Commonage/hill farmers issues thread, GLAS, GAEC, etc etc

Connemara Farmer

From what I gather the Dept are continuing to be very hard headed about entry criteria to GLAS for commonage farmers. As well as ownership of and payment for these "master plans" for commonages.

I believe there may be news in Tomorrows Farming Independent regarding an avenue a lot of farmers have been calling for.

There's to be a public meeting in Maam Cross on the 20th of this month also.

Will leave it at that until the morning

ihatewinter

About time, they start releasing information on the new proposed schemes. They are digging their heels in, wonder will they take any heed to farmer's opinions and experiences of hill farming.

There's a lot at stake for both parties, hopefully it can be resolved soon.

Connemara Farmer

From what I heard of the meeting in Westport, and from what I saw in Maam Cross it seems unlikely. However, despite the lack of noise lately it hasn't meant an absence of action. That's all farmers can do, keep chipping away and hope to find the chink in the armour.

After all, how often have we had hill farmers, ecologists, and planners all telling the Dept the same thing, i.e. this won't work.

Connemara Farmer

Wires crossed somewhere as nothing in indo.

Connemara Farmer

Right then, here we are!

http://www.agriland.ie/news/hill-farmers-action-delegation-going-brussels/

Connemara Farmer

https://www.agriland.ie/news/hill-farmers-action-delegation-going-brussels/

Birdnuts

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Right then, here we are!

http://www.agriland.ie/news/hill-farmers-action-delegation-going-brussels/

They should also highlight to the EU how the Dept and this government have diverted substantial amounts of money that was earmarked for farmers in commonage,SAC and other environmentally sensitive areas to "other" recipients ie. to those who already have substantial SFP payments and are farming on some of the best land in the country with all the advantages that brings.

Connemara Farmer

Birdnuts wrote: »

They should also highlight to the EU how the Dept and this government have diverted substantial amounts of money that was earmarked for farmers in commonage,SAC and other environmentally sensitive areas to "other" recipients ie. to those who already have substantial SFP payments and are farming on some of the best land in the country with all the advantages that brings.

I agree. Haven't talked to any of the lads yet, hopefully the meetings went well. The general train of thought from those who have been out is that the commission is far more easy to talk to and deal with. They may still say things you don't like or agree with but they're constructive.

Meeting planned for Maam Cross thursday 20th. Sean Kyne, Eamon O'Cuiv and Brian Walsh to attend.

Connemara Farmer

Just off the phone, hill/commonage farmers got a very good hearing from some very influential officials in Brussels yesterday, with a lot of clarity to come.

The meeting in Maam Cross has grown considerably, it is now being called a Regional meeting. As far as I am concerned any hill or commonage farmer from any quarter of the country will be made very welcome.

An update on the top table is as follows, all attendance depending on circumstances:

Sean Kyne TD FG, Eamon O'Cuiv TD (FF Ag Spokesperson), Brian Walsh TD FG, Noel Grealish TD IND as well as Marian Harkin MEP IND, Luke "Ming" Flanagan MEP IND, and Matt Carthy MEP SF. There will also be county Councillors and possibly other politicians may make the effort to travel, we will see.

Connemara Farmer

Packed house tonight. MEP's and delegation that were in Brussels had some very interesting facts brought back with them. It's no wonder both Department and IFA didn't want us to go.

Bullocks

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Packed house tonight. MEP's and delegation that were in Brussels had some very interesting facts brought back with them. It's no wonder both Department and IFA didn't want us to go.

Any info from it Con

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Packed house tonight. MEP's and delegation that were in Brussels had some very interesting facts brought back with them. It's no wonder both Department and IFA didn't want us to go.

I doubt that, How many times have I said to drive it on yourself if you're not happy, any deals we we do we stress that it's the minimum price....never the price,
Like wise the schemes, you haven't improved anything yet

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

I doubt that, How many times have I said to drive it on yourself if you're not happy, any deals we we do we stress that it's the minimum price....never the price,
Like wise the schemes, you haven't improved anything yet

Doubt it as much as you like, ask the Mayo Chairman who he rang and what he said before the four hill farmers went to meet the Commission.

Correction on the Department, I should have said "elements within" the Department.

supersean1999

Any details

Connemara Farmer

Bullocks wrote: »

Any info from it Con

I'm trying to upload three videos today, but it's a painfully slow process.

There are some extremely important points within the videos.

