Dáil debates
Thursday, 13 June 2019
Saincheisteanna Tráthúla - Topical Issue Debate
Areas of Natural Constraint Scheme Review
3:50 pm
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
A review of the areas of natural constraints, ANC, scheme has been ongoing for several years. I acknowledge the work carried out by the Department in the review. It did its best to get the maximum number of farmers and amount of farmland included in the scheme. Two weeks ago, Fianna Fáil representatives met departmental officials who explained the appeals process to us. All reviews lead to anomalies and hard luck cases, and I wish to focus on such cases.
Some 700 townlands fell out of the scheme, having been deemed ineligible this time around. Some 2,200 formerly excluded areas have been deemed eligible. Obviously, from an economic point of view, that is a good financial gain. In my county of Tipperary, there are several farmers in certain townlands who feel hard done by. The strictness of the appeals process will make it very difficult for them to be successful. In a particular area of my county, there are several fairly significant dairy farmers in townlands who are farming on difficult lands. They spent a lot of money through the years draining, improving and maintaining that land. The land carries with it a cost as regards cost of production because there is later turnout and earlier housing of stock, as well as the cost of keeping the drains maintained. Those farmers are being excluded from the ANC scheme even though we were told that they would qualify on the basis of the physical criteria of their land. However, they are being excluded because of their stocking rate. That is extremely unfair. The impression was given at the start that if one's land met the physical criteria, one would qualify as the review would be strictly based on the physical criteria of the land. There are farmers in these areas whose lands are adjacent to intensive dairy farmers, but far less intensively stocked. They are being excluded because of the farming practices of neighbouring farmers. That must be looked at and addressed. My understanding of the guidelines for the appeals process is that it will be extremely difficult to address that issue.
Another group of farmers who feel aggrieved is those whose land is flooded on a fairly frequent basis. They are not being accommodated under the review of the ANC scheme.
Some farmers' land is flooded three or four times a year. Last summer's weather was an exception. There are flood plains, whether they border the River Suir or any other major river, that are flooded frequently. Again, the farmers affected feel very hard done by that this is not a criterion for inclusion in the scheme.
As I said, I am not here to score political points against the Minister of State but to highlight the fact that, as is always the case with reviews, there are hard luck cases and people who fall outside of the remit of the review. There are farmers who have invested a lot of money in improving land that was marginal. I feel very strongly that that land is still disadvantaged, even though it gives a very green image. As I said, the farmers affected farm intensively and have the land that is highly stocked, but that land carries a cost of production and that these farmers are being excluded on the basis of the stocking rate when their land meets the physical criteria is wrong.
4:00 pm
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I acknowledge his complimentary comments about the departmental officials in how they sought to ensure as many people as possible could be included under the new criteria.
The areas of natural constraint, ANC, scheme was introduced under the rural development programme 2014-20 as a replacement for the disadvantaged areas and less favoured areas schemes which had been in place since 1975. The scheme was originally introduced in recognition of the fact that farmers in particular areas were faced with challenges related to lower productivity and higher production costs compared with farmers in other areas. The ANC scheme is an important support for the 95,000 farmers across the country who receive the payment annually in addressing cash-flow issues. In recognition of its importance, the annual budget for the ANC scheme was increased by €23 million in 2018 and by €23 million in 2019, bringing the total annual budget for the scheme to €250 million.
The scheme is implemented around a tiered payment structure which recognises the different levels of constraint experienced on differing land types. Under the 2019 scheme, those farming on category 1 lands, previously called mountain-type land, will receive €148 per hectare for the first 12 forage hectares, with €112 on remaining hectares up to a maximum of 34 ha. Farmers with category 2 land, previously called more severely handicapped lowland, will be paid €111 on the first ten forage hectares and €104 on remaining hectares up to a maximum of 30 ha. Those with category 3 land, previously called less severely handicapped lowland, will be paid €93 on their first eight forage hectares and €88.25 on remaining hectares up to a maximum of 30 ha. These new rates represent an increase across all land categories, with the higher support being targeted at the greatest constraint.
The ANC scheme has had a long history of review and refinement since its introduction. From the first EU review of the scheme in 1976 through to the fifth review in 1996, Ireland has been successful in increasing the number of hectares eligible under the scheme, from just under 4 million ha to over 5 million ha, and incrementally increasing the level of funding available under the scheme.
Until 2018, under the Common Agricultural Policy, lands eligible under the ANC scheme were defined based on a range of socio-economic indicators such as family farm income, population density, percentage of working population engaged in agriculture and stocking density. This approach has now changed on foot of new EU regulations. From 2019, eligible areas under the ANC scheme must instead be designated using a set list of biophysical criteria. Under this change, where a member state has not introduced the new system for payment, the regulation sets out that the old scheme remains in place but payments must phase out on a digressive basis, which would result in significant cuts in payments. The purpose of this change in approach is linked with a concern at EU level that areas were not being designated as disadvantaged in a consistent manner across the various member states.
