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

Nettleman

rangler1 wrote: »

As I said it was there for everyone to maximise your payments, neither you nor dghill have contradicted that, if you haven't maximised your payment is it fair to come after mine for a top up

ABSOLUTELY, IT SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.

Username John

What were the rules for CAP from Brussels?
*I think* WTO rules state that production based is out, so the proposal of new reference periods is out.
But what other restrictions were there, or were there any?

Also, did we ever do a poll on the SFP on boards? Just to see what the % that would say "re-distrubute" vs the % that would say "stick with the reference data" ?

Connemara Farmer

Just reading through the comic here, in the bottom right hand corner of page 6 is something we'd been saying for ages re "who" needs to own stock on a commonage. We had suggested to the Dept. that once the land was kept in good condition, by agreement between the shareholders, then what did it matter who owned the sheep/cattle/whatever.

Edited to ad in this bit: Their view was anyone claiming must be actively grazing.

I distinctly remember that particular decision being laughed at.

Here's what Simon Coveney said on the matter in the Dail this week.

"In the case of land farmed in common, there must be a farming activity on the parcel, but individual claimants are not obliged to carry out the farming activity provided that some of the claimants on the commonage are doing so."

supersean1999

rangler1 wrote: »

As I said it was there for everyone to maximise your payments, neither you nor dghill have contradicted that, if you haven't maximised your payment is it fair to come after mine for a top up

I was not farming in the 90s . So i cant answer the question. Your very defensive of the ifa protecting everyone. And then you ask is it fair for people to come after YOUR money. Strange logic. Imo after 14 years of high entitlements id hope to be able to manage with less.

rangler1

supersean1999 wrote: »

I was not farming in the 90s . So i cant answer the question. Your very defensive of the ifa protecting everyone. And then you ask is it fair for people to come after YOUR money. Strange logic. Imo after 14 years of high entitlements id hope to be able to manage with less.

Even the best of farmers can't do much better than breakeven on drystock, I can't see how you're going to break that mould

rangler1

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

I'm just gonna park that there.

---

Heard nothing substantial yet myself, busy letting life get in the way today!

Interesting to see the Dept have admitted they actually have done no work on commonage undergrazing and have no evidence to support that particular claim.

Didn't stop them claiming it all the same.

That worked out well, the car's ten year old now, did you say you were on holiday lately....that was posh

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

That worked out well, the car's ten year old now, did you say you were on holiday lately....that was posh

You shouldn't cry beal bocht when you were crowing how well Coveney done for you in CAP.

No, I haven't been on holidays for years?

supersean1999

rangler1 wrote: »

Even the best of farmers can't do much better than breakeven on drystock, I can't see how you're going to break that mould

Hahahaha sure time will tell. Maybe in 14 years ill be as advanced and rich as you

Connemara Farmer

http://www.agriland.ie/news/success-commonage-farmers-concerns-minister/

I don't usually use the term but this an epic facepalm of a statement if ever there was.

The dept were WRONG about the stocking requirement, it's against WTO rules, that's why they weren't allowed implement it.

Paragraphs 5 & 6 are just beyond belief fantasy land stuff. There is NO REQUIREMENT for Collective Agreement from Europe, NONE, the EU have clarified that at the Hill Farmers meeting in Brussels. So who are the Dept arguing with, themselves?

As for making the 50% CA a guideline, but you will be able to enter the scheme as an individual, ah come on, admit defeat already. You need 50% lads, but wait no, actually maybe you don't and can apply as an individual Scrap it ta hell and lets all have Christmas already.

Enda must know something Simon doesn't, cos he said on MidWest this morning farmers CAN apply as individuals.

http://midwestradio.ie/index.php/news/24056-taoiseach-confirms-significant-progress-on-long-running-controversial-commonage-management-scheme

No word yet on payment for CMP's, or as important liability for same CMP's.

Land eligibility is still lurking in the long grass, pun intended.

Looks like the NY will be fun!

MayoAreMagic

In fairness rangler, it is hard to disagree with what Bullock has pointed out there. Monies were awarded for certain things in the past, but that doesn't mean they will be awarded for the same things in the future, therefore it isn't your money until such time as they decide to give it to you. We have a tendency to assume that we have earned the money we get, to some extent we have, but the way the system is set up, i.e. not based on productivity etc, you aren't really earning it in the traditional sense, it is awarded. The core issue is it is a socialist type system, but farmers are more capitalist in their heart of hearts.

