Article on Latest on CAP Reform

airneal

rancher wrote: »

You have this read so wrong, I was on the national livestock commitee in the nineties when decoupling was being discussed and the whole commitee was against decoupling ( except me) as was the National executive. There was huge effort put into opposing it. If there was people in IFA who knew what was coming they had a funny way of going on......suppose you're going to tell me it was some sort of reverse phsycology.
The farmer with the sheep/thistles is only getting about 3 grand but OCuiv will turn his life around at €200ha on 120 ha

Yes, but the guy who has 250 ewes on 150 ha or whatever, should'nt be screwed for farming. He/she still trying their best to make a living. They obviously love farming and want to maintain their land that was handed down through the generations!!

I mean local producer groups and travelling butchers are popping up everywhere now. Look at whats been done in wales/ england. These farmers are still producing, they don't right tax off by buying new tractors or putting up calf sheds with PVC windows.

Most farmers are lucky to have 4-5K profit from farming. Why should they loose out to factories and retailers? Its all wrong!

airneal

Another, new issue thats behind this facade, is that Irelands leading advisory service wants a model based on that in America. To have all dairy farmers in amalgamation/ partnerships and have one big Dairy. A legal mine hole for the dairy lads who go in partnerships!!

Thats the big issue been pushed at the moment and I don't think farmers up and down the land know about that!!

Does anyone in Ireland really want another monopoly, look where thats going to lead us!! Wait to 2015 and the milk quota's go! There will be fun then! The ground work is underway at present in that organisation!! Very very strongly....

I'm sure the top brass in the IFA are fully aware of this and this is partly the reason they're scrounging for scraps from the small farmer!!

I'm sorry folks, I'll say it, as I see it!!

They'd do the same for beef, only they know we good export cattle through the north, as opposed to dairying, where a lot of the milk is coming in from the north!!

You could'nt watch them.

Minister said nothing about the horse meat until he had to! Was it 3 weeks he knew about it!! He was like a shivering mouse!!

reilig

Manoffeeling wrote: »

http://www.politics.ie/forum/current-affairs/207619-will-there-split-ifa.html

Quoting Seanie Lemass

Most significant evidence is that IFA abandoned its national meetings on the reforms because the leadership line was being rejected.

They mounted a picket on Coveney's office today to detract attention from an FF meeting on CAP! Says it all really.

Conmaicne Mara

airneal wrote: »

If they want to increase their income they'l have to join an agri-environment scheme or produce !!

Standing by to be corrected on this, but as far as I'm aware there won't be any more AEOS or REPS type environmental schemes. As, under new SFP you will be required to keep land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition.

In effect, if there were to be a REPS/AEOS scheme running along side that, you would be getting paid on the double. That won't happen.

Conmaicne Mara

airneal wrote: »

Heres a question for everyone, does anyone know where the United Farmers Alliance are based? They have done talks in Donegal, but I cannot get a website or contact details for them!!

They have a website and a facebook page, Google them. As far as I remember from reading one or the other, they've been around a long time and were relaunched in the recent past. Something tells me Limerick or Clare would be as close to a base as you'd find, maybe I'm wrong.

rancher

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Standing by to be corrected on this, but as far as I'm aware there won't be any more AEOS or REPS type environmental schemes. As, under new SFP you will be required to keep land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition..

That rule was always in the terms and conditions even when there was REPS schemes in place

Conmaicne Mara

rancher wrote: »

That rule was always in the terms and conditions even when there was REPS schemes in place

There's rules in about pulling trailers properly a long time too but you still see it done wrong.

Anyhow, that is my understanding, that there won't be future Agri - Environmental schemes, but as I say I will leave room for the chance that I may be in error.

1chippy

I honestly dont know where i stand at the moment. i dont agree with the massive payments based on historical output, but neither do i agree with a lad who can buy scrub land for 1-2k an acre getting the same sfp as the lad who has to fight to get the repayments on ground at 10k . I know the lads in the west farm some impossible ground but if it goes to a flat rate payment its just the big money guys who can purchase sections of cheap ground and then let the eu pay for it.
Wheres the happy medium without being biased towards anyone. I really do believe that there is bound to be someone out there with a palatable resolution for everyone. Or is it just another case of the those with the best connections win again. I'm an ifa member but have been really questioning that lately.

Manoffeeling

reilig wrote: »

Quoting Seanie Lemass

How do you like the discussions over there? Are you a member?

ellewood

1chippy wrote: »

I honestly dont know where i stand at the moment. i dont agree with the massive payments based on historical output, but neither do i agree with a lad who can buy scrub land for 1-2k an acre getting the same sfp as the lad who has to fight to get the repayments on ground at 10k . I know the lads in the west farm some impossible ground but if it goes to a flat rate payment its just the big money guys who can purchase sections of cheap ground and then let the eu pay for it.
Wheres the happy medium without being biased towards anyone. I really do believe that there is bound to be someone out there with a palatable resolution for everyone. Or is it just another case of the those with the best connections win again. I'm an ifa member but have been really questioning that lately.

Agree with chippy there I can see why a lad or lassie with a payment of x dosent want to give any of it up to give it to someone else BUT I have 1 question for anyone like ifa ect pushing for status quo - For some one who has only started farming since the last CAP agreement that has no SFP is productive and profitable with a farm of whatever size whether full time or part time - should he/she still recieve no payment after this round or should they get a payment and if you think they should get a payment where should the money come from, as there is only a fixed sum in the pot and any one with a payment (big or small) dosent want to give up any of it to fund the payments of those that dont have any. opinions??

reilig

Manoffeeling wrote: »

How do you like the discussions over there? Are you a member?

No, not a member, just followed your link. I leave politics to politicans. I have no interest in crookedness whatsoever

Conmaicne Mara

The Twitter machine is busy this morning with CAP.

Manoffeeling

reilig wrote: »

No, not a member, just followed your link. I leave politics to politicans. I have no interest in crookedness whatsoever

The history forum is quite good. It's not all about politics, just like Boards is not all about skirting boards

Tipp Man

reilig wrote: »

I believe that it should. In the past, coastal land was farmed part-time while the farmers also fished. Fishing is gone now for the vast majority of farmers.

Haven't these farmers got as much rights to farm as someone in the Golden Vale? If not, why not?

I firmly believe that people should have the right to do whatever they want with their land (within reason obviously) and with their SFP - spend it as you wish

However how can anybody justify paying subsidy on a pure area based system with stocking rates of 0.5-1 LU per Hectare?? It is pure madness and an absolute joke to be honest. If that is all the land is capable of then surely it should be planted so that the Agriculture money can be put into agriculture

Without an element of incorporating stocking rates then quite frankly it is stupidity of the highest order

Tipp Man

ellewood wrote: »

Agree with chippy there I can see why a lad or lassie with a payment of x dosent want to give any of it up to give it to someone else BUT I have 1 question for anyone like ifa ect pushing for status quo - For some one who has only started farming since the last CAP agreement that has no SFP is productive and profitable with a farm of whatever size whether full time or part time - should he/she still recieve no payment after this round or should they get a payment and if you think they should get a payment where should the money come from, as there is only a fixed sum in the pot and any one with a payment (big or small) dosent want to give up any of it to fund the payments of those that dont have any. opinions??

National Reserve

freedominacup

Tipp Man wrote: »

Without an element of incorporating stocking rates then quite frankly it is stupidity of the highest order

But as soon as you put any link between SFP and production it leads to people farming the subs and ignoring the market. Farm policy should be farm policy and social policy should be social policy any attempt to marry the two leads to chaos.

whelan1

is anyone heading to dublin to the protest?

Tipp Man

freedominacup wrote: »

But as soon as you put any link between SFP and production it leads to people farming the subs and ignoring the market. Farm policy should be farm policy and social policy should be social policy any attempt to marry the two leads to chaos.

That is the kind of thinking from the early 2000's

The market is completely different today than it was 10-12 years ago.

The world needs food - and that need is going to increase rapidly in the next few years and decades

just to clarify also I said link the SFP to stocking rates - not to the individual animal

ellewood

Tipp Man wrote: »

National Reserve

They wont give you anything from the national reserve once youre already an active farmer before you apply!

Farmer Pudsey

Tipp Man wrote: »

I firmly believe that people should have the right to do whatever they want with their land (within reason obviously) and with their SFP - spend it as you wish

However how can anybody justify paying subsidy on a pure area based system with stocking rates of 0.5-1 LU per Hectare?? It is pure madness and an absolute joke to be honest. If that is all the land is capable of then surely it should be planted so that the Agriculture money can be put into agriculture

Without an element of incorporating stocking rates then quite frankly it is stupidity of the highest order

Tipp nobody wants the whole west coast a blanket of conifers and in reality some of this land is unsuitable for conifers either, There is also the issue that some of these farms cannot be planted for envoirmental purposes either.

It also depends on your farm I have seen good farmers along the west coast on less than 1LU/HA however it is there land bank that makes them productive. This is why there should be a cap on payments. No point in transfering superhigh payments from farmers that were finishers during the reference period to farmers with large landbanks along the west coast.

