How did the commonage issue fare in 2015?

The last year has been a tumultuous one in the quest for a long term solution to the commonage issue.  Undeniably we are in a better place at the end of the year then we found ourselves at the beginning.  It might help all concerned to look back at the progress that has been made in 2015, not for the purpose of nostalgia but as evidence that progress is possible and that with goodwill on all sides, further progress in 2016 is a certainty.

  In January the situation appeared bleak, the Dept. of Agriculture and the Hill Farmers had different interpretations of what had been agreed between the Commonage Implementation Committee and a hill farmer’s delegation at their first meeting in Athenry. It was being suggested in some official quarters that the CIC was not authorised to make an agreement and that nothing discussed at that meeting could be considered as binding on the Dept. of Agriculture in any way.

This was a dangerous juncture, Ireland’s RDP was not yet agreed with Brussels and faith in the potential for direct talks between Hill Farmers and the Dept. of Agriculture to deliver a solution was at a low ebb.   Some of the key developments over the year that followed include;

1. The publication by DAFM of a Guide to Land Eligibility.
2. The initial round of BPS applications.
3. First round of GLAS.
4. The publication of the methodology for the production of Commonage Management Plans.
5. The appointment of the first Commonage Advisors.
6. Second round of GLAS applications.

Inevitably the list above looks like a series of actions by the Dept of Agriculture alone. I can assure you that this was not the case. Directly and indirectly other parties, in particular the INHFA (Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association) and a small number of agricultural advisors had an important role in influencing the evolution in commonage policy.  That the Dept of Agriculture were open to new ideas and willing to engage, although not necessarily agree with other perspectives and viewpoints was refreshing and bodes well for the future.

It is not appropriate at this stage to mention any names or to go into details of the discussions that took place. However, it may be worth examining some of the key constraints that the different stakeholders had to operate under. These are still relevant. The difficulty as always in these circumstances is that everyone looks to their own problems and seeks a solution to address these. Nothing wrong with that but we must all remember that the other parties involved have a different set of issues and their vision of the future is one which resolves their issues. The danger is that all too often people do not appreciate that their actions or their negotiating stance, while perfectly logical to them may be interpreted very differently by other stakeholders operating under a different set of constraints. Let’s look at some of the constraints that affect the different stakeholders.

The Dept. of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

First and foremost the Dept faced and continue to face a mammoth task in the roll out of the current RDP. This task is complex and multi faceted.  The aspects of it relating to commonage are lets be honest a minor component of the overall program. Commonage issues have to compete for resources, not just financial but also and perhaps even more critically for the attention of key management personnel and for the allocation of a limited IT resource. We must appreciate that the Dept. also has to engage with equally pressing issues in respect of the Basic Payment Scheme, Greening, Knowledge transfer, Young Farmers, TAMS etc. Other lobby groups have a keen interest in many of these issues and are equally forthright in their demands for progress and for fair and workable solutions. The officials dealing with all of these issues are in a no win situation. They cannot be expected to be experts on a technical level on everything that crosses their desk but they and the Dept end up being accused "of not understanding the reality on the ground". What other stakeholders have to appreciate is how could they understand everybody else's assessment of "reality on the ground".

The rest of us must remember that Dept officials are not only dealing with farmers and various lobby groups, but that they work in an environment where on many issues political consent is needed. This in itself takes time and cannot be taken for granted, senior officials are not plenipotentiaries, and they cannot make commitments that bind the Dept to a particular course of action. They must have regard to the decision making processes within the Dept and the Government. To further complicate things, the Dept of Agriculture have to report to the EU Commission, their room for manoeuvre on some topics is thus constrained by agreements already made with the Commission.  

I am sure some of the people within the Dept. of Agriculture, navigating this maze of competing demands and the constant battle to keep the show on the road must find the whole system extremely frustrating and indeed stressful. They must look at some of the demands made by third parties and say to themselves, do these people not realise that things could be a lot worse? Do they not understand that it is an achievement in itself that their topic of interest is even on the agenda?   

Farmers and their Representatives.

Farmers and in particular hill farmers operate in a very uncertain environment. They are exposed to a range of external factors that the person on a salary just cannot appreciate. Prices fluctuate, schemes are complex and often require professional assistance, unforeseen events such as flooding or a disease outbreak can wreck the best of plans. The new CAP meant a break with the familiar structures of the old; while some of the new schemes were progressive and beneficial such as the increases in the BPS due to convergence and GLAS, however improvements brought changes in administration, changes which many struggled to understand the significance of. 

