Area based CAP reform better for farmes in the West?

HillFarmer

Hi All,

I'd liked to start a discussion on what we all think would be a fair CAP Reform.

Of course everyone is going to favour there own situation.
My situation:

Marginal hill farm with some good fields but mostly hill.
Hill sheep and some shorthorn sucklers. Low stocking density.

If CAP is going to go on a Land area based system then I presume that farmers in the West will gain and farmers in the East will lose.
( I know I'm generalizing alot here but it think this is the basic view)

I grew up in the EAST on a dairy farm, family is still farming that so I have seen two sides of the story.


The question is what is the fairest reform for CAP?
I've seen dairy farmers at home (EAST) spend big money on sheds etc so would have alot of loans, high stocking rates etc. Equally they have alot of money coming in also.

I now see the situation in the West, cost of feed coming from east etc. Its a totally different ball game. When i see neighbours farming bog and rock and then look at the lush green fields of the East I can't help thinking the boys in the West should get more subsidy.
(besides the 2K from the DAS)

There is alot of land in the west that could be better maintained to produce more stock if the money was there.


What are peoples views?

I think Area based system would help alot of farmers in marginal areas and is a overall fairer system. From my experience my neighbours I dont see any welthy farmers, in comparison to home.

I'm biased as I now farm marginal land but all views appreciated on what is a fair CAP reform. Probably going to be slated!

rancher

HillFarmer wrote: »

Hi All,

I'd liked to start a discussion on what we all think would be a fair CAP Reform.

Of course everyone is going to favour there own situation.
My situation:

Marginal hill farm with some good fields but mostly hill.
Hill sheep and some shorthorn sucklers. Low stocking density.

If CAP is going to go on a Land area based system then I presume that farmers in the West will gain and farmers in the East will lose.
( I know I'm generalizing alot here but it think this is the basic view)

I grew up in the EAST on a dairy farm, family is still farming that so I have seen two sides of the story.


The question is what is the fairest reform for CAP?
I've seen dairy farmers at home (EAST) spend big money on sheds etc so would have alot of loans, high stocking rates etc. Equally they have alot of money coming in also.

I now see the situation in the West, cost of feed coming from east etc. Its a totally different ball game. When i see neighbours farming bog and rock and then look at the lush green fields of the East I can't help thinking the boys in the West should get more subsidy.
(besides the 2K from the DAS)

There is alot of land in the west that could be better maintained to produce more stock if the money was there.


What are peoples views?

I think Area based system would help alot of farmers in marginal areas and is a overall fairer system. From my experience my neighbours I dont see any welthy farmers, in comparison to home.

I'm biased as I now farm marginal land but all views appreciated on what is a fair CAP reform. Probably going to be slated!

Definitely no equity in the present system, big farmer with high SFP probably have commitments to match, but would be very naive to think such an inequitable system could last, finally Iwouldn't dare make any suggestions!!!!!!!!!

5live

I was reading a review a while back (Journal?) that said the spread of SFP was high to lower going east to west in general but the DA was higher going west to east in general, leaving some 350 euro average across the country between both, admittedly with large fluctuations from farm to farm

Username John

Given what 5live said above - and what the OP... And I saw the DA payments thread popping up...

Would an area based SFP system mean the end of Disadvantaged payments? Should it be the end of them?
It makes sense to me that it should, but... its very easy to me to say that, when I am not in receipt of DA payment...

OP - you made an interesting comment above
"I now see the situation in the West, cost of feed coming from east etc. Its a totally different ball game. When i see neighbours farming bog and rock and then look at the lush green fields of the East I can't help thinking the boys in the West should get more subsidy.
(besides the 2K from the DAS) "
Why do you exempt the 2k?

Min

Username John wrote: »

Given what 5live said above - and what the OP... And I saw the DA payments thread popping up...

Would an area based SFP system mean the end of Disadvantaged payments? Should it be the end of them?
It makes sense to me that it should, but... its very easy to me to say that, when I am not in receipt of DA payment...

OP - you made an interesting comment above
"I now see the situation in the West, cost of feed coming from east etc. Its a totally different ball game. When i see neighbours farming bog and rock and then look at the lush green fields of the East I can't help thinking the boys in the West should get more subsidy.
(besides the 2K from the DAS) "
Why do you exempt the 2k?

It is an area based payment, with the maximum payment having been reduced to €3,400.
I get paid for farming in a mountainous region of Kilkenny. This is to make farming viable in areas where farming is at a disadvantage for some reason like living on high land which would have a shorter growing season, higher rainfall, other areas where the land is poor.
It has no association with the SFP, as the SFP doesn't determine what disadvantage the farmer has in producing the food from his or her farm.

Username John

Min wrote: »

It is an area based payment, with the maximum payment having been reduced to €3,400.
I get paid for farming in a mountainous region of Kilkenny. This is to make farming viable in areas where farming is at a disadvantage for some reason like living on high land which would have a shorter growing season, higher rainfall, other areas where the land is poor.
It has no association with the SFP, as the SFP doesn't determine what disadvantage the farmer has in producing the food from his or her farm.

Hi Min,
How are you? I am a bit surprised, I had to re-read it when you said "mountainous region in Kilkenny?" :eek:

Like you said, DA is "area based payment" (albeit with a max payment) - but if the SFP moves to area based payments as well, then its the person with the most 'area' gets the biggest payment, regardless of whether its super or poor land...

The OP asked is "area based reform better for farmers in the West" and stated "I think Area based system would help alot of farmers in marginal areas and is a overall fairer system"

But would the DA payment on top of an area based SFP not make it an unfair system then?

Min

Username John wrote: »

Hi Min,
How are you? I am a bit surprised, I had to re-read it when you said "mountainous region in Kilkenny?" :eek:

Like you said, DA is "area based payment" (albeit with a max payment) - but if the SFP moves to area based payments as well, then its the person with the most 'area' gets the biggest payment, regardless of whether its super or poor land...

The OP asked is "area based reform better for farmers in the West" and stated "I think Area based system would help alot of farmers in marginal areas and is a overall fairer system"

But would the DA payment on top of an area based SFP not make it an unfair system then?

I don't think having two area based payments makes it unfair, before we had REPS which too was area based.

I live on the Castlecomer plateau, the land in my area would be among the better land on the plateau, I have some land that is over 1,000ft above sea level and all of it is over 700ft. According to Kilkenny county council we get 20% more rainfall than surrounding lowland areas.
We also get more snow.
The department of agriculture classifies the area as being mountainous and as a disadvantaged area.

Tipp Man

Username John wrote: »

Hi Min,
How are you? I am a bit surprised, I had to re-read it when you said "mountainous region in Kilkenny?" :eek:

Like you said, DA is "area based payment" (albeit with a max payment) - but if the SFP moves to area based payments as well, then its the person with the most 'area' gets the biggest payment, regardless of whether its super or poor land...

The OP asked is "area based reform better for farmers in the West" and stated "I think Area based system would help alot of farmers in marginal areas and is a overall fairer system"

But would the DA payment on top of an area based SFP not make it an unfair system then?

I think the point some are making is that the poorer areas should be getting higher rates of payment - whether that be a different rate of SFP or through things such as DA.

Fairness in this sense doesn't necessarily mean equal

Viewtodiefor

A lot of opinion will depend on ones personal situation. I'm sure there are plenty so called small farms in the west priducing as mush as they can off what they have be that beef dairy whatever, they may be depending on a large single f payment to support their farm income. On the other side I'm sure there are plenty large farms there with d land lying idle so the question is do you take from the small guy who is trying to survive and give to the other who has no interest in farming it to it's potential? In my opinion that is unfair and unjust.
Then again is it fair that some guys are getting huge payments when they could survive with less ? While others break their back with small payments again the answer is thats unfair!
How best to sort this out I can't say I'm sure there will be winners n losers and invariable it's the small guy who loses out unfortunately as the big guy has his hand and voice in every pie.

Dont be daft

Such a divisive topic, no wonder people are chosing not to post on it.

My advice is to set all your own particulars aside and ask yourself, which is the best for the industry?

An area based scheme in my opinion wont encourage farmers to become more productive. It puts an artificial value on rented land and further hinders those who do want to expand.
Yes, money might move to the West but if the industry is to expand should that money not move to more productive areas?

As for the large farmer vs. small farmer, I dont see what the problem is. If the farmer is producing more should he not get more?

I would like to see a Subsidy System linked to production levels. Granted its not easy to quantify production but thats not to say its impossible.
The easy way out is to go area based, but I personally dont see as encouraging growth within the sector.