The biophysical criteria set out in the legislation to underpin the new system of designation are low temperature; dryness; excess soil moisture; limited soil drainage; unfavourable texture and stoniness; shallow rooting depth; poor chemical properties; and steep slope. The Department undertook the process of identifying eligible areas at townland level. Essentially, where the agricultural lands in a townland display one or more of the biophysical criteria listed and meet the 60% threshold set in the regulation, they are identified as constrained.
In parallel to this biophysical approach, two processes set out in the EU regulations were used to refine the identification of eligible land. First, a number of areas were identified as having "overcome the constraint" by reference to high levels of stocking density and arable land cover and are thus not eligible under the 2019 ANC scheme. This is referred to as "fine-tuning" in the EU regulations and was a mandatory step for all member states. Second, some areas were identified as eligible for the 2019 ANC scheme as they faced other specific constraints. In Ireland's case, this process identified townlands as eligible areas of specific environmental importance and townlands facing structural issues related to farm size, field size, farm fragmentation and the level of permanent pasture.
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Minister of State for his reply, but to get to the heart of the issue, land that qualified under the biophysical criteria is now, because of the fine-tuning, being excluded from the scheme. There is not a huge number of such cases, but my understanding of the appeals process is that farmers have no hope of winning an appeal, which is extremely unfair. If the land qualified under the biophysical criteria, we are obliged to ensure the farmers concerned are made eligible under the scheme. The Minister of State said farmers' lands had overcome their disadvantage. The criteria were used and the farmers showed that the lands still met the biophysical criteria and the 60% threshold; therefore, the fine-tuning is changing the goalposts. As I said, I am not laying the blame at the door of the officials on Kildare Street because they have done all in their power to ensure the maximum number of farmers qualify, but I am laying it at the door of those in Brussels. To introduce this fine-tuning to take farmers who have satisfied the physical criteria out of the scheme is wrong and the appeals process will not rectify the position. As I said, when there is a review, there are always people who are unhappy, but the farmers in question have a ustifiable case. They have extra costs of production which, to me, makes their land eligible for ANC payments. It is wrong of those in Brussels to introduce this fine-tuning. The clear understanding of farmers on the ground was that the biophysical criteria were to be the only determining factors. The Minister of State was right when he said the last time there was a review of disadvantaged areas, as they were formerly known, there were many criteria that could take farmers out of the scheme. Even population density was used as a reason for inclusion or exclusion. That was also very unfair. As I said, there are farmers in district electoral divisions who have the misfortune to be located beside intensive farmers and who are being excluded from the scheme, which is extremely unfair. The review taking place must allow the farmers who met the biophysical criteria to receive payments. It is a big ask, but it is in Brussels that we must win this argument. We need to take it back to Brussels and say we have a small number of farmers who meet the biophysical criteria but who are being excluded because of stocking rate. That is not fair.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I will finish some of the statistics. The Department received 1,537 appeal notifications in respect of 759 distinct townlands. The closing date for receipt of such appeal notifications was 8 April. I am told that the relevant information underpinning the decision on the relevant townlands has been provided in response to all of the appeal notifications and that, to date, the Department has received 376 full appeals to the independently chaired appeals committee in respect of 273 townlands.
There are two criteria and one is stocking density, which as the Deputy noted had the effect of fine-tuning out people. There is also a fine-tuning of people to be included as well.
4:10 pm
Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will not concentrate on that.
Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am just making the point that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Member states can designate an area of up to 10% of the area in their territory. This approach was taken to designate the offshore islands in 2015. Areas with specific constraint are those where 50% of the district electoral division, DED, is covered by Natura 2000 directive lands and the natural heritage areas, where the landholding in the DED is in multiple blocks and fragmented, and where the average farm size in a DED is less than 80% of the national average, or 25.5 ha. The areas also include locations where more than 50% of the townland is in permanent grassland and the average field size is less than 4 ha. Criteria were used to keep areas in this.
I accept there are always difficult cases but the Department officials went to the Commission and had quite a job in persuading its officials that this would be in line with the Commission's demand for member states to be consistent in how they designate these areas. The 10% allowed some flexibility but we can see how they had to justify the balance. I accept the matter is not sitting well in some areas but the net result is that 760 are out but more than 2,200 are in. The coverage under areas of natural constraint has seen a net increase.
Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Deputy Kelly is not yet here to speak to his issue, and although Deputy Wallace is here to speak on the national children's hospital, there is no Minister of State here to reply to him. It is Thursday, which is normally the day for the Minister of State, Deputy Catherine Byrne. As we are running a little ahead of schedule we can suspend for a few minutes.