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

Connemara Farmer · 11-11-2014 12:07am #1

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 · 11-11-2014 12:14am

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 · 11-11-2014 12:25am

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 · 11-11-2014 10:36am

Wires crossed somewhere as nothing in indo.

Connemara Farmer · 12-11-2014 9:57am

Right then, here we are!

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

Connemara Farmer · 13-11-2014 12:02pm

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

Birdnuts · 13-11-2014 1:18pm

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 · 13-11-2014 1:20pm

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 · 13-11-2014 5:09pm

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 · 21-11-2014 3:12am

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 · 21-11-2014 9:14am

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 · 21-11-2014 9:51am

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 · 21-11-2014 10:02am

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 · 21-11-2014 10:25am

Any details

Connemara Farmer · 21-11-2014 10:39am

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 · 21-11-2014 10:52am

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 · 21-11-2014 10:54am

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 · 21-11-2014 10:57am

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 · 21-11-2014 10:59am

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 · 21-11-2014 11:02am

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 · 21-11-2014 11:03am

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 · 21-11-2014 11:05am

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 · 21-11-2014 11:08am

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 · 21-11-2014 11:10am

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 · 21-11-2014 11:13am

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 · 21-11-2014 11:14am

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 · 21-11-2014 11:18am

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 · 21-11-2014 11:24am

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 · 21-11-2014 11:36am

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 · 21-11-2014 11:38am

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 · 21-11-2014 11:40am

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:

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

Comments