Timmaay

Hmm from a government/European point of view, what is the SFP/disadvantaged payment there for? Is it simple to allow farmers to produce food close or below the cost of production and to limit environmental damage (nitrogen) , disregardless of theirown personal circumstances (ie main benefit to the consumer in security of supply of Irish goods, and protection of the environment). Or is it there as a means to allow all farmers to stay in business, therefore helping the local rural economy by them spending it locally etc etc (which means more non active farmer just holding on to land!).

(I'm a young active farmer, on the east coast, so you don't need to guess what I personally think ha). What defines fair, and for who, the country as a whole, or all us farmer I suppose I'm asking!

Tipp Man

From the little i have read on it it seems that the big SFP's will be the ones to lose out

We are certainly going to loose a small fortune - but we are prepared for it

I have a bit of an issue with "small" farmers getting paid a higher amount. Quite often these "small" farmers will have off farm jobs etc so if you implement a scenario where a small farmer is paid more per acre then a larger full time farmer then in effect you are punishing a full time farmer to give extra income to a farmer who already has an outside source of income.

Also i don't get this resentment of people with large SFP's. The person with a large SFP was probably farming a lot land and cattle in early 2000's and is probably still farming alot of land so he will still get significantly more than the fella who has a small herd on small acreage - and i have to say this is only correct. If we are to argue that the SFP is a means to subsidise profits/incomes then it stands to reason that the person with more cattle/land needs more subsidy to supplement the extra size

countygorey

thanks

Tipp Man

countygorey wrote: »

thanks

The number i have seen bandied about is roughly 110 an acre

caseman

I wonder if their was no cap money paid to farmers. This would sort out the farmers from the boys. I think over time it would work to the benifit of irish agriculture.

Tipp Man

caseman wrote: »

I wonder if their was no cap money paid to farmers. This would sort out the farmers from the boys. I think over time it would work to the benifit of irish agriculture.

I would say it would definately sort the men from the boys

1chippy

i heard it was to be set t an average of 270. if this was the case land that is not suitable for farming and can be bought around the 1k mark per acre would be bought and sold purely for the subs would it not. i don't believe area based is going to work out fair for anyone.

Manoffeeling

Tipp Man wrote: »

From the little i have read on it it seems that the big SFP's will be the ones to lose out

We are certainly going to loose a small fortune - but we are prepared for it

I have a bit of an issue with "small" farmers getting paid a higher amount. Quite often these "small" farmers will have off farm jobs etc so if you implement a scenario where a small farmer is paid more per acre then a larger full time farmer then in effect you are punishing a full time farmer to give extra income to a farmer who already has an outside source of income.

Also i don't get this resentment of people with large SFP's. The person with a large SFP was probably farming a lot land and cattle in early 2000's and is probably still farming alot of land so he will still get significantly more than the fella who has a small herd on small acreage - and i have to say this is only correct. If we are to argue that the SFP is a means to subsidise profits/incomes then it stands to reason that the person with more cattle/land needs more subsidy to supplement the extra size

Not every small farmer has a job. If they have, they will be paying tax.

Username John

1chippy wrote: »

i heard it was to be set t an average of 270. if this was the case land that is not suitable for farming and can be bought around the 1k mark per acre would be bought and sold purely for the subs would it not. i don't believe area based is going to work out fair for anyone.

Would 270/Ha be 110/acre ?

Area based would work for me - only started farming in the last few years, and don't have any real SFP.
As has bee said already - there will be winners and losers no matter what changes they make system they introduce.

Tipp Man

Manoffeeling wrote: »

Not every small farmer has a job. If they have, they will be paying tax.

don't think i said that every small farmer has a job

If they are paying plenty of tax then they have plenty of money;) - so why do they need higher rates of payment??

Markcheese

Is the SPF not there to try and keep more farmers and farm families on the land ... If you've a big, productive good farm, why do you need much help.... ? A small farmer starting off in the east is more deserving than an established large farmer in the west.IMHO .
One option would be all payments pooled.. Payed out per acre.. To the person farming not land owner ... On a sliding scale .. More you farm less you get per acre...
Or pay by production, not historical. Yearly calculated and again sliding scale more you produce less you get.
Give young/ starter producers a chance ...
And for christ sake bring in a decent share farming tax break.