Now I will say this, you are a good sheep man, very well informed and willing to share that information, and I don't really like the way one or two have ganged up on you a little here, but what you said in the above isn't right.


Con, if they want 50% then why don't they incentivise it? They would get their 50% easily if that was the case. The carrot instead of the rod for once...

Connemara Farmer

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Con, if they want 50% then why don't they incentivise it? They would get their 50% easily if that was the case. The carrot instead of the rod for once...

Sure the thing is, if they had revised the CFP and made that into a reference document, they could get 100% in the morning and no one dies.

I don't know how many times that has to be explained to them, which is why I am of the opinion it's about the money and not the scheme itself or the farmers.

By the by, I believe there was reference made to a differently named plan in the Dail today but I haven't seen transcripts yet. I'd be wary of that until details emerge going on track record.

supersean1999

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

In fairness rangler, it is hard to disagree with what Bullock has pointed out there. Monies were awarded for certain things in the past, but that doesn't mean they will be awarded for the same things in the future, therefore it isn't your money until such time as they decide to give it to you. We have a tendency to assume that we have earned the money we get, to some extent we have, but the way the system is set up, i.e. not based on productivity etc, you aren't really earning it in the traditional sense, it is awarded. The core issue is it is a socialist type system, but farmers are more capitalist in their heart of hearts.

Now I will say this, you are a good sheep man, very well informed and willing to share that information, and I don't really like the way one or two have ganged up on you a little here, but what you said in the above isn't right.


Con, if they want 50% then why don't they incentivise it? They would get their 50% easily if that was the case. The carrot instead of the rod for once...

Well id like to agree with that point above. Seems like a very good sheep man and very helpful. Seems to give advice where possible. But i dont think anyone is ganging up here. Its people with different opinions and interests. Well thats what is in my case anyway.

Capercaille

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1U6Mi7IC789TTlmcFVDdmdkTzQ/view?pli=1

rangler1

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

In fairness rangler, it is hard to disagree with what Bullock has pointed out there. Monies were awarded for certain things in the past, but that doesn't mean they will be awarded for the same things in the future, therefore it isn't your money until such time as they decide to give it to you. We have a tendency to assume that we have earned the money we get, to some extent we have, but the way the system is set up, i.e. not based on productivity etc, you aren't really earning it in the traditional sense, it is awarded. The core issue is it is a socialist type system, but farmers are more capitalist in their heart of hearts.

Now I will say this, you are a good sheep man, very well informed and willing to share that information, and I don't really like the way one or two have ganged up on you a little here, but what you said in the above isn't right.


Con, if they want 50% then why don't they incentivise it? They would get their 50% easily if that was the case. The carrot instead of the rod for once...

My claims to subsidies are based on my performance is the past, granted, whereas the claims of some here is just based on.......you tell me.
There is no doubt that reducing subsidies to drystock farmers (they're the ones with the highest payments because they always needed it) will leave them unviable which in turn will reduce the production of the best farmers.
Don't forget there's a lot of dairy farmers out there going to get an increase in SFP too with Coveneys plan.....you wouldn't believe the way this new payment is being manipulated and my SFP being reduced to finance it

Connemara Farmer

Interesting comment from the Minister in the Dail today:

"Farmers were sometimes required to destock in the past, and this subsequently proved to be a mistake."

supersean1999

rangler1 wrote: »

My claims to subsidies are based on my performance is the past, granted, whereas the claims of some here is just based on.......you tell me.
There is no doubt that reducing subsidies to drystock farmers (they're the ones with the highest payments because they always needed it) will leave them unviable which in turn will reduce the production of the best farmers.
Don't forget there's a lot of dairy farmers out there going to get an increase in SFP too with Coveneys plan.....you wouldn't believe the way this new payment is being manipulated and my SFP being reduced to finance it

Thats fair enough in parts. But do you not realise quiet a lot on lower entitlements will have extra money to develop and grow there farms. Hence producing more. I certainly hope to.

Capercaille

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Interesting comment from the Minister in the Dail today:

"Farmers were sometimes required to destock in the past, and this subsequently proved to be a mistake."

Not in areas where there was rampant overgrazing. In my area there is still overgrazing by sheep on sensitive machair. Where cattle graze the machair the land is much better preserved.