Familarity with the old schemes had provided a certain comfort and any new regime was bound to bring doubts to the surface. However the delivery of these schemes, GLAS in particular was radically different from the past and confusion and differences of interpretation were unavoidable. Regrettably parts of the proposals were awkward and unworkable. Inevitably some people feared that there was another agenda involved.

The new schemes brought transaction costs with them. Costs are inevitably a big issue for farmers, while the Dept. of Agriculture would argue that transaction costs are covered in the design of the schemes, what is not addressed is that costs borne by farmers are inevitably front loaded. They must pay for a GLAS application, pay for a commonage management plan and wait close to a year for any return. Yes, they are compensated for the costs suffered but there are cash flow implications and for many this is an impossible burden. 

It is no surprise that farmers are often sceptical of new initiatives. They look at past policies such as compulsory destocking and they remember the waste and senselessness of their implementation at farm level. They are intensely aware of the poor age profile of hill farmers, the limited opportunities available to them outside of the farm and the difficulty in getting their voice heard. All of these things affect their collective morale, is it any wonder that farmers only place their trust in those who have earned that trust, is it any wonder that they are reluctant to embrace change because the Dept of Agriculture tell them it is a good thing.

Farmers have to look at the practical implications of proposals. Unlike other stakeholders they have to answer the questions about how stock will be sourced, fed, managed on the hill, how lambs will be finished and sold. They have to assess how issues like poor prices are going to feed into the rosy aspirations about increased sheep numbers on the hill? They are the ones who will have to work commonage management plans through, the ones who will have to improvise solutions and deal with internal disputes. In some cases there may be advisory support, in most, they will be on their own and they know it.    

With the roll out of the new schemes now at an advanced stage, it is the land eligibility issue that has become the core issue for farmers. If land is not eligible for payment than everything else is a moot point. For farmers, this is absolutely central. If GLAS CMP’s are to deliver improvements to commonage management then these cannot be nipped in the bud by an ineligibility finding.  The setting of an MEA (Maximum Eligible Area) within the CMP is an issue of enormous concern to farmers. It needs to be resolved if we are to progress further.

All of this colours the ordinary farmer’s assessment of the situation. The information that they need to make decisions on their flock, their farm and their livelihood is not available to them or where it is, it comes from a quarter whom some may suspect of having an ulterior motive. Farmers and their representatives have come a long way and other stakeholders need to appreciate this. But farm leaders have to be able to bring their people with them, if they cannot demonstrate to their members that engagement has benefits for farmers then their position is weakened.   They have to be able to deliver for their members and lest anyone forget it, their members are the people at the centre of all this. Other stakeholders would do well to remember this.

Farm Advisors;

Farm Advisors are not a single group. They are either part of the Teagasc/ FRS networks or they are private operators. I am going to resist the temptation to discuss Teagasc or the rationale behind their decisions to date. However irrespective of whether an advisor is private or is part of the Teagasc/ FRS network, they are part of a commercial operation. They have to make a profit or they are out of a job. This sounds harsh but it is the reality. Everything else in terms of the role they have to play is built on that premise. To stay in business advisors need to be able to plan their work, they need certainty, they need the tools to do the job and they need the support of farmers and Dept officials alike.    

In respect of the Commonage Management Plans, planning work schedules is not compatible with continued uncertainty and unrealistic or shifting deadlines. Fieldwork is not like working in an office. Short days and bad weather mean that work from Dec – Feb particularly on large sites is just not practical. Ideally this time could be used to finalise plans where fieldwork was completed last summer and autumn, unfortunately the software to do this is not yet available. Of course advisors have other work such as soil sampling to do but the net effect of the delay in the launch of the CMP software will be to push the completion of last summers’ work back till after the 2016 BPS scheme. This puts it into direct competition with the third tranche of GLAS and fieldwork for the remaining commonages. This is intensely frustrating and will lead to serious issues when another deadline looms later in 2016.

Just like farmers, advisors need information to make decisions but they also have to be conscious of the decisions, particularly on prices made by their competitors. Unfortunately many of them found themselves in a position where they felt obliged to get involved in Commonage Management Planning even though they lacked both the time, the training and the skill sets required and had no idea of what a plan would entail or what it would look like. For price, many were guided by what Teagasc had settled on and many have now entered into agreements which may be financially unviable.   

