Stocking rate/amount for commonages

jobseek · 13-04-2015 8:15pm #1

Hi
Im not sure of the correct name for this, but i have heard people of late saying that there is a website that lists the amount of sheep a person is allowed to graze on there share of a commonage.
Searching on google i can find nothing on this, but not sure what this is relating to is, is it Glas or something to do with CAP?
Thanks

jobseek · 13-04-2015 8:26pm

jobseek wrote: »

Hi
Im not sure of the correct name for this, but i have heard people of late saying that there is a website that lists the amount of sheep a person is allowed to graze on there share of a commonage.
Searching on google i can find nothing on this, but not sure what this is relating to is, is it Glas or something to do with CAP?
Thanks

Just found it in another thread

Connemara Farmer · 13-04-2015 8:30pm

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/farmerschemespayments/glas/commonagedataforglas/

First link "commonage extract..........."

MayoAreMagic · 14-04-2015 2:13pm

Any more word on the oversight regarding the sheep of those using the commonage who aren't going into glas? Or is it still steering us headlong into overgrazing?

Connemara Farmer · 14-04-2015 4:35pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Any more word on the oversight regarding the sheep of those using the commonage who aren't going into glas? Or is it still steering us headlong into overgrazing?

Lol..........

I asked that particular question at the Galway CAP meeting.

That the GLAS participants had to achieve the minimum stocking rate for the entire commonage by Dec 2018, if those farmers outside of GLAS had X number of sheep, wasn't that a recipe for over grazing.

First answer was complete BS, that there is sufficient gap between the full commonage Min and Max number that over grazing couldn't possibly happen.

I challenged the (by this time fairly annoyed) chairman that he knew full well it could and that he also knew rogue traders existed.

I was told those lads had better watch out, the census figures were referred to, and without letting me finish my question......... that the Dept would be very proactive in combating rogue traders.

Aren't you very reassured by that now.

MayoAreMagic · 14-04-2015 4:53pm

What if the existing glas members populate the commonage to the max level? Surely if they overgrazed before, then the assertion that it 'couldn't possibly happen' is ridiculous - that or there in fact was never any overgrazing in the past as it 'couldn't possibly happen'...

What if the combined number of sheep owned by those on the commonage and not in glas exceeds the min/max range value?

Because of the above, I have decided to not go into glas this year. Im of the thinking that no commonage farmer should go into it, until that issue has been sorted out properly, as that, combined with the probability of commonage plans being thrown together to get them out the door, is a potential disaster waiting to happen. Why sign yourself up for 5 years of that? When they haven't spent 5 minutes to think about how the plan might not work? Commonage is a priority in glas, nobody should sign up until they treat it as such.

Connemara Farmer · 14-04-2015 4:58pm

That's what Liam Fahy told me, it couldn't happen, too much space between the min & max numbers. It is ridiculous, we all know that, try telling them that and they get quite upset.

In fairness, I didn't ask him what happens if the GLAS farmers reached the commonage max, then add in the other farmers sheep.

Bullocks was there on the night, he'll tell you they didn't want commonage questions, they said that outright, they didn't want them in Castlebar either. The whole thing is a shambles and they know it, but it's a shambles on purpose.

I'm finishing AEOS 1 in December, financial situation says I have no option but to go into GLAS, so that's me decided.

jobseek · 14-04-2015 6:26pm

Thanks for the replies,
Cant really follow this, how is the shareholder stocking density calculated?

If entering Glas will it be a requirement to destock to max shareholder level?

jobseek · 14-04-2015 6:29pm

Something that was being talked about previousely, was in relation to people claiming on commonages, but yet have no stock on these commonages, where do these come into the equation, was there mention of other commonage shareholders making up the required level of sheep, and yet the man not grazing anything still got as much as the person grazing.

Connemara Farmer · 15-04-2015 10:14am

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

What if the existing glas members populate the commonage to the max level? Surely if they overgrazed before, then the assertion that it 'couldn't possibly happen' is ridiculous - that or there in fact was never any overgrazing in the past as it 'couldn't possibly happen'...

What if the combined number of sheep owned by those on the commonage and not in glas exceeds the min/max range value?

