The Health and Safety Authority (HSA) is carrying out 200 unannounced inspections on farms across the country this week. With seven farm-related deaths already this year, it is a logical response.
It is a busy time of year on farms and understandable that the temptation to take shortcuts can often trump safety. If these unannounced inspections cause farmers to stop and think, then it will have been a successful campaign.
However, inspections alone will not address the health and safety issues associated with farming. Nor will continuing to single out farmers for blame. If we are to really tackle the issue of farm safety, then we have to acknowledge the role of a contributing factor that is often overlooked: low levels of farm income.
It is easy to see why this is an area that is ignored in the debate – it is a lot more convenient to lay blame inside the farm gate than link the fact that farming is the most dangerous occupation to the fact that it has one of the lowest profit margins.
No one could credibly dispute the importance of investing in measures to reduce the safety risks associated with farming. We all accept that PTO shafts should have a cover and that all cattle-handling facilities should be to a standard that reduces the risks of working with livestock. However, in a business where it is not possible to pass the added costs of production further up the supply chain, it is understandable that investment in such areas is often put on the long finger.
The construction sector is often lauded for how it has responded to widespread concern over the level of fatal and serious accidents within the sector. There is no doubt a change in culture played an important role in tackling the issue and in this regard the agricultural sector can learn a lot.
However, the construction industry also invested heavily in tackling the issue. Even from the outside it is evident that new technologies have been adopted, work practices changed and standards improved. All this is achievable in an industry where the added costs of the additional safety measures can be reflected in the cost of carrying out the job or in the end price charged to the consumer.
The temptation to take shortcuts to reduce costs is very real in an environment where margins are being continually squeezed
Farmers do not have this luxury – a fact that cannot be ignored when comparing the safety record of the construction sector against the agricultural sector.
Investment in farm safety is inevitably going to suffer and the temptation to take shortcuts to reduce costs is going to be very real in an environment where margins are being continually squeezed – largely due to the fact that farmers are price-takers when buying inputs and when selling their output.
Irish farmers are not unique in seeing their margins being squeezed from either side of the farm gate – it is a problem faced by farmers the world over and one that will not be solved in the context of trying to deal with farm safety. However, it is important that the issue is not ignored in the discussions around why farming is one of the most dangerous occupations.
The challenge is how we shape a strategy to improve safety on farms against this backdrop. Comments last week from Mairead McGuinness MEP indicating that farm safety measures may be included as mandatory measures in the next CAP is one approach. One of the roles of CAP is to reward farmers for practices that are not returned from the market place.
While farm safety is clearly one such area, it will be important that any new measures are targeted at helping farmers and designed in a way that the financial dividend does not flow off-farm.
Farmers clearly have a personal responsibility in making sure they take all possible steps to make their farms safe, many of which do not actually require significant investment.
Such steps should be encouraged by the industry, whether it be initiatives like discounted insurance for those farmers who have completed a safety statement or further increases in funding for safety equipment under TAMS. But in the same light, the industry cannot shirk from the fact that many of the shortcuts, poor practices and lack of innovation regarding farm safety is linked to low margins being achieved on many farms.
We have to start talking about the issue that no one wants to talk about: the link between poor safety practices and low margins, and the barrier this creates to improving the safety record of the sector.
EID: tagging proving to be a topic too hot to handle
Minister for Agriculture Michael Creed.The introduction of compulsory EID tagging was always going to be contentious. While the issue has been rumbling on for years, the last week has taken farmers and farm organisations by surprise.
Perhaps Minister for Agriculture Michael Creed’s lack of consultation with farm organisations was part of a strategy to give them political cover on an issue where a consensus was always going to be hard to reach.
This week, Darren Carty looks at the impact on farmers. He calculates the total cost to the sector to be €2m. For the hill lamb, there is a real issue in relation to the added cost relative to the market value of the lamb.
Farmers are being told that the move will see improved market access for sheepmeat, with the inference that this will be reflected in price – although trying to benchmark delivery in this regard is impossible.
Has there been adequate research carried out into tagging options? Are plastic tags still the best way forward and has the potential of microchipping been fully explored?
Meanwhile, should the full costs of compulsory tagging be left at the door step of farmers – or should all stakeholders make a contribution?
Targeting any unspent funds as part of the Sheep Welfare Scheme would also help farmers during the transition period.
FINANCE: low-cost loans for the dairy sector
Minister for Agriculture Michael Creed launched the nationwide rollout of the Milkflex loan scheme. As Thomas Hubert reports, the scheme, pioneered by Glanbia, will allow farmers to borrow up to €300,000 over eight years. The scheme’s main appeal is its flexibility, with repayments linked to cashflow and milk price. Even the availability of the scheme should give farmers more negotiating strength in dealing with the pillar banks.
