Effective lobby group for Hillfarmers, SPA & SAC , disadvantaged areas etc, possible?

patjack

To all farmers who find themselves in any of the above categories or similar, is it possible for us to form an effective lobby either within the realms of IFA membership or outside of it?

Personally I think it would be very difficult to organise outside of the IFA structure but within the IFA structure we have an extremely weak representation.

Look at how the Turf Cutters had their voices heard, we are a larger group why can't we be heard?

Extremely frustrated with current Government and our IFA representation when it comes to issues pertaining to mapping issues, insufficient compensation for farming in a manner conducive to SPA and SAC designations, despite being restricted in terms of wind power developments and forestry opportunities, and in some cases reduced production due to lower stocking densities being enforced.

It seems the the Government whether intentionally or by consequence are pulling farmers down from the hill and shoving farmers out of the bog, yet they still want these hills and bogs looked after.

One Angry Hillbilly :mad:

tabby aspreme

Very little of my ground falls into any of the categories mentioned but I do agree with you, the disadvantaged scheme is a total scam around here with a lot of the DA land in continuous tillage

RobertKK

I am in a disadvantaged area, the land doesn't have to be bad, it can be due to the altitude of the land.
My father use to have tillage on some of the land here and on the highest part of the farm which is 1,000ft I remember as a child the combine harvester arriving...
We are classified as being disadvantaged because it is classed a mountainous area and the growing season is shorter than lower down near Kilkenny city. Cattle are housed earlier and out later because of that, so while land can be good enough for tillage, it doesn't mean it doesn't have a disadvantage of some sort.

supersean1999

Ifa Meetings and get as many With our views singing off The same sheet. Thats my opinion

tabby aspreme

RobertKK wrote: »

I am in a disadvantaged area, the land doesn't have to be bad, it can be due to the altitude of the land.
My father use to have tillage on some of the land here and on the highest part of the farm which is 1,000ft I remember as a child the combine harvester arriving...
We are classified as being disadvantaged because it is classed a mountainous area and the growing season is shorter than lower down near Kilkenny city. Cattle are housed earlier and out later because of that, so while land can be good enough for tillage, it doesn't mean it doesn't have a disadvantage of some sort.

The land I'm referring too has no disadvantages what so ever, lowland deep soil etc, there was a certain amount of corruption involved with the DA scheme, people been given herd/flock numbers that were not there own to change stocking rates etc

Username John

RobertKK wrote: »

I am in a disadvantaged area, the land doesn't have to be bad, it can be due to the altitude of the land.
My father use to have tillage on some of the land here and on the highest part of the farm which is 1,000ft I remember as a child the combine harvester arriving...
We are classified as being disadvantaged because it is classed a mountainous area and the growing season is shorter than lower down near Kilkenny city. Cattle are housed earlier and out later because of that, so while land can be good enough for tillage, it doesn't mean it doesn't have a disadvantage of some sort.

Is the season really that much shorter?

When I hear tillage land can be classed as DA, it sonehow doesn't seem right to me.
But - when you say you remember your Da having tillage, it might have been the time when everyone had a little bit of barley, and weren't so much tillage farmers.

RobertKK

Username John wrote: »

Is the season really that much shorter?

When I hear tillage land can be classed as DA, it sonehow doesn't seem right to me.
But - when you say you remember your Da having tillage, it might have been the time when everyone had a little bit of barley, and weren't so much tillage farmers.

Yeah, it is shorter also wetter. Was looking at a Kilkenny county council planning for some building that is in the area, they had to have an environmental impact study, said the area has 20% more rainfall than lower down in Kilkenny.
On a normal day the temperature is roughly 1.5C lower during the day than in the city, but as warm air rises and cool air falls, they have cooler nights lower down.
Back in 2010 we had a blizzard at the end of March, drifts over 3ft high, was in with my Teagasc advisor 2 weeks later and he was shocked the milking cows were only going out April 16th, they didn't get the snow on the lower ground.

We use to sow potatoes, barley and swedes

Conmaicne Mara

Don't know anything about tillage. I think DA land should be related to the stocking rate it can carry per H/A. To me that would be the fairest system. There is a massive variance in stocking rates across DA lands, yet FA difference in the payment bands. That is unfair IMO.

I would add to Seans suggestion to use local meetings only for Co ordination. Guest speakers don't often work on issues after the fact, they get forgotten once the meeting is over. IF, and it's a big if, ye can get lots of people to go to county executive meetings, make constant noise at them and put chairmen under pressure. They represent but aren't doing near enough for their members in such areas.

Anyone can go to county exec meetings by the way.

solerina

Great idea, I don't think lowland farmers realise how difficult farming on hills is. My brother in law has a low land farm on good land, we have a hill farm with bad land, its mainly north facing too which adds to the misery (usually 2-3 degrees colder than in the nearest town)....everytime the brother in law comes to help he cant stop moaning about how hard difficult everything is....we get far more rain, far less growth and its much colder also....if you don't live it, you don't realise it !!

Username John

I don't farm in a DA, so I will admit that i am not familair with the disadvantaged payments or how they work.

But what would be the purpose of such a group?

Looking from the "outside in" into the IFA - it seems the fact they have to represent all farmers, seems to be the biggest issue. Leaving some feeling they are not being well represented (or represented at all)
Would you have the same issue with DA farmers, if some are in tillage, some in dairy, some in sheep...