Because of the above, I have decided to not go into glas this year. Im of the thinking that no commonage farmer should go into it, until that issue has been sorted out properly, as that, combined with the probability of commonage plans being thrown together to get them out the door, is a potential disaster waiting to happen. Why sign yourself up for 5 years of that? When they haven't spent 5 minutes to think about how the plan might not work? Commonage is a priority in glas, nobody should sign up until they treat it as such.

Remember now, the Department of Agriculture have not accepted liability for the CFP's. So, if/when over grazing occurs the liability for the plan falling through rests with the farmer and their planner. That's quite important.

MayoAreMagic · 15-04-2015 10:19am

jobseek wrote: »

Something that was being talked about previousely, was in relation to people claiming on commonages, but yet have no stock on these commonages, where do these come into the equation, was there mention of other commonage shareholders making up the required level of sheep, and yet the man not grazing anything still got as much as the person grazing.

My understanding is every person claiming in glas will have to keep stock on the commonage - working up to an agreed number of animals towards the end of the 5 year scheme. Therefore anyone with no stock on the commonage would be breaking the terms of their agreement and so would be penalised if caught. You would have to assume that this would be enforced rather more strenuously than the old commonage system.

Re shareholder making up the required number of sheep. The people in glas will have to stock the commonage to the required levels that glas outline. The big oversight is the fact that glas haven't allowed for the numbers of sheep owned by the people not in glas, i.e. they have assumed that the people in glas are the only people with stock on the commonage. So, the guys in glas will be breaking their necks to build up their numbers to meet the glas figure, which could push the actual figure of animals on the commonage to a level that it cannot sustain.

Also, this assumption that it wouldn't be possible to go over the max number is nonsense. When you consider they don't know how many people have signed up yet, and more importantly - not signed up, then to make that assumption is a total shot in the dark. One fairly big farmer alone could have 800-1000 sheep. If he doesn't sign up then the whole thing is forfeit.

MayoAreMagic · 15-04-2015 10:41am

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Remember now, the Department of Agriculture have not accepted liability for the CFP's. So, if/when over grazing occurs the liability for the plan falling through rests with the farmer and their planner. That's quite important.

Con, that is part of the reason why Im steering clear of it for the first year. There are a lot of bugs to be knocked out of it. The reality is the commonage should in fact have it's own standalone scheme, such is the complexity involved.

Connemara Farmer · 15-04-2015 10:41am

jobseek wrote: »

Thanks for the replies,
Cant really follow this, how is the shareholder stocking density calculated?

If entering Glas will it be a requirement to destock to max shareholder level?

The Dept. are going by the min/max figures published maybe three years ago now. Those figures are described as "indicative". They were arrived at mostly by desktop exercises, not walking the actual land. Therefore many of them are wrong. This was objected to at the time and the Dept have now put the onus and the liability on the farmer and planner to come up with figures in the commonage management plan. That's dangerous for the farmer, as if the figures are wrong the penalty rests with the farmer, not the Dept. Why that is an issue is down to historical reasons going back to unregulated headage, over grazing, compulsory destocking, under grazing, land eligibility issues. Short version is Dept. enforcement of idiotic rules made a hames of it, now they blame the farmer.

In GLAS you will need to have attained you Minimum individual shareholder stocking level by December 2016. All of the GLAS farmers on the commonage will need to stock to the minimum for the entire commonage by December 2018. That latter figure leaves out farmers outside of GLAS, which ask's the question we were discussion in previous posts, if the min/max figures are exceeded isn't that a recipe to overgraze the land. Anyone knowing the definition of "Maximum" would surely ask that question.

jobseek wrote: »

Something that was being talked about previousely, was in relation to people claiming on commonages, but yet have no stock on these commonages, where do these come into the equation, was there mention of other commonage shareholders making up the required level of sheep, and yet the man not grazing anything still got as much as the person grazing.

There are various positions on this question.

The EU do not mind if a shareholder is not grazing their share, once land is kept in correct condition. They will pay the "non active" farmer.

The Irish Dept of Ag, unless their position has changed, say a claimant must actively graze.

