I, like all farmers, am in the dark on the income consequences of the latest raft of EU Green Deal proposals, possible outcomes of the CAP reform and the implementation choices facing the Minister and Department of Agriculture. It wasn’t meant to be like this and it doesn’t have to be.

Some years ago, the Irish Farmers Journal co-ordinated a significant contribution from the Irish agribusiness sector to establish a core of people that would give guidance on these issues.

Among those who contributed apart from the Irish Farmers Journal were the Irish Dairy Board, Dairygold Co-op and the IAWS.

The unit was formed to full international standards with the help of some of the leading agricultural economists in the English speaking world, from the University of Missouri in the US.

Nobody doubts the competence of the economists but the board of Teagasc has serious questions to answer

A steering group was set up to meet twice yearly to be representative of Irish agriculture, to review progress and suggest topics that needed analysis. The unit is in existence and operates as the FAPRI economics group within Teagasc but the transparency and accountability has been ditched.

Nobody doubts the competence of the economists but the board of Teagasc has serious questions to answer as to how the agenda for analysis is developed and how the information that emerges is distributed.

I must admit to a vested interest as someone growing tillage crops and being involved in the new tillage grouping, Tillage Industry Ireland (TII).

Why are we being subjected to a continuous erosion in the basic premium per acre when it was introduced to compensate for a 30% reduction in guaranteed prices?

Without wishing to personalise the issues, surely tillage farmers who have seen the acreage under crops decline steadily over the last 20 years, need to know the effect that the proposed convergence of the single farm payment is likely to have on crop growers’ incomes.

Why are we being subjected to a continuous erosion in the basic premium per acre when it was introduced to compensate for a 30% reduction in guaranteed prices? And what precisely will the effect of diverting around 25% of the existing payment into a special environmental fund have and then redistribute it back on a flat-rate basis? We even lack detailed inter-country and regional comparisons on the different payments per acre of winter wheat and other mainline cereal crops.

What is the possibility of reasserting the distinction between Pillar I, intended for the support for commercial food production under EU conditions and Pillar II which was always intended to provide a much more tailored approach for disadvantaged areas and for habitats and soil types needing special measures?

The minister has put out Tom Arnold’s paper for consultation. If consultation is to mean anything, it must be informed by the facts. It’s time to assemble and place the facts before us as clearly as possible.