That said I only recorded three as it's not easy hold up a phone set to record!

From the Commission:

• The Commission does not require Collective Agreement.
  
• On entry to GLAS "member states should not set a rule, or requirement, that discourages farmers from entering a scheme."
  
• The Commission have confirmed that the Minister has the power to allow farmers entry into GLAS on an INDIVIDUAL basis.

Now, actually a bigger problem is the 1 ewe to 1.5HA minimum stocking rate is up in the air. It is, apparently, against WTO rules. This means Pillar 1 is now up in the air.

The knock on effect from that is, because a farmer has to go above & beyond the requirements in P1 to draw down P2 money that Pillar 2 is also up in the air.

Land eligibility is going to be a ferocious battle, make no mistake about it. There is, again from the Commission, more flexibility within that for farmers than "elements within" the Department are giving to farmers.

More communication has already, and will again go back to Brussels from hill & commonage farmers.

It is easier to meet the head of Rural Development that presides over 28 countries than it is to meet the Irish Minister for Agriculture, that is how Simon Coveney treats Hill Farmers.

There's more too.

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

I'm trying to upload three videos today, but it's a painfully slow process.

There are some extremely important points within the videos.

That said I only recorded three as it's not easy hold up a phone set to record!

From the Commission:

• The Commission does not require Collective Agreement.
• On entry to GLAS "member states should not set a rule, or requirement, that discourages farmers from entering a scheme."
• The Commission have confirmed that the Minister has the power to allow farmers entry into GLAS on an INDIVIDUAL basis.

Now, actually a bigger problem is the 1 ewe to 1.5HA minimum stocking rate is up in the air. It is, apparently, against WTO rules. This means Pillar 1 is now up in the air.

The knock on effect from that is, because a farmer has to go above & beyond the requirements in P1 to draw down P2 money that Pillar 2 is also up in the air.

Land eligibility is going to be a ferocious battle, make no mistake about it. There is, again from the Commission, more flexibility within that for farmers than "elements within" the Department are giving to farmers.

More communication has already, and will again go back to Brussels from hill & commonage farmers.

It is easier to meet the head of Rural Development that presides over 28 countries than it is to meet the Irish Minister for Agriculture, that is how Simon Coveney treats Hill Farmers.

There's more too.

Think you might have highlighted more problems than you went over to solve

supersean1999

Some interesting points there. Thanks. Im not bashing anyone but if the ifa had done all they could. Should there not of been two or three people from there rural and hill sections sent to brussels if they had got the same answers and info surely there netogtiang position would of been a lot better.. I stand corrected if they did. Im only presuming otherwise beasuse of the general ifa stance that getting from 80% to 50% was good.

supersean1999

rangler1 wrote: »

Think you might have highlighted more problems than you went over to solve

Id imagine they already had there research done in brussels. So them things were never going to pass.

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

Think you might have highlighted more problems than you went over to solve

That stocking rate was always questioned from the off.

Farmers went there to highlight problems being intentionally laid down by the Irish Government in both pillars.

rangler1

supersean1999 wrote: »

Some interesting points there. Thanks. Im not bashing anyone but if the ifa had done all they could. Should there not of been two or three people from there rural and hill sections sent to brussels if they had got the same answers and info surely there netogtiang position would of been a lot better.. I stand corrected if they did. Im only presuming otherwise beasuse of the general ifa stance that getting from 80% to 50% was good.

Some of our guys are in Brussels every week, maybe the Mayo county chair was aware of the two issues that con has up there and the Dept was trying to get it in under the radar, Now that the issues are highlighted it'll be interesting to see how they solve it

Connemara Farmer

supersean1999 wrote: »

Some interesting points there. Thanks. Im not bashing anyone but if the ifa had done all they could. Should there not of been two or three people from there rural and hill sections sent to brussels if they had got the same answers and info surely there netogtiang position would of been a lot better.. I stand corrected if they did. Im only presuming otherwise beasuse of the general ifa stance that getting from 80% to 50% was good.

IFA have the ear of the minister, and this would all have been solved a long time ago if they were in any ways genuine.

Instead IFA are protecting the minister and harming some of their own members for their own gain, because SFA of IFA top table farm on hills.

What this is about is one thing, money. Disallowing hill farmers entry into an an environmental scheme through the small print means that money can be spent elsewhere.

Being overly harsh on land eligibility is one method of further reducing the mythical convergence payment of €150 by 2019.