One thing we have to remember here is "controlled burning" IS an agricultural activity.

There are a fair few knock on effects here, and they are important in the practical workings of commonages.

Due to the historical numbers, on a lot of commonages I'm familiar with, you will have farmers with similar shares where one or more will have a lot more sheep compared to the rest. Caused by the blanket 30% destocking and the abandonment of the Commonage Framework Plans - the problem was not addressed, it was just frozen in time. There will then be some who don't use their share for whatever reason, but claim on it anyway.

Should the Irish Dept's way prevail, the sheep units with larger numbers (possibly viable farms in todays world) will need to destock to accommodate the non active farmers on the hill. So that unit may be made non viable because of reduced numbers.

Next, the non active farmer, who is most likely farming their lowland, will be forced to put sheep or cattle to the hill.

It's likely in a lot of cases, the existing viable sheep farmer will not want to sell their stock to the non active farmer, out of begrudgery. That ****er is the reason I'm losing my stock type thinking.

So, the non active farmer now is being forced into buying stock that haven't been raised on that hill - likely unfenced. What happens? They spread to the four winds because they haven't a notion they're supposed to stay there, or they stick in along the fence by the lowland and overgraze the hell out of it, and a lot die of hunger, or they go onto the next commonage and cause problems for that farmer.

Now, go back to the EU's position. They are happy to pay all shareholders once the land is kept in proper order.

My conditions on that is that any shareholder MUST HAVE the basic right to stock that hill with their share of stock, should they wish to. Otherwise, if all are happy with a situation of a few having most of the stock then I see nothing wrong with that either.

It keeps the stock where they should be, it keeps the land in good order, it keeps a lot of lights on in houses where otherwise they may go out.

Connemara Farmer · 15-04-2015 11:02am

jobseek wrote: »

Thanks for the replies,
Cant really follow this, how is the shareholder stocking density calculated?

If entering Glas will it be a requirement to destock to max shareholder level?

I don't think I answered this.

There are two requirements I spoke about

1 reach your min shareholder stock number by December 2016

2 ALL farmers participating in the GLAS Management Plan reach the min overall commonage stock number by December 2018.

2 may hold the answer to your question. It will depend on a number of things:

How many shares on the commonage aren't being farmed
Do the existing active farmers want to stock above their individual minimum shareholder numbers
Then there is also the gap between the min and max values

So there will likely be an excess above the sum of the min shareholders stock numbers, what is important for you is do the other farmers want to have a share of that also, and what the existing numbers on the commonage are already compared to the min/max numbers.

I know that reads fairly complicated

Connemara Farmer · 15-04-2015 11:03am

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Con, that is part of the reason why Im steering clear of it for the first year. There are a lot of bugs to be knocked out of it. The reality is the commonage should in fact have it's own standalone scheme, such is the complexity involved.

My continuing view is the bugs, glitches, and glaring in-sensibilities are there on purpose to act as a barrier to marginal land farmers drawing down money from schemes.

MayoAreMagic · 15-04-2015 11:22am

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Why that is an issue is down to historical reasons going back to unregulated headage, over grazing, compulsory destocking, under grazing, land eligibility issues. Short version is Dept. enforcement of idiotic rules made a hames of it, now they blame the farmer.

Agreed. There is an underlying theme running with each of these issues - people making decisions on things that they have no experience with, and frankly have made little effort to understand before making that decision. It is true that sometimes an outsider looking in can be a good thing, but they need to fully understand what they are dealing with first and foremost. Time and again, commonage seems to be an after-thought with decisions makers, that is the root of the problem, it is never given proper consideration.

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Should the Irish Dept's way prevail, the sheep units with larger numbers (possibly viable farms in todays world) will need to destock to accommodate the non active farmers on the hill. So that unit may be made non viable because of reduced numbers.

Now this Im not sure about. What I see happening here is basically, a large farmer is putting more stock on the commonage than his share should allow him to and then all his hens come home to roost. There is nobody stopping him maintaining his stock level, if he buys more of the shares available and makes his numbers legitimate. So if he wants his viable farm to continue, he can go and buy or rent shares instead of using other people's grazing and then complaining when they decide they want to use it themselves. Those non active farmers are entitled to decide for whatever reason they like to make use of their commonage share, they shouldn't have to bow to the big farmer who is actually just using more than is entitled to use. It is the equivalent of a guy putting sheep into land you aren't using and then complaining when you decide you want to use it yourself. If he was entitled to use it in the first place he wouldn't have a problem. I don't really agree with your logic here.

MayoAreMagic · 15-04-2015 11:42am

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

My continuing view is the bugs, glitches, and glaring in-sensibilities are there on purpose to act as a barrier to marginal land farmers drawing down money from schemes.

I wouldn't go that far. But I do think there is a snobbery going on. That snobbery means the people making decisions never go and give commonage proper consideration, really get stuck into it and have a proper debate on it before making decisions. They just say 'oh, and the commonage, well we can use the stocking rates set 3 years ago, and we can say the total number of animals in glas need to reach these levels after two years... That sorts it doesn't it? Ok, back to discussing removing the milk quotas'. I mean, that is the long and short of what they have come to. There is very little in the way of it being fleshed out beyond that. There has probably been more thought put into the design of the birdbox...

Connemara Farmer · 15-04-2015 1:22pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Now this Im not sure about. What I see happening here is basically, a large farmer is putting more stock on the commonage than his share should allow him to and then all his hens come home to roost. There is nobody stopping him maintaining his stock level, if he buys more of the shares available and makes his numbers legitimate. So if he wants his viable farm to continue, he can go and buy or rent shares instead of using other people's grazing and then complaining when they decide they want to use it themselves. Those non active farmers are entitled to decide for whatever reason they like to make use of their commonage share, they shouldn't have to bow to the big farmer who is actually just using more than is entitled to use. It is the equivalent of a guy putting sheep into land you aren't using and then complaining when you decide you want to use it yourself. If he was entitled to use it in the first place he wouldn't have a problem. I don't really agree with your logic here.

No, you're not following

The logic is sound and has been agreed to by the EU.

It hinges on the premise that agreements are voluntary, no one gets forced by another farmer to do anything they don't agree too.

The EU is, massively, the paymaster. Unfortunately due to the way the EU works the monkey gets to set some of the rules, and not the organ grinder.

So, the EU are happy to pay claimants once the ground is in good order, they do not mind (this is fact) who owns the stock that does the grazing that keeps the land in that order (and again controlled burning is a legitimate agricultural activity also).

So the "viable" farmer is farming more shares than he owns, that's often correct.

If the non active farmer who is claiming but not grazing is happy to let the viable farmer graze away, then that is a voluntary agreement on that commonage where everyone is happy.

Go back to what I said earlier on, if any farmer wishes to graze their share, that should be their absolute right. I also think they should have a % share of any excess dependent on their share ownership, should they want it.

So no one gets forced to bend the knee to anyone else, there will be less hassle and bad feeling, the land will be kept in good order, people get paid. No one dies.

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I wouldn't go that far. But I do think there is a snobbery going on. That snobbery means the people making decisions never go and give commonage proper consideration, really get stuck into it and have a proper debate on it before making decisions. They just say 'oh, and the commonage, well we can use the stocking rates set 3 years ago, and we can say the total number of animals in glas need to reach these levels after two years... That sorts it doesn't it? Ok, back to discussing removing the milk quotas'. I mean, that is the long and short of what they have come to. There is very little in the way of it being fleshed out beyond that. There has probably been more thought put into the design of the birdbox...

I don't agree, that could be part of it but there is an agenda there to squeeze out low income/marginal land farmers. If you study the schemes closely and deeply enough you find one of two things, extra ordinary incompetence, or what I just said.

MayoAreMagic · 15-04-2015 2:28pm

No I follow the logic of the EU - they want the right number overall, they don't care how the collective does it - that is it in a nutshell.

That wasn't the logic in the example you used though, where you referred to a viable large farm having to downsize on the commonage because other shareholders have decided to become active again, be it they are forced to or they chose to themselves it doesn't really make a difference. The reality of that scenario is, if the large scale farmer had enough commonage for his own sheep in the first place, he wouldn't have do downsize regardless of what the other farmer(s) was doing. If he has to downsize it is only because he isn't entitled to have so many sheep on that share of commonage in the first place, therefore it is his own lack of commonage that is making him downsize, not the system.

