Cap reform convergence

wrangler · 24-06-2021 09:09PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think anyone is surprised farmer x want's to keep their level of public money. However, they need to seriously up their argument. That's what most have a problem with I reckon.

In the previous CAP it was "Oh those on highest entitlement values are the most productive", ahm no, Department of Agriculture figures disproved that, albeit too late in the day that time.

Then, "Oh won't someone think of those on high value entitlements but low # of hectares", wait, what's that sound? It's ALL the other farm orgs apart from INHFA throwing exactly those farmers under the bus at the first available opportunity being against CRISS/Front loading.

Then, and probably the most useless argument in the history of the world, that of the "commercial farmer", that most successful of business personality s/he needs both hands in the public purse to make his poor system choice add up.

I'm awaiting the next installment from the "My brother is bigger than your brother" book of playground tiffs with baited breath.

You claim that 20% get 80% of the money and the amount of the budget since has been based on the amount that was achieved at decoupling....... that means that 20% are responsible for getting Ireland nearly a billion of the budget.
Irish agriculture would be a sad outfit if we were depending on those that didn't bother and that billion annually wasn't coming for the last twenty years.
Belittling any arguments against you as you are, the joke is on you. boy .
Those arguments won the last round for us thankfully.
Forty years ago those west of the Shannon were hauling in the subsidies for every little thing and no one lobbied to take it off them. Possibly the same is still true. This is all only begrudgery and you know it

kevthegaff · 24-06-2021 09:17PM

I'm below the average payment on a hilly dairy farm, I'll be happy if my payment stays the same

wrangler · 24-06-2021 09:24PM

kevthegaff wrote: »

I'm below the average payment on a hilly dairy farm, I'll be happy if my payment stays the same

It should if the average doesn't reduce, there'll be more pulling out of the cake if it goes the way that Herd is lobbying for, I could see a substantial reduction in the average payment.

Bass Reeves · 24-06-2021 09:29PM

wrangler wrote: »

You claim that 20% get 80% of the money and the amount of the budget since has been based on the amount that was achieved at decoupling....... that means that 20% are responsible for getting Ireland nearly a billion of the budget.
Irish agriculture would be a sad outfit if we were depending on those that didn't bother and that billion annually wasn't coming for the last twenty years.
Belittling any arguments against you as you are, the joke is on you. boy .
Those arguments won the last round for us thankfully.
Forty years ago those west of the Shannon were hauling in the subsidies for every little thing and no one lobbied to take it off them. Possibly the same is still true. This is all only begrudgery and you know it

It was immaterial who collected the payments they were created by the system. Most lads with high payments were finishers who were collecting bullock premia and slaughter premia. The payments were often created by farmers that couldnot/did not collect them.

West of the Shannon and all along the West coast was suckler country. Most lads could not keep the calves over the winter because of poorer land and long winters. Instead they sold bull weanlings with nearly 500 euro of punches on them. Within 2-3 years of Premia the value of there bulls reduced from 7-800 euro 4-500 euro. I saw one economist write that it was the biggest transfer of income out of the west of Ireland since the famine

wrangler · 24-06-2021 09:32PM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It was immaterial who collected the payments they were created by the system. Most lads with high payments were finishers who were collecting bullock premia and slaughter premia. The payments were often created by farmers that couldnot/did not collect them.

West of the Shannon and all along the West coast was suckler country. Most lads could not keep the calves over the winter because of poorer land and long winters. Instead they sold bull weanlings with nearly 500 euro of punches on them. Within 2-3 years of Premia the value of there bulls reduced from 7-800 euro 4-500 euro. I saw one economist write that it was the biggest transfer of income out of the west of Ireland since the famine

I knew plenty that just laughed at the idea of having to bother applying when they could get it in the ring anyway.
You can be too cute as well

24-06-2021 10:22PM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It was immaterial who collected the payments they were created by the system. Most lads with high payments were finishers who were collecting bullock premia and slaughter premia. The payments were often created by farmers that couldnot/did not collect them.

