While the initial reaction to the opening of GLAS was welcomed greatly by cattle and sheep farmers, reports suggest that some farmers who initially showed keen interest have gone lukewarm on submitting an application for a number of reasons. The greatest barrier we have come across is that GLAS very much flies in the face of active farming, especially for those with small land bases or operating at a relatively high stocking rate for their land type.

This is as the main revenue generating measures, namely low input permanent pasture and traditional hay meadows, would in many cases require a reduction in the farm’s stocking rate or on marginal lands possibly limit its production potential even further. For some farms, tying up an area required to deliver a substantial payment of over €2,000 is just not possible.

For other farmers with smaller areas, it is difficult to select enough measures to deliver a payment that they feel is worthwhile to cover direct costs such as drawing up a plan, soil samples, etc, without taking into account costs associated with specific measures.

On the other hand, there are some farms that the scheme suits very well as they have access to a large area of ground, in some cases an outfarm, that is farmed less intensively and as such is an ideal fit for low input permanent pasture. According to farmer reaction, this measure will be selected much more frequently than traditional hay meadows with farmers wishing to avoid high volumes of lower quality forage and higher supplementation bills.

Traditional dry stone wall maintenance has proven popular as an option on many farms across the west, as have measures such as the conservation of solitary bees option along with bird and bat boxes. This is due to farmers outside the priority tiers clambering to gain access with planners suggesting that many farmers are selecting a range of options to improve their chances of been accepted into the scheme. Hedgerow planting and coppicing options have also proven popular.

The option to protect watercourses from bovines has been a topic of heated debate between some farmers and planners. A high proportion of watercourses, which were marked and fenced in REPS do not exist on the GLAS planning system, resulting in many farmers over-counting on this option.

The issues surrounding commonages have eased. Widespread reports suggest that a high proportion of commonage farmers are applying to the scheme. However, in some cases where farmers have small commonage areas and have highly stocked lowland, uptake is said to be slower.

Reports suggest that some farmers wishing to join the scheme are unable to do so under Tranche 1 as individual blocks of land are listed under one LPIS number and, as such, do not allow selecting individual areas for certain measures. The announcement of a second tranche could overcome this issue and see farmers hold off until later in the year.

Reports from AEOS have pointed to concerns surrounding upfront capital expenditure and the prospect of clawback on money received for specific non-compliances. The advice been given to farmers by planners is correct – GLAS can provide financial aid but this should not be the basis of decisions. Farmers should take an in-depth look into how the scheme suits them and what long-term implications it may have on their farm.