CAP cuts/ do we have a Taoiseach?

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

IFA lobbied for GLAS to be capped at 5000 and 7000 for GLAS+. IFA also lobbied for movement of 430 million euros in RDP that was earmarked for Natura farmers and was transferred to Pillar I payments.

GLAS scheme standards are so low in majority of measures so as to have very limited benefit to biodiversity.

The uptake seems to be good and it ticked the boxes, good or bad that'd be the aim......get the money used, not sentback

Birdnuts

wrangler wrote: »

The uptake seems to be good and it ticked the boxes, good or bad that'd be the aim......get the money used, not sentback

Well the EU didn't think it was good value for money which is why the whole area is being reviewed atm - it actually propagated the unfairness and destructive nature of the CAP with farmers restricted in designated areas getting the same money as large intensive operators who simply had to hang some tat from trees etc. to collect their cheque:rolleyes: A results based system that was uncapped would have been far more productive and fairer - with a much better utilisation of funds with alot more money going to folk in marginal areas. Hopefully the new CAP will be more like the latter

wrangler

Birdnuts wrote: »

Well the EU didn't think it was good value for money which is why the whole area is being reviewed atm - it actually propagated the unfairness and destructive nature of the CAP with farmers restricted in designated areas getting the same money as large intensive operators who simply had to hang some tat from trees etc. to collect their cheque:rolleyes: A results based system that was uncapped would have been far more productive and fairer - with a much better utilisation of funds with alot more money going to folk in marginal areas. Hopefully the new CAP will be more like the latter

They now think that wild life is more important than farmers which is a joke.
They're only deskdrivers in Brussels who've lost the grasp on, and are insulated from, the real world .
The aim was food security and those farmers that followed that star did well and rightly so. We're into a new era now .
You seem to think that the countryside will benefit under a more laid back ''let go wild'' management, sounds great .......only visit the farm every three months but I don't agree......... seeing that it won't affect me I'll leave it at that

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

They now think that wild life is more important than farmers which is a joke.
They're only deskdrivers in Brussels who've lost the grasp on, and are insulated from, the real world .
The aim was food security and those farmers that followed that star did well and rightly so. We're into a new era now .
You seem to think that the countryside will benefit under a more laid back ''let go wild'' management, sounds great .......only visit the farm every three months but I don't agree......... seeing that it won't affect me I'll leave it at that

Wildlife is more important than farmers.
That message needs to be taken on board. That’s why moving the payments to 100% measurable biodiversity focused schemes is inevitable. It will refocus people to farm in a manner that supports and encourages wildlife and biodiversity.

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

Wildlife is more important than farmers.
That message needs to be taken on board. That’s why moving the payments to 100% measurable biodiversity focused schemes is inevitable. It will refocus people to farm in a manner that supports and encourages wildlife and biodiversity.

Would you not think there's enough neglected land around the country to facilitate enough wildlife

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

Would you not think there's enough neglected land around the country to facilitate enough wildlife

Well wildlife and ongoing biodiversity decline would say not enough is being done.

It’s exactly that attitude that land farmed with biodiversity in mind is neglected that needs to go. Massive fields of monoculture grass with hedges removed and bludgeoned to the roots isn’t going to be acceptable from society any longer. If farmers want to keep the cheque in the post coming then they need to keep with the times and follow the money. More and more money will be spent from EU budgets on climate and biodiversity, we can either stick to monoculture ryegrass and see the money dwindle or move with the times and keep the finding.

The problem is lads sitting on larger cushy payments will be upset by the changes.

yosemitesam1

wrangler wrote: »

Would you not think there's enough neglected land around the country to facilitate enough wildlife

It's different to the way you view it. Having multiple species in the sward, managing ditches to be more facilitative towards wildlife, reducing reliance on artificial fert. None of that involves letting the farm go wild and wouldn't result in a loss of output for the majority of farms, it just takes a little more effort or knowledge

Birdnuts

wrangler wrote: »

They now think that wild life is more important than farmers which is a joke.
They're only deskdrivers in Brussels who've lost the grasp on, and are insulated from, the real world .
The aim was food security and those farmers that followed that star did well and rightly so. We're into a new era now .
You seem to think that the countryside will benefit under a more laid back ''let go wild'' management, sounds great .......only visit the farm every three months but I don't agree......... seeing that it won't affect me I'll leave it at that

Thats a pretty backward and inaccurate view of the issue - its actually about promoting sustaineable/traditional farming systems that safeguard and enhance our natural heritage, water quality, carbon storage, artison food industry etc. which benefit via future CAP funds smaller family farms in marginal areas and society at large.

amacca

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

It's different to the way you view it. Having multiple species in the sward, managing ditches to be more facilitative towards wildlife, reducing reliance on artificial fert. None of that involves letting the farm go wild and wouldn't result in a loss of output for the majority of farms, it just takes a little more effort or knowledge

For my farm, I reckon that approach could be more profitable or at least less loss making than intensification tbh

I'd have no issue doing it if the system was fair and not overly onerous in terms of ridiculous admin and inspection regime

Capercaillie

wrangler wrote: »

The uptake seems to be good and it ticked the boxes, good or bad that'd be the aim......get the money used, not sentback

True it ticks the boxes, money gets paid and the fact the scheme does not really benefit biodiversity is irrelevant to IFA/DAFM. It's ironic when IFA/DAFM whine about the general public increasing slate conventional agriculture in Ireland, when they do all they can to gut environmental schemes which might reverse the declines.. .

CHOPS01

_Brian wrote: »

Wildlife is more important than farmers.
That message needs to be taken on board. That’s why moving the payments to 100% measurable biodiversity focused schemes is inevitable. It will refocus people to farm in a manner that supports and encourages wildlife and biodiversity.

Have often thought about this. Since I took on the home plot here which is 40acres I have done a nice bit of tidying up etc. It's how I always envisaged how a farm should look/be run probably because that being seen to be a good farmer. As it is my numbers are small but building each year.
Would actually like to see a time when less is more and it is acceptable have the place half wild looking and small stock numbers.
I suppose a lot of us are sheep waiting to see what the other does and then follow.

wrangler

If farmers were bothered about improving diversity they wouldn't be looking for money to do it.
It's not expensive to improve diversity, demanding money is like eamon ryan driving a 2ltr people carrier

CHOPS01

wrangler wrote: »

If farmers were bothered about improving diversity they wouldn't be looking for money to do it.
It's not expensive to improve diversity, demanding money is like eamon ryan driving a 2ltr people carrier

Your probably right but in fairness if there was even minimal reward for diversity things could change drastically as it is there is minimal if any reward for intensity.

Buford T. Justice XIX

wrangler wrote: »

If farmers were bothered about improving diversity they wouldn't be looking for money to do it.
It's not expensive to improve diversity, demanding money is like eamon ryan driving a 2ltr people carrier

We're actually penalised for diversity.

If anything other than grass or crop grows outside the field boundary, we get deducted for the area from the BPS.

If it's a large amount of land, the penalty increases to more than the % area of non crop species.

And increased further again the following year if the diversity isn't eliminated.

Lovely bunch of lads, them EU inspectors:cool:

paradigmnshift

wrangler wrote: »

If farmers were bothered about improving diversity they wouldn't be looking for money to do it.
It's not expensive to improve diversity, demanding money is like eamon ryan driving a 2ltr people carrier

Lots of things are expensive if a farmer is on the wrong side of unequal CAP funding.

wrangler

Capercaillie wrote: »

True it ticks the boxes, money gets paid and the fact the scheme does not really benefit biodiversity is irrelevant to IFA/DAFM. It's ironic when IFA/DAFM whine about the general public increasing slate conventional agriculture in Ireland, when they do all they can to gut environmental schemes which might reverse the declines.. .

Worry about inside our gates and f..k the rest is my mottoo
IFA are the only organization driving environmental schemes , you won't get funding if it hasn't that twist. 200m GLAS payout in 2018,they must be getting something rightt

yosemitesam1

wrangler wrote: »

If farmers were bothered about improving diversity they wouldn't be looking for money to do it.
It's not expensive to improve diversity, demanding money is like eamon ryan driving a 2ltr people carrier

You don't seem to get that the money for nothing will be cut going forward no matter what IFA say. Attaching payments to improving biodiversity and cutting intensity is the only way to safeguard money for farmers going forward. It can be a positive thing for the majority of farmers so why are they so eager to bury their head in the sand

Reggie.

See Leo is to resign tonight with no one to take up the mantle

wrangler

CHOPS01 wrote: »

Have often thought about this. Since I took on the home plot here which is 40acres I have done a nice bit of tidying up etc. It's how I always envisaged how a farm should look/be run probably because that being seen to be a good farmer. As it is my numbers are small but building each year.
Would actually like to see a time when less is more and it is acceptable have the place half wild looking and small stock numbers.
I suppose a lot of us are sheep waiting to see what the other does and then follow.

I've really tidied up here too.been at it since we thought of winding down. really looks well, not done because of diversity though.
We sowed a km of hedging internally in ten acres.It's in 6 divisions, all paddocks surrounded by whitethorn hedging trimmed annually. the new village bypass overlooks the ten acres so gets plenty of comments

wrangler

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

You don't seem to get that the money for nothing will be cut going forward no matter what IFA say. Attaching payments to improving biodiversity and cutting intensity is the only way to safeguard money for farmers going forward. It can be a positive thing for the majority of farmers so why are they so eager to bury their head in the sand

All your arguments were around for the last CAP reform too
You'll find IFA'll follow the money, first priority is to maximize the budget.
Dept ag distributed it the last time. It seems EU will have more Ts andCs this time

K.G.

But isnt time for the single farm payment to go anyway or at least restarted to a date that in some way reflects the people that are farming today .lads making money out work they did 20 years ago.the only way we can justify any subsidies nowadays is climate change

_Brian

wrangler wrote: »

All your arguments were around for the last CAP reform too
You'll find IFA'll follow the money, first priority is to maximize the budget.
Dept ag distributed it the last time. It seems EU will have more Ts andCs this time

By the IFA following the money do you refer to the top lads increasing their wages while running a €1.5 million deficit, with lads like that gorging at the trough of easy money it’s hard to trust them about much financial wise. And that doesn’t include the handy money for lads on the jollies.

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/ifas-financial-status-comes-under-scrutiny-at-agm/

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

By the IFA following the money do you refer to the top lads increasing their wages while running a €1.5 million deficit, with lads like that gorging at the trough of easy money it’s hard to trust them about much financial wise. And that doesn’t include the handy money for lads on the jollies.

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/ifas-financial-status-comes-under-scrutiny-at-agm/

Well f... off so, are you even a member. I doubt it.
Pathetic begrudgery is pulling down beef plan same as IFA
IFA is better off without such pettiness
I'd spend more on night out than my ifa membership FFS

wrangler

No more feckin ''convergence'' this year , payment same as last year. yippee.
Farmers leasing my entitlements will be delighted too

wrangler

_Brian wrote: »

By the IFA following the money do you refer to the top lads increasing their wages while running a €1.5 million deficit, with lads like that gorging at the trough of easy money it’s hard to trust them about much financial wise. And that doesn’t include the handy money for lads on the jollies.

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/ifas-financial-status-comes-under-scrutiny-at-agm/

Your sad accusations would be similar to me accusing ali farmers of killing spare calves (did someone mention even clingfilm) even lump hammers

''Tarring everyone with the one brush'' I think it's called, do you do much tarring
Here's a link for you
https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/dairy/article38738497.ece

declanflynn

wrangler wrote: »

Well f... off so, are you even a member. I doubt it.
Pathetic begrudgery is pulling down beef plan same as IFA
IFA is better off without such pettiness
I'd spend more on night out than my ifa membership FFS

why do you think a lot of farmers think the IFA are useless?

wrangler

declanflynn wrote: »

why do you think a lot of farmers think the IFA are useless?