West of the Shannon and all along the West coast was suckler country. Most lads could not keep the calves over the winter because of poorer land and long winters. Instead they sold bull weanlings with nearly 500 euro of punches on them. Within 2-3 years of Premia the value of there bulls reduced from 7-800 euro 4-500 euro. I saw one economist write that it was the biggest transfer of income out of the west of Ireland since the famine

Wranglers just flailing at this stage. He's reverted to an already disproved argument, that those on high value entitlements are most productive. Bass is correct, if we were across the water it might have been described as a stratified system where stock, and the paper attached to them, moved within the country to be finished.

The latest available figures on entitlement value / LU/HA from the Department of Agriculture read as follows, they're from 2018, one might question WHY 2018 are the last available figures:

€0-100 / 0.75 LU/HA
€100-200 / 1.19 LU/HA
€200-300 / 1.60 LU/HA
€300-400 / 1.77 LU/HA
€400-600 / 1.7 LU/HA
€600-800 / 1.60 LU/HA
€800-1000 / 1.26 LU/HA
Over €1000 / 1.18 LU/HA

This clearly shows there's no, zero, zilch, nada, zippidy do, relationship between high productivity and high entitlement value. From €200-800 are basically the same in LU terms.

If we had the non existent magic money tree IFA solution of upwards only convergence, seeing as Irelands average payment is so close to the EU average payment today, Irelands average payment would increase beyond the EU average.

Then, Ireland would have to forfeit a % of our CAP budget as Germany, The Netherlands, and Malta are having to do in a process called External Convergence.

Wrangler talks about our budget. It is those who have been on below average entitlement values who have protected above average entitlement holders from External Convergence. You're welcome.

These are just some reasons why the "arguments" are so feeble, and the ould trout of begrudgery is wheeled out. The position is simply indefensible.

That also goes for Greening/Eco Scheme redistribution, where at least in grassland 30% of the above payments were being paid to farmers for doing the exact same work, 30% of €0-100 and 30% of Over €1000, for the same work.

Now is an opportunity to re-balance the system. I have no doubt but it won't all be achieved this time but I sure hope a big chunk of it is.

wrangler · 24-06-2021 10:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Wranglers just flailing at this stage. He's reverted to an already disproved argument, that those on high value entitlements are most productive. Bass is correct, if we were across the water it might have been described as a stratified system where stock, and the paper attached to them, moved within the country to be finished.

The latest available figures on entitlement value / LU/HA from the Department of Agriculture read as follows, they're from 2018, one might question WHY 2018 are the last available figures:

€0-100 / 0.75 LU/HA
€100-200 / 1.19 LU/HA
€200-300 / 1.60 LU/HA
€300-400 / 1.77 LU/HA
€400-600 / 1.7 LU/HA
€600-800 / 1.60 LU/HA
€800-1000 / 1.26 LU/HA
Over €1000 / 1.18 LU/HA

This clearly shows there's no, zero, zilch, nada, zippidy do, relationship between high productivity and high entitlement value. From €200-800 are basically the same in LU terms.

If we had the non existent magic money tree IFA solution of upwards only convergence, seeing as Irelands average payment is so close to the EU average payment today, Irelands average payment would increase beyond the EU average.

Then, Ireland would have to forfeit a % of our CAP budget as Germany, The Netherlands, and Malta are having to do in a process called External Convergence.

Wrangler talks about our budget. It is those who have been on below average entitlement values who have protected above average entitlement holders from External Convergence. You're welcome.

These are just some reasons why the "arguments" are so feeble, and the ould trout of begrudgery is wheeled out. The position is simply indefensible.

That also goes for Greening/Eco Scheme redistribution, where at least in grassland 30% of the above payments were being paid to farmers for doing the exact same work, 30% of €0-100 and 30% of Over €1000, for the same work.

Now is an opportunity to re-balance the system. I have no doubt but it won't all be achieved this time but I sure hope a big chunk of it is.