Advisors have to be professional in their work, if they make a mistake they will have to answer for it. While insurance cover provides some protection it is not a suit of armour and repeat claims risk putting an advisor out of business. The roll out of the first tranche of GLAS at the same time as the Basic Payment Scheme applications placed an impossible burden on advisors. You can be certain that errors were made. Thanks to the design of GLAS these cannot be corrected and will hang like a sword of Damocles for the schemes duration. The Dept. of Agriculture and farmers have no appreciation of the pressures involved. If the truth was known you have to be a bit mad to put yourself through it all.  

Where now from here.

First, things are a lot better than they were. Second if we can continue to build trust between the parties than a lot of the other issues will fall into place.  We are very nearly there and I believe the positions held by all sides are a lot closer than many appreciate. More needs to be done but not much more, the time for these last few steps is short, let’s try and make sure that the next few weeks are not wasted.  

If I could finish off with a short wish list for the New Year it would be like this.

1. Re-assurance to farmers that the Maximum Eligible Area set in a CMP will be forward looking. That the MEA will be the area that the plan is designed to deliver and not based solely on current conditions. This is the key issue, if the plan is designed to deliver the MEA over the plan period and farmers get an opportunity to input into planning for that objective then everything else will fall into place. If this does not happen and farmers are trapped with an MEA based on current conditions then the plan risks becoming completely irrelevant.   


2. Advisors need the tools to do the work. Completion of the software for Commonage Management Plans before the end of January 2016 is essential.  This cannot wait any longer without worsening the logjam that will develop next summer.


3. In association with the launch of the CMP software, a comprehensive training seminar for Commonage Advisors must be provided. Training provided to advisors to date was to put it mildly, somewhat inadequate for the complex task involved. The time to organise this is short but that does not mean that planning and delivery can be rushed. Time is short but it will only run out if people let it. Delivery by early February at the very latest is a necessity. Agenda to include;
   1. Management Techniques for addressing eligibility issues.
   2. Planning Fieldwork.
   3. Confidence Building Measures and negotiating techniques.
   4. CMP Software.
4. That’s it!
   Happy New Year to all.

Chairman of Commonage Implementation Committee Appointed.

The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine has appointed Joe Healy as chairman of the Commonage Implementation Committee. This is a positive development and hopefully will lead to progress in developing the commonage management issue for the benefit of all stakeholders.

The full text of the Dept. of Agricultures press release is shown below.

105/14 09 July 2014

COVENEY APPOINTS JOE HEALY AS CHAIRMAN OF

COMMONAGE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

The Minister for Agriculture Food and the Marine, Simon Coveney TD announced today that he has appointed Mr Joe Healy as Chairman of the newly formed Commonage Implementation Committee. Mr Healy is a livestock farmer from Galway. He is former President of Macra na Feirme and former Chairman of Athenry Mart.

"When I met the farming organisations last week about the Rural Development Programme, I said I would appoint the chairman and get this new Commonage Implementation Committee up and running without delay. I am very pleased that Joe Healy has agreed to act as chairman and I believe he will bring a wealth of experience and energy to this role."

Mr Healy will be assisted on the committee by senior officials from the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine and two technical experts, one nominated by Teagasc and one nominated by the Department of Arts Heritage and the Gaeltacht.

The Implementation Committee will have a role under pillar 1 in examining cases where there may be disagreement over the allocation of minimum-maximum figures to individual farmers. It will also have a role under pillar 2 where there may be difficulty in getting the minimum 50% of active shareholders signed up to a GLAS Commonage Plan.

ENDS

Commonage and Agri Environment Schemes

Undergrazed Commonage leading to Purple Moor Grass dominated sward.
Fire Hazard, no winter grazing potential, minimal value to sheep. Can GLAS plans manage this situation?

At the recent Teagasc Hill Sheep conference held in Bantry, Mr Liam Fahey of the Dept. of Agriculture spoke on the subject of the commonages and future agri environment schemes. Management of Commonages and Agri Environment Schemes. In particular he set out the rationale for the grazing agreements that will be a feature of GLAS contracts on commonage farms. He explained the background to the current proposals and how the new approach differs from the implementation of the commonage framework plans. Interestingly he stressed that a grazing agreement and the stock numbers within it applies only to the commonage, it is not a whole farm commitment and that subject to normal GAEC and cross compliance requirements a farmer can keep whatever number of stock he wants on his privately owned land. In addition the new agreement will finally break the last remaining links with the old coupled ewe quota.