My own believe is that there sould be a payment relating to farming activity it could be referenced from 2010-2012 and used for the next 8-10 years or you could have a floating reference period. I do not believe that armchair farmers could abuse this system.

You could band it so that it would not be in the intrest of the majority to try to jump from one band to the next. This would work especially with greening and an envoirmental payment.

To be fair as DA is more often available along the west coast some sort of activity payment should be put in place. If you look at it most lads want farmers that are active now to recieve the payment not lads leaseing land or growing a load of hay on old meadows to sell.

Farmer Pudsey

Tipp Man wrote: »

National Reserve

The national reserve is a joke where SFP distributions is concerned. Unless you were in the reference years most only recieve small payments/HA and this is often tied accross all there land so that they cannot buy more to have a realistic level of payment. Also it is targeted at only certain farmers and terms and conditions make it unavailable to lots of new entrants.

Cran

I'm struggling to follow much of the logic here, seeing two fronts is that correct?

1. The 'keep it as is' group seem to be saying it has to be kept as cannot remove the rug from under people.
Yet nothing is mentioned about fairness, where is the fairness in one farmer on one side of ditch getting 10k and another exactly the same getting 60k just because of something done 20 years previous and maybe by a different person? Also how long does this continue - until the high SFP earners are happy/big enough that the lower sfp are all forced out by a false economy? Really confused on the the arguement on the status quo approach??

2. The second one is flat payments all round irrelevant of land quality and production.
Again don't see the fairness here as unfortunately for farmers in certain areas if subsidies didn't exist (and prices fair) you couldn't make a living from the same amount of land there as other areas and that really is the barometer.
I was told that the move towards narrowing of the SFP bands is based on a regionalised basis for Ireland, so would be 5/6 regions and not 1 overall Ireland approach. Is this not the case - as seems fairer?

Manoffeeling

whelan1 wrote: »

is anyone heading to dublin to the protest?

When is it? Is it for the big farmers or the small farmers?

whelan1

Manoffeeling wrote: »

When is it? Is it for the big farmers or the small farmers?

on now, they where finding it very hard to get people out sio i assume any type of farmer would do:D

reilig

Tipp Man wrote: »

However how can anybody justify paying subsidy on a pure area based system with stocking rates of 0.5-1 LU per Hectare?? It is pure madness and an absolute joke to be honest. If that is all the land is capable of then surely it should be planted so that the Agriculture money can be put into agriculture

Without an element of incorporating stocking rates then quite frankly it is stupidity of the highest order

I totally agree.

I am not an advocate of a flat based payment - I'm only advocating that payments be fair and be paid to productive farmers.

My post that you replied to above was a reply to a poster who said that these farmers along the west cost did not deserve a payment at all. I don't agree with this.

freedominacup

Tipp Man wrote: »

That is the kind of thinking from the early 2000's

The market is completely different today than it was 10-12 years ago.

The world needs food - and that need is going to increase rapidly in the next few years and decades

just to clarify also I said link the SFP to stocking rates - not to the individual animal

I totally agree with you second and third sentences but the third one was true 10 years ago also but we in the E.U. are 10 years behind the curve esp in milk production because of the systems we are arguing about. The thing that is different about the market now compared to 10 years ago is the type of products in demand. The demand was there 10 years ago but it was mainly about pure commodities, now the demand for the quality end of the market is rising.

I know you said stocking rates not stock numbers/head counts but that will still distort the markets as guys will try to stock their land in the most advantageous manner possible whether that be front loading heaavy SRs in the early season or whatever. No matter it will distort the market with excess demands and gluts driven by subs.

freedominacup

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

They might even accept a few women farmers as opposed to farmerettes:D

Even the odd former nominee for branch secretary;)

whelan1

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

They might even accept a few women farmers as opposed to farmerettes:D

only those on the farm family committee i would say:D

reilig

Cran wrote: »

I'm struggling to follow much of the logic here, seeing two fronts is that correct?

1. The 'keep it as is' group seem to be saying it has to be kept as cannot remove the rug from under people.
Yet nothing is mentioned about fairness, where is the fairness in one farmer on one side of ditch getting 10k and another exactly the same getting 60k just because of something done 20 years previous and maybe by a different person? Also how long does this continue - until the high SFP earners are happy/big enough that the lower sfp are all forced out by a false economy? Really confused on the the arguement on the status quo approach??