Just my two cents...

Farmer

It's not just DA. It would be interesting to see a countrywide breakdown of SFP penalties. It seems that we are penalized because grass doesn't grow everywhere, because we need more roadways to get around wetter fields, and because you cannot clear scrub off difficult terrain just by running over it in a few hours with a topper

Username John

Farmer wrote: »

It's not just DA. It would be interesting to see a countrywide breakdown of SFP penalties. It seems that we are penalized because grass doesn't grow everywhere, because we need more roadways to get around wetter fields, and because you cannot clear scrub off difficult terrain just by running over it in a few hours with a topper

What would this tell you?

Farmer

Username John wrote: »

What would this tell you?

whether we are more likely to be penalized due to the greater difficulty in meeting the criteria

Username John

Farmer wrote: »

whether we are more likely to be penalized due to the greater difficulty in meeting the criteria

I don't think highlighting a potentially greater number of penalties would do anything for your cause.

Farmer

Username John wrote: »

I don't think highlighting a potentially greater number of penalties would do anything for your cause.

OK, point taken there. Let me put it another way - whether there was any greater reduction in overall levels of SFP payments in disadvantaged areas, due to there being a greater requirement to exclude non arable areas such as rock, rough grazing, scrub etc. than in 'normal' green field farmland

rancher

Farmer wrote: »

whether we are more likely to be penalized due to the greater difficulty in meeting the criteria

Surely a dairy farmer with a 350mtr farm roadway (1ha) on his farm would have more ineligible land than most, and would have greater difficulty meeting the criteria than any sector.
You have to go through your maps in may to take out ineligible land before your application goes in, it'll cost you a lot more for the dept to take it out

Conmaicne Mara

Farmer wrote: »

because you cannot clear scrub off difficult terrain just by running over it in a few hours with a topper

rancher wrote: »

Surely a dairy farmer with a 350mtr farm roadway (1ha) on his farm would have more ineligible land than most, and would have greater difficulty meeting the criteria than any sector.
You have to go through your maps in may to take out ineligible land before your application goes in, it'll cost you a lot more for the dept to take it out

A dairy farmer may mostly have land trafficable by machinery, and therefore machine implements, at some point in the year. A proportion of a drystock farm on rough ground may not be trafficable, due to various factors such as slope, rock obstructions, access issues, bog. There may also be SAC issues pertaining to certain works, my own holding (not commonage) isn't in SAC so I am not aware of the intricate details of that.

The meaning I took, and my interpretation may be incorrect, from Farmers post is that it is by nature easier for Farmer A to keep his land in GAEC compared to Farmer B. Which leads on to possible higher penalties for Farmer B. Tie in to that rougher land will normally have a lower profit (?) per H/A than Farmer A on dairy capable land. There will be less money available to clear scrub in the first instance, which may then have to be done in a more labour intensive & possibly more expensive fashion.

Roadways are quite easy to measure, a certain length and a certain width (mostly). Rock outcrops can be sporadic and always vary in size, often having to be guesstimated. I have sat through that process with various Teagasc planners, an estimate is taken of the total exposed rock in the parcel and that area is removed from the map. It wouldn't be redlined off.

redzerologhlen

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

A dairy farmer may mostly have land trafficable by machinery, and therefore machine implements, at some point in the year. A proportion of a drystock farm on rough ground may not be trafficable, due to various factors such as slope, rock obstructions, access issues, bog. There may also be SAC issues pertaining to certain works, my own holding (not commonage) isn't in SAC so I am not aware of the intricate details of that.

The meaning I took, and my interpretation may be incorrect, from Farmers post is that it is by nature easier for Farmer A to keep his land in GAEC compared to Farmer B. Which leads on to possible higher penalties for Farmer B. Tie in to that rougher land will normally have a lower profit (?) per H/A than Farmer A on dairy capable land. There will be less money available to clear scrub in the first instance, which may then have to be done in a more labour intensive & possibly more expensive fashion.

Roadways are quite easy to measure, a certain length and a certain width (mostly). Rock outcrops can be sporadic and always vary in size, often having to be guesstimated. I have sat through that process with various Teagasc planners, an estimate is taken of the total exposed rock in the parcel and that area is removed from the map. It wouldn't be redlined off.

In the burren they use the highly sophisticated measurements of 20,40,60 or 80 percent ineligable. My planner tells me thats what the department will work on if you get an inspection because they can't measure the exposed rock and scrub accurately enough!!

Conmaicne Mara

redzerologhlen wrote: »

In the burren they use the highly sophisticated measurements of 20,40,60 or 80 percent ineligable. My planner tells me thats what the department will work on if you get an inspection because they can't measure the exposed rock and scrub accurately enough!!

Yeah, there's a lot of guesstimation in it. In fairness to both the farmer and the inspector it is not an easy thing to get right.

Farmer

Well this "New satellites will tell if your over claiming"
thread pretty much sums it up

It seems that be some great co-incidence that all the "dishonest" people just happen to be in disadvantaged areas

It couldn't possibly be the system that is wrong, the same system that marks out a few large trees as a continuous area of scrub, shadows of hedges as roadways and anything that isn't flat and green as potential scrub