There is still no blueprint for the grazing agreement required by the Dept. of Agriculture nor is there any detail on what timescale will be available for drawing up such agreements or on the support that will be available for farmers to assist in this process. Mr Fahey is correct in his assertion that the task of drawing up these agreements will not be easy, however he gave no indication of how long this process would take. The fact is that each commonage is unique and that each agreement will have to be made to measure. It is inevitable that the process will get off to a slow start as it will be a new and unfamiliar program and so adequate time to deliver it is essential although the financing of a number of flagship projects could speed this up considerably. In any case the process must start very soon, certainly no later than early summer this year. If not, than many commonage farmers will find themselves ruled out of GLAS for 2015 due to the absence of a grazing agreement.

We are still unaware of how the Dept. of Agriculture intend the program of developing and negotiating grazing agreements to be financed, one solution may be to use the extra payments allowed for under the provision for GLAS+. The formation of new commonage governance structures at community level certainly qualifies as a "particularly challenging action". I hope that full clarification on what exactly is proposed can be given as soon as possible.

The full transcript of Mr. Fahey's speech at the Teagasc conference follows.

Liam Fahey,

Senior Inspector,

Agri-Environment and Structures Division, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM)

Introduction

Agri-environment schemes such as REPS and AEOS compensate farmers for income forgone or costs incurred as a result of participating in an agri-environment scheme. REPS was introduced in 1994 and at its peak in 2007, there were 60,000 farmers in REPS. When REPS 4 closed in 2009; there were approximately 30,000 farmers in the scheme. A total of 1,000 of these farmers completed their 5 year contract at the end of 2012 with a further 12,000 completing their contracts in 2013. The vast majority of the remaining 17,000 farmers will have completed their REPS contract by the end of 2014. The average REPS payment in 2013 was €5,400.

In terms of AEOS, there are approximately 20,000 farmers across AEOS 1, 2 and 3. The AEOS 1 scheme started in September 2010, with AEOS 2 commencing in September 2011. AEOS 3 commenced in May 2013. The average AEOS payment in 2013 was €3,200.

Commonage lands form an important part of the farming enterprises of many farmers, particularly along the west coast. They also form an important part of the local environment from the point of view of bio-diversity, wildlife, amenities and economic returns e.g. tourism. There is a substantial risk of land abandonment as under-grazing become more of a problem. Under-grazing leads to an increase in ineligible land under Direct Aid and Agri-Environment Schemes and leads to risk of financial corrections being imposed by the EU Commission. It is vital, therefore, to maintain the commonages in GAEC (Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition), or where there is undergrazing, to return the habitat to GAEC.

The farming of commonages lands has a long tradition in Ireland. It is by its very nature a complex area. In the vast majority of cases, however, commonage shareholders work well together on a cooperative basis. Each year approximately 4.7 million hectares of eligible land is declared by applicants under the Direct Aid and Agri-Environment Schemes. Of that area, in excess of 330,000 hectares of commonage lands are declared – representing 7% of the total area declared. In 2012, almost 15,000 applicants declared commonage lands – equivalent to 11% of scheme applicants.

Commonage lands in Ireland are mainly situated along the western coast, in particular, in Donegal, Mayo, Galway and Kerry. The areas of commonage lands in these counties, as is illustrated below; comprises of almost 71% of the total commonage land declared. (Mayo: 84,000 ha; Kerry: 54,000ha; Donegal: 51,000 ha; Galway: 45,000 ha). Commonage lands include both upland and lowland grazing habitats. However, these lands have been used mainly for the maintenance of sheep flocks. Cattle are also grazed in some commonages as are other animals such as the Kerry Bog Ponies.

The experience to-date since the Single Farm Payment was introduced in 2005 is that there is a growing problem of commonage land being abandoned by farmers. This is not good for the environment, as these areas lose the specific characteristics as natural habitats for flora and fauna. In addition, the creeping ineligibility of these lands under the Single Payment Scheme and other Direct Payment Schemes poses a significant risk to the State in view of the risk of financial corrections being imposed by the European Commission. There was also a need to replace the now outdated and no longer valid Commonage Grazing De-stocking Plans, which were drawn up in the late 1990s to deal with the then over-grazing problem arising from the level of sheep maintained on the hills to maximise farmers' payments under the coupled Ewe Premium Scheme. While overgrazing is still an issue in some known areas, the main problem facing us is the under-grazing of commonages. A variety of reasons have led to a problem with under-grazing:

•Introduction of decoupled payments (SPS) in 2005.

•Age profile of farmers with commonage lands.

•Low market returns – resulting in reduced livestock numbers.

•More attractive returns from off-farm income during the Celtic Tiger era.

Reason for Review

There was an opinion that a number of commonages throughout the country were now reaching a situation where they were undergrazed.

