New CAP not far away

muckymanor said:
As I said, i don't have the answers. How would they differentiate between a farmer that's well stocked and working very hard and a farmer with 3 or 4 donkeys to eat the rushes that he only sees once a month?
Click to expand...
agree but reference years don't solve that either.
 
towbar said:
agree but reference years don't solve that either.
Click to expand...

It could be done. Change the reference year every year.

For example

Base 2020's payment on the average of 2015, 16,17,18, and 19.

But divide the pot equally among everyone for 2020.

Then in 2021, take the average of the previous 5 years (20,19,18,17 and 16).

Same for 2022

If someone started for example in 2017, only use the average for the 3 years that they started in to calculate the first payment.

That way, you have to keep farming every year in order to maintain your average.

It would mean a small change in the amount that you receive every year, but it would be linked to what you did for the last 5 years instead of what your father did in 1992.

It's only a suggestion. I'm not saying it would be ideal and there are probably many holes that could be picked in it.

I'm just tired of the melody that was sung to us for the last CAP negotiations that "nobody should lose". That's bull crap! Only active farmers should be paid. Nobody should be getting money on the basis of what they did in 1992!
 
WestCorkBoy said:
I think you re misunderstanding me, thats the reason behind trailing shoe after mid June. ( date picked by Dept for derogation)
Click to expand...
Sorry, my misunderstanding. I was at a meeting recently where it was stated that in if you are in derogation, 50% of your slurry must be spread before 15th of June. We are not too many years away from the trailing shoe becoming mandatory I reckon and it will form part of the CAP somewhere along the way. Ireland is regularly compared to Holland and Denmark, where all slurry is spread using low emission equipment and the commission are struggling to understand why we cannot follow suit.
 
towbar said:
How? Prices are mad because lads need acres to retain entitlements and to secure enough land to qualify for potential future entitlements. If it was based on each year lads might actually look at the profitability of the crop in the current year rather than future years. It would cut out selling and leasing entitlements, cut out premium prices for land just to cover entitlements.

I agree also with a cap but its impossible to enforce as they just divide it across companies.
Click to expand...
Different part of the country in know but leased acres needed to draw down entitlements is small business here, it's the dairy scene that are wanting acres for sticking rates, expansion and fodder etc. just say land was making 200 an acre for lease, if they gave 100 an acre of a SFP on it then land would make 300-that's the reality. Profitability of a crop or an acre doesn't come into it with many folk
 
muckymanor said:
It could be done. Change the reference year every year.

For example

Base 2020's payment on the average of 2015, 16,17,18, and 19.

But divide the pot equally among everyone for 2020.

Then in 2021, take the average of the previous 5 years (20,19,18,17 and 16).

Same for 2022

If someone started for example in 2017, only use the average for the 3 years that they started in to calculate the first payment.

That way, you have to keep farming every year in order to maintain your average.

It would mean a small change in the amount that you receive every year, but it would be linked to what you did for the last 5 years instead of what your father did in 1992.

It's only a suggestion. I'm not saying it would be ideal and there are probably many holes that could be picked in it.

I'm just tired of the melody that was sung to us for the last CAP negotiations that "nobody should lose". That's bull crap! Only active farmers should be paid. Nobody should be getting money on the basis of what they did in 1992!
Click to expand...
The reference years in this CAP were 2000/01 and 02 I think
 
muckymanor said:
That way, you have to keep farming every year in order to maintain your average.
Click to expand...

Why do we want people to keep farming to maintain their average though? Let whoever wants to farm it that particular year farm it and claim the subsidy.

What is the purpose of the subsidy? ( in no particular order)
1) To sustain the rural economy
2) To ensure continued supply of quality cheap food within Europe

I don't see how averaging based on acres farmed impacts those objectives.

One of the issues I see for farmers is they cant downscale without the fear of not being able to upscale again with subsidies therefore it is almost impossible to downscale even for a year of two.
 
should be rolling reference years changes every year pay you for last year's if they can't sort out the acreage in time for this year'
 
muckymanor said:
As I said, i don't have the answers. How would they differentiate between a farmer that's well stocked and working very hard and a farmer with 3 or 4 donkeys to eat the rushes that he only sees once a month?
Click to expand...
towbar said:
Why do we need reference periods at all. Why not simply pay it based on each years claimed area.
Click to expand...

How about a system based partially on each years claimed area and partially on invoices from the previous year? The lad with 3 donkeys won’t have much in the way of invoices but the active farmer will. I realise that a lot of data would have to be collected but it must surely be easier and cheaper than measuring hedge length etc. by satellites and anyway is that not what IT is for!
 
towbar said:
Why do we want people to keep farming to maintain their average though?
Click to expand...

Because that's what happened - people artificially built up their averages through slaughter payments etc and continue to get paid on these artificial averages many years later.
The people that are working the land should get paid from CAP to compensate for the low prices that they receive for their food. These people live in and fund the rural economy. Why pay it to the likes of my neighbour who used to deal in cull cows and has a SFP in excess of €100k and only now farms 60 acres?
 
muckymanor said:
Because that's what happened - people artificially built up their averages through slaughter payments etc and continue to get paid on these artificial averages many years later.
The people that are working the land should get paid from CAP to compensate for the low prices that they receive for their food. These people live in and fund the rural economy. Why pay it to the likes of my neighbour who used to deal in cull cows and has a SFP in excess of €100k and only now farms 60 acres?
Click to expand...
so were in agreement averaging doesn't really work - pay on current year, it should be simple when you submit your acreage in May you get paid on that. The next level down is productivity and I'd agree that needs to be looked at also but probably more tricky to do.
 
towbar said:
so were in agreement averaging doesn't really work - pay on current year, it should be simple when you submit your acreage in May you get paid on that. The next level down is productivity and I'd agree that needs to be looked at also but probably more tricky to do.
Click to expand...
so if you say 300/ha for 2018 on 50ha's then you decide hey if I can get 75ha's next year I'll get an extra 7500, the extra land will cost a lot and the train of taught with many will be that if I can rent the land for 200 and make money off it by farming it then I can afford to actually pay 100 an acre more so give 300 an acre and I'm still winning as I'll have he land for my animals and machines and I'll also get an extra 1250 from th SFP. That won't work
 
towbar said:
so were in agreement averaging doesn't really work - pay on current year, it should be simple when you submit your acreage in May you get paid on that. The next level down is productivity and I'd agree that needs to be looked at also but probably more tricky to do.
Click to expand...

No I don't think that paying on acreage is good enough because it doesn't treat the hard working farmer fairly. As i said above, a rolling average of productivity is a system that I would prefer so that one simply cannot build up the value of their payment at the start and reduce significantly after that and still receive the payment at the same level. I believe that productive farmers should be rewarded and farmers should be paid on the basis of what work they do as opposed to what land they own or rent. But the reward for work that they do should reflect the present, not 20 odd years ago.
 
muckymanor said:
No I don't think that paying on acreage is good enough because it doesn't treat the hard working farmer fairly. As i said above, a rolling average of productivity is a system that I would prefer so that one simply cannot build up the value of their payment at the start and reduce significantly after that and still receive the payment at the same level. I believe that productive farmers should be rewarded and farmers should be paid on the basis of what work they do as opposed to what land they own or rent. But the reward for work that they do should reflect the present, not 20 odd years ago.
Click to expand...
Increasing productivity or output either in kgs of beef, litres of milk or tonnes of grain runs the risk of greater environmental impact which goes against what we are led to believe may be a big part of the payment going forward. Acreage with a minimum and maximum stocking rates maybe?
 
Blackwater boy said:
Increasing productivity or output either in kgs of beef, litres of milk or tonnes of grain runs the risk of greater environmental impact which goes against what we are led to believe may be a big part of the payment going forward. Acreage with a minimum and maximum stocking rates maybe?
Click to expand...

Yes. That could be viable
 
Blackwater boy said:
so if you say 300/ha for 2018 on 50ha's then you decide hey if I can get 75ha's next year I'll get an extra 7500, the extra land will cost a lot and the train of taught with many will be that if I can rent the land for 200 and make money off it by farming it then I can afford to actually pay 100 an acre more so give 300 an acre and I'm still winning as I'll have he land for my animals and machines and I'll also get an extra 1250 from th SFP. That won't work
Click to expand...

I don't see the issue - if you rent another 25ha and farm it why should you not get the subsidy, if you want to pay higher for the land because you get more subsidy then so be it - right now lads are paying premium for the land just to ensure they have enough acres to hold onto the sfp they secured many years ago. I'll bet there might not be as much of a scramble for land if lads don't need to show acres for historic earned entitlements.

Around here veg and potatoe growers renting land need to replace the land they are renting for the owner to continue to claim subsidy - that forces price up.
 
towbar said:
I don't see the issue - if you rent another 25ha and farm it why should you not get the subsidy, if you want to pay higher for the land because you get more subsidy then so be it - right now lads are paying premium for the land just to ensure they have enough acres to hold onto the sfp they secured many years ago. I'll bet there might not be as much of a scramble for land if lads don't need to show acres for historic earned entitlements.

Around here veg and potatoe growers renting land need to replace the land they are renting for the owner to continue to claim subsidy - that forces price up.
Click to expand...
If your having to rent land to claim full SFP then you either sold land or lost leased land. My point was inflation of land prices so the landowner and auctioneer wins again. As I said different part of the country, no veg down here.
Bring back stacking of entitlements would stop the need to rent just to claim.
 
But why allow stacking - that simply allows payments based on historic performance not current performance.
 
towbar said:
But why allow stacking - that simply allows payments based on historic performance not current performance.
Click to expand...
To stop the guys renting land to claim sfp, that was your point, I mentioned nothing about historic or current, allow lads to stack when the new regime is rolled out therefore freeing up land
 
towbar said:
I don't see the issue - if you rent another 25ha and farm it why should you not get the subsidy, if you want to pay higher for the land because you get more subsidy then so be it -
Click to expand...
That was exactly how it worked prior to the Fischler CAP reform in 2003 and it was a disaster. Farmers hated it because the "Area Aid" or "Beef Premia" as they were known ended up in in everyone elses pockets. Factories took the beef premia. Once landlords realised Area Aid was being paid to farmers they just added the value of the aid onto the land rental price and left nothing for the farmer. Worse than armchair farming. Any farmer who operated in that era would be rightfully up in arms at the suggestion of such a system being introduced.
 
So to be fair I'm no expert on this so very open to other ideas. I think while the reform may have resolved the problems short-term its very clear that landowners and armchair farmers operating share farm agreements are essentially picking up the sfp + land rental price anyway
 
towbar said:
So to be fair I'm no expert on this so very open to other ideas. I think while the reform may have resolved the problems short-term its very clear that landowners and armchair farmers operating share farm agreements are essentially picking up the sfp + land rental price anyway
Click to expand...

I'm no expert either but I can't see landowners taking that level of a hit in what they get, it's an asset it has a value, if farmers don't pay it forestry, solar or something else will
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top