Ministers must end uncertainty over rules
For a long time it looked as if agriculture could go only one way and that was up. But the golden period for Irish agriculture has been drawing to an end for some time.
Even as we basked in it, thousands of farmers were forced to turn their backs on their heritage while the luckier ones were able to move up the scale. In reality agriculture, no more than any other sector, has been going through massive change driven by growing global competition.
Meanwhile changing EU regulations and the scaling down of EU support systems have added to the impetus driving the reform.
The impending changes have implications for processors and producers.
In 2006, deregulation of the EU sugar industry will place severe pressure on sugar margins. That will create problems for Greencore and beet growers where a conflict of interest has always existed between supplier and processor.
What we are witnessing is a dismantling of the subsidy system that has underpinned EU farm policy from the very early days.
The harsh reality is that many Irish farmers will have to deal with the blunt edge of EU officialdom in the years ahead as the Commission pushes ahead with more reforms.
One of the classic examples of EU infringement on farm policy is the question of the storage of slurry, which was targeted under the Nitrates Directive and is due to become effective on January 1, 2005.
On Monday, ICMSA President Pat O’Rourke gave vent to that frustration. He laid into Ministers Joe Walsh and Martin Cullen. The farm leader has accused them of having two totally differing views on the issue and his tone was a bit fraught, to say the least.
A huge issue is the massive cost facing intensive farmers who will be obliged to store slurry on farm from next year.
Mr O’Rourke has accused the main Minister, Mr Walsh, of giving vague assurances to farmers sick with worry over the fallout from this directive.
Mr O’Rourke has put four questions to the ministers and is now calling on them to clarify the position once and for all.
The questions are:
1. What will be the maximum stocking rate allowed under law in Ireland from January 1, 2005?
2. Will farmers face the loss of EU payments or penalties if they have a stocking rate above 0.8 of a cow per acre?
3. What is the actual basis for the promised 250 kg limit ie. 1.2 cows per acre?
4. What is the loss of income and cost of storage for a typical 80-acre farmer?
Mr O’Rourke says farmers a “literally sick” with the worry that comes from the prospect of being forced to de-stock and spend tens of thousands of euro on extra slurry storage. Farm incomes are already falling, as every survey shows, while the extra slurry storage demanded is totally unnecessary, he insists.
For the sake of Irish farmers, Mr O’Rourke is right to insist that the implications of the new directive are spelt out by the two ministers in charge.
With investment of over €100,000 on the cards for many farmers to comply with the directive, it is understandable that farmers are feeling very edgy.
It is also a sign that the times are changing radically for farmers in Europe where the focus is shifting increasingly to tighter environmental control and the total deregulation of the global food market.
Given the nature of this change, the ICMSA stance is understandable.
Times are indeed changing, and Mr Walsh and Mr Cullen don’t seem to care about the charge levelled at them by the ICMSA.
To accuse Mr Walsh of not caring about Irish farmers is a first as far as my memory serves. Times are indeed changing.