Dont be daft

Markcheese wrote: »

Is the SPF not there to try and keep more farmers and farm families on the land ... If you've a big, productive good farm, why do you need much help.... ? A small farmer starting off in the east is more deserving than an established large farmer in the west.IMHO .
One option would be all payments pooled.. Payed out per acre.. To the person farming not land owner ... On a sliding scale .. More you farm less you get per acre...
Or pay by production, not historical. Yearly calculated and again sliding scale more you produce less you get.
Give young/ starter producers a chance ...
And for christ sake bring in a decent share farming tax break.

The CAP is there to keep food prices stable.
By creating a cushion to adverse yields and prices the European farmer can weather the storm per say. It guarantees against a large slum in production following one bad year.
It also uses taxes ( collected from the better off) to guarantee cheap high quality food for all.

DAS and REPS may be said to have socio-economic influences but the SFP has nothing to do with keeping people on the land.
I dont think the lads in Brussels are that nostalgic:p

The larger farms are just as dependent on the SFP as the small ones.
So a sliding scale with disproportionate payments to smaller farmers will only serve to remove any incentive for a young or progressive farmer to expand.

Farmer Pudsey

There are huge issues to be resolved re the SFP.

When the present system was set up it discriminated against suckler farmers especially in the west of Ireland. However farms in the west of Ireland tend to be much larger due to land quality so a reversal to area based now will have issues as will. Also if it is acerage based farmers renting land will pay much more for to rent land unless some sort of stacking system is in place. It would wipe out the tillage industry.

Reps was the balancer between west and east-big and small, however the AEOS schemes are a poor replacement. My own belief is that reps 4 was a disaster it allowed big farms ( especially dairy) in with minimum conditions and swallowed up the envoirmental budget so that smaller and west of Ireland farms that are now exiting REPS3 are suffering a large income drop.

The biggest issue now is how to target payments at active farmers. Using historical payments will continue to reward inactive farmers. Look at the amount of farmers caught on the hop by the DA stocking rate. There are some farmers keeping minimum stock and either partial renting or selling grass standing in the fields for hay or silage. Also some of the extra large payments should be targeted such as Larry Goodmans which was created by feedlot cattle.

What ever systen is put in place there will be winners and loosers and it will not be equitable.

Markcheese

I suppose there will always be winners and losers in any redistribution....but should subsidies/Cap payments be a right... Or should all farmers have equal access to payments .... Or should payments be continuously tweaked to promote national interest... If new entrants in dairy or sheep or something need extra help for a limited time pay them more.... Or not

On disadvantaged area payments , I worked on east coast farm, 300 acres of flat, level easily worked dry ground tillage and grass land... That got disadvantaged area payments !!!!

Tigerandahalf

Once the quotas go will a lot of tillage farmers get into dairying? With their good land it would seem an attractive option for them. Or are farm payments from Europe still a big influence. A lot of lads with average black land and under 100 acres would hardly have a future. What is the future for these farms? Forestry?

Figerty

Tipp Man wrote: »

From the little i have read on it it seems that the big SFP's will be the ones to lose out

We are certainly going to loose a small fortune - but we are prepared for it

I have a bit of an issue with "small" farmers getting paid a higher amount. Quite often these "small" farmers will have off farm jobs etc so if you implement a scenario where a small farmer is paid more per acre then a larger full time farmer then in effect you are punishing a full time farmer to give extra income to a farmer who already has an outside source of income.

Also i don't get this resentment of people with large SFP's. The person with a large SFP was probably farming a lot land and cattle in early 2000's and is probably still farming alot of land so he will still get significantly more than the fella who has a small herd on small acreage - and i have to say this is only correct. If we are to argue that the SFP is a means to subsidise profits/incomes then it stands to reason that the person with more cattle/land needs more subsidy to supplement the extra size

It's a fair point about working farmers; I am one of those and I oftern wonder if we distort the market by almost subsidising the farms and dragging down margins. But there is the same comparision with any family run buisness.

However, it's fairly clear also that there is no way we small farmers could in anyway survive or compete on the type of land we have and the size of the farms. Getting rid of headage was the best thing that ever happened. The amount of thin badly bread miserable cattle that were around me here purely on the basis of number was a disaster.

