REPS Series: farmers have their say on the new REPS scheme

Among the most important elements of any new flagship environmental scheme will be the payment rates for those farmers who choose to take part.

The programme for government states that “farmers must be rewarded for adapting to more sustainable methods of farming”.

While money is not always the deciding factor, it has a major bearing on most farmers’ decisions when weighing up whether a scheme is worth taking part in.

One of the most spoken about elements of the old REPS was the high payments, often in the region of €10,000.

Among farmers who gave their views ?to the Irish Farmers Journal in the last week, on a new scheme, it is a benchmark figure.

Mary Fenlon said it had to be on par with REPS 4 in order to be considered a new REPS. This was echoed by Declan Murphy who believed a payment of €12,500 would be needed to entice farmers, as 10 years ago the payment was €10,000.

As mentioned earlier in this series, a payment of that nature could be difficult to deliver due to the change in how the EU allows schemes to be costed.

However, farmers expressed the view that subsequent schemes did not sufficiently reward farmers.

Old scheme

“Why was the old REPS so successful? Farmers were properly remunerated for their efforts,” one farmer said.

“The best way to answer this question is to look at the downward trends in environmental standards and quality since the scheme ended.”

The Government’s aim is a scheme “which is user-friendly for farmers, delivering broader environmental and biodiversity benefits and aligning financial support with climate, forestry and land use objectives”.

The difficulty will be striking that balance between user-friendly and delivering broader benefits.

As one farmer observed, under the rules of the Basic Payment Scheme, farmers are obliged to farm to a standard that meets the various Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAECs). Therefore, REPS will be required to go above and beyond these conditions.

The addition of eco-schemes in the next CAP could further complicate the picture with farmers required to meet the basic requirements for their direct payment, deliver further benefits for an eco-scheme payment and even greater benefits for an agri-environmental scheme.

However, farmers believed a model that allowed farmers to get more involved would be successful.

“To gain acceptance, farmers need to be involved in designing what measures suit their own farm which has to be flexible and low on bureaucracy,” one farmer said.

The question of who the new scheme should be targeted at was a prominent one among farmers who contacted the Irish Farmers Journal.

Many felt that it should be for those farms with the lowest incomes and who are farming less intensively.

There were also suggestions that the scheme could be tiered with different measures for different farms.

Bartholomew O’Donovan said the scheme needed to be “first and foremost targeted at low-income farmers”.

He suggested using stocking rates as a criteria, with extensive farms getting priority entry. Farms stocked above 130kg/ha would carry out more stringent measures while those exceeding 170kg/ha would be excluded.

Other farmers pointed out the need for different measures for different farming systems.

John Fitzpatrick said: “Organic farmers should not be discriminated against as in the last few environmental schemes.”

He said originally organic farming had been a supplementary measure in REPS, with a complete reversal in AEOS and GLAS. Creating a different suite of measures for these farmers and other groups such as those in upland areas could be a feature.

Another farmer suggested that the scheme could dove-tail with the Department’s forestry policy.

Owen Cooney said: “For the scheme to work, I feel it should partner the forestry programme. Farmers should have access to major agroforestry incentives alongside measures to reduce inorganic crop production methods. Proper funding for these measures would allow stocking rates to reduce while maintaining or improving farm income.”

There were many and varied suggestions from farmers as to what should be included in the scheme.

Measures focused on biodiversity and habitat creation were particularly prominent, with many suggesting payments to fence off and maintain these areas. Some farmers wanted to see some GLAS measures retained such as low-input permanent pasture and wild bird cover.

One suggestion was for creating small native woodland areas of up to 2ha consisting of species such as hazel, holly and oak. Declan Murphy put forward the idea of a measure to encourage habitat for corncrake in the southwest.

Hedgerows also drew a lot of attention. John Heaphy wanted to see farmers rewarded on a per-metre basis for high-quality hedgerows. He said many would have the option to plant hedges and receive payment while those who were already maintaining them would not be rewarded.

Perhaps harking back to the old REPS, there were a number of suggestions for payments to restore old farm buildings and repair old stone walls. Further payments to improve the look and safety features of farmyards were suggested due to the number of farm accidents.

“In an environment where beef is at best a marginal enterprise, the opportunity to stop chasing scale as the only option to improve performance and to right size an enterprise and simultaneously deliver environmental benefits is enormous.

“The old REPS schemes were simple to understand, paid a good amount per hectare and targeted the benefits towards less intensive, less profitable farms.

“AEOS, and to a lesser extent, GLAS were schemes which made it more difficult to access higher payments, due to restrictions such as limits to selecting multiple measures on the same land parcel.

“For example, my payment under GLAS was limited due to the rules excluding hedge planting and low-input permanent pasture on the same land parcel, which could easily accommodate both.

“One area where GLAS was better than REPS was in the significantly lower-cost burden from consultant/planner fees.

“In summary, a successful scheme would be one which:

Michael Biggins, IFA rural development chair

“This scheme must have new money and must be separate from agri-environmental Pillar II schemes and eco schemes under Pillar I.

“REPS must apply across all of the farm and pay for actions undertaken on a voluntary basis, which have a positive effect on carbon reduction. These have to be additional to other measures, in a similar way that supplementary measures applied under the old REPS.

“REPS closed for new entrants in July 2009. The IFA believes that the new REPS should be piloted in 2021 and should run in parallel to existing measures such as GLAS and locally led schemes, which can continue for next year (or possibly two years) under EU CAP transitional arrangements.

“The important point for the IFA is that environmental restrictions through the new EU Farm to Fork strategy must not negatively impact on farmers and the wider rural economy. Strong supports are required through CAP, funded jointly by EU and national finances, and a new REPS-type nationally funded scheme.”

Colm O’Donnell, INHFA president

“The INHFA is currently engaging with the grassroots to explore what actual interventions could be part of the new REPS. The proposed flagship environmental scheme which forms part of the programme for government must, if successful, take into account the following elements.

“Firstly, that it forms a baseline payment for the maintenance of existing environmental features at farm level particularly areas of rich biodiversity such as hedgerows, stone walls, semi-natural grasslands, natural woodlands and afforested areas.

“Secondly, any incorporated grazing measures in the new REPS should complement entry-level measures included as part of the eco scheme in Pillar I.

“Thirdly, that interventions in the new scheme don’t discriminate or exclude participation of farmers who may have to comply with onerous conditionality in order to receive their Basic Income Support for Sustainability (BISS) under proposed Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) in the CAP legislative proposals in Pillar I.”

Pat McCormack, ICMSA president

“It’s actually more important to get it done right than it is to get it done quickly. This is the Government’s “flagship” agriculture-related policy and is going to be the main policy vehicle taking Irish farming and primary food production through the next five years of transition towards the low-emissions model that we all – certainly ICMSA – realise we have to get to.

“The new scheme will have to be attractive to and, to a degree, designed around commercial farms – including family dairy farms.

“There are two obvious dangers: firstly, that the scheme starts from the mistaken view that commercial farming – and specifically commercial dairy farming – is a problem that has to be dealt with by shutting them out of environmental schemes and deliberately making the schemes unattractive to milk suppliers. That has unfortunately been the approach so far and we really hope that all elements in Government accept that this approach guarantees failure.

“The second danger is that the scheme is made so complex and administration-intensive that it frightens off maybe the older demographic.

Agricultural Consultants Association

Agricultural Consultants Association (ACA) has recently made a submission to Government which includes a mandate for an agri-environment REPS-type programme.

“The ACA firmly believes that to develop farm plans that achieve the optimum environmental benefit then the scheme should be open on a year-round basis similar to TAMS. A one-size-fits-all approach will not work in future agri-environmental schemes and every farm has its own unique ecosystem. Each farm must be evaluated by their farm adviser to establish baseline measurements for the plan and payment model.

“The scheme should allow for five- to seven-year plan options including an annual assessment and declaration by the adviser and participant and regular farmer training on their environmental options/commitments. Payment rates should be set at a maximum of €10,000.

“All IT systems required must be given to ACA members without any costs to have equality with the public advisory service. The costs cannot be borne by our farmer clients and members only as was permitted in the past.”