FARMERS' land has the same rights as the front garden of any urban dweller. It is the basis for the income of the owner and is an integral part of their livelihood. The recommendations of the expert group set up by minister Eamon O CuIv are fundamentally flawed, as they ignore the partnership route and instead farmers have been presented with the possibility of coercive legislation without any consultation. In Collen vs Attorney General (June 2006), judge Sean O'Leary ruled that rights of ways could not be created without the agreement of the land owner and that such rights of way did not exist unless through the agreement of the landowner. It's also worth noting his concluding comment: "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 the minister for community rural and gaeltacht affairs, Eamon O Cuiv, and which issued a final report in September 2006, did not propose any new legislation to deal with the walking issue.

So why then does his expert group present an about turn?

We recognise that the development of a network of countryside walks is in the interests of the wider society. But in the development of hill walking, it's important a scheme be put in place to encourage farmers to open up their land. A good example is the Sheeps 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.

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 IFA put forward detailed proposals on how a scheme should be put in place in order to address this. In July 2005, 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 farmers' rights are protected. The proposed scheme would create either linear walks or shorter looped walks in the countryside by opening a network of walks.

This kind of scheme would help the development of walks to enhance the tourist potential of rural regions and boost their economic development. It would be a way of providing both capital aid for investment required in order to bring the walks up to the required standards, as well as an annual payment for 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 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 and we have costed it at about 15m when fully operational, covering about 30 walks and bringing them up to the standard of "way-marked ways". This would have the potential to create around 2,000km of linear and looped walks throughout the country. And in relation to insurance, the IFA is satisfied the Public Liability Act of 1995, as a general rule, fully protects landowners where people access their land.

Already farmers have shown these walks can be created through consultation and a cooperative approach. O Cuiv's expert group fails to take account of the goodwill that already exists and will not succeed because it is an infringement on property rights.