Minister Coveney confirms that there will be no new AEOS scheme for farmers

Chiliroses

johngalway wrote: »

Well now in fairness it will, I know plenty of people who'd happily clean a river out of fish if they knew there were no bailiffs around. There's others then that'd happily dump any ould ****e in a river just to be rid of it.

There's a balance to be struck, where it is I don't know.

I didn't realise there were so many people around the country that would go out of their way to cause pollution in our rivers. Seems to be grand down where I live, still I suppose ur right about people illegally fishing, some people would take the shirt off ur back if it was free.. Ridiculous like

rancher

Pharaoh1 wrote: »

I think on point 2 it is fair to say that the IFA have made no attempt to distinguish between active farmers and high SFP receipients.

There are many very active farmers with no SFP like those who bought land in the last ten years where the seller stacked entitlements on the remainder of their own farm.
Equally there are many in receipt of substantial SFP who are not that active twelve years on - guys who rented sheds and packed them with any sort of male cattle for example.
There are a few more near me who earned their SFP on large numbers of cattle but have switched entirely to cereal farming for an easier life (and who can blame them) with contractors doing all the work while they direct operations from the sofa.

IFA trot out a simplistic line - those with high SFP are active and productive farmers and their SFP should be preserved. Many undoubtedly are active and productive, but not all.

They say it is unacceptable that someone with a high SFP could lose 20% of their payment but if the loss of REPS cuts a farmer's income in half I don't hear much of an outcry. I say this as an IFA member.

Could anyone tell me if it is or could have been possible for the govt to modulate/reduce the higher SFP payments and divert the money into some sort of ongoing REPS scheme or is this completely EU controlled and are modulations uniformly applied across the EU?

Press release 27 april
IFA President John Bryan said the Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney needs to be stronger in defending low-income farmers by securing a meaningful AEOS scheme in 2012 for the thousands of farmers who depend greatly on agri-environment payments for their income.
“Does the Minister not realise that the loss of REPS3 will represent a reduction of up to 50% in net incomes for many of the farmers affected? No other sector is being let down so hard, and the Minister needs to deliver a meaningful AEOS scheme if the so-called social solidarity is to mean anything for farm families.”


Also county officers met local politicians repeatedly since the closing of reps
Don't think any of us are that gullible as to believe all high SFP earners are active farmers, it's not up to us to distinguish them.

JohnBoy

Pharaoh1 wrote: »

IFA trot out a simplistic line - those with high SFP are active and productive farmers and their SFP should be preserved. Many undoubtedly are active and productive, but not all.

I agree, I get really really annoyed every time the IFA equate a large SFP to productive farmers.

The size of a farmers SFP bears no relationship to their productivity.

It is related to two very simple factors.

1) the level of entitlement trading done by the farmer.

2) the level of subsidies received 10 years ago.

I have no problem with these things, that's the way the system was setup, but to equate either of them with a farm's current productivity is ludicrous.

Pharaoh1

rancher wrote: »

Press release 27 april
IFA President John Bryan said the Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney needs to be stronger in defending low-income farmers by securing a meaningful AEOS scheme in 2012 for the thousands of farmers who depend greatly on agri-environment payments for their income.
“Does the Minister not realise that the loss of REPS3 will represent a reduction of up to 50% in net incomes for many of the farmers affected? No other sector is being let down so hard, and the Minister needs to deliver a meaningful AEOS scheme if the so-called social solidarity is to mean anything for farm families.”


Also county officers met local politicians repeatedly since the closing of reps
Don't think any of us are that gullible as to believe all high SFP earners are active farmers, it's not up to us to distinguish them.

Thats fair enough and I have seen other comments in the press from John Bryan calling for an AEOS scheme for those exiting REPS. I just don't get a sense that it is a hugely important issue in the way that the SFP is.

At the end of the day the abolition of REPS happened nearly three years ago and the AEOS was never even remotely comparable. I wouldn't even regard it as an income support as farmers were only really being reimbursed for their expenditure on the scheme.
Ironically if the greening element of the new CAP is as large as is hinted then we may see a REPS type element becoming more important than ever for farm incomes.

rancher

Pharaoh1 wrote: »

Thats fair enough and I have seen other comments in the press from John Bryan calling for an AEOS scheme for those exiting REPS. I just don't get a sense that it is a hugely important issue in the way that the SFP is.

At the end of the day the abolition of REPS happened nearly three years ago and the AEOS was never even remotely comparable. I wouldn't even regard it as an income support as farmers were only really being reimbursed for their expenditure on the scheme.
Ironically if the greening element of the new CAP is as large as is hinted then we may see a REPS type element becoming more important than ever for farm incomes.

Hope you're right, at my age a reps style SFP would suit me fine. The last thing I need is a production based SFP

LostCovey

The Sunday Independent agenda, as it has been called on this thread is becoming very prevalent.

It's very easy sling mud at someone else, and not look at our own house - the whole SFP edifice is highly questionable - and if you don't believe me, try telling anybody outside farming about a scheme where you can get guaranteed fixed annual payments by "buying entitlements".

It is not beyond criticism.

Yes there is apparently no way of sacking a bad teacher, but we all know plenty of bad farmers (not bad people, just bad at farming) who get a big fat single farm payment.

Yes the SFP in general does not go into a bank vault, it gets spent and everybody gets a bit, but the same applies to the teachers salary too.

Its not a perfect system, but the constant bickering of public vs private sector must be music to the ears of the people who wrecked the economy.

While we are squabbling they are laughing their heads off.

MaxPower131

Excellent post Lostcovey

theaceofspies

LostCovey wrote: »

The Sunday Independent agenda, as it has been called on this thread is becoming very prevalent.

It's very easy sling mud at someone else, and not look at our own house - the whole SFP edifice is highly questionable - and if you don't believe me, try telling anybody outside farming about a scheme where you can get guaranteed fixed annual payments by "buying entitlements".

It is not beyond criticism.

Yes there is apparently no way of sacking a bad teacher, but we all know plenty of bad farmers (not bad people, just bad at farming) who get a big fat single farm payment.

Yes the SFP in general does not go into a bank vault, it gets spent and everybody gets a bit, but the same applies to the teachers salary too.

Its not a perfect system, but the constant bickering of public vs private sector must be music to the ears of the people who wrecked the economy.

While we are squabbling they are laughing their heads off.

Personally I don't buy the papers - you need only look to the UK to see the influence they have there - make up my own mind by what I see and right now I see a country rotting from Syphilis in it's grave. Of course everybody knows about the banks and developers but I firmly believe (have worked in Public sector) that the general public would be stupified if they knew of the waste that goes on with their taxable contributions. Crucially if the public sector regulator had done it's job we wouldn't "Be where we are". This country cannot afford Celtic Tiger Benchmarking Mark II to continue. Significantly the only house buyers out there right now are public sector retirees walking into estate agents with the "cash" lump sums and buying houses - go figure! What are all these people in the Department going to be doing when the reliefs are gone? They'll still be there thats what earning increments! working in a pseudo union-political vacuum. All the while the IFA are starting to look like Dougal in Father Ted; "Whatever Jack Says".

MaxPower131

theaceofspies wrote: »

Personally I don't buy the papers - you need only look to the UK to see the influence they have there - make up my own mind by what I see and right now I see a country rotting from Syphilis in it's grave. Of course everybody knows about the banks and developers but I firmly believe (have worked in Public sector) that the general public would be stupified if they knew of the waste that goes on with their taxable contributions. Crucially if the public sector regulator had done it's job we wouldn't "Be where we are". This country cannot afford Celtic Tiger Benchmarking Mark II to continue. Significantly the only house buyers out there right now are public sector retirees walking into estate agents with the "cash" lump sums and buying houses - go figure! What are all these people in the Department going to be doing when the reliefs are gone? They'll still be there thats what earning increments! working in a pseudo union-political vacuum. All the while the IFA are starting to look like Dougal in Father Ted; "Whatever Jack Says".

Believe it or not from what I've heard from people in the business its farmers are actually the biggest cash buyers of property particularly at the Allsop sales. Far too cute to get caught in bank shares and all that:D We are of course talking about a tiny minority here.

Le Henry

slightly off topic here, but its in relation to grants, if you have a bog on your farm holding can you claim grant for wildlife conservation??.any feedback would be appreciated!!..

Farmer Pudsey

rancher wrote: »

IFA have two aims
1. To maintain the budget.
2.To target subsidies at active farmers, no more sofa farmers.
They will not lobby to reduce any members SFP

I am not askng them to lobby to reduce anybody's SFP however from what I see there main aim is to preserve the structure as is no matter what the cost. I do not see them lobbying to target subsidies at active farmers. The seem to equate high SFP with the most active farmers which may not be true.

Many calf rearers who sold cattle without drawing subs were badly stung by the last target years. Also farmers who slaughtered a lot of cattle 2000-2002 have huge SFP which may bear little or no relation to their present farming enterprise and if they are still active finishers they may use it to sudsdise their continual cattle finishing enterprise.

Alot of sucklers farmers along the west of ireland who had to sell there weanling's due to high winter costs were disadvantaged by the way the SFP was distributed as part of the male weanling value was his punch value.
By the way I am an IFA member as well

theaceofspies

http://www.galwaynews.ie/25604-coveney-gives-connemara-farmers-short-end-stick
Wonder who is whispering in your ear Mr. Coveney as you drive the rusted nail into the coffin of the small farmer.

rancher

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

I am not askng them to lobby to reduce anybody's SFP however from what I see there main aim is to preserve the structure as is no matter what the cost. I do not see them lobbying to target subsidies at active farmers. The seem to equate high SFP with the most active farmers which may not be true.

Many calf rearers who sold cattle without drawing subs were badly stung by the last target years. Also farmers who slaughtered a lot of cattle 2000-2002 have huge SFP which may bear little or no relation to their present farming enterprise and if they are still active finishers they may use it to sudsdise their continual cattle finishing enterprise.

Alot of sucklers farmers along the west of ireland who had to sell there weanling's due to high winter costs were disadvantaged by the way the SFP was distributed as part of the male weanling value was his punch value.
By the way I am an IFA member as well

Then you should know that this is our policy.......
John Bryan said, “Within the next 12 to 18 months, it is expected the latest reform of the CAP will be agreed. It is critical for Irish agriculture and the Irish economy that a strong, fully-funded CAP is negotiated, which maintains our existing funding envelope and provides flexibility to direct support towards active farmers in order to underpin agricultural production and sustain the 300,000 jobs dependent on the sector.”

Any thing different would be divisive

rancher

theaceofspies wrote: »

http://www.galwaynews.ie/25604-coveney-gives-connemara-farmers-short-end-stick
Wonder who is whispering in your ear Mr. Coveney as you drive the rusted nail into the coffin of the small farmer.

Think you better toddle off to the conspiracy theories forum