It's a game being played between IFA and Simon Coveney where low income farmers are the cannon fodder.

Pat Dunne, Flor McCarthy, Eddie Downey and a lot more, anytime they open their mouth it's open the scheme, completely ignoring the problems consistently pointed out to them for the past two and a half years.

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

Some of our guys are in Brussels every week, maybe the Mayo county chair was aware of the two issues that con has up there and the Dept was trying to get it in under the radar, Now that the issues are highlighted it'll be interesting to see how they solve it

The issues have been highlighted for a long time.

If IFA had meaningfully engaged with hill farmers instead of doing what they did this would all be sorted.

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

IFA have the ear of the minister, and this would all have been solved a long time ago if they were in any ways genuine.

Instead IFA are protecting the minister and harming some of their own members for their own gain, because SFA of IFA top table farm on hills.

What this is about is one thing, money. Disallowing hill farmers entry into an an environmental scheme through the small print means that money can be spent elsewhere.

Being overly harsh on land eligibility is one method of further reducing the mythical convergence payment of €150 by 2019.

It's a game being played between IFA and Simon Coveney where low income farmers are the cannon fodder.

Pat Dunne, Flor McCarthy, Eddie Downey and a lot more, anytime they open their mouth it's open the scheme, completely ignoring the problems consistently pointed out to them for the past two and a half years.

Condition of SFP has always been Good Agriculture Condition...a neighbour has just been penalised for rushes here, so we all have to abide by the rules

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

Condition of SFP has always been Good Agriculture Condition...a neighbour has just been penalised for rushes here, so we all have to abide by the rules

Define GAEC for me.

Rushes on a flat field in West Meath are a different planet to gorse at a thousand feet on a mountain.

supersean1999

What was the opinion in brussels that it seems only a small % of farmers from the most marginal and generally those with lower sfp. Were been squeezed put of joining environment schemes.

Connemara Farmer

supersean1999 wrote: »

What was the opinion in brussels that it seems only a small % of farmers from the most marginal and generally those with lower sfp. Were been squeezed put of joining environment schemes.

Not good, as it makes a mockery of their SAC designations.

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Define GAEC for me.

Not my job, but my map has been reduced because of a wreck of a shed and a roadway, a neighbours because of rushes, but I've always been conservative in my measurements so I'm not penalised, Incidentally my roadway grows more grass than probably a lot of land in the country.

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

Not my job, but my map has been reduced because of a wreck of a shed and a roadway, a neighbours because of rushes, but I've always been conservative in my measurements so I'm not penalised, Incidentally my roadway grows more grass than probably a lot of land in the country.

We have to abide by the rules but you can't define them for me?

I'll let you off the hook and do it for you.

You can't. I can't. The Department can't.

Because GAEC is without definition. A rule we can be penalised with, that has no definition.

That's another one that got by IFA, by the by.

At the Department meeting in Maam Cross, which farmers walked out of, they could not define it.

A farmer asked how do I know how much rock (for example) I have to take out?

Do you know what the answer was?

"Sure take a stab at it"

Now you'd want to make AWFUL sure that your stab was really close to the stab the guy with the clipboard makes, or who is looking at the satellite map is taking or you could find yourself losing all your grants.

But the reason that got by IFA is they think in 2D where as hill farmers must live and work in 3D.

No interest in hill farmers, only try to grab the money for those areas and "broaden it out" (you know who's favourite phrase that is I assume) and send it elsewhere.

Birdnuts

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Now you'd want to make AWFUL sure that your stab was really close to the stab the guy with the clipboard makes, or who is looking at the satellite map is taking or you could find yourself losing all your grants.

.

I can see the "satellite" section in the Dept being reigned in by the EU over "cross compliance" issues on designated land etc. Thats on top of their growing concerns over the Dept's handling of the entire Pillar 1 and 2 issue when it comes to supporting farmers in such areas.

Connemara Farmer

supersean1999 wrote: »

Im only presuming otherwise beasuse of the general ifa stance that getting from 80% to 50% was good.

Sean, don't be fooled. Top of IFA was in favour of the 80%. They told us for months they couldn't get us a meeting with Coveney. 8 hillbillies sat in in one Government office in Dublin and got a meeting with TWO full cabinet ministers the next day.

On the sham protest outside of Agriculture house in Dublin there was NO preprinted IFA supplied posters reading "No Collective Agreement" which was the single biggest topic in ALL meetings prior to that protest.