Connemara Farmer

Capercaille wrote: »

Not in areas where there was rampant overgrazing. In my area there is still overgrazing by sheep on sensitive machair. Where cattle graze the machair the land is much better preserved.

I've a problem with an "area" being singled out. I would argue that destocking some individual farmers in those damaged areas was wrong.

The basis of the argument being that no account was taken of which individual farmer did the damage in that area.

The result of that indiscriminate destocking was a disaster, often the individuals who did the damage got financially rewarded, where as the farmer with the smaller flock, on the same sized commonage share, was also destocked.

So there was actually no justice in the "solution" between who caused the damage (and was rewarded by premia - cheque in the post farmers) and who paid for the damage (and lost good quality stock - the responsible farmers).

However, all of that said, and being some many years on from that point we have seen destocking has not worked as intended, with CFP's frozen and general neglect and disinterest by the Dept of those areas. All of these problems were avoidable.

Connemara Farmer

rangler1 wrote: »

whereas the claims of some here is just based on.......you tell me.

You have been getting told for years now, if you're still asking then you chose not to listen, don't act as if the situation hasn't been explained.

Connemara Farmer

Capercaille wrote: »

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1U6Mi7IC789TTlmcFVDdmdkTzQ/view?pli=1

I've had that document for a few weeks now. It's interesting to see in it that Commonage, which is such a big area, has one page, with close to zero detail. Where as compare it to the boxes (bat, bird, & bee) with two pages each.

In a Dail Debate (aren't transcripts great) today Minister Coveney mentioned high status water in relation to commonages. Now there's no mention of HSW in that document in relation to commonages, only rare breeds in relation to GLAS+ (need to be member of that society for previous two years).

Clear as mud then?

Capercaille

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

I've had that document for a few weeks now. It's interesting to see in it that Commonage, which is such a big area, has one page, with close to zero detail. Where as compare it to the boxes (bat, bird, & bee) with two pages each.

In a Dail Debate (aren't transcripts great) today Minister Coveney mentioned high status water in relation to commonages. Now there's no mention of HSW in that document in relation to commonages, only rare breeds in relation to GLAS+ (need to be member of that society for previous two years).

Clear as mud then?

It is badly done. The GLAS requirements for Hen Harrier are watered down to make them acceptable to farmers, while at the same time the Government can say to EU they are doing something to "help" the Harrier. No mention of tall Heather which would be essential to ground nesting Hen Harriers. Tall heather will only grow with very low stocking densities.

Birdnuts

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

http://www.agriland.ie/news/success-commonage-farmers-concerns-minister/

I don't usually use the term but this an epic facepalm of a statement if ever there was.

The dept were WRONG about the stocking requirement, it's against WTO rules, that's why they weren't allowed implement it.

Paragraphs 5 & 6 are just beyond belief fantasy land stuff. There is NO REQUIREMENT for Collective Agreement from Europe, NONE, the EU have clarified that at the Hill Farmers meeting in Brussels. So who are the Dept arguing with, themselves?

As for making the 50% CA a guideline, but you will be able to enter the scheme as an individual, ah come on, admit defeat already. You need 50% lads, but wait no, actually maybe you don't and can apply as an individual Scrap it ta hell and lets all have Christmas already.

Enda must know something Simon doesn't, cos he said on MidWest this morning farmers CAN apply as individuals.

http://midwestradio.ie/index.php/news/24056-taoiseach-confirms-significant-progress-on-long-running-controversial-commonage-management-scheme

No word yet on payment for CMP's, or as important liability for same CMP's.

Land eligibility is still lurking in the long grass, pun intended.

Looks like the NY will be fun!

The whole thing is an epic mess which now threatens to delay the entire RDP. In any other functioning demcracy heads would roll at Ministerial and Dept levels.

Connemara Farmer

Capercaille wrote: »

It is badly done. The GLAS requirements for Hen Harrier are watered down to make them acceptable to farmers, while at the same time the Government can say to EU they are doing something to "help" the Harrier. No mention of tall Heather which would be essential to ground nesting Hen Harriers. Tall heather will only grow with very low stocking densities.

Don't have hen harriers in this area so I know nothing about them. However a very interesting piece of information came out of the HH issue lately.

"Article 34(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 stipulates that any area, which gave a right to payments under the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) in 2008, but has lost its compliance with the definition of 'eligible' as a result of the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives, remains eligible for the SPS. The key element when assessing the eligibility of such land is the need for evidence that the loss of the eligibility status was triggered by the implementation of these directives, in particular through measures taken at the national level addressed to farmers aimed at "restoration" or "creation" of habitats. A corresponding provision is provided for in Article 32(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013[1] on direct payments."