Yes the neighbour can allow him to 'farm his share' for want of a better phrase, under EU guidelines, but that is completely at the discretion of the other farmer and couldn't be seen as a permanent fixture for a viable agri-business. It isn't something that you can give as an example of someone being cheated or put out of business by the new commonage guidelines - the root of the issue there is he doesn't have enough shares for his own animals and is relying on the whims of others. If he was truly running a viable business as you suggest then he would have accountability for all his own animals on the commonage. That's why I see the example as a bit of a red herring.

But the thing is, these are the talking points that are out there on a subject like commonage. These are the conversations the decisions makers should be having. The bottom line is they are not and have little interest in doing so.

Connemara Farmer · 15-04-2015 2:37pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

No I follow the logic of the EU - they want the right number overall, they don't care how the collective does it - that is it in a nutshell.

That wasn't the logic in the example you used though, where you referred to a viable large farm having to downsize on the commonage because other shareholders have decided to become active again, be it they are forced to or they chose to themselves it doesn't really make a difference. The reality of that scenario is, if the large scale farmer had enough commonage for his own sheep in the first place, he wouldn't have do downsize regardless of what the other farmer(s) was doing. If he has to downsize it is only because he isn't entitled to have so many sheep on that share of commonage in the first place, therefore it is his own lack of commonage that is making him downsize, not the system.

Yes the neighbour can allow him to 'farm his share' for want of a better phrase, under EU guidelines, but that is completely at the discretion of the other farmer and couldn't be seen as a permanent fixture for a viable agri-business. It isn't something that you can give as an example of someone being cheated or put out of business by the new commonage guidelines - the root of the issue there is he doesn't have enough shares for his own animals and is relying on the whims of others. If he was truly running a viable business as you suggest then he would have accountability for all his own animals on the commonage. That's why I see the example as a bit of a red herring.

But the thing is, these are the talking points that are out there on a subject like commonage. These are the conversations the decisions makers should be having. The bottom line is they are not and have little interest in doing so.

That was the logic I used, and have used since talking about the issue in the first place. That by forcing non active farmers to become active, because claimants must graze according to the Dept but not the EU, creates a myriad of problems that don't need to be created at all.

In the EU solution, no one is forced to do anything EXCEPT if none of the farmers on the commonage wish to manage the land, in that case payments would be lost.

I am a commonage farmer who has suffered due to the historical unregulated headage model. I have never been allowed to stock my own shares adequately, I am not farming anyone elses share, in fact others are farming mine.

So to your logic I should be dead set against my own proposal.

But I'm not, because it's voluntary, it's an agreement between farmers, rather than a dictate foisted on them by people who do not understand how commonage farming actually works.

The reality of the Dept's proposal is that the farmer with more stock than their share WILL be forced to destock. Other farmers who may not want to stock the hill WILL be forced to stock. Under the EU framework that's utterly ridiculous and quite counter productive, as it will remove stock native to the hill, and replace them with either no stock if the non active farmer decides to give up payments, or stock unfamiliar with the hill which will lead to the problems outlined earlier.

By having voluntary agreement between farmers, everyone gets exactly what they want. There is no need to make it more complicated than this.

MayoAreMagic · 15-04-2015 3:43pm

What I said was specific to the example you listed. I took issue with a guy with more sheep than his quota on a commonage being a victim because he simply has more sheep than he is meant to have on that commonage. I don't think you can say that he is hard done by. Unlucky maybe, hard done by no, simply because at the root of it, it is his own doing to have that many animals. I am fully aware of what the EU will allow, I am a commonage farmer too. However, you can stick to the EU system and this issue would still arise if the non-active farmer decided to become active, would it not?

Furthermore, in practice, how do you police this? Some commonages have 1000s of shares, you could have a situation where 100 people are in the area farming, and 900 others are claiming while working in the city, maybe all the way across the country and having nothing to do with the commonage or even the area. How is that helping maintain the commonage? It is in fact taking resources away from it and rural Ireland in general. I understand the thinking behind requiring some level of involvement, otherwise it just becomes a hand out for anyone that can get their hands on shares, farmer or not, local or not. That isn't a positive thing for an area and it isn't a positive for commonage farming or indeed farming in general. That money needs to kept closer to the commonage that it is being claimed on. It might work where you have a farmer who simply doesn't put animals onto the commonage, but how about the guy who inherited his uncle's share, lives up in Dublin 50 weeks of the year and doesn't have an animal to his name? Or the guy who got the share when he bought an old house for a holiday home?
I would be of the thinking that some involvement in commonage or farming in the area is necessary to even be considered. Otherwise someone else doing the work for you becomes open season, and a genuine lad trying to become involved for the right reason wouldn't be able to buy a share in his entire lifetime.

Connemara Farmer · 15-04-2015 7:37pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

What I said was specific to the example you listed. I took issue with a guy with more sheep than his quota on a commonage being a victim because he simply has more sheep than he is meant to have on that commonage. I don't think you can say that he is hard done by. Unlucky maybe, hard done by no, simply because at the root of it, it is his own doing to have that many animals. I am fully aware of what the EU will allow, I am a commonage farmer too. However, you can stick to the EU system and this issue would still arise if the non-active farmer decided to become active, would it not?

Furthermore, in practice, how do you police this? Some commonages have 1000s of shares, you could have a situation where 100 people are in the area farming, and 900 others are claiming while working in the city, maybe all the way across the country and having nothing to do with the commonage or even the area. How is that helping maintain the commonage? It is in fact taking resources away from it and rural Ireland in general. I understand the thinking behind requiring some level of involvement, otherwise it just becomes a hand out for anyone that can get their hands on shares, farmer or not, local or not. That isn't a positive thing for an area and it isn't a positive for commonage farming or indeed farming in general. That money needs to kept closer to the commonage that it is being claimed on. It might work where you have a farmer who simply doesn't put animals onto the commonage, but how about the guy who inherited his uncle's share, lives up in Dublin 50 weeks of the year and doesn't have an animal to his name? Or the guy who got the share when he bought an old house for a holiday home?
I would be of the thinking that some involvement in commonage or farming in the area is necessary to even be considered. Otherwise someone else doing the work for you becomes open season, and a genuine lad trying to become involved for the right reason wouldn't be able to buy a share in his entire lifetime.

No, it's a voluntary agreement, therefore there's no "quota" or "more than" or "less than", you're purposefully ignoring that to suit your case. People can agree, if they do not, then revert to per share stocking, easy.

No, if the non farmer, who is different from a non active farmer on a share, becomes active then the number of claimants change and so does the min/max calculation of the individual farmer, it's simple.

The non active claimant in this area, having looked at the lists on the Dept website, are farming the lowland or presumably renting to people who are farming the land.

The commonage is being maintained by agreement, I thought that was quite clear. One farmer is allowing another to graze their share.

It also helps those not grazing the commonage as they bring in extra money to be spent in the area, as most farm income is.

Which commonages have thousands of shares, you are exaggerating. The largest I know of is Achill Island where there is something around 600 shares. The most shares I know of in my area is 78. The largest of mine is around 25.

Connemara Farmer · 16-04-2015 9:14am

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

I don't think I answered this.

There are two requirements I spoke about

1 reach your min shareholder stock number by December 2016

2 ALL farmers participating in the GLAS Management Plan reach the min overall commonage stock number by December 2018.

2 may hold the answer to your question. It will depend on a number of things:

How many shares on the commonage aren't being farmed
Do the existing active farmers want to stock above their individual minimum shareholder numbers
Then there is also the gap between the min and max values

So there will likely be an excess above the sum of the min shareholders stock numbers, what is important for you is do the other farmers want to have a share of that also, and what the existing numbers on the commonage are already compared to the min/max numbers.

I know that reads fairly complicated

To add:

Reading a transcript last night from a Dail committee, the EU position of not minding who does the grazing seems to be coming more into favour. Just comments and snippets from regulations. Going in the right direction I hope.

MayoAreMagic · 16-04-2015 9:51am

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

No, it's a voluntary agreement, therefore there's no "quota" or "more than" or "less than", you're purposefully ignoring that to suit your case. People can agree, if they do not, then revert to per share stocking, easy.

Im aware they can agree. I never said they couldn't. You gave an example of a guy with a viable sheep business having to remove stock. Im just pointing out that in that example, the guy can go and buy some commonage shares and he wouldn't have to downsize, and if he is in fact running a viable sheep business, Im sure he would do that and carry on. Similarly, not many reasonable business people would be leaving themselves completely reliant on an agreement like that. I just thought the argument was a bit pie in the sky.

Also, in practice, Im asking how these agreements are formalised, and gave some examples why there needs to be some regulation in this area. If it wasn't regulated, then one guy could have 1000 sheep, and 100 other lads could say he is farming their share, without his knowledge. Can you not see how that could be abused? for that to work it would have to be a written agreement between the parties, with an exact agreement as to how many animals have been assigned etc. Otherwise 10 guys could be saying the same 20 sheep are doing their grazing just to claim their few pound.

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

It also helps those not grazing the commonage as they bring in extra money to be spent in the area, as most farm income is.

There are no guarantees that this would be the case. I understand what you are saying, but having read through the list of people claiming on commonages, I know that what is actually happening, is people are getting hold of a share, are claiming off it, but are not farming and only visiting the area on holidays etc. and spending the money designated for commonage farms on anything but. That is a trend that needs to be addressed.

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Which commonages have thousands of shares, you are exaggerating. The largest I know of is Achill Island where there is something around 600 shares. The most shares I know of in my area is 78. The largest of mine is around 25.

Sorry, you are right there. It was the commonage in Achill I was referring to. I was informed there are 1000s of shares but what actually happens is there are numerous commonages run alongside one another, unfenced, each with high shareholder numbers. For all intents and purposes, it is like having one big commonage with 1000s of shares and that is how those lads treat it, almost like a set of commonages. But even at 600 for example, without regulation, that system is wide open to abuse. Would you not think?

Connemara Farmer · 16-04-2015 9:14pm

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Im aware they can agree. I never said they couldn't. You gave an example of a guy with a viable sheep business having to remove stock. Im just pointing out that in that example, the guy can go and buy some commonage shares and he wouldn't have to downsize, and if he is in fact running a viable sheep business, Im sure he would do that and carry on. Similarly, not many reasonable business people would be leaving themselves completely reliant on an agreement like that. I just thought the argument was a bit pie in the sky.

Also, in practice, Im asking how these agreements are formalised, and gave some examples why there needs to be some regulation in this area. If it wasn't regulated, then one guy could have 1000 sheep, and 100 other lads could say he is farming their share, without his knowledge. Can you not see how that could be abused? for that to work it would have to be a written agreement between the parties, with an exact agreement as to how many animals have been assigned etc. Otherwise 10 guys could be saying the same 20 sheep are doing their grazing just to claim their few pound.

There are no guarantees that this would be the case. I understand what you are saying, but having read through the list of people claiming on commonages, I know that what is actually happening, is people are getting hold of a share, are claiming off it, but are not farming and only visiting the area on holidays etc. and spending the money designated for commonage farms on anything but. That is a trend that needs to be addressed.

Sorry, you are right there. It was the commonage in Achill I was referring to. I was informed there are 1000s of shares but what actually happens is there are numerous commonages run alongside one another, unfenced, each with high shareholder numbers. For all intents and purposes, it is like having one big commonage with 1000s of shares and that is how those lads treat it, almost like a set of commonages. But even at 600 for example, without regulation, that system is wide open to abuse. Would you not think?

In what I put forward no land needs to change hands. That makes life a lot simpler for everyone. If people sold their shares, then they lose their payments. This way they can keep the payments and the land while the farmer who has more than his or her share can still have the sheep. Everyone is happy, no one dies. You may keep trying to knock it, but it's beautifully simple and will work in practical application.

I bought the vast bulk of my land, so new entrants needn't be bawling about shares today, I got no installation aid as I never knew it existed.