They supplied no posters because they had already sold out farmers by doing that deal.

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

We have to abide by the rules but you can't define them for me?

I'll let you off the hook and do it for you.

You can't. I can't. The Department can't.

Because GAEC is without definition. A rule we can be penalised with, that has no definition.

That's another one that got by IFA, by the by.

At the Department meeting in Maam Cross, which farmers walked out of, they could not define it.

A farmer asked how do I know how much rock (for example) I have to take out?

Do you know what the answer was?

"Sure take a stab at it"

Now you'd want to make AWFUL sure that your stab was really close to the stab the guy with the clipboard makes, or who is looking at the satellite map is taking or you could find yourself losing all your grants.

But the reason that got by IFA is they think in 2D where as hill farmers must live and work in 3D.

No interest in hill farmers, only try to grab the money for those areas and "broaden it out" (you know who's favourite phrase that is I assume) and send it elsewhere.

We have a Hill Committee, and you know who elects those, same with rural development, you surely don't expect a sheep farmer like me to know the rules on the hill, We're guided by those commitees and the top table is too, no one's going to set themselves up for phone calls from members if they don't need to.
On GAC, I just go by common sense and don't push it, at least the farmer that asked the question knew that rock is the same as my road......some don't want to know:eek:

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

We have a Hill Committee, and you know who elects those, same with rural development, you surely don't expect a sheep farmer like me to know the rules on the hill, We're guided by those commitees and the top table is too, no one's going to set themselves up for phone calls from members if they don't need to.
On GAC, I just go by common sense and don't push it, at least the farmer that asked the question knew that rock is the same as my road......some don't want to know:eek:

I've never heard a farmer at a meeting here say rock was eligible for inclusion on SFP, privately or publicly. It's not eligible and must be taken out.

The sticky wicket is how does the farmer measure it on hill and mountain? Because there are serious consequences to a farmer for overclaiming, particularly I believe overclaims of 3% and above, of which the penalty affects ALL schemes.

The Dept's answer is "take a stab at it", that's a joke.

Now that's just rock, lets get back to GAEC, which is a different thing.

How do YOU the farmer define GAEC when it's without definition and you can be penalised on it?

You can't.

Is it over grazed, is it undergrazed? I know lads who have places I think are shockingly over grazed and they thing are fine. They reckon I don't graze enough.

So who's right? Is it in GAEC and everything is rosy with the world, or is it not in GAEC and you may expect penalties?

How can a critical rule be without definition?

Connemara Farmer

Marian Harkins opening address, she attended the meeting with hill farmers and the Comission.

Sorry for the quality.

Watch it very carefully.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohzwgolmB2c

Connemara Farmer

Birdnuts wrote: »

I can see the "satellite" section in the Dept being reigned in by the EU over "cross compliance" issues on designated land etc. Thats on top of their growing concerns over the Dept's handling of the entire Pillar 1 and 2 issue when it comes to supporting farmers in such areas.

Coveney made a statement after gaining office "Farmers must be weaned off Pillar two payments."

I think really the correct statement is "Some farmers...." and it is clearly evident that he believes the lowest income farmers should be driven out.

MayoAreMagic

In fairness, after hearing what came out in the meeting, it does appear that hill farmers are being sold out on all sides. First their own government, then their own kind. It is a sad state of affairs when it is the lads over in Brussels who seem to be their biggest ally...

On the topic of the stocking rate, what good is getting the thing in under the radar? Why not just be up front about the whole thing? All you get from that is leverage, where the government can turn around and say 'we got you your stocking rate'. If that is the attitude then how can this be about land improvement? Isnt stocking rate the most important point in the goal? So if they are willing to not implement it correctly, how are they committed to getting the job done? And of course, it raises a question around what their actual goal is here.

I don't see stocking rate as that big of an issue, if it is run correctly. The nature of commonage farming does required some level of collective organisation - it is shared land, but the way they are going about it is top-heavy and overly complex. How does 80% involvement guarantee correct stocking levels? They should be testing the actual land, not how many people are involved.

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

I've never heard a farmer at a meeting here say rock was eligible for inclusion on SFP, privately or publicly. It's not eligible and must be taken out.

The sticky wicket is how does the farmer measure it on hill and mountain? Because there are serious consequences to a farmer for overclaiming, particularly I believe overclaims of 3% and above, of which the penalty affects ALL schemes.

The Dept's answer is "take a stab at it", that's a joke.

Now that's just rock, lets get back to GAEC, which is a different thing.

How do YOU the farmer define GAEC when it's without definition and you can be penalised on it?

You can't.

Is it over grazed, is it undergrazed? I know lads who have places I think are shockingly over grazed and they thing are fine. They reckon I don't graze enough.

So who's right? Is it in GAEC and everything is rosy with the world, or is it not in GAEC and you may expect penalties?

How can a critical rule be without definition?

Firstly I'd consider 3% a massive overclaim, never mind the 20% where you lose your SFP, I think you're overcooking it now and there's little point in arguing it, If a farmer can't see 3% ineligible the problem is not with the dept.
At the moment the decisions are left with the ag officer, you want to be careful what you wish for. you might be very sorry for asking for terms and conditions to be written down, Our AOs here are very fair and if you genuinely did 'take a stab at it' they would give you the benefit

Con, when Coveney started, pillar 2 was under threat, he worked with others to keep them there, if he said anything it was in context that they were being massively reduced

supersean1999

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Sean, don't be fooled. Top of IFA was in favour of the 80%. They told us for months they couldn't get us a meeting with Coveney. 8 hillbillies sat in in one Government office in Dublin and got a meeting with TWO full cabinet ministers the next day.

On the sham protest outside of Agriculture house in Dublin there was NO preprinted IFA supplied posters reading "No Collective Agreement" which was the single biggest topic in ALL meetings prior to that protest.

They supplied no posters because they had already sold out farmers by doing that deal.

Dont worry my eyes are wide open.

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

Firstly I'd consider 3% a massive overclaim, never mind the 20% where you lose your SFP, I think you're overcooking it now and there's little point in arguing it, If a farmer can't see 3% ineligible the problem is not with the dept.
At the moment the decisions are left with the ag officer, you want to be careful what you wish for. you might be very sorry for asking for terms and conditions to be written down, Our AOs here are very fair and if you genuinely did 'take a stab at it' they would give you the benefit

I'm as the Americans would say, conflicted. Are you missing the point, or pushing the party line which is explicitly to muddy the waters.

You're not a hill farmer, and you're not listening to a hill farmer. A good representation of IFA.

Try being destocked since 1998, and not being allowed to have the animals - the only method by which you can keep your land in GAEC - graze the land.

Toppers don't work on 99% of commonages.

What happens to that land then tell me?

It's called undergrazing and is in contravention to GAEC - whatever GAEC is, because GAEC doesn't have a definition.

So not only can you easily have a 3% over claim, you can easily have a 20% over claim, due to the ineptitude of IFA and the smoke and mirrors from elements within the Department.

Through NO FAULT of your own.

But you won't hear that either.

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

I'm as the Americans would say, conflicted. Are you missing the point, or pushing the party line which is explicitly to muddy the waters.

You're not a hill farmer, and you're not listening to a hill farmer. A good representation of IFA.

Try being destocked since 1998, and not being allowed to have the animals - the only method by which you can keep your land in GAEC - graze the land.

Toppers don't work on 99% of commonages.

What happens to that land then tell me?

It's called undergrazing and is in contravention to GAEC - whatever GAEC is, because GAEC doesn't have a definition.

So not only can you easily have a 3% over claim, you can easily have a 20% over claim, due to the ineptitude of IFA and the smoke and mirrors from elements within the Department.

Through NO FAULT of your own.

But you won't hear that either.

That's why we have elected commitees from different enterprises. methinks we're going around in circles now...signing off

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

That's why we have elected commitees from different enterprises. methinks we're going around in circles now...signing off

Touched a nerve

Not to mention the fact that within IFA the HC is not a committee at all. It's only a "working group" with no vote and no standing. Invited to attend NC and nothing more than that.

Yeah, we're well represented.

Will be in the process over the weekend of finalising a motion proposed at our AGM to give the HC proper standing.

MayoAreMagic

In fairness, you have to be careful not to overplay the role hill farmers play either - and that is coming from one of them. Being honest, most don't make their living from farming or anywhere near it, it is a side job that has a lot in common with what others call a hobby. Hill farming isn't a very profitable farm model so obviously other farm models that are, are going to get precedence, we as hill farmers need to understand that side of it also. But at the same time we shouldn't be forced out of it either. In truth hill farming probably needs reform. There are places where shares of commonage are unused for over a decade, even forgotten about. Yet in the same areas, young farmers cant buy a share. Maybe shares shouldn't be owned, but rather awarded by the dept for use.

Also, the way to handle hill farming isn't to force out the smaller fish. This is actually detrimental as smaller farms means more attention is paid to the product, which means, with the right education, the potential for a better product. The dept should be looking to create a market for this product, and then work with the farmers to match their product to that market as much as possible. At present the 'market' for hill lambs is 'get them up to 35-40kg and fit for the factory' - or in other words, make them not hill lambs any more. If they could develop a realistic market for them it would add value to the product and all of a sudden, hill farming would be getting more attention.

That market is there to be developed, I believe. You see Connemara Hill Lamb being sold in supermarkets in the west. It is genuinely an artisan product with a distinctive flavour and taste. Are many people aware it even exists? Get behind it, tell people about it, market it across the country and beyond, and not only Connemara Hill Lamb, but all hill lambs. There is your market, ready and waiting. If they done that people wouldn't be reliant on schemes like GLAS and they wouldn't have to worry about under-grazing on the hills in the first place.

Connemara Farmer

Over playing in my book would be looking for more than one would fairly expect to earn, we're not doing that at all.

You're right that hill farming isn't profitable. Neither is intensive lowland farming when you take the supports away.

The public goods that hill farmers are producing and managing are being ignored. This contributes to the very important tourism industry in this country. With the greatest of respect I don't think too many tourists come to see a field of corn in the SE or bullocks in the midlands. The EU has attributed a per hectare value to the hill type lands, a value that is ignored by the Irish Govt.

The EU has designated much of this land SAC etc so as to make it desperately hard to manage thanks to onerous requirements as can be viewed on the NPWS site. What do the Irish Govt. do, they impose conditions in an environmental scheme which makes it very hard for most of the farmers concerned to gain entry - to even apply for it indeed. In contravention to what the Commission want, remind me again who pays for the majority of the Agriculture budget in this country?

Land eligibility has been a disaster of the Dept.s making. 30% forced destocking with no forethought or investigation as to actually WHO was responsibly for damage caused. No follow up and reassessment of the CFP's. A dereliction of duty to the hill sector, why would any young fella in his right mind want to go to the hill? A completely uncertain future.

Consistent lack of meaningful consultation with the relevant shareholders, them being the farmers. Perfectly illustrated by the make up of the "shareholders" Commonage Implementation Committee - not ONE single hill farmer sits on that committee. Yet the architects, or some of them, of this disaster both sit on and control said committee. We have people with little to no knowledge of farming on the hills making decisions on how those hills are to be farmed. The same people in many cases who have been responsible for disasters in the past.

I was at the very first meeting of Connemara Hill Lamb. I know the man in charge well, I know most of the decision makers, and none of them regardless of how much of a fantastic artisan product that it is would survive without the direct payments. Two hill farmers sit on a Bord Bia committee, hill farmers are doing so much work that is so often flatly ignored by people with power to make decisions.

So much guff is spouted regarding the importance of rural Ireland, the value of our environment, but when push comes to shove and pressed to put the money where their mouths are there are hectares full of shrinking violets.

Fuxake

rangler1 wrote: »

Firstly I'd consider 3% a massive overclaim, never mind the 20% where you lose your SFP, I think you're overcooking it now and there's little point in arguing it, If a farmer can't see 3% ineligible the problem is not with the dept.
At the moment the decisions are left with the ag officer, you want to be careful what you wish for. you might be very sorry for asking for terms and conditions to be written down, Our AOs here are very fair and if you genuinely did 'take a stab at it' they would give you the benefit

Con, when Coveney started, pillar 2 was under threat, he worked with others to keep them there, if he said anything it was in context that they were being massively reduced

How could you possibly think 3% is a massive overclaim? We have tillage farmers facing into a 5% ecological focus area and already planners are terrified of not getting it right because a few metres of hedge here and a few trees there very quickkly gets you on the wrong side of a 5% target.
But for farmers on marginal land, there are all kinds of reasons why 2 people might look at farm and one comes up with 3% and another comes up with 5%. Bearing in mind that some pieces of scrub/ bushes/ trees can be ruled 100% ineligible but an on the ground inspection can change that to 60%. Bearing in mind that leaving a heap of wraps stacked in the corner of a field on the day of a satellite shot can easily lead to a deduction of 0.05ha. On its own not a lot but then add in a bit of ground with tree shadow, another bit of ground with a bit of scrub and then maybe you calculated the roads wrong. It's easy talk if you have wall to wall arable ground, not so easy if you are farming on marginal land.

