Ranking and selection has come into play with regard to TAMS aid from tranches nine onwards.
Prior to this, all eligible applications were approved, which totalled over 40,000.
In order to ensure that TAMS money was still there for the duration of the scheme, limits will now be put on how many applications will be successful in a certain tranche.
This does pose some issues, as certain farmers may effectively be locked out of the scheme due to the high popularity of it. Another issue is the current speed of approvals. In previous iterations, TAMS approvals were issued within a three-month window of the closing of the tranche.
The benefit was that it allowed farmers to who were rejected in the previous tranche to reapply in the tranche immediately proceeding it, eg if a farmer was rejected due to ranking and selection in tranche nine, tranche 10 applications were still open.
Current approval times are between four to six months after the closing of applications, meaning that this system will not work as it did in the past.
How TAMS III will work is that farmers whose application is unsuccessful in one tranche due to ranking and selection, will see their application moved down to the next tranche, eg applied in tranche 9 but was unsuccessful = application moved to tranche 10. If the application is unsuccessful again in tranche 10, then it moves into the draft application status on Ag Food.ie and must be reapplied for.
This will have serious ramifications for farmers who are applying for mobile items and purchasing them before full approval is given – because if their application was unsuccessful in both tranches, then the item they have purchased will not be grant eligible.
How does ranking and
selection work?
Ranking and selection was previously used in TAMS II; farmers who applied for items under this will be familiar with it, though certain scoring methods have changed, namely that additional points cannot be garnered by submitting the proposed cost under the reference cost.
Table 1 outlines the marking scheme that covers some of the most popular sub schemes within TAMS III, namely the Animal Welfare and Nutrient Storage Scheme (AWNSS) and the Farm Safety Capital Investment Scheme (FSCIS).
The scoring is also relevant for the Dairy Equipment Scheme (DES) and Nutrient Importation Storage Scheme (NISS), with the remainder of the schemes seeing minor changes to scoring which primarily concerns the nitrates tab.
For the Solar Capital Investment Scheme (SCIS), Pig and Poultry Investment Scheme (PPIS) and Low Emission Slurry Spreading (LESS), +0.01 marks are awarded per kg N/ha produced, though farmers in derogation (above 170kg N/ha) are ineligible for LESS aid.
The table is also the same marking scheme used for the Women Farmers Capital Investment Scheme (WFCIS), Young Farmers Capital Investment Scheme (YFCIS) and Organic Capital Investment Scheme (OCIS) bar for any items specific to tillage, with the Tillage Capital Investment Scheme (TCIS) also carrying some additional areas to accumulate marks where land is in the Protein Aid Scheme or in the Straw Incorporation Measure (SIM).
For farmers of the above schemes with any land in the Protein Aid Scheme, five marks will be awarded. In relation to the SIM, 0.5 marks/ha up to a maximum of 40ha can be gained, eg 10ha = five marks, 50ha= 20 marks.
In essence, smaller holdings (excluding PPIS) with lower nitrates levels will be rewarded higher marks. To demonstrate this, I have included some case studies.
As can be seen from the examples, the biggest loser from a points perspective is the dairy farmer. Not being under 40 has hurt them badly, with points hard to garner anywhere else. Looking at the young farmer, the majority of their points come from their age; while for the tillage farmer, despite them being over 60, they have come up just shy of their younger drystock counterpart due to high areas of land in SIM, as well as those five marks for having land in the Protein Aid Scheme. If the tillage farmer was to include their successor as part of a joint venture or registered farm partnership (RFP), then an additional 20 marks would easily be harvested (pardon the pun) and they would essentially have a golden ticket to TAMS.
Case study one: older dairy farmer in derogation
A dairy farmer aged 45 has a holding of 100ha with 40ha of this in ANC and has an on-farm stocking rate that pushes them into derogation at 180kg N/ha. How will this farmer score?
Case study two: young drystock farmer
A 32-year-old young, trained, drystock farmer has 30ha of land with a stocking rate of 85kg N/ha, with all of this land being in ANC. How will this farmer score?
Case study 3: older tillage farmer with protein crops and SIM
A 65-year-old tillage farmer has 60ha of land submitted in their BISS. Of this, 15ha is in ANC, 5ha is in the protein aid scheme while 40ha is in SIM. No livestock are present. How will this farmer score?
Opinion: ranking is needed
but could be fairer
I understand why ranking and selection may be needed; TAMS isn’t an endless pot of money and we have to ensure it lasts for the duration of the scheme (up to 2027). However, I think there are fairer ways it could be dealt with. While it is harsh that a farmer over the age of 40 is down 20 points immediately, it probably is the best channelling of money and may help to encourage more farm partnerships.
What I don’t agree with is the high marks awarded for tillage investments where farmers have protein crops or are chopping straw (as can be seen from the case studies). This completely blows any dairy/ drystock farmer over the age of 40 out the door; they simply won’t be able to compete. What I believe would be a fairer way is awarding points to farmers who have not yet utilised any TAMS III funding.
Farmers chopping a large area of straw will see points accumulate rapidly, which should push the majority of farmers who do so across the line for ranking and selection.
In TAMS II, farmers who had not used TAMS I funding received additional points, which helped spread the money out. With increased reference costs and ceilings now, a farm partnership with a young farmer involved building a large-scale livestock building with a slatted tank, has the capacity to pull €178,000 in grant aid – if they max out everything.
Surely it makes more sense to award those who have yet to pull from the funding additional points that should hopefully get them over the line.