Farming is dying so IFA is blamed, or teagasc or bord bia. nothing about their own decision to farm. I regret every day that i farmed but wouldn't be laying off blame like some.
No Irish organisation is going to change the European price of beef yet anyone that tries gets the same **** from farmers.
I worked with IFA to be able to put my case straight to politicians, there's no doubt it was good experience. even entertained in irish embassies around the world,where would you get it.
It'll be farmers loss if they let it go but I'm afraid ''authors of their own demise''again. They don't attend meetings to talk out their ideas yet say they're ignored, do they expect home visits
IFA took in €16m last year . the IFA delivered BEAM SCHEME alone brought in 80m.
Same with 200m paid in 2018 from glas.
Either the civil service or IFA is delivering our schemes...... Yes, that's the same civil service that's building the childrens hospital ..... go figure
I've a very average size farm and have done very well in the last 30 years for the size of my farm, but for IFA I wouldn't have.

Birdnuts

wrangler wrote: »

Farming is dying so IFA is blamed, or teagasc or bord bia. nothing about their own decision to farm. I regret every day that i farmed but wouldn't be laying off blame like some.
No Irish organisation is going to change the European price of beef yet anyone that tries gets the same **** from farmers.
I worked with IFA to be able to put my case straight to politicians, there's no doubt it was good experience. even entertained in irish embassies around the world,where would you get it.
It'll be farmers loss if they let it go but I'm afraid ''authors of their own demise''again. They don't attend meetings to talk out their ideas yet say they're ignored, do they expect home visits
IFA took in €16m last year . the IFA delivered BEAM SCHEME alone brought in 80m.
Same with 200m paid in 2018 from glas.
Either the civil service or IFA is delivering our schemes...... Yes, that's the same civil service that's building the childrens hospital ..... go figure
I've a very average size farm and have done very well in the last 30 years for the size of my farm, but for IFA I wouldn't have.

IFA need to decide what farmers they want to represent - they can't stand in the way of convergence or reform of agri-environment schemes etc. and pretend they represent smaller farmers in marginal areas etc. At least be honest with people and nail your flag officially to those behind factory farms, corporations etc. which concurs with your current policy positions

wrangler

Birdnuts wrote: »

IFA need to decide what farmers they want to represent - they can't stand in the way of convergence or reform of agri-environment schemes etc. and pretend they represent smaller farmers in marginal areas etc. At least be honest with people and nail your flag officially to those behind factory farms, corporations etc. which concurs with your current policy positions

Those that decide policy are elected reps. luck of the vote so. democracy etc etc etc, No one will change that. it's democracy.
Being too lazy to be involved is a great way to let policy go against you, you can't elect someone and then tell them how to think,

_Brian

Birdnuts wrote: »

IFA need to decide what farmers they want to represent - they can't stand in the way of convergence or reform of agri-environment schemes etc. and pretend they represent smaller farmers in marginal areas etc. At least be honest with people and nail your flag officially to those behind factory farms, corporations etc. which concurs with your current policy positions

You out the situation more concise than I could.

Many small farmers who were hardline IFA supporters are disillusioned with the organisation. Massive salaries and expenses, spending more than revenue, yet they think it’s acceptable to raise subs to keep wage increases going.

That behaviour plus the relentless supporting of farms in high direct bps is driving lads away in droves. Many are of the belief that corporations are lining the pockets of IFA brass to push things in a particular direction.

The IFA are faulterimg for the same reason as the outgoing FG government, they have aligned themselves with the needs of the wealthy farmers and are living in a bubble compared to the lives of actual ordinary farmers on the ground.

There is an opportunity now for the IFA to support a new direct payment system that would be fairer, a clean sheet for all, support biodiversity measures and see some money redistribution to smaller marginal farms. But the won’t.