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

Con, when Coveney started, pillar 2 was under threat, he worked with others to keep them there, if he said anything it was in context that they were being massively reduced

Have you Tom Turleys number? Ring him. Ask him if Coveney stated what I said or not.

MayoAreMagic

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

I was at the very first meeting of Connemara Hill Lamb. I know the man in charge well, I know most of the decision makers, and none of them regardless of how much of a fantastic artisan product that it is would survive without the direct payments. Two hill farmers sit on a Bord Bia committee, hill farmers are doing so much work that is so often flatly ignored by people with power to make decisions.

Maybe not as things stand. But the point is if the Dept market the product on a big scale, and similar products like it, and instead of a requirement for 5 farmers with their 50 lambs, you have a requirement for 5000 farmers and maybe some of them will have 500 lambs. Would those lads need to be worrying about GLAS? They shouldn't... That is when hill farming will start being viewed on an even footing or something approaching it, with the lowland farms, and that is when they will be treated in the same fashion by decision-makers.

I mean Im in the same position as you here, but look you have to consider the other side of it too, if you were in charge of agriculture across the entire country and not just your own farm, would you keep pumping funds into something with little viable end-product that lacks any real market? That is ultimately the reason why hill farmers are marginalised, they don't have a market. You may ask what connection that has to GLAS or commonage, but it is the underlying reason for all the things you have described. It is like the ewe that isn't really rearing her lamb, do you keep buying her meal or do you send her out the gate and concentrate on the one who can rear two? If we had a good market then these same people would be cosying up to us very quickly, and that is what we need. Because regardless of the outcome of this, as long as we are trying to negotiate from a position of weakness - which we are at present, then it is only a matter of time before the next hit comes along.

Connemara Farmer

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Maybe not as things stand. But the point is if the Dept market the product on a big scale, and similar products like it, and instead of a requirement for 5 farmers with their 50 lambs, you have a requirement for 5000 farmers and maybe some of them will have 500 lambs. Would those lads need to be worrying about GLAS? They shouldn't... That is when hill farming will start being viewed on an even footing or something approaching it, with the lowland farms, and that is when they will be treated in the same fashion by decision-makers.

I mean Im in the same position as you here, but look you have to consider the other side of it too, if you were in charge of agriculture across the entire country and not just your own farm, would you keep pumping funds into something with little viable end-product that lacks any real market? That is ultimately the reason why hill farmers are marginalised, they don't have a market. You may ask what connection that has to GLAS or commonage, but it is the underlying reason for all the things you have described. It is like the ewe that isn't really rearing her lamb, do you keep buying her meal or do you send her out the gate and concentrate on the one who can rear two? If we had a good market then these same people would be cosying up to us very quickly, and that is what we need. Because regardless of the outcome of this, as long as we are trying to negotiate from a position of weakness - which we are at present, then it is only a matter of time before the next hit comes along.

You're making a few assumptions here I think. First, the work has been put in by hill farmers with Teagasc, Bord Bia, factories, chefs, supermarkets etc finding a market for and developing hill lamb. It's neither today nor yesterday that happened. But it's not going to keep the lights on on it's own, that's just the fact of it. It would help and I'd certainly prefer to make my living from the market but that day is gone IMO. Since winning a food award CHL has gone from killing 60 lambs a week to 300. And there are some more ways they can increase this and some of the value of the lamb but that's another days work. But when it comes down to it, it won't pay all the bills.

At the hill conference thingy in Bandon this January the consensus was this. The Department wants many more thousands of sheep on the hills - and remember not necessarily your hills. The factories say they can sell any amount of light lamb, but they won't get paid for it. Teagasc say the light lamb isn't viable to feed.

REPS & AEOS poor as it is, has kept the light on in many a house in marginal land areas.

You are not going to get treated as an equal because your representatives (varieties political) are not from hill areas. They're not interested, we have to fight our own corner.

I think you're ignoring a crucially important product you're producing, that being public goods, particularly on designated lands. Carbon sinks, clean water, proper management of the environment for species and (I would put it) conditional recreation. That has already been given a value, but thanks to the conniving of our Govt (and I don't doubt others) that value is not being realised for the person working to produce those goods. This is all fact, it's not airy fairy BS.

