good listening... People haven't a clue I'd imagine.

22-04-2021 11:04pm

eire23 wrote: »

That does not make for good listening... People haven't a clue I'd imagine.

No, and that's a worry. The ostrich strategy won't make this go away. Lads that might believe sure that's only for the hills are in for a rough ride.

Say my name · 22-04-2021 11:25pm

Haven't watched the piece above.

But from soundbites and noises. It sounds like the powers that be..teagasc, the government and environmentalists have all gotten together and decided that farming is to be curtailed massively on land that they decide has a good store of carbon.
The farmer is secondary or way down that list.

Eventually they hope by the next generation of people that that generation will be curtailed from building and farming there and they move to a town or village and the land will be left be.

It's Scottish clearance by "soft talk".

EU Biodiversity strategy 2030

Comments