2. The second one is flat payments all round irrelevant of land quality and production.
Again don't see the fairness here as unfortunately for farmers in certain areas if subsidies didn't exist (and prices fair) you couldn't make a living from the same amount of land there as other areas and that really is the barometer.
I was told that the move towards narrowing of the SFP bands is based on a regionalised basis for Ireland, so would be 5/6 regions and not 1 overall Ireland approach. Is this not the case - as seems fairer?

3. The third is one for fair payments. Pay farmers who are producing something. Pay young farmers and new entrants. Remove pay from armchair farmers or at least put a cap on the amount that they can receive. Reduce SFP to farmers who built up huge SFP's during reference years and who are now not farming to this level.

airneal

reilig wrote: »

I totally agree.

I am not an advocate of a flat based payment - I'm only advocating that payments be fair and be paid to productive farmers.

My post that you replied to above was a reply to a poster who said that these farmers along the west cost did not deserve a payment at all. I don't agree with this.

How do you police adhering to stocking rates? Buy in, sell out, buy in, sell out, that would'nt work!!

Flat rate payment, with an additional top up payment for certain levels of stocking rates on a tiered system. This could be followed on your annual N account from the Dept. Same with sheep census! If you don't have the stocking rate you say you have, money go back into the kitty, like a float to share around the other lads who increase in stocking rates in any given year!

Cran

reilig wrote: »

3. The third is one for fair payments. Pay farmers who are producing something. Pay young farmers and new entrants. Remove pay from armchair farmers or at least put a cap on the amount that they can receive. Reduce SFP to farmers who built up huge SFP's during reference years and who are now not farming to this level.

Ok but what defines an armchair farmer, and how do you apply the fairness to production while avoiding farming the subsidies i.e. distorting the marker price recieved with subsidies?

reilig

Cran wrote: »

Ok but what defines an armchair farmer, and how do you apply the fairness to production while avoiding farming the subsidies i.e. distorting the marker price recieved with subsidies?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83608993&postcount=281

Tipp Man

Cran wrote: »

Ok but what defines an armchair farmer, and how do you apply the fairness to production while avoiding farming the subsidies i.e. distorting the marker price recieved with subsidies?

This is what i would like to see happen as it encourages active farming and ensures that farmers won't get money for doing f##k all:

Tipp Man wrote: »

2) introduce a matrix system which incorporates a flat rate payment combined with a rate linked to your stocking rate for example. The flat rate should be low to discourage "arm chair" farming (maybe 50 and acre) and then the rate increases as the level of the stocking rate increases. If they wanted to (in fact it would probably be necessary) they could have a bell curve for stocking - so once stocking rate gets above a certain point then the payment rate could drop off again. This should be easy to implement - there would be no reference year. You would simply fill out your area aid form and they will have your average stock held for the year. so you would be continously paid for your previous years efforts

Tipp Man

Lads can ye set up or use a different thread for Better farms, discussion groups etc

this is supposed to be about CAP

reilig

Tipp Man wrote: »

Lads can ye set up or use a different thread for Better farms, discussion groups etc

this is supposed to be about CAP

Off topic posts are moved to here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056900213

ellewood

reilig wrote: »

Off topic posts are moved to here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056900213

The power of Tippman!:D

reilig

Originally Posted by Tipp Man 2) introduce a matrix system which incorporates a flat rate payment combined with a rate linked to your stocking rate for example. The flat rate should be low to discourage "arm chair" farming (maybe 50 and acre) and then the rate increases as the level of the stocking rate increases. If they wanted to (in fact it would probably be necessary) they could have a bell curve for stocking - so once stocking rate gets above a certain point then the payment rate could drop off again. This should be easy to implement - there would be no reference year. You would simply fill out your area aid form and they will have your average stock held for the year. so you would be continously paid for your previous years efforts

I would be in favour of something along this line.

freedominacup

ellewood wrote: »

The power of Tippman!:D

It's a good job too he was about to lose it. Never pretty:eek:

ellewood

Tipp Man wrote: »

This is what i would like to see happen as it encourages active farming and ensures that farmers won't get money for doing f##k all:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tipp Man
2) introduce a matrix system which incorporates a flat rate payment combined with a rate linked to your stocking rate for example. The flat rate should be low to discourage "arm chair" farming (maybe 50 and acre) and then the rate increases as the level of the stocking rate increases. If they wanted to (in fact it would probably be necessary) they could have a bell curve for stocking - so once stocking rate gets above a certain point then the payment rate could drop off again. This should be easy to implement - there would be no reference year. You would simply fill out your area aid form and they will have your average stock held for the year. so you would be continously paid for your previous years efforts


Now this plan seems to be a good idea to me anyways

freedominacup

ellewood wrote: »

Now this plan seems to be a good idea to me anyways

I dunno, I reckon if a couple of ye sat down together ye could work out a truly, breathtakingly, unworkable system. That one is merely fiendishly complicated and a Dept inspectors wet dream. Why are ye aiming so low?

