The move by ABP to ask farmers to confirm in advance if they agree to the deduction of the European Involvement Fund (EIF) levy is being interpreted by the IFA as retaliation for the organisation’s staunch opposition to the proposed joint
venture between Slaney Foods and ABP. While ABP justifies the decision on the back of farmer disquiet, the timing of the move has to be questioned.
The move by ABP to ask farmers to confirm in advance if they agree to the deduction of the European Involvement Fund (EIF) levy is being interpreted by the IFA as retaliation for the organisation’s staunch opposition to the proposed joint
venture between Slaney Foods and ABP.
While ABP justifies the decision on the back of farmer disquiet, the timing of the move has to be questioned.
It comes amid an internal review by the IFA into the future of their levy structure and just weeks after the organisation submitted a report to DG Competition highlighting the negative impact on competition from the proposed deal between Slaney and ABP.
Whatever the justification, the fallout has put the thorny issue of farmer levies back under the spotlight. There is no doubt the IFA had been struggling to find an alternative funding model that is fair and equitable. These latest developments will certainly not help matters.
Recently we proposed exploring the option of having a member-funded and controlled organisation supported by an industry levy collected from the businesses dependant on farmers – justification based on the fact that the dividend from a well-funded farm organisation extends far beyond the farm gate.
Clearly the issue of levies needs to be dealt with by the farm organisations and not the meat industry.
Listen to Irish Farmers Journal editor Justin McCarthy discuss Wednesday's developments in our podcast below:
Read more
IFA and ABP levy row escalates fast
Will others follow ABP?
What do the developments on levies mean for farmers?
History of the EIF levy
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: