Last week saw new eco schemes proposed and amendments revealed to the original five.

These eco schemes will account for 25% of the Pillar I budget under the CAP from 2023.

Eco schemes replace greening and aim to improve biodiversity and protect the environment on farms.

These schemes should reward farmers for doing environmental good. They should help to reach goals, be attainable and be backed by science. They should also promote sustainable farming practices.

However, when the amendments and additions to eco schemes were made public last week, there were varied reactions and some proposals were questioned more than others.

It is important to stress that these proposals are drafts and there is more work to do

Some measures looked like they had opened the gate to many more farmers, perhaps too much so, and others looked like they were thrown in to appease a sector, namely tillage, which had been basically ignored in the first draft.

It is important to stress that these proposals are drafts and there is more work to do, but at first glance, there is a lot to be followed up on.

Many of the amendments are positive. For example, it is likely the addition of an option to plant either native trees or hedgerows will result in a greater uptake of the measure than if trees were the only option, as a hedgerow will take up less space while providing shelter and a stockproof barrier, as well as providing huge benefits for biodiversity and wildlife.

However, not all of the proposed amendments seem to be based on science or research.

What about the science and the cross compliance?

One proposed measure is that break crops take up 25% of the arable land on a farm, whether that farm is meeting a two- or three-crop requirement. This was part of the old greening rules, which now appear to remain for tillage farmers.

In the draft, the proposal specified the break crops as peas, beans, oilseed rape and oats, but presumably other crops like temporary grass, potatoes, maize, beet and vegetables will also be included.

Oilseed rape in full bloom on the Cork and Waterford border. \ Donal O'Leary

Let’s be clear – rotation is good when carried out correctly. Placing oilseed rape in 25% of the cropping area each year is not good practice. Sclerotinia is a huge risk and the crop should only be planted once every five or more years.

Remember, brassica catch crops cannot be planted during this time either. Many farmers would actually prefer to leave beans six years apart and potatoes preferably five.

Leaving the appropriate window to avoid disease and pests like nematodes is an essential part of good integrated pest management under cross compliance, but this proposal does not promote sustainable farming.

Scale must also be taken into account here. A large number of tillage farms barely meet the three-crop requirement, so they are hovering around 30ha of tillage land.

In order to show profit, they need to be able to maximise cash crops and if the cropping area is limited, they are on the back foot. They may not have access to the machinery required to manage many different crops.

Tillage has a low carbon footprint. We need more of it in this country, not less

Add to this the fact that break crops like beans can be extremely unreliable on yield and markets are not widely available in some areas.

Tillage has a low carbon footprint. We need more of it in this country, not less, and those farms need to be supported in order to survive. They should not be heavily restricted.

Another measure which ticks the tillage box, but will help relatively few, is to allow those using GPS-controlled sprayers to avail of an eco scheme. This is good, but how many people will it actually benefit?

Will all sprayers which were grant aided under TAMS qualify for this measure?

We must also remember that such sprayers will no longer be grant aided once this rule comes in, therefore making this technology unattainable for many until it decreases dramatically in price. It is, of course, an amendment to the original proposal, which stated that those spreading fertiliser using GPS controlled equipment would benefit from the scheme.

GPS measures could do more

GPS technology has huge potential to make fertiliser savings, but it is out of reach for many farmers.

Farmers can invest in a GPS guidance system for just over €1,000 or even buy a secondhand machine for less

A recent proposal from Teagasc adviser Ivan Whitten was to change this scheme to include navigation guidance.

Farmers can invest in a GPS guidance system for just over €1,000 or even buy a secondhand machine for less. That will give them more accurate guidance for spreading.

This would open the measure up to many more farmers and could help prevent waste on farms of all sizes, rather than just on large-scale farms. It has the potential to stop significant fertiliser or pesticide application waste caused by overlapping.

Limiting high nitrogen rates?

The scheme that is getting a lot of attention is ‘Limiting Chemical Nitrogen Usage’. This was extended to all stocking rates.

The proposed scheme allows a farmer at a stocking rate of 170-210kg N/ha, to spread 240kg of chemical N/ha because he/she need only reduce rate by 10kg/ha. The proposal appears to be contrary to current policy and targets.

If someone was spreading 250kg N/ha, that would be a 10kg reduction or -4%

At a time when EU fertiliser use is to reduce by 20% by 2030 and our Department of Agriculture has set targets to reduce chemical nitrogen use from 405,000t in 2018 to 350,000t by 2025 and 325,000t by 2030, how can we have a five-year eco scheme commencing in 2023 which allows a farmer on a stocking rate of 170-210kg N/ha to apply 240kg/ha of chemical nitrogen?

If someone was spreading 250kg N/ha, that would be a 10kg reduction or -4%.

This is well off target and does not address the Ag Climatise statement: “Over 50% of chemical nitrogen usage is in the dairy sector and therefore this must be a key focus area.”

Research shows that nitrogen rates can be reduced by using clover, LESS and protected urea, so why aren’t these practices being rewarded? Producing milk and meat from grass is essential, but where nitrogen use can be reduced, it should be encouraged.