Is the Charter of Farmer Rights worth the paper it’s written on? That is a question that I have regularly been asked. The question mostly came from farmers who had problems with inspectors or inspections or were still waiting for payments long after they were supposed to be paid. Last week the farming organisations agreed the charter for 2015 to 2020 with the Department. It was a long process, but agreement was achieved.
Is the Charter of Farmer Rights worth the paper it’s written on? That is a question that I have regularly been asked.
The question mostly came from farmers who had problems with inspectors or inspections or were still waiting for payments long after they were supposed to be paid. Last week the farming organisations agreed the charter for 2015 to 2020 with the Department. It was a long process, but agreement was achieved.
The 40-page document clearly explains what farmers can expect when dealing with the Department. It covers what they will get in the post, how they will be contacted on telephones, all the way through to inspections and payments. The whole focus is on making a complex system simpler for farmers and setting targets.
So yes, it is worthwhile. To really make it beneficial, it needs to be followed through.
The main points
Payment dates: While the Department has hit high payment rates for the Single Farm Payment and Disadvantaged Area Scheme in the past, the track record on environmental schemes has been abysmal. It is clearly stated that the third week in October is the payment target for GLAS, AEOS and the organic schemes, with the balance paid by mid-December. Each scheme is covered, with target dates set.
Inspections: The document details how farmers will be notified and what options they have around the contentious issues of no-notice or notice inspections. If a farmer is selected for a no-notice inspection on animal welfare, feed or food, he can agree to have the notice inspection at the same time. Otherwise, the inspector will return, but only up to 48 hours or 14 days depending on type of inspection.
Minor infringements
There is no new yellow-card system for minor tolerances, but there is a continuation of the warning system that had been there in the past.
The yellow card proposal was considered. However, it was rejected on the basis that farmers given a yellow card had to be moved into a higher risk category and would face more inspections and potential higher penalties.
Call what we have now an “alternative yellow card system” or a “yellow card approach”, but, as before, under certain tolerances, farmers have up to three months to address the issues.
The Department can confirm this by checking its records, phoning or in some cases revisiting the farmer.
In the past, less than 1% of farmers who were found to have minor issues went on to get a penalty, so it does work. The tolerances around cattle and sheep are set out on the facing page, but there are plenty of other issues that farmers will be given a chance to fix.
Appeals
One important point is that from the date the farmer provides all information relevant to the appeal, the Appeals Office will aim to conclude its findings within a three-month period.
Charter monitoring
One way in which the last charter failed was that it was not actively reviewed to see if targets set out were being met. Under this charter, a committee will be established to monitor its implementation. The committee will be led by an independent chairperson to be selected by the Minister for Agriculture following consultation with the farm bodies. The farm bodies and the Department will be represented on the committee. It will meet three times a year, or otherwise as agreed, and will review the service delivery and payment deadlines/targets in respect of new schemes.
The Department has committed to provide the monitoring committee with sufficient information. As well as the hard data, what was paid and when and how many penalties, it should include surveys of farmers who have gone through the inspection process. The review will be critical to ensure that targets are met. The aim should be to have less penalties by ensuring timely information of where issues have been found. The only real issue not addressed is what happens if the targets under the Charter of Farmer Rights are not being met?
INSPECTIONS:
What should
farmers expect?
Inspections will always be a part of CAP payments. The Charter of Farmer Rights sets out what happens when farmers are picked for an inspection.
Before the inspector arrives, the Department has committed to ensure the inspection approach and reporting system used will be standardised across all areas of the country to ensure consistency and fair treatment of all farmers. They will also ensure there is a clear understanding of the requirements among farmers.
