Force majeure highlighted by Agriculture Appeals Office in Irish farm scheme payments
A herdowner said they made every effort to meet the requirements of SCEP.
It’s a sign of the unpredictability of Irish farming that events beyond one’s control sometimes land participants in Department of Agriculture schemes in trouble.
This is illustrated in the recently published 2025 Annual Report of the Agriculture Appeals Office.
The published case studies involved force majeure, which is a legal clause in a contract to excuse one or both parties from performance due to the occurrence of events beyond their control.
In Example One, a farmer appealed against the Department requesting the repayment of Organic Farming Scheme monies that issued for the years 2023 and 2024.
The background was that the Department was informed in January 2025 that the participant had withdrawn from the Scheme due to ill-health, and that the organic licence had expired at the end of 2023.
As per the terms and conditions of the Scheme, the contract is for a five-year period, and the applicant must hold a licence to participate.
The participant in question found it increasingly difficult to meet the requirements of the Scheme, due to ongoing ill-health issues, and eventually decided to withdraw and allow their licence to expire. Medical evidence was submitted which confirmed the ongoing health issues, and at an oral appeal hearing, it was noted that the participant subsequently retired from farming.
The Appeals Officer said it is a core requirement of the Scheme that the participant holds an organic licence. Not having held a licence for 2024, they cannot be considered as participating in the Organic Farming Scheme for that year. Consequently, any money that issued for that year under the Scheme was issued in error and must be recouped by the Department.
However, the officer said that at the time of joining the Scheme, the impact of health issues was not foreseeable; nor was it apparent that it would become necessary to leave the Scheme and retire from farming. The officer said these circumstances met the criteria of force majeure as set down in the terms and conditions, and consequently there is no requirement to recoup monies that issued for the 2023 scheme year.
In other words, the appeal was partially allowed.
Force majeure also arose in the appeal by a herdowner against not receiving an annual Suckler Carbon Efficiency Programme (SCEP) payment, due to declaring less than 80% of the Maximum Payable Area (MPA).
The Department said SCEP requires at least enough determined eligible forage hectares in the BISS application each year to match the MPA. If the forage area is less than the MPA, but 80% or above, the payment will be based on this eligible forage area, If the forage hectares in any year are less than 80% of the maximum payable area selected by successful applicants, the applicant can continue participation in SCEP, but will not be paid for that year.
The herdowner said they made every effort to meet the requirements of SCEP. However, land that they had rented previously was withdrawn at the last moment. Another parcel of land became available under a short-term grazing arrangement, but it was not available at the time of submitting the BISS application, and therefore was not declared. Force majeure circumstances were also presented, due to ill-health of family members.
The Appeals Officer recognised the difficult circumstances, but was bound by the terms and conditions, and said the circumstances did not meet the criteria of force majeure, because the withdrawal of the rented land was a commercial risk, and was not impacted by the family circumstances that arose. The appeal was disallowed.
A TAMS claimant for solar panels in the Pigs and Poultry Investment Scheme incurred a 100% grant penalty for submitting a grant claim some 20 weeks after the completion date.
The completion date for installation of solar panels under the Scheme was July 2024.
A 100% penalty is applied where the payment claim is submitted more than 13 weeks after the completion date. There was an option to apply for an extension to the completion date, but no such application was received.
The claimant’s explanation was inability to undertake the installation immediately after receiving approval, due to the financial crises suffered by the pig industry in 2022. By the summer of 2023, the sector gradually returned to profitability, and it was possible to proceed with the installation. However, due to delays experienced in the provision of a connection by ESB Networks, the project was delayed. By that time, the deadline to apply for an extension to the completion date had passed.
The claimant protested that a 100% penalty was excessive in these circumstances.
The Appeals Officer said the terms and conditions state that responsibility for the provision of all information rests with the applicant. The claim for payment was submitted well outside of the 13-week timeframe. It was evident that the project would not be completed within the specified timeframe, and in those circumstances, it should have been clear that a six-month extension would have been required.
There was no evidence that any force majeure circumstances applied, and the appeal was disallowed.