MayoAreMagic

rangler1 wrote: »

My claims to subsidies are based on my performance is the past, granted, whereas the claims of some here is just based on.......you tell me.
There is no doubt that reducing subsidies to drystock farmers (they're the ones with the highest payments because they always needed it) will leave them unviable which in turn will reduce the production of the best farmers.
Don't forget there's a lot of dairy farmers out there going to get an increase in SFP too with Coveneys plan.....you wouldn't believe the way this new payment is being manipulated and my SFP being reduced to finance it

You mean up to now they were awarded to you on past performance, there is a difference. If they choose to not give you as much and instead award it to other parties that have been deemed under-appreciated up to now then I dont see your point. Isn't it simply a role reversal from the previous system? If it is unfair on you now, then it must have been unfair on them before now...

You say they are the best farmers, but would they be such if they hadnt gotten preference in previous awarding of monies? It isnt as straight forward as the best farmers producing the most. Give them all the same tools and grants and I guarantee, the same 100 guys who come out on top now wouldnt be the same 100 coming out on top then. There are more factors that need to be considered. now I have no issue with more productive farmers on better land getting more than me, that is just common sense, but I do have an issue with them taking some of my share on top of that.

You say that I wouldnt believe how payments are being manipulated, actually I would believe it, I have had to deal with it for the best part of 20 years.

Look, the bottom line is this; there are a lot of farmers in the country, and the money needs to be spread around in a more genuine manner. Guys on the hills have been neglected for years, they arent being greedy in what they are asking for, so it is unfair to say your reductions are their fault. does that mean their short-changing in the past is your fault also? The reality is we cant be relying on fighting over grants if we mean to be profitable. We'd be far better off putting this effort into working with the dept and the government to find a better market for our product

Farmer Pudsey

rangler1 wrote: »

My claims to subsidies are based on my performance is the past, granted, whereas the claims of some here is just based on.......you tell me.
There is no doubt that reducing subsidies to drystock farmers (they're the ones with the highest payments because they always needed it) will leave them unviable which in turn will reduce the production of the best farmers.
Don't forget there's a lot of dairy farmers out there going to get an increase in SFP too with Coveneys plan.....you wouldn't believe the way this new payment is being manipulated and my SFP being reduced to finance it

The first thing is it is not your or my money or SFP it is EU tax payers money full stop. In the setting up of the SFP system there was winners and losers. No account was taken of lads that reared heifers and had calves to weanling systems these all lost out. The suckler farmer who sold his cattle with subs attached also lost out. I know of one fairly intensive calf to yearling producer who for cash flow reasons ( he was developing his business) ended up with an SFP of less than 100/HA even though he was stocked at nearly 2LU/HA

So the original distribution was flawed. By 2020 wewill be looking at paying farmers money not on productions levels but on subs drawn between 2000 and 2002. Some of these farmers will have retired, some will have died, some will have downsized.

In my own case I entered farming at the end of the reference period when the whole thing aws up in the air and I had no reference period. As a finisher I am trying to competing around the ring against lads that have an SFP of often greater than the averae industrail wage. Even though I will slightly lose as the SFP is bought down to an average payment I will win around the ring as it will be all equal.

SFP is not linked to production if farmers becom unviable they will have to change there operation and if the reduce production the price of be will increase and it will be to the benefit off those opf us that have smaller payments. It will also force out the inefficient high cost operators that depend on large SFP as a cushion against reality.

There is also the case where younger farmers were or are trying to build up operations. these either lost out on orginal SFP or have little or no SFP because of historical payments. Those that have high SFP will have had them for 20 years by 2020 and if it is reduced to an national average by 2028 the will have average 22-25 years of good payments which allowed them to develop there business's if they have failed to do that then it a tough tittie as the expression goes. They will have to wean themselves off some time it cannot last forever. SFP is supposed to be an income support not a production support.

Username John

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

In my own case I entered farming at the end of the reference period when the whole thing aws up in the air and I had no reference period. As a finisher I am trying to competing around the ring against lads that have an SFP of often greater than the averae industrail wage. Even though I will slightly lose as the SFP is bought down to an average payment I will win around the ring as it will be all equal.