I don't feel any resentment towards anyone but I do feel that the large farmers were better represented in the past by the IFA and these probably benifited more from the payments while we are dragging the wellies out of the ground.

rancher

Figerty wrote: »

It's a fair point about working farmers; I am one of those and I oftern wonder if we distort the market by almost subsidising the farms and dragging down margins. But there is the same comparision with any family run buisness.

However, it's fairly clear also that there is no way we small farmers could in anyway survive or compete on the type of land we have and the size of the farms. Getting rid of headage was the best thing that ever happened. The amount of thin badly bread miserable cattle that were around me here purely on the basis of number was a disaster.

I don't feel any resentment towards anyone but I do feel that the large farmers were better represented in the past by the IFA and these probably benifited more from the payments while we are dragging the wellies out of the ground.

Definitely more people are going to gain than lose on their SFP if we move over to area based payment and I'm surprised they're not being more vocal about it.
We're now 12 yrs from the first reference year and there is no doubt that a lot of farmers have consolidated (stacked) their payments and stripped thousands of acres of any sort of payments and this will have to be sorted.
Also a lot of farmers are setting land without maps and this will have to be policed,
So area based, paid to the person working the land, has to be the fairest, easiest run and monitored system that can be put in place, and because bigger farmers have the benefits of scale, it would be good to give 30-40% higher payment on the first 50ha

5live

rancher wrote: »

Definitely more people are going to gain than lose on their SFP if we move over to area based payment and I'm surprised they're not being more vocal about it.
We're now 12 yrs from the first reference year and there is no doubt that a lot of farmers have consolidated (stacked) their payments and stripped thousands of acres of any sort of payments and this will have to be sorted.
Also a lot of farmers are setting land without maps and this will have to be policed,
So area based, paid to the person working the land, has to be the fairest, easiest run and monitored system that can be put in place, and because bigger farmers have the benefits of scale, it would be good to give 30-40% higher payment on the first 50ha

I agree with you on the above but how do you police people dividing out farms between 2 or 3 people and forming partnerships just to increase the SFP? I can point to many instances of this happening under REPS3 round me. I just cannot see it happening but would support it if a fair system could emerge

I cannot fathom how IFA are argueing the retention of the current system. To use their own figures. a suckler farmer on 50ha with 30 cows and finishing all stock currently have a SFP of 400 euro a ha and their SFP would fall by 10k a year. A large hit on any farm and few could argue otherwise.

But next door, on a 50ha farm that had 15 cows and finishing all animals and having a SFP of 200 euro/ha in 02 was taken over and farmed by the son who worked hard and brought the farm up-to-date and now has 30 cows finishing all animals.

How can anyone argue that farm 1 has a right to twice the SFP of farm 2?

Straight across the board, every one gets the same and has no artifical benefits over the other other than land type and ability. While output may fall with the drop it would be taken up by others not currently able to access better SFPs

supersean1999

off topic i know is sfp 16th oct, as for the cap iv yet to meet a man who will argue for less money

Markcheese

rancher wrote: »

Figerty wrote: »

It's a fair point about working farmers; I am one of those and I oftern wonder if we distort the market by almost subsidising the farms and dragging down margins. But there is the same comparision with any family run buisness.

However, it's fairly clear also that there is no way we small farmers could in anyway survive or compete on the type of land we have and the size of the farms. Getting rid of headage was the best thing that ever happened. The amount of thin badly bread miserable cattle that were around me here purely on the basis of number was a disaster.

I don't feel any resentment towards anyone but I do feel that the large farmers were better represented in the past by the IFA and these probably benifited more from the payments while we are dragging the wellies out of the ground.

Definitely more people are going to gain than lose on their SFP if we move over to area based payment and I'm surprised they're not being more vocal about it.
We're now 12 yrs from the first reference year and there is no doubt that a lot of farmers have consolidated (stacked) their payments and stripped thousands of acres of any sort of payments and this will have to be sorted.
Also a lot of farmers are setting land without maps and this will have to be policed,
So area based, paid to the person working the land, has to be the fairest, easiest run and monitored system that can be put in place, and because bigger farmers have the benefits of scale, it would be good to give 30-40% higher payment on the first 50ha

At least if a higher payment is given for smaller ( 50 ha small ? ) farms, it gives smaller guys a chance to rent/lease land .
If it's a straight payment, bigger guys ( especially tillage) will have so much economy of scale they'll be able to out bid , smaller guys...unless the profit disappears from tillage with higher fuel -fert prices