Inspections will normally start at the main farmyard. Farmers would have indicated where it is on their BPS application. For unannounced inspections, if the inspector cannot locate anyone on the farm when they arrive, they will leave and return another day. On their second visit, should nobody be present, the inspector will ring the farmer and start the inspectionWhen the farmer is there the inspector will introduce him/herself and produce official identification. The farmer can be represented by someone else if they cannot be there. For notice inspections, where an inspector has been unduly delayed, the applicant will be contacted by phone as soon as possible before the appointed time for the inspection. The inspector will provide the farmer with inspection notice information and explain the nature of the inspections they carry out. Flexibility will be given for the inspection to be rescheduled where there is serious illness, bereavement or other good reason. If the farmer refuses to allow inspection to start without good reason (eg serious illness, bereavement, etc), the inspector will advise the applicant of the possible implications, including the possibility of total loss of payment. A cooling off period will be allowed for both parties to reflect on their position. This period may also be provided in the event of a disagreement arising during the course of an inspection. The farmer will then be allowed the opportunity to reconsider his or her decision. If he still refuses, the inspector will report the circumstances to his or her supervisor. Inspectors will treat the farmer with the utmost respect and fairness. A written notice will be given to the farmer on arrival. The no-notice inspection must be carried out on the day, but the farmer can request to do all notice inspections. If he does not, the inspector will inform the farmer when he will return to complete the notice elements of the inspection.On the day of the visit, the farmer will be provided with a --report which will include a preliminary notice of findings. The farmer will be given the opportunity to sign and comment on the report on the preliminary inspection report. This doesn’t prejudice the farmer’s position in respect of any penalties that may arise. With inspections involving sheep, the Department will take account of the circumstances and follow agreed protocols with the farming bodies in relation to penning at lambing time. In carrying out inspections in hill sheep areas, the Department will take account of the timing of inspections relative to lambing and when sheep move to and from the hills. It will also provide adequate notification and tolerances to take account of the unique circumstances and losses in the hill areas.
Minor issues that will not give rise to an immediate penalty
For cattle
Herd register discrepancies, as distinct from failure to maintain a register. Herd register incomplete for up to six months but relevant dockets available with the register. Missing entries in the herd register for up to two months where the relevant supporting documentation is available or one month where no documentation is available. Passport discrepancies and/or surplus passports for animals not on the AIM database at time of the inspection. Mislaid passports. Up to 30% of the animals in a herd with one tag where the second tag has fallen out and the farmer has a history of ordering replacement ear tags.Where it comes to missing two tags the tolerances are below. In all cases the animals must be identifiable and the farmer must have ordered replacement ear tags prior to receiving notice of the inspection.Clerical error or discrepancy in AIM notification process, provided the farmer responds in a timely fashion to any query letter. Certain combinations of the above will also not give rise to penalties.Tolerances for cattle
missing two ear tags
Herd size Number missing both tags
up to 150 animals up to 2 animals
151 to 300 animals Up to 3 animals
Over 300 animals Up to 4 animals
For sheep
Flock register discrepancies (as distinct from failure to maintain a register). Flock register incomplete for up to six months but relevant supporting documentation available with the register. Missing entries in the flock register for up to two months where the relevant supporting documentation is available or one month where no documentation is available (as distinct from failure to maintain a register).Census discrepancies where the discrepancies are less than 3% (5% in hill flocks). Census not recorded in flock register for the previous three years.Sheep incorrectly tagged. Clerical error/discrepancy in a dispatch docket 1.Dispatch docket missing. Certain combinations of the above will also not give rise to sanction:Tolerances for missing tags
where the sheep has been
tagged but lost ear tags
Flocks size Number missing tags
up to 50 animals up to 4 animals
51 to 100 animals Up to 5 animals
101 to 150 animals Up to 8 animals
151 to 200 animals Up to 10 animals
201 to 250 animals Up to 13 animals
251 to 300 animals Up to 16 animals
301 to 400 animals Up to 19 animals
401 to 600 animals Up to 24 animals
601 to 1,000 animals Up to 30 animals
over 1,000 animals Up to 36 animals
This article was first published on 18 June 2015
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: