New grant schemes to run into 2000

Twenty five million pounds of national funds have been allocated to the revised Dairy Hygiene Scheme, which was introduced last May, and the revised Control of Farmyard Pollution Scheme (CFP), introduced at the end of June. But between £5m and £7m of this is likely to be required to clear the backlog of approved applicants under the old CFP scheme.

By Hugh Scanlan

Clearing the backlog will leave £15m to £17m to cover the new CFP and around £3m for dairy hygiene.

The delay in the introduction of the CFP, combined with the requirement to submit planning approval (where required) and a nutrient management plan, have caused serious concerns that there is too litle time to get works completed and that unspent funding would have to be returned to the state coffers at the end of this year.

Officials now seem confidant that this national scheme will be allowed to run into next year and that the funds will be adequate for the expected uptake. In theory, more than 16,000 farmers could need and be eligible for the revised CFP, with up to 10,000 farmers falling within the ambit of the dairy hygiene scheme. However, uptake of the schemes is likely to be considerably less than these figures, particularly for dairy hygiene, because of the costs of complying with regulations and the 'bitty' nature of the work involved. To date, nearly 2,000 applications have been received and a small number have been approved. No firm figures for each county are likely to be available before next month.

The revised schemes have been criticised over the complexity of the application forms and the costs associated with completing them. For example, the application form for the CFP runs to 16 pages, plus a further 10 pages dealing with the Nutrient Management Plan (NMP), which is an essential component of both new schemes.

Some of the paperwork, particularly that associated with planning permission and income unit calculations, is quite complex, and it has been argued that most of the small farmers being targeted by these schemes, will be unable to fill them out.

However, since a planner/consultant must be employed to draw up the NMP and to certify the income unit calculations, this is not an issue, per se, but it does significantly increase the cost to the farmer, of making an application.

There are two main reasons for the complexity of these forms:

These schemes advance the process, established under their predecessors, of placing the onus on the farmer to submit a valid application, which includes precise drawings, calculations of existing and required waste storage facilities, planning permission requirements, income unit calculations and the furnishing of a completed NMP. This is the main additional element from the previous schemes and necessitates the use of an approved planner, thereby dramatically increasing the cost of an application.

The revised schemes are more restrictive and involve a higher level of cross compliance, in terms of planning permission, the nutrient management plan, aid obtained under previous grant schemes, declared stocking levels, milk quota, etc.

So far, the FDS have reported no serious complaints from farmers about the complexity of the forms, but this may be because a planner/consultant must be involved to complete some or all of the application.

Costs of application

Applicants for these schemes must submit an NMP, drawn up by an approved planner/consultant, and this planner must also certify the calculations of the farmer's income units. Farmers in REPS will already have such a plan and, in these cases, Teagasc is quoting figures of £140 to £220, depending on the farm size, for preparing a grant application. Where a farmer is applying for REPS and one of these schemes at the same time, these charges are halved and the normal REPS planning charges applied. Teagasc is giving priority to REPS applicants in the preparation of CFP applications.

In cases where the farmer is not already in REPS, Teagasc is charging £320 to £560 for a completed grant application, depending on the size of the farm.

These charges include VAT, but the farmer must also pay the annual client fee, plus the cost of soil samples (£17 for every 10 acres). Private planners may have a different charging structure, but it's clear that a farmer could easily run up a bill of £500 to £700 preparing a grant application. This being the case, it's essential that farmers check in advance, whether or not they are actually eligible for the schemes before going to the expense of employing a planner to draw up a nutrient management plan, seek planning approval, etc.

Calculating income units

Both schemes are confined to farmers with enterprises of not more than 100 income units, including off-farm income. At least 25 percent of income units must be derived from farming. A spouse's income is not taken into account for this calculation; nor are social welfare payments. In the case of off-farm income, one income unit is equivalent to £200 and income from milk quota leasing is treated as off-farm income. The details of how the income units are apportioned are shown in Table 1.

It can be seen that each 400 gallons of owned milk quota is counted as one income unit. The calculations become significantly more complicated in situations where the farmer has leased in milk quota or where there are milking and suckler cows on the one farm. Where there are only suckler cows on the farm, it can be assumed that each cow counts as one unit.