Arguements might be feeble but they won for us the last time and god knows you had plenty of feeble lobbyists on your side. Marian harkin , donie shine.
etc I met them all, i'm used to teh likes of them
Only today I was organising another income stream from the farm, doing a planning application, also have a pension thanks to Ray mcsharry, CAP means so littlle to me now, it's a joke.
Farmers will give you no thanks for doing the Holy Joe, the greening got by the EU, do you think that I ever believed it was enough environmentally but it got approved so what the hell. I do what I think is enough for the environment and the inspections , even from european vets with 1300 sheep on the farm.
No doubt you'll all have your dole from now on but I got enough

24-06-2021 11:01PM

wrangler wrote: »

Arguements might be feeble but they won for us the last time and god knows you had plenty of feeble lobbyists on your side. Marian harkin , donie shine.
etc I met them all, i'm used to teh likes of them
Only today I was organising another income stream, CAP means so littlle to me now, it's a joke.
Farmers will give you no thanks for doing the Holy Joe, the greening got by the EU, do you think that I ever believed it was enough environmentally but it got approved so what the hell. I do what I think is enough for the environment and the inspections , even from european vets with 1300 sheep on the farm.
No doubt you'll all have your dole from now on but I got enough

It's rich how it's the dole now someone else might get a taste. From the figures I've discussed with my representatives my payment will decrease from todays value if CRISS is implemented fairly, which I hope it is.

Some of us do this because it's the right thing to do, not to get pats on the back. It's that perspective thing again.

As for feeble politicians, I smile when I hear certain names being cursed. Marian facilitated our first official meeting in Brussels. Ming has been invaluable. There are many others also but this isn't the oscars, and they don't do it for the thanks of it either - they get more abuse from doing it than anything. But they still do it, because it's the right thing to do.

Bass Reeves · 25-06-2021 06:54AM

Another battle this time and it will be fought within the country will be the wetland and land that is slightly wooded or slightly overgrown. Much of this had to be removed from the payment system or lads lost entitlements. The present thinking within the department us that this shod not automatically get entitlements.

I had to removes an area with reeds last time. I think at the very least if you bring that back into the system you existing payment should be spread over it to reduce your average payment. Many lads had payments effected this way

wrangler · 25-06-2021 07:05AM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Another battle this time and it will be fought within the country will be the wetland and land that is slightly wooded or slightly overgrown. Much of this had to be removed from the payment system or lads lost entitlements. The present thinking within the department us that this shod not automatically get entitlements.

I had to removes an area with reeds last time. I think at the very least if you bring that back into the system you existing payment should be spread over it to reduce your average payment. Many lads had payments effected this way

EU did an audit and some farmers were practically fraudulent in their claims, so hence then the clean sweep of any thing even vaguely non compliant. The Irish Government then came after the individual farmers that transgressed whereas northern Ireland penalised a bit off all farmers.which wasn't right or fair.
Some penalties went back over ten years plus, I don't think the farmers paid the full penalty anywhere.

Bass Reeves · 25-06-2021 07:17AM

wrangler wrote: »

EU did an audit and some farmers were practically fraudulent in their claims, so hence then the clean sweep of any thing even vaguely non compliant. The Irish Government then came after the individual farmers that transgressed whereas northern Ireland penalised a bit off all farmers.which wasn't right or fair.
Some penalties went back over ten years plus, I don't think the farmers paid the full penalty anywhere.

Often the original entitlements were build up with the land in this condition. Take mountain farms. Pre 2002 there was no removal of land for rock outcrops. In the late noughties this became an issue. I think a lot of these ineligible area's were created by the department to reduce the effect of convergence

wrangler · 25-06-2021 07:31AM

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Often the original entitlements were build up with the land in this condition. Take mountain farms. Pre 2002 there was no removal of land for rock outcrops. In the late noughties this became an issue. I think a lot of these ineligible area's were created by the department to reduce the effect of convergence

That's just conspiracy talk, EU triggered the cleanup with their audit and with threats of €150m fines if farmers didn't do it right. Department eventually got the fines cut back by half.

kevthegaff · 25-06-2021 08:10AM

I could have around 10 acres of furze and rough ground. Should I leave or clear for the new system

wrangler · 25-06-2021 08:13AM

kevthegaff wrote: »

I could have around 10 acres of furze and rough ground. Should I leave or clear for the new system

Sure it looks like it'll be allowed in the new Ts and Cs. you should wait at least, it wouldn't take long to clear

Dinzee Conlee · 25-06-2021 09:05AM

kevthegaff wrote: »

I could have around 10 acres of furze and rough ground. Should I leave or clear for the new system

I'd be the same or maybe even more under bushes and the like...

