Rebirth of a transparent and open IFA will be difficult
The current version has lost the respect of the rivals it will face across the table in the ever ongoing major negotiations on issues that arise in the multi-billion euro agriculture and food industry.
For example, Government Ministerd will no longer be eager to announce successful agreements with an organisation which has become so controversial.
Agriculture Simon Coveney said he was shocked when he learned of IFA general secretary Pat Smith’s salary.
Tánaiste Joan Burton said it was “eye watering”, and that salaries and remuneration in voluntary or publicly funded organisations like IFA should be subject to disclosure.
Mr Coveney said IFA has big issues to resolve, and needs to act decisively and with complete transparency to rebuild trust.
He said there is a trust and confidence issue toward IFA leaders among its members, which may imply he no longer sees IFA as the farmers’ representative organisation for him to deal with, for the time being at least.
Now that the organisation has belatedly faced up to its shortcomings, it will have to find new leaders for its rebirth.
But much of what the organisation has already achieved has been besmirched by the controversy, and can best be restored by a “new IFA” policy of complete openness and transparency.
Therefore, the invitation to IFA members to make submissions to former IFA Chief Economist, Con Lucey, for his review of the Association’s corporate governance and related matters, including remuneration, is an encouraging start.
But submissions should also be open to IFA non-members charged IFA levies on their farm produce.
And the Lucey review is too much about the remuneration for the organisation’s officers and staff, and not enough about the fundraising from the farmers of Ireland.
For example, the farm produce sales levy system should be completely transparent, and it should be a simple and straightforward matter to opt in or out.
Instead, some farmers are now talking about the possibility of small claims court proceedings to recover their levy payments, which proves, if nothing else, that it is far from a transparent system of fundraising.
Many farmers suspect IFA couldn’t go hard on beef processors without risking their beef levy income.
Such farmer concerns can only be put to rest by complete openness.
Making the rebirth of IFA even more difficult is the upswell of farmer resistance to the organisation in recent years.
This has resulted in IFA breakaways such as the Hill Farmers for Action, Irish Malt Growers, Strathroy milk suppliers, Irish Farmers with Designated Land, and the West Cork ICSA/Community Alliance court bid to recover ineligible land fines.
Behind these is an even bigger groundswell of ill-feeling against IFA over its support for a CAP reform that protects Ireland’s €1.2 billion EU payments established for each farm 15 years ago, rather than follow the European Commission proposals to divide these payments more equitably among all farmers.
And what’s galling all farmers is that €3m is going out of their pockets to one IFA man (including severance pay), at a time when there’s a huge and widening beef price gap compared to the UK market, where nearly 50% of Irish beef is sold; milk prices are not expected to recover until the second half of 2016; grain prices are at rock bottom; and growers would be as well off idle; and pig farmers continue in a loss-making position.
Many of the country’s 100,000 cattle farmers still bear a grudge against IFA for agreeing the quality payment system in 2009 with beef processors, which reduced prices for cattle of poorer conformation.
Cattle farmers are the biggest farm enterprise grouping IFA represents.
IFA will have to regain their confidence fast, if it is to take part in the producer organisations Minister Coveney supports, to engage in joint selling of arable crops, and live animals for beef and veal production, which promises to give farmers much more bargaining power in the beef market.
