On the rotation of break crops, why is the Department not including beet, maize and potatoes?

The four break crops we have listed currently are beans, peas, oats and oilseed rape. Just because they are the four crops listed at the start doesn’t mean there will not be further crops added to the option in future.

Can I plant all of the trees in the tree-planting eco-scheme option in year one of the scheme rather than planting some each year?

The Department has asked the Commission if a farmer so wished could they plant all of their required trees in the first year.

Like a lot of things with the Commission, they have not told us we can and they have not told us we can’t. The availability of planting stock in the country would be a consideration with this. If we do get a remit to allow this to happen, the farmer could plant five years of trees in 2023 but they would have to apply for payment each year.

With regards to the Suckler Carbon Efficiency Programme reference number, would I be able go from 40 cows down to 30 or go from 40 cows up to 50?

What we are creating with the suckler scheme is a ceiling figure. One of the criticisms of the BDGP was that a farmer signed up for a scheme that involved their cattle numbers in four or five years’ time and they felt that they were restricted in their choices because they had to meet their BDGP reference number.

A farmer can go down in numbers one year but return back up to the figure they set in year one of the scheme. They can’t exceed the ceiling but they can go back to that figure.

Their payment will reduce but there won’t be penalties.

Will the taxpayer feel that the minimum stocking rate requirement for payments is unjustifiably low?

The European Commission polled Europeans on how they wanted CAP funds to be allocated and taxpayers came back with answers like “more money for the environment”, “more targeting of money to active farmers” and “more redistribution of payments”. The Commission structured the regulations around these views and that is why the Department has come up with things like front-loaded payments (CRISS), eco schemes, capping and convergence.

What is the definition of a “new farmer” under the new CAP?

There are two definitions and each new entrant is either one or the other. A “young farmer” is someone under 40 who has set up a holding for the first time and a “new farmer” essentially is someone that is over 40 and is setting up for the first time.

Why aren’t there more choices out there for eco schemes?

We looked at Dutch eco schemes and they have 20 options but farmers have to do four or five options. We met the Commission and we wanted an eco scheme that we are confident we can administer and deliver and most importantly make payments on within the year. We’re satisfied with the eight we have. When we published it first there were five and we got a lot of pushback from farm organisations so the eight we have are the result of a long consultation process with farm representative bodies.

If we had 20 or 30 measures in the eco scheme, building a monster of a scheme like that, if anything it puts a greater risk that we wouldn’t get the money out in time, because we must have all this up and running by the first of January so we’re trying to keep this simple and straightforward. It’s then delivering on its environmental objectives. We are satisfied that for the vast majority of farmers there are going to be two measures for them to do it, with administrative control to get the money out before the year is out. That’s been the priority. We don’t want to end up administering a monster.

We’re one of the few member states that pay on the earliest date, the 16 October. So if we make complex eco schemes that a farmer would still be having to comply with the actions towards the end of the year, and if we can’t prove that the farmer has done the actions, it will be a lot harder for us to make the payments earlier in the year.

What we have done is design a scheme that is implementable, that has broadly been welcomed through public consultation and technically there are 10 actions due to the two enhanced ones with higher levels.

For the vast majority of farmers it will be relatively straightforward to get into the eco scheme.

If you’re in a rental agreement now and you’re the active farmer and the person you’re renting off is doing nothing and getting the single farm payment - will that change in 2023 or when the lease agreement comes to an end?

For someone who is currently in the middle of a lease that is to end, say in 2025, those entitlements will revert back to that owner. That owner can lease them out again or if they want to farm again themselves they will then have to meet the active farmer definition in that year to justify getting that money. If you’re someone who’s leasing out all or nearly all of your entitlements on a long-term basis (minimum of five years) that’s grand. But if you’re leasing them out on a yearly or two-year basis you are going to be hit by a 10% clawback on every one of those entitlements. That is a measure to push people towards long-term rentals and security of tenure.

Will there be many farmers who will not make the 4% space for nature?

Anyone involved in tillage will know that since 2015 we’ve had ecological focus areas. Tillage farmers had to have at least 5% and very few farmers didn’t hit 5%. We’re still going through maps and in September we’ll have a full view for everyone.

There will be some that won’t have 4% but very few farmers. It’s not that you will be stuck with a penalty but you will be able to add space for nature to the farm like tree planting or creating a habitat.

So very few won’t make 4% but there will be options that fit in best with the form of farming they’re at.

What if there’s a commonage and there are six farmers on it and only two want to join the co-operative environmental measures?

You could be in the Agri-Environment Climate Measure (AECM) co-operation measure in a commonage or you could be an applicant in the general measures in a commonage. So the core payment for both will be done in the same way, it’s results-based.

The commonage will have to be assessed. If you have good-quality commonage, you will get a high score and a high payment. Subject to approval from the Commission, the top payment for a score of 10 on a commonage is proposed at €220/ha, compared to GLAS where it was €120/ha.

So if there are 10 shareholders in a commonage and two of those apply for the AECM, those two shareholders will get paid on their share of the commonage.

If the other eight are not in the scheme, you will still get the payment.

If a farmer buys entitlements in 2023 at say €100 or €150 per entitlement, what happens them? Do they come up?

All entitlements, whoever owns them at the moment, will continue in existence into the new CAP but every one will have a new value, somewhere around 60% or 61% of their current BPS plus Greening value. There will be a new average that will be somewhere between €155 to €160. If it’s below 90% of that, they will be converging up and if you’re above that they will converge downwards. All entitlements by the end of 2026, at the end of that programme of convergence, will all end up in a value somewhere between €135 and €285. So if you buy entitlements above the average they will be converging down and if you buy below the average they will be converging upwards.