Stephen Cadogan: Clearer policies for farmers not too much to ask
The kind of dilemma rules poses for farmers was illustrated well by Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers’ Association (ICSA) Patrick Kent last week at the ICSA AGM.
Nowhere is policy more contradictory than for the farmers accused of claiming payments for ineligible land.
On one hand, farmers are in general expected to cherish and nurture nature and biodiversity — and the many thousands who have been through the Rural Environment Protection Scheme declared portions of their land as wildlife habitat, in order to qualify for REPS payments.
Farmers also see vast areas of land being designated for protection of species such as the hen harrier, and other EU Natura designations.
Under new greening measures, tillage farmers are required to have 5% ecological focus area, such as hedgerows, fallow land managed for wildlife, agro-forestry, permanent field boundaries, species-rich grasslands, scrub, woodland, bog, wet rushy meadows, and other wildlife habitat areas.
However, farmers in the less fertile areas have found that having these features on their land has cost them large financial penalties against their annual income supplement payments from Ireland and from the EU.
This land must qualify as fit for agriculture, if certain payments are to be claimed on it. Over the years, as more and more farmers became aware of how strict this rules is, they have burned, bulldozed, and reclaimed nature-rich land, so there could be no doubt it would qualify for the annual payments which total about €1.8 billion nationally.
According to Patrick Kent, the rules for farmer schemes amounted to giving farmers two competing ultimatums. And those who tried to farm in conjunction with nature, either by design or neglect, lost out financially.
Only bureaucrats can support wildlife with one policy and simultaneously support agriculture next door with another policy. It doesn’t work well on the ground, on farms ike those designated for protection of hen harrier — another bureaucratic creation which threatens to turn farmers against the agri-environmental schemes which Brussels — and EU citizens — favour.
From the farmers’ viewpoint, there are also stark contradictions in cattle farming.
No one knows more about that than the ICSA members who manage cattle for their livelihoods.
Over the years, they have taken part in various schemes to encourage them to keep suckler cows and manage them better.
But Patrick Kent says they are now faced with getting rid of some of their one million suckler cows, because beef industry policies have left them without a market outlet for suckler bulls aged over 16 months, or which weigh 450kg or more — which used to be the most valuable end product of suckler herds.
According to Patrick Kent, the specifications of cattle which the meat industry wanted in 2014 don’t seem to matter in 2015.
With conflicting signals, it is perhaps not surprising that farmers may be heading into a market trap which caught many of them last year.
With plenty of surplus milk available, they are raising dairy bull calves rather than export them — even though poorly planned bull beef production landed farmers in severe problems last year.
Not only do farmers not know the currently required specifications for bull beef, according to Patrick Kent, they also don’t know what type of suckler cow is required to meet market demands.
He has called for clearer policies, which ensure increased profit for farmers, in return for the vital role they play in increasing national agri-food output.
That’s certainly not too much to ask, as farmers make the decision whether to stand still or move forward, or change direction from livestock to dairy, contract rearing, forestry or other farming methods.
However, Mr Kent had to tell ICSA members who attended last week’s AGM that the experience of 2014 makes a compelling case for them to cut beef production, not increase it.