•Sheep prices had improved and there is a renewed demand to increase hill sheep numbers.

•Off-farm employment has decreased significantly with a resultant increased interest by the

younger farmers.

•Requirement under EU Regulations to manage the hills in such a manner as to be

maintained in Good Agriculture Environment Conditions (GAEC).

•Danger of burning where undergrazed has become an issue in recent years.

The objective of the current review of commonages is to ensure:

•That the lands are maintained in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC).

•That the sustainable stocking of all commonage land is achieved.

•Those sheep farmers who may have been destocked in the original CFP can once again increase

sheep numbers subject to NPWS stocking rates for each of the commonages.

•Within a number of years all commonages will continue to be maintained in GAEC, are being

sustainably managed and farmed and are contributing both locally and nationally in terms of the

environment, tourism and biodiversity.

During 2012, DAFM in conjunction with the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) engaged with all the main farm organisations on setting out a roadmap to ensure that the approx 400,000 hectares of commonage claimed annually by farmers on their SPS continued to remain eligible for Department Scheme Payments. This was in the context of the National Parks and Wildlife Service updating the stocking levels for all commonages which had a CFP. This involved setting an overall total minimum and total maximum stocking level in ewe equivalents (EE) for each commonage to ensure that the commonage was sustainably grazed and to ensure that it remained eligible for Department Scheme payments. The overall total minimum and maximum EE translates into an individual minimum and maximum based on the number of shares and claimants on the commonage.

The main differences from previous CFP are:

• The minimum/maximum only applies to the commonage. There is no link with privately owned lands.
• The historic link with ewe premium quota numbers is broken.

Future Schemes

Future agri-environmental schemes offer the opportunity for claimants with commonage land to receive slightly higher payments than a non – commonage farmer where the land is collectively managed. While not all claimants on the commonage would have to be signed up to the collective management plan, it is proposed a baseline of in the region of 60 – 70% participation would be reasonable. While details on a new agri-environmental scheme within the next RDP have yet to be

finalised, higher payments for commonage land managed with a collective management plan offers an opportunity for active claimants to increase their EE numbers on the commonage over and above their individual minimum and maximum levels once they are within the total minimum and maximum figures for the commonage and are managed in accordance with the collective plan drawn up by the claimants on the commonage.

Issues

While naturally, there will be reservations from both farmers and farm organisations on any

approach towards collective management of commonages as it also means collective responsibility for all actions carried out on the commonage, the alternative is that commonages in some cases continue to be undergrazed. The risk of undergrazing over multiple years is that eventually these commonages will not be considered to be maintained in GAEC ruling them out of Department scheme payments. The Department will be allowing a lead in time to allow farmers to adjust their EE numbers to comply with each claimant's individual minimum and maximum EE figures within the context of the total minimum and maximum EE for the commonage.

Conclusion

The whole purpose of collective management of commonages is to ensure that these commonages continue to remain eligible for Department scheme payments for the benefits of the claimants on the commonages. Taking all of these matters into account, it is the Department's aim is to ensure that a practical solution is reached, which will ensure that the current farmers actively farming these lands are protected; that the land is maintained or returned to GAEC and that the requirements of the governing EU Regulations are met. This can best be achieved by working with the farmers directly managing the lands, relevant State Agencies, the farming organisations and all other interested stakeholders. It will not be an easy task but it is achievable if we all work in a co-operative basis.


Why not share this article.

Teagasc Hill Sheep Conference

The Teagasc Hill Sheep Conference is to be held in the Westlodge Hotel, Bantry, Co. Cork on the 22nd January. It is a STAP approved National event. The programme is very interesting and should be of value to anyone with an interest in Hill Sheep farming. Of particular relevance to commonages is the attendance at the conference of Mr Liam Fahey from the Dept. of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Mr Fahey has played a central role in highlighting the potential problems that may face the eligibility of commonage lands for direct payments in the future. He is also likely to have a key part to play in the development of a strategy to ensure that commonage land is brought back into GAEC and that future payments can be guaranteed.

I hope that he will be in a position to announce the start of the engagement process with commonage stakeholders at this conference as time to develop an agreed approach is rapidly running out. The operating programmes for the next RDP will be agreed with the EU Commission by the end of the summer. If a workable commonage solution is not in place by then it will be too late. This solution will not fall into place overnight and if there is to be any chance of success it must start this month.

You can download the flyer for this event from the following link.

http://www.teagasc.ie/events/2014/Hill%20sheep%20flyer%20web.pdf