SFP is not linked to production if farmers becom unviable they will have to change there operation and if the reduce production the price of be will increase and it will be to the benefit off those opf us that have smaller payments. It will also force out the inefficient high cost operators that depend on large SFP as a cushion against reality.

I often wonder about this argument that no SFP or a reduced SFP will equal things out, or will it have as much of an effect as people think.

Farming is a funny business, in that you could possibly make more money, doing nothing (just keeping SFP) than you might by bringing a lot of work on yourself. I think some of the Teagasc surveys show that lads often lose money, by having stock.
But yet - lads still do it...

Couple this with the fact that the outlook for a number of farming enterprises are static (I think its fair to say this, as I don't see how there will be a massive rise in beef or sheep prices over the next few years?)

So I think if the SFP went in the morning, it would have some impact. But I dunno would it have this 'market equalling and price rise impact' that we'd like to think it would have

Then - that leaves the SFP, and how should it be distributed... And I think this will be a case of "haves and have-nots"
The "haves" will want to keep it, and the "have-nots" will want it... I think that's just human nature...

rangler1

Username John wrote: »

I often wonder about this argument that no SFP or a reduced SFP will equal things out, or will it have as much of an effect as people think.

Farming is a funny business, in that you could possibly make more money, doing nothing (just keeping SFP) than you might by bringing a lot of work on yourself. I think some of the Teagasc surveys show that lads often lose money, by having stock.
But yet - lads still do it...

Couple this with the fact that the outlook for a number of farming enterprises are static (I think its fair to say this, as I don't see how there will be a massive rise in beef or sheep prices over the next few years?)

So I think if the SFP went in the morning, it would have some impact. But I dunno would it have this 'market equalling and price rise impact' that we'd like to think it would have

Then - that leaves the SFP, and how should it be distributed... And I think this will be a case of "haves and have-nots"
The "haves" will want to keep it, and the "have-nots" will want it... I think that's just human nature...

Despite the talk about ag colleges overflowing, most farmers sons and daughters are well aware of the prognosis for farming and are concentrating on building their careers elsewhere. Increasing the tax free income from leasing will hasten this and hopefully give remaining farmers the opportunity to expand to make their farms vable

djmc

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

Don't have hen harriers in this area so I know nothing about them. However a very interesting piece of information came out of the HH issue lately.

"Article 34(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 stipulates that any area, which gave a right to payments under the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) in 2008, but has lost its compliance with the definition of 'eligible' as a result of the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives, remains eligible for the SPS. The key element when assessing the eligibility of such land is the need for evidence that the loss of the eligibility status was triggered by the implementation of these directives, in particular through measures taken at the national level addressed to farmers aimed at "restoration" or "creation" of habitats. A corresponding provision is provided for in Article 32(2)(b)(i) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013[1] on direct payments."

Glad to see some clarification on this wonder what the need for evidence will mean.
I have the hen harrier in this area and have seen
A quarry stopped from expanding planning refused for houses wind turbines
Forestry refused and land devalued.
Not to mention the impact on farm production.
Most farmers feel there land has been stolen and would be happy to see the designation lifted .

Connemara Farmer

djmc wrote: »

Glad to see some clarification on this wonder what the need for evidence will mean.
I have the hen harrier in this area and have seen
A quarry stopped from expanding planning refused for houses wind turbines
Forestry refused and land devalued.
Not to mention the impact on farm production.
Most farmers feel there land has been stolen and would be happy to see the designation lifted .

I only know as much as was put on Sean Kellys website, but that was a very interesting morsel.

As for designations, well 82 or 83 hectares of mine are designated and not compensated for, so.....

MayoAreMagic

rangler1 wrote: »

Despite the talk about ag colleges overflowing, most farmers sons and daughters are well aware of the prognosis for farming and are concentrating on building their careers elsewhere. Increasing the tax free income from leasing will hasten this and hopefully give remaining farmers the opportunity to expand to make their farms vable

...And push the average age of farmers to an even higher level than it already is, while forcing their youth into more emigration and making the rich, even richer... Cant see any politicians pushing that one.

What is actually coming, in my opinion anyway, is a push towards enticing these youngsters in ag colleges into farming this land, and a move away from guys who have established themselves already as regards grants etc. It makes sense, as these are the guys with the most costs, i.e. a startup business. I mean if there is a choice between expanding already large, established farms or introducing youth and ensuring they dont have to emigrate (and all the other feathers in their caps politicians can pull out of that one), which direction are they going to go in?

