History of Commonage

Pre Land Reform 

The development of agriculture resulted in the progressive enclosure of land. Before the process of land reform began in the 19th century, tenants on large estates rented their farm from a landlord. The farm consisted of a portion of enclosed land and permission to use nearby unenclosed land belonging to the landlord. In many areas access to the unenclosed land, or “hill” was a vital component of the farming economy as it permitted the keeping of small numbers of livestock. These animals were often the only cash income available to the tenant and were used to pay the rent and to purchase items that could not be produced on the farm. 

Land Commission 

Once the land commission began the process of breaking up the large estates the use of the unenclosed land had to be formalised. In most cases this was done by allocating shares in the commonage to the former tenants. The term “tenants “has survived in many localities when people refer to the shareholders in a given commonage. This is a folk memory of the land tenure situation prior to the breakup of the big estates. 

Introduction of Direct Payments 

Large increases in sheep numbers from the 1970’s onwards had impacts on how commonages were managed. The introduction of ewe premium in particular contributed to a rapid increase in stock numbers without any reference to the size of the holding. In many cases this led to overgrazing of the commonage with consequent damage to vegetation, this was reflected in the loss of heather and an increase in inedible species such as Mat Grass and Heath Rush. In severe cases erosion of peat and soil also occurred. Another consequence of the direct payment system was a breakdown in the community based management of the commonage resource. 

Commonage Framework Plans. 

By the mid 1990s it was evident that the situation was unsustainable and that urgent action to reduce ewe’s numbers on the mountains was required. Initially this was achieved by a 30% cut in numbers from the ewe quota held by each individual commonage farmer in 6 western counties. Exceptions were made for farmers who were already in REPS. An across the board response like this created huge inequities as the degree of damage was very variable and farmers in undamaged commonages were subjected to the same cuts as everyone else. At the other end of the spectrum it was obvious that in severely damaged commonages a cut of 30% would not be enough. However the 30% cut was a provisional measure that would in time be replaced by the implementation of commonage framework plans drawn up for each commonage. The production of commonage framework plans began in 1998 and was largely completed by 2002. These plans assessed each commonage management unit, in some cases this meant that two or more commonages were amalgamated; in all cases a destocking % was calculated. The sheep numbers permitted on each commonage farm were reduced from the original ewe quota by a complex formula. This formula incorporated the % destocking prescribed in the framework plan, the stocking rate on the individual farm and the amount of commonage involved. These measures resulted in a rapid reduction in ewe numbers from 2003 onwards. 

Introduction of the Single Payment Scheme.

The changeover to the single payment scheme caused a further drop in sheep numbers as the link between ewe numbers and direct payments was broken. 

Commonage Monitoring. 

Ongoing monitoring of commonages began in the Owenduff catchment in Co. Mayo in 2004. Other monitoring was subsequently carried out in the Twelve Bens/ Maumturks in Co. Galway , Caha mountains in West Cork, Dartry mountains in Sligo and Leitrim, the Galtees in Tipperary and Limerick, Mweelrea and the Sheefry hills in Co. Mayo, the Cooley peninsula in Co. Louth, the McGillycuddy Reeks in Co. Kerry and parts of the Blue Stacks in Co. Donegal. In most of these the monitoring results were encouraging but further action was deemed necessary in the Owenduff and in the Twelve Bens/ Maumturks. Further reductions in ewe numbers and restrictions on outwintering were implemented in these areas in 2006 and 2008 respectively. 

Commonage Review 

By 2011 it was being claimed in some quarters that some commonages were seriously under grazed. This and a growing realisation that the commonage framework plans were obsolete led to the recently completed review. The review changed the focus from the management unit to the land parcel and introduced the concept of a minimum as well as a maximum stocking rate.

What is Commonage?

In Ireland, commonage is land that is owned by more than one person. Typically each shareholder owns a defined fraction of the total area and this is detailed on each shareholders folios. It should not be confused with the term “tenants in common”, which is where the land described on a folio belongs to two or more persons. This may happen where land is inherited jointly by siblings or where land is purchased by two or more people. Land held by “tenants in common” is not normally considered as commonage.

Another situation is in respect of lands where there are “grazing rights”. These do not involve any ownership of the land but as the name suggests give a right to graze livestock on the area involved.

Over the years the shareholders on many commonages have decided to “stripe” or split their commonage between them. In spite of this approx 426,000 Ha of commonage remain. Over 11,000 farms have a shareholding in one or more of the approx 4,500 remaining commonages.

Commonage Review

All farmers with commonage will shortly receive a letter from the Dept of Agriculture, Food and the Marine regarding how the recently completed commonage review will affect them. This review has completely changed how commonages will be managed in the future and has implications for stock numbers and for direct payments to commonage farmers. It replaces the commonage framework plans and it is hoped will lead to a more community based approach to commonage management. 

Commonage Framework Plans have governed sheep numbers on commonages for the last decade. However in recent years it has become increasingly apparent that these were dated and no longer provided for the needs of those involved in commonage management. To deal with this, the Dept. of Agriculture and the National Parks and Wildlife Service have reviewed the Commonage Framework Plans to make them more relevant to current requirements. This review was based on the patterns of recovery observed in commonages throughout Ireland since 2004. 

Implementation of the commonage framework plans resulted in many farmers having to destock from their original ewe quota level. The new system breaks the link with the old ewe quota and instead allows farmers to stock at sustainable levels. In effect this means that the starting point is zero and that farmers can increase their stocking to a sustainable level as determined in the commonage review. 

The new system also introduces a collective approach to managing commonages. It will be the shareholders themselves who will determine how many animals each farmer will graze on the commonage. However the total number must be within a minimum and maximum number for the commonage as set out in the letter from the Dept. of Agriculture. This collective responsibility may also allow the Dept. of Agriculture to impose penalties on all shareholders if a commonage is improperly managed. 

Farmers utilise the commonage for grazing livestock, but it also represents forage area on which they get paid in the dis-advantaged area and single payment schemes To ensure that all farmers can continue to get what they need out of their commonage they should reach an internal agreement among themselves. This agreement must be agreed by the farmers themselves however it may be facilitated by an expert third party. The agreement will ensure that all shareholders know where they stand, what commitments they have and how they will resolve any disputes, either between themselves or with outside bodies. In short the internal agreement sets out how they are going to manage their commonage. The contents of the agreement are up to the farmers themselves but as a minimum it should set out how many animals each farmer will keep so that the group can meet the sustainable stocking requirement. 

It is unlikely that an even split between all shareholders will be the optimum approach to achieve this. The circumstances and farm enterprises of different shareholders will vary, some may be unwilling to increase numbers at all, others perhaps, may wish to increase to a level in excess of what an even split would allow. The situation is further complicated by dormant shareholders who do not farm the commonage at all and by the renting and leasing of shares. While dealing with all of these issues is not straightforward, the problems posed are manageable. However to do this successfully requires a structured and most importantly, a workable agreement between the shareholders. 

This is an opportunity for farmers to manage their commonage together, largely free from external interference. It is not something that people should fear or be apprehensive about, but it does require their careful attention.

AEOS 3 Scheme Announced

AEOS 3 schemes announced at the ploughing championships. The Minister of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has announced that €20 million euro has been made available to finance an AEOS 3 scheme. This will be enough to accommodate approx 6,000 farmers. Priority will be given to farmers with commonage or Natura land (SAC or SPA). The details of this scheme have not been announced yet but are expected in the very near future.

Full details will be posted on this site as soon as they are available.