Seriously, with CFP's and CMP's, a written agreement is a piece of cake. Like any other business, which is what the non active farmer is still running, if they take their eye off the ball then they'll run into trouble. Up to the farmers involved to work it in practical terms. It's not hard to ask to see census figures as a term of the agreement. Dept have published who is claiming where, that info was the stumbling block always for farmers, knowing who your neighbour was, now that problem is gone. There's no roadblock to working agreements farmers make between themselves.

The vast, vast, vast majority do.

Achill commonage, as far as I am aware is one commonage, just happens to have somewhere in the vicinity of 600 shares. Tom Fadian, former IFA Hill Chairman often brought it up, and it was often discussed during various meetings.

None of my commonages are fenced, they all neighbour many different commonages, there's no barrier to working this agreement in practical terms particularly knowing now who is claiming where, assessments made on commonages etc. It's in farmers interests to have the places right. Even a lot of the rogue traders around this area are admitting they will now have to "get on with people".

MayoAreMagic · 17-04-2015 8:52am

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

In what I put forward no land needs to change hands. That makes life a lot simpler for everyone. If people sold their shares, then they lose their payments. This way they can keep the payments and the land while the farmer who has more than his or her share can still have the sheep. Everyone is happy, no one dies. You may keep trying to knock it, but it's beautifully simple and will work in practical application.

Con, Im aware how that system works. Im simply fleshing out the point a bit. You don't seem to want to acknowledge any other scenario other than where this works perfectly. It is wide open to abuse without proper administration. Can you not see that? What is stopping me from buying a share over beside you, then saying you are covering my grazing, without your knowledge? I could head off to Dublin working away and never even have met you in my life. What is to stop my 5 mates doing the same thing? You are thinking of this in terms of everyone wanting to farm - but there are lots out there who just want money. These informal agreements you are talking about, are in practice a simple way to a handout of cash for people who just want cash. It is too easy to abuse it. I know on paper the system would work, but in practice it would just be abused.

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Achill commonage, as far as I am aware is one commonage, just happens to have somewhere in the vicinity of 600 shares. Tom Fadian, former IFA Hill Chairman often brought it up, and it was often discussed during various meetings.

I don't believe that is right. There is the guts of 5000 shares listed on the document on the dept website, and they would only be the active shares... Anyway, even if we say for arguments sake it is 600. How could you keep track of 600 people?

Connemara Farmer · 17-04-2015 11:13am

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Con, Im aware how that system works. Im simply fleshing out the point a bit. You don't seem to want to acknowledge any other scenario other than where this works perfectly. It is wide open to abuse without proper administration. Can you not see that? What is stopping me from buying a share over beside you, then saying you are covering my grazing, without your knowledge? I could head off to Dublin working away and never even have met you in my life. What is to stop my 5 mates doing the same thing? You are thinking of this in terms of everyone wanting to farm - but there are lots out there who just want money. These informal agreements you are talking about, are in practice a simple way to a handout of cash for people who just want cash. It is too easy to abuse it. I know on paper the system would work, but in practice it would just be abused.

I don't believe that is right. There is the guts of 5000 shares listed on the document on the dept website, and they would only be the active shares... Anyway, even if we say for arguments sake it is 600. How could you keep track of 600 people?

I've explained it a couple of times now. We now know who are claiming on commonages, it is publicly available information on the Dept. of Agriculture website. Going forward this information will continue to be available, it will have to be for the CMP's to work. It would be quite easy to electronically update that information, and have an agreement on individual commonages between shareholders.

All sheep farmers must return a census each year. The new development on this is indicating what your brand is. So it can be part of the agreement that proof of numbers is required in the form of the census figures being a part of the agreement. I don't know about yourself but I walk my commonages, and I know who does, and who doesn't have stock on them as we all know the other local farmers brands.

It is not as open to abuse as you make out.

If farmers are not willing to be to some degree self policing, if for nothing more than protecting their individual payments then they'll suffer the consequences of allowing themselves to be walked on.

There will always be local instances where local solutions will be made, the majority of commonages don't have anywhere near the number of shares as in Achill. Hard cases, bad law etc.

Stocking rate/amount for commonages

Comments