I am fully aware that the guys already in place would be superior farmers and would do better with the land, but who, outside of themselves, is going to suggest that these 'high earning old farmers' (that is how they would be seen) get priority over the youth?

rangler1

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

...And push the average age of farmers to an even higher level than it already is, while forcing their youth into more emigration and making the rich, even richer... Cant see any politicians pushing that one.

What is actually coming, in my opinion anyway, is a push towards enticing these youngsters in ag colleges into farming this land, and a move away from guys who have established themselves already as regards grants etc. It makes sense, as these are the guys with the most costs, i.e. a startup business. I mean if there is a choice between expanding already large, established farms or introducing youth and ensuring they dont have to emigrate (and all the other feathers in their caps politicians can pull out of that one), which direction are they going to go in?

I am fully aware that the guys already in place would be superior farmers and would do better with the land, but who, outside of themselves, is going to suggest that these 'high earning old farmers' (that is how they would be seen) get priority over the youth?

I referred to the remaining farmers, meaning the young farmers choosing to farm. They will have to be viable, and to have the tax free leasing available to older farmers will help these farms to expand. The acreage required to be viable is increasing every year.
A young person with a good job would be foolish not to take advantage of the new leasing incentive and have a better lifestyle. Not having the energy to put into your job because you're doing 20 or 30 hrs/wk on the farm isn't going to impress any boss

Capercaille

djmc wrote: »

Glad to see some clarification on this wonder what the need for evidence will mean.
I have the hen harrier in this area and have seen
A quarry stopped from expanding planning refused for houses wind turbines
Forestry refused and land devalued.
Not to mention the impact on farm production.
Most farmers feel there land has been stolen and would be happy to see the designation lifted .

Farmers in Hen Harrier SAC's should receive fair money for loss in production and fair money for for good habitat restoration work. if the designations are lifted Hen Harrier will be extinct in 20 years.

Capercaille

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

I only know as much as was put on Sean Kellys website, but that was a very interesting morsel.

As for designations, well 82 or 83 hectares of mine are designated and not compensated for, so.....

What SAC/SPA are you in? Why species/habitats are the SAC/SPA protecting (at least supposed to be).

djmc

Capercaille wrote: »

Farmers in Hen Harrier SAC's should receive fair money for loss in production and fair money for for good habitat restoration work. if the designations are lifted Hen Harrier will be extinct in 20 years.

I agree but l don't think farmers will ever get what was promised when their land was being degesnated sac or compensation for losses in production.
Unfortunately l think the hen harrier will probably be extinct in 20 years anyway unless the government and department of ag and npws and farmers come together and do something radical to stop its decline.

Connemara Farmer

Capercaille wrote: »

What SAC/SPA are you in? Why species/habitats are the SAC/SPA protecting (at least supposed to be).

I'm not going to get site specific about where I farm, but the designations are SAC, SPA, and pNHA. Basically all of my land, except for my enclosed land is designated. Some farmers would then also have their enclosed land designated, including some of my fathers land.

Capercaille

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

I'm not going to get site specific about where I farm, but the designations are SAC, SPA, and pNHA. Basically all of my land, except for my enclosed land is designated. Some farmers would then also have their enclosed land designated, including some of my fathers land.

What are the lands designated for?

Connemara Farmer

Capercaille wrote: »

What are the lands designated for?

That would be a question for NPWS, have some documentation on it somewhere here but never read it fully. You can look at the NPWS map viewer and see how much of Connemara is designated http://webgis.npws.ie/npwsviewer/

Capercaille

Connemara Farmer wrote: »

That would be a question for NPWS, have some documentation on it somewhere here but never read it fully.

It would surely be in your best interests to know what your lands or commonages are designated for. You seem very well versed in everything else.

Connemara Farmer

Capercaille wrote: »

It would surely be in your best interests to know what your lands or commonages are designated for. You seem very well versed in everything else.

Yup, I don't disagree with that.

ihatewinter

Legally is there a way to cease all payments to farmers once they hit 65 years of age and redistribute them to younger farmers or farmers with low entitlements. But if there is a younger member of the family farming, then transfer the entitlements straight away once they hit 65. At that age, they will have a pension, so will have an stable income. I think it would be a fair method.