Ranking and selection has come into play with regard to TAMS aid from tranches nine onwards.
Prior to this, all eligible applications were approved, which totalled over 40,000.
In order to ensure that TAMS money was still there for the duration of the scheme, limits will now be put on how many applications will be successful in a certain tranche.
This does pose some issues, as certain farmers may effectively be locked out of the scheme due to the high popularity of it. Another issue is the current speed of approvals. In previous iterations, TAMS approvals were issued within a three-month window of the closing of the tranche.
The benefit was that it allowed farmers to who were rejected in the previous tranche to reapply in the tranche immediately proceeding it, eg if a farmer was rejected due to ranking and selection in tranche nine, tranche 10 applications were still open.
Current approval times are between four to six months after the closing of applications, meaning that this system will not work as it did in the past.
How TAMS III will work is that farmers whose application is unsuccessful in one tranche due to ranking and selection, will see their application moved down to the next tranche, eg applied in tranche 9 but was unsuccessful = application moved to tranche 10. If the application is unsuccessful again in tranche 10, then it moves into the draft application status on Ag Food.ie and must be reapplied for.
This will have serious ramifications for farmers who are applying for mobile items and purchasing them before full approval is given – because if their application was unsuccessful in both tranches, then the item they have purchased will not be grant eligible.
How does ranking and
selection work?
Ranking and selection was previously used in TAMS II; farmers who applied for items under this will be familiar with it, though certain scoring methods have changed, namely that additional points cannot be garnered by submitting the proposed cost under the reference cost.
Table 1 outlines the marking scheme that covers some of the most popular sub schemes within TAMS III, namely the Animal Welfare and Nutrient Storage Scheme (AWNSS) and the Farm Safety Capital Investment Scheme (FSCIS).
The scoring is also relevant for the Dairy Equipment Scheme (DES) and Nutrient Importation Storage Scheme (NISS), with the remainder of the schemes seeing minor changes to scoring which primarily concerns the nitrates tab.
For the Solar Capital Investment Scheme (SCIS), Pig and Poultry Investment Scheme (PPIS) and Low Emission Slurry Spreading (LESS), +0.01 marks are awarded per kg N/ha produced, though farmers in derogation (above 170kg N/ha) are ineligible for LESS aid.
The table is also the same marking scheme used for the Women Farmers Capital Investment Scheme (WFCIS), Young Farmers Capital Investment Scheme (YFCIS) and Organic Capital Investment Scheme (OCIS) bar for any items specific to tillage, with the Tillage Capital Investment Scheme (TCIS) also carrying some additional areas to accumulate marks where land is in the Protein Aid Scheme or in the Straw Incorporation Measure (SIM).
For farmers of the above schemes with any land in the Protein Aid Scheme, five marks will be awarded. In relation to the SIM, 0.5 marks/ha up to a maximum of 40ha can be gained, eg 10ha = five marks, 50ha= 20 marks.
In essence, smaller holdings (excluding PPIS) with lower nitrates levels will be rewarded higher marks. To demonstrate this, I have included some case studies.
As can be seen from the examples, the biggest loser from a points perspective is the dairy farmer. Not being under 40 has hurt them badly, with points hard to garner anywhere else. Looking at the young farmer, the majority of their points come from their age; while for the tillage farmer, despite them being over 60, they have come up just shy of their younger drystock counterpart due to high areas of land in SIM, as well as those five marks for having land in the Protein Aid Scheme. If the tillage farmer was to include their successor as part of a joint venture or registered farm partnership (RFP), then an additional 20 marks would easily be harvested (pardon the pun) and they would essentially have a golden ticket to TAMS.
Case study one: older dairy farmer in derogation
A dairy farmer aged 45 has a holding of 100ha with 40ha of this in ANC and has an on-farm stocking rate that pushes them into derogation at 180kg N/ha. How will this farmer score?
Case study two: young drystock farmer
A 32-year-old young, trained, drystock farmer has 30ha of land with a stocking rate of 85kg N/ha, with all of this land being in ANC. How will this farmer score?
Case study 3: older tillage farmer with protein crops and SIM
A 65-year-old tillage farmer has 60ha of land submitted in their BISS. Of this, 15ha is in ANC, 5ha is in the protein aid scheme while 40ha is in SIM. No livestock are present. How will this farmer score?
Opinion: ranking is needed
but could be fairer
I understand why ranking and selection may be needed; TAMS isn’t an endless pot of money and we have to ensure it lasts for the duration of the scheme (up to 2027). However, I think there are fairer ways it could be dealt with. While it is harsh that a farmer over the age of 40 is down 20 points immediately, it probably is the best channelling of money and may help to encourage more farm partnerships.
What I don’t agree with is the high marks awarded for tillage investments where farmers have protein crops or are chopping straw (as can be seen from the case studies). This completely blows any dairy/ drystock farmer over the age of 40 out the door; they simply won’t be able to compete. What I believe would be a fairer way is awarding points to farmers who have not yet utilised any TAMS III funding.
Farmers chopping a large area of straw will see points accumulate rapidly, which should push the majority of farmers who do so across the line for ranking and selection.
In TAMS II, farmers who had not used TAMS I funding received additional points, which helped spread the money out. With increased reference costs and ceilings now, a farm partnership with a young farmer involved building a large-scale livestock building with a slatted tank, has the capacity to pull €178,000 in grant aid – if they max out everything.
Surely it makes more sense to award those who have yet to pull from the funding additional points that should hopefully get them over the line.
SHARING OPTIONS