But what does this mean now? Does it mean instead of Xha for my BPS application, I will have X+3?

Seems like that would be a mess... You'd imagine they will stick with what they have now in terms of number of Ha, but just not penalise for any encroachment or scrub going forward...

alps · 25-06-2021 09:10AM

Deleted User wrote: »

€0-100 / 0.75 LU/HA
€100-200 / 1.19 LU/HA
€200-300 / 1.60 LU/HA
€300-400 / 1.77 LU/HA
€400-600 / 1.7 LU/HA
€600-800 / 1.60 LU/HA
€800-1000 / 1.26 LU/HA
Over €1000 / 1.18 LU/HA

.

For your arguement to hold any sway, you should have included the numbers of farmers in each group. Your chart indicates that the vast majority of stock are on farms that fit beyween the 2/300 to 6/800 ranges...

ALL of these bar these who return the payment to the landlord, will loose their shirt. This reduction in payment should have corresponded with a legislated increase in farm gate prices..

If CAP is to be linked to any other parameter than product, protection for those who produce the product in some other way is paramount.

_Brian · 25-06-2021 09:15AM

alps wrote: »

For your arguement to hold any sway, you should have included the numbers of farmers in each group. Your chart indicates that the vast majority of stock are on farms that fit beyween the 2/300 to 6/800 ranges...

ALL of these bar these who return the payment to the landlord, will loose their shirt. This reduction in payment should have corresponded with a legislated increase in farm gate prices..

If CAP is to be linked to any other parameter than product, protection for those who produce the product in some other way is paramount.

Why must there be protection??

25-06-2021 09:27AM

alps wrote: »

For your arguement to hold any sway, you should have included the numbers of farmers in each group. Your chart indicates that the vast majority of stock are on farms that fit beyween the 2/300 to 6/800 ranges...

ALL of these bar these who return the payment to the landlord, will loose their shirt. This reduction in payment should have corresponded with a legislated increase in farm gate prices..

If CAP is to be linked to any other parameter than product, protection for those who produce the product in some other way is paramount.

Sorry, why should the public hold the can yet again for the failings of private enterprise? Wasn't it enough to stuff cash into the bankers pockets. When this model was developed, Frans Fischler said clearly, the farm pays for the farm, the sfp does not. It's not the taxpayers fault individuals were reckless with the farming systems they voluntarily adopted.

alps · 25-06-2021 09:28AM

_Brian wrote: »

Why must there be protection??

Without it food producers will be like teenagers in a scout hall at the mercy of an unregulated beast...

Are you honestly suggesting that farms that rely on CAP for more than 100% of their income, will survive without a lift in product prices? Are you suggesting that a lift in product prices will happen without legislation or protection?

25-06-2021 09:30AM

I see a deal has been done........

Dinzee Conlee · 25-06-2021 09:32AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I see a deal has been done........

Have you a link Herd?

Ah, I just see this
https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/cap-agreement-on-key-points-reached/

_Brian · 25-06-2021 09:43AM

alps wrote: »

Without it food producers will be like teenagers in a scout hall at the mercy of an unregulated beast...

Are you honestly suggesting that farms that rely on CAP for more than 100% of their income, will survive without a lift in product prices? Are you suggesting that a lift in product prices will happen without legislation or protection?

Product prices will do what the market dictates.
If these lads “loose their shirt” they will exit the business or scale back significantly causing a rise in gate prices by itself, thus solving the problem.

The notion that these farms with large legacy payments couldn’t possible do without is a hollow argument amd is really just a means of protecting the old boys club.

For clarity convergence is taking money from our payment so I’m not just looking for more payments. It’s just a ridiculous system we’re operating.

alps · 25-06-2021 09:59AM

_Brian wrote: »

Product prices will do what the market dictates.
If these lads “loose their shirt” they will exit the business or scale back significantly causing a rise in gate prices by itself, thus solving the problem.

.

Not for the farmers involved. I couldn't be as unsympathetic as yourself..

wrangler · 25-06-2021 10:04AM

alps wrote: »

Not for the farmers involved. I couldn't be as unsympathetic as yourself..

As I've said before this will benefit dairy farmers, they'll definitely have a better class of skiing holiday in the dry period now

_Brian · 25-06-2021 10:05AM

alps wrote: »

Not for the farmers involved. I couldn't be as unsympathetic as yourself..

Practical not unsympathetic.
These farms have had significantly above average payments of public money, it’s not theirs and there should be no long term feeling of entitlement to it either, that’s the mistake the system has created, lads feel entitled to it, ironic coming from a sector of society that often ridicules people on SW as having a sense of entitlement.

Dinzee Conlee · 25-06-2021 10:11AM

_Brian wrote: »

Practical not unsympathetic.
These farms have had significantly above average payments of public money, it’s not theirs and there should be no long term feeling of entitlement to it either, that’s the mistake the system has created, lads feel entitled to it, ironic coming from a sector of society that often ridicules people on SW as having a sense of entitlement.

I would agree Brian...

The fact they were called entitlements was terrible...

They are meant to be an income support, unrelated to production.

If we say they are they to support farm income, why should those who already have a large income need support?
We are saying there should be a cap put in place for those with SFP over 100k (or whatever the amount is)
Why should farmers who have an off farm income of over the same amount get the same BPS as those who do not?
Where is the justification for the income support here?

I know this is outside the scope of any changes being discussed now. But to me, its all tied up in the same thing...

wrangler · 25-06-2021 10:22AM

_Brian wrote: »

Practical not unsympathetic.
These farms have had significantly above average payments of public money, it’s not theirs and there should be no long term feeling of entitlement to it either, that’s the mistake the system has created, lads feel entitled to it, ironic coming from a sector of society that often ridicules people on SW as having a sense of entitlement.

Maybe above average payments but we're not wasting it like the public service.
Have you seen the Guards turning off the 999 calls and all we're getting is apologies.
Public service creating one scandal again while apologising for the previous one.
Yet we keep contributing to the waste, There is no doubt that the apperance of the countrry side has benefitted from those that took advantage of the system

There's no doubt this CAP will put good farmers under pressure and it'll be reflected in suicide figures.

25-06-2021 10:24AM

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I would agree Brian...

The fact they were called entitlements was terrible...

They are meant to be an income support, unrelated to production.

If we say they are they to support farm income, why should those who already have a large income need support?
We are saying there should be a cap put in place for those with SFP over 100k (or whatever the amount is)
Why should farmers who have an off farm income of over the same amount get the same BPS as those who do not?
Where is the justification for the income support here?

I know this is outside the scope of any changes being discussed now. But to me, its all tied up in the same thing...

What's stopping those farmers gaining a second income? It's a level choice playing field. I only farm but have no objection to those with other jobs, we all have the same 24 hours in a day.

Dinzee Conlee · 25-06-2021 10:35AM

Deleted User wrote: »

What's stopping those farmers gaining a second income? It's a level choice playing field. I only farm but have no objection to those with other jobs, we all have the same 24 hours in a day.

I am the opposite, I work off farm.

But why should the public purse support those who have a second income?

My understanding of the CAP is its a farm income support? Isn't this whole debate about fairness and redistributing of funds?

25-06-2021 10:38AM

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

I am the opposite, I work off farm.

But why should the public purse support those who have a second income?

My understanding of the CAP is its a farm income support? Isn't this whole debate about fairness and redistributing of funds?

Because they are adhering to the same set of ts&cs. The debate is about making the payment element fair for observing those terms.

Cap reform convergence

Comments