You're falling into the production trap with the first part of your second paragraph. We are producing, and under the CFP's and environmental plans we are producing as much as the Govt will allow us to. In addition to kg of lamb, finished or store, or breeding stock we're also producing those public goods again.

But we're not being paid for it.

And now, while Coveney touts we'll all get €376h/a we're faced with

• No access to an environmental scheme for farmers farming some of the most sensitive land in Europe.
• Fines for GAEC land eligibility issues that reach out across ALL schemes with rules that have no definition.

I am not prepared to accept that is my lot and that is how I should be treated. And I will not accept it.

Connemara Farmer

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I don't see stocking rate as that big of an issue, if it is run correctly. The nature of commonage farming does required some level of collective organisation - it is shared land, but the way they are going about it is top-heavy and overly complex. How does 80% involvement guarantee correct stocking levels? They should be testing the actual land, not how many people are involved.

There's a 100% collective agreement already in place, it's called the Commonage Framework Plan, which is binding.

If that had been updated as it was promised to do then that could be used.

You could get a 90% collective agreement on a commonage and still have one rogue trader eating the shyte out of the place and their master plan will still fail.

Birdnuts

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

You're falling into the production trap with the first part of your second paragraph. We are producing, and under the CFP's and environmental plans we are producing as much as the Govt will allow us to. In addition to kg of lamb, finished or store, or breeding stock we're also producing those public goods again.

.

I think thats the crucial point that those outside these areas don't seem to get. The EU has recognised these lands in terms of their value as head waters for all our major water supplies in term of rivers and lakes, their general ecological value and their value in relation to the Tourism industry. The EU allocatted Pillar 2 monies to support farmers in these areas to farm in a way that preserves these values.
The problem that has arisen is that our own Dept of Agriculture seems hell bent on taking as much of this allocation as it can off these farmers and diverting it to, shall we saw, more powerfull vested interests in the agri sector. This is totally against EU policy in terms of CAP, cross compliance with any number of other EU directives and is indeed likely to land this country in trouble under various international trade agreements we have signed over the years.

Bullocks

Birdnuts wrote: »

I think thats the crucial point that those outside these areas don't seem to get. The EU has recognised these lands in terms of their value as head waters for all our major water supplies in term of rivers and lakes, their general ecological value and their value in relation to the Tourism industry. The EU allocatted Pillar 2 monies to support farmers in these areas to farm in a way that preserves these values.
The problem that has arisen is that our own Dept of Agriculture seems hell bent on taking as much of this allocation as it can off these farmers and diverting it to, shall we saw, more powerfull vested interests in the agri sector. This is totally against EU policy in terms of CAP, cross compliance with any number of other EU directives and is indeed likely to land this country in trouble under various international trade agreements we have signed over the years.

Reall well put Birdnuts and I hope that is exactly what Cons group explained to the boys in Europe and that they act to put it right

Capercaille

Birdnuts wrote: »

I think thats the crucial point that those outside these areas don't seem to get. The EU has recognised these lands in terms of their value as head waters for all our major water supplies in term of rivers and lakes, their general ecological value and their value in relation to the Tourism industry. The EU allocatted Pillar 2 monies to support farmers in these areas to farm in a way that preserves these values.
The problem that has arisen is that our own Dept of Agriculture seems hell bent on taking as much of this allocation as it can off these farmers and diverting it to, shall we saw, more powerfull vested interests in the agri sector. This is totally against EU policy in terms of CAP, cross compliance with any number of other EU directives and is indeed likely to land this country in trouble under various international trade agreements we have signed over the years.

https://www.facebook.com/345679678896374/photos/pcb.564893373641669/564890456975294/?type=1&theatre
DAFM diverted over €400million of EU financial support specifically for farmers in Natura 2000 sites in last RDP!!

Connemara Farmer

Capercaille wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/345679678896374/photos/pcb.564893373641669/564890456975294/?type=1&theatre
DAFM diverted over €400million of EU financial support specifically for farmers in Natura 2000 sites in last RDP!!

That is absolutely true.

This is why I am against an "environmental" scheme. I am in favour of a scheme dedicated to Natura, Designated type land. That way, the funding the Commission want to go to that land can't be diverted (I'd not use as polite a word) by vested interests "broadening" out "environmental" schemes.