Conmaicne Mara

whelan1 wrote: »

is anyone heading to dublin to the protest?

No. let the rich farmers do their own work. 1k out of 88k went to Cork.

Tipp Man

freedominacup wrote: »

I dunno, I reckon if a couple of ye sat down together ye could work out a truly, breathtakingly, unworkable system. That one is merely fiendishly complicated and a Dept inspectors wet dream. Why are ye aiming so low?

Well it's a whole lot better than you quite frankly ridiculous idea of paying every farmer in the country exactly the same amount of money - from 15 acres to 500 acres

What the hell is complicated about stocking rates? the department have all the data needed anyway - a bloody child could work it out

reilig

freedominacup wrote: »

I dunno, I reckon if a couple of ye sat down together ye could work out a truly, breathtakingly, unworkable system. That one is merely fiendishly complicated and a Dept inspectors wet dream. Why are ye aiming so low?

I think it could do away with Dep inspectors. Everything is computerised and up to date now - stock profiles, mapping, satellite images etc.

Tipp Man

freedominacup wrote: »

rising.

I know you said stocking rates not stock numbers/head counts but that will still distort the markets as guys will try to stock their land in the most advantageous manner possible whether that be front loading heaavy SRs in the early season or whatever. No matter it will distort the market with excess demands and gluts driven by subs.

How exactly would stocking rates distort the market??

In fact it does the exact opposite - you buy and sell when you want and when you can.

And there is nothing wrong with guys stocking their farms in the most advantagous way possible

mf240

reilig wrote: »

I think it could do away with Dep inspectors. Everything is computerised and up to date now - stock profiles, mapping, satellite images etc.

Thats never going to happen, they will have to have something for them to do however meaningless.

bbam

Lots of talk of maximising stock during previous reference years. As far as I know only a limited few insiders knew during the period that it was wise to stick up and be busy.
During 2011/2012 there were bits of talk about new reference years but that all seems to be gone quiet.

Anyone got anything to share regarding this?? Is there likely to be new reference years, are there lads out there stocked to the nuts because they're "in the know" ??

Farmer Pudsey

bbam wrote: »

Lots of talk of maximising stock during previous reference years. As far as I know only a limited few insiders knew during the period that it was wise to stick up and be busy.
During 2011/2012 there were bits of talk about new reference years but that all seems to be gone quiet.

Anyone got anything to share regarding this?? Is there likely to be new reference years, are there lads out there stocked to the nuts because they're "in the know" ??

In the last reference years collecting subs was a way to make money. If you managed your system right collected on cattle and slaughtered ASAP it was the way to make money. some lads had an awful fear of the factory and as well small producers often hated the way you got money in dribs and drabs. If you had Extensification on an animal this March you did not get it until June 12 months.

I could never understand people selling yearlings (Born before April 31 the previous year)that had both punches when premium were available. It amde complete sence to buy an animal with 540 euro on his tackies that might cost 700 euro. When I started out I bough some fresians at 1 euro/kg with 310 in punches and slaughter on them.

The IFA is so wraped up in the historical system that it has not got around to considering any other position. It attempt to protect super high payments has stoped from standing back and looking at what is best for active farmers. If it wont reconsider it position it may lose a lot of members or a new orginisation may be set up for to represent smaller drystock farmers.

The Farmers Journal is the same it at present and for the last while is to be the official mouth piece for the IFA. It staff need to have a long hard look at its contribution over the last year.

There has been an ostritch type attitude by both of them I acnnot see them being able to extricite themselves to a position where they can represent a position that will be advantageous to now active farmers.

rancher

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

No. let the rich farmers do their own work. 1k out of 88k went to Cork.

I'd say there was a bit more in Dublin, IFA obviously wasn't expecting as many, they ran out of food before I got fed, our bus got held up, but they gave us our lunch in Leixlip....fair dues. T'was very cold

reilig

rancher wrote: »

I'd say there was a bit more in Dublin, IFA obviously wasn't expecting as many, they ran out of food before I got fed, our bus got held up, but they gave us our lunch in Leixlip....fair dues. T'was very cold

It was reported on the Irish Times that there were 300 protestors. Someone rang into a radio station to say that there were more journalists and curious onlookers than farmers there and that it looked like the IFA were feeding journalists in exchange for positive newspaper articles. Looks like some newshound got the nosebag with your name on it

Conmaicne Mara

I should hope it was a lamb burger at least