I say thousands of young farmers are in the same situation, hoping that it will be transferred to them. Plenty around here have control of the farm in their 70's and 80's with their sons still following. It would help productivity and modernisation

djmc

Legally no illegally you could hire a hit man but I wouldn't advise it.

Connemara Farmer

I've no issue with farmers of any age claiming SFP etc and pension etc once they can meet the conditions of the schemes. I'm 36, so not got a dog in that fight yet.

Birdnuts

djmc wrote: »

I agree but l don't think farmers will ever get what was promised when their land was being degesnated sac or compensation for losses in production.
.

Several recent delegations from Ireland on this matter have been told in no uncertain terms by the EU that the Irish government must honour its commitments in terms of allocating the 450 euro/hectare that was earmarked by the EU for designated areas under the last RDP. Reading in the farming press over the last few weeks it appears the EU has sent back Irelands latest RDP plan with much red ink concerning this governments ongoing failure in this area. It appears this governments bluff has been called on this and other matters concerning Pillar 1 versus Pillar 2 funding, general commonage issues etc. so I would be reasonably confident of a better deal emerging for farmers in these areas.
The whole affair has been a steep learning curve for farmers and other groups working to conserve these traditional landscapes and its deeply shocking the extent to which certain elements of the state sought to undermine those efforts through misinformation, blatant unfairness etc. concerning the critical issues at play here.

jjf1974

Birdnuts wrote: »

Several recent delegations from Ireland on this matter have been told in no uncertain terms by the EU that the Irish government must honour its commitments in terms of allocating the 450 euro/hectare that was earmarked by the EU for designated areas under the last RDP. Reading in the farming press over the last few weeks it appears the EU has sent back Irelands latest RDP plan with much red ink concerning this governments ongoing failure in this area. It appears this governments bluff has been called on this and other matters concerning Pillar 1 versus Pillar 2 funding, general commonage issues etc. so I would be reasonably confident of a better deal emerging for farmers in these areas.
The whole affair has been a steep learning curve for farmers and other groups working to conserve these traditional landscapes and its deeply shocking the extent to which certain elements of the state sought to undermine those efforts through misinformation, blatant unfairness etc. concerning the critical issues at play here.

+ certain farm organisations

djmc

I am aware of this I was at ifdl meeting down here about it but I still can't see the government giving what was promised compensation at the start ie npws scheme or reps4 more than likely to be like aeos or glas capped to 5000 or 5 hectares where you would spend a lot of it on planner and implementing the scheme.
What they should do is pay on full per hectare the same as you could make from forestry or dairying or any other enterprise .
It is good to see you won't be fined for gaec if they want you to grow rushes though.
Also heard about certain a farm organization that's why farmers set up Irish farmers with degesnated land (ifdl)

coolshannagh28

Interesting to see how this plays out, big Phil as agriculture commissioner seems to have taken a position on this against Kenny ,Coveney and the insiders mainly because of the fall out from irish water which they pinned on him despite the fact that he at least showed gumption in ramming it through .
Con and the guys in the west have done great work and have Ming ,Marian Harkin etc on side and it looks like the dept has complied with neither the spirit nor the letter of the renegotiated CAP .
My money is on Kenny and Coveney showing their belly on this one as Mary Lou s recent assessment seems most accurate.

Birdnuts

djmc wrote: »

aeos or glas capped to 5000 or 5 hectares where you would spend a lot of it on planner and implementing the scheme.
)

The EU has already said such a cap is not justified or in the rules when it comes to designated land so the Dept will have to change their tune on that matter too.

djmc

Birdnuts wrote: »

The EU has already said such a cap is not justified or in the rules when it comes to designated land so the Dept will have to change their tune on that matter too.

Good to hear its great to see that a small ignored and blagaurded group of farmers can stand up for themselves and begin to force change.

Capercaille

djmc wrote: »

Good to hear its great to see that a small ignored and blagaurded group of farmers can stand up for themselves and begin to force change.

My farm is designated a SPA/Natura 2000. I'm going into one of the GLAS schemes. I was talking to the NPWS worker yesterday and the budget is being changed for 2015, maybe they might be getting rid of the cap on payments. Farmers planting their land with forestry (mostly pure ****) with limited/zero value for biodiversity have no cap on payments, but if you farm in an environmentally positive way in the SPA/SAC/Natura 2000 sites you get a cap on your payments.

MIKEKC

The reason a lot of young farmers have low entitlements is a lot of them had lazy fathers. Now they want to take money from those that worked hard for years
.