Farmers v walkers - Foot dragging on land access row must end

FARMS are places of business, and no matter what subsidies apply, no matter how enviable the single farm payments might seem to those not entitled to them, they are first and foremost places where people make their living.

Many farms are in places of great natural beauty, especially those in upland or coastal regions, and some, in lakelands or river valleys, are places of idyllic calm.

Most farmers and their families have a strong emotional attachment to their land, an attachment so powerful that it can often bewilder urban dwellers.

This attachment goes well beyond any sense of property ownership or property rights; in many instances it’s how families define themselves, it is where their ambitions are realised or denied.

As we become increasingly urbanised and globalised, this attachment — on that does not always leave room for rational thought — becomes all the more mysterious to people unconnected with the countryside.

In Ireland, we are a generation away from the almost complete urban/rural disconnection that can be seen in England, a chasm brought to light in the contrasting reactions to the foot-and-mouth crisis, six years ago.

The entire Irish population was mobilised in response to the crisis, while in England the impact, though profound, was localised. Labour’s hunting ban deepened the urban rural divide, as will the current proposal to allow access to the entire British coastline — irrespective of usage or ownership.

There has been a long-established and admirable culture of welcoming responsible and respectful visitors to Ireland’s farmlands. If an angler or a walker was turned away, it was most likely in exceptional circumstances, either to protect a crop or the visitor themselves. It was very rarely done out of meanness or spite.

This tradition has been a success because those who visited the countryside did so to articulate a love for open spaces shared by the landowners, often celebrating that love through the same sports and activities.

Unfortunately, this tradition of easy-going openness is being jeopardised by the inability of farmers’ representatives and walkers to agree how this process should be financed, or even if it should be financed at all.

The late Joe Rea, who led the IFA in the mid 1980s, put it succinctly when he said that the IFA was “about improving farmers’ incomes and ... if the organisation was not doing that it was nothing”.

Padraig Walshe, a successor of Mr Rea, is equally adamant. He argues that hotels, bars, restaurants and other local services enjoy the fruits of walking tourism but not farmers, who own and manage the land.

It is a difficult argument to refute, but its implications — that walkers should have to pay for access — leave a bitter taste in the mouth of those who regard a restorative walk in our hills as more than a commodity to be traded; something beyond a plate of scampi and chips.

That distaste is intensified by the realisation that up to 80% of farm income comes via subsidies, and no matter how Mr Walshe protests about the benefits of food being produced below cost through subsidies, the pay-for-access position is terribly divisive.

The IFA has predicted that confrontations will occur if current proposals on access for walkers are adopted. They say the recommendations of an expert group to Rural Affairs Minister Éamon Ó Cuív would amount to an assault on property rights.

It is unlikely that the IFA will be able to convince all of those seeking access that farming subsidies on such a massive scale do not bring with them some sort of quid pro quo on access. Farmers will be equally forceful in their argument that the matters are unconnected.

They will argue with considerable logic that some areas must be off limits for commercial, privacy, conservation or safety reasons.

Whatever the outcome, it would be preposterous if Ireland was to become the only European country to charge for access to the countryside.

However, farmers’ must be compensated for any costs incurred in providing safe pathways and walkers must realise that some areas may have to remain off limits.

This row has dragged on for far too long and is a factor in our declining walking tourism.

It needs to be resolved.