It will come as a disappointment to non-dairy farmers that Minister Creed has failed to commit to a date for the rollout of the low-interest agri-loan scheme, instead indicating that he does not believe there are cashflow issues on farms.
Rather than be guided by the comments of the banks, the minister should engage with local merchants who are much closer to the coalface on this issue.
INSURANCE FRAUD: balance required when it comes to data
We are all paying to protect a system that’s daft. Insurance companies are forbidden from sharing data on individuals’ claims records. There is unquestionably a significant fraud problem in insurance in Ireland and we all end up paying more as a result.
Data sharing plus the conceptually simple step of the gardaí being able to tell if a vehicle was insured by feeding the number plate into a central system would go a long way to reducing abuses that are so clearly present. We could then move on to some more sensible system of compensating soft-tissue injuries which gain such high court awards in Ireland compared with other jurisdictions.
AGRIBUSINESS: LacPatrick must be forward-looking
As the dust begins to settle on what has been a fast-moving three weeks for the board for LacPatrick, it is important that its focus remains forward-looking.
There will always be the temptation to look back and rake over coals but this will be of little benefit to farmer suppliers. The sole focus in the coming weeks should be on negotiating a deal that will protect the long-term interests of dairy farmers – a deal which will ultimately be accepted or rejected by the membership. While the backdrop may not be ideal, a successful partnership/merger deal has the potential to deliver long-term dividends for farmers.
The Health and Safety Authority (HSA) is carrying out 200 unannounced inspections on farms across the country this week. With seven farm-related deaths already this year, it is a logical response.
It is a busy time of year on farms and understandable that the temptation to take shortcuts can often trump safety. If these unannounced inspections cause farmers to stop and think, then it will have been a successful campaign.
However, inspections alone will not address the health and safety issues associated with farming. Nor will continuing to single out farmers for blame. If we are to really tackle the issue of farm safety, then we have to acknowledge the role of a contributing factor that is often overlooked: low levels of farm income.
It is easy to see why this is an area that is ignored in the debate – it is a lot more convenient to lay blame inside the farm gate than link the fact that farming is the most dangerous occupation to the fact that it has one of the lowest profit margins.
No one could credibly dispute the importance of investing in measures to reduce the safety risks associated with farming. We all accept that PTO shafts should have a cover and that all cattle-handling facilities should be to a standard that reduces the risks of working with livestock. However, in a business where it is not possible to pass the added costs of production further up the supply chain, it is understandable that investment in such areas is often put on the long finger.
The construction sector is often lauded for how it has responded to widespread concern over the level of fatal and serious accidents within the sector. There is no doubt a change in culture played an important role in tackling the issue and in this regard the agricultural sector can learn a lot.
However, the construction industry also invested heavily in tackling the issue. Even from the outside it is evident that new technologies have been adopted, work practices changed and standards improved. All this is achievable in an industry where the added costs of the additional safety measures can be reflected in the cost of carrying out the job or in the end price charged to the consumer.
The temptation to take shortcuts to reduce costs is very real in an environment where margins are being continually squeezed
Farmers do not have this luxury – a fact that cannot be ignored when comparing the safety record of the construction sector against the agricultural sector.
Investment in farm safety is inevitably going to suffer and the temptation to take shortcuts to reduce costs is going to be very real in an environment where margins are being continually squeezed – largely due to the fact that farmers are price-takers when buying inputs and when selling their output.
Irish farmers are not unique in seeing their margins being squeezed from either side of the farm gate – it is a problem faced by farmers the world over and one that will not be solved in the context of trying to deal with farm safety. However, it is important that the issue is not ignored in the discussions around why farming is one of the most dangerous occupations.
The challenge is how we shape a strategy to improve safety on farms against this backdrop. Comments last week from Mairead McGuinness MEP indicating that farm safety measures may be included as mandatory measures in the next CAP is one approach. One of the roles of CAP is to reward farmers for practices that are not returned from the market place.
While farm safety is clearly one such area, it will be important that any new measures are targeted at helping farmers and designed in a way that the financial dividend does not flow off-farm.
Farmers clearly have a personal responsibility in making sure they take all possible steps to make their farms safe, many of which do not actually require significant investment.
Such steps should be encouraged by the industry, whether it be initiatives like discounted insurance for those farmers who have completed a safety statement or further increases in funding for safety equipment under TAMS. But in the same light, the industry cannot shirk from the fact that many of the shortcuts, poor practices and lack of innovation regarding farm safety is linked to low margins being achieved on many farms.
We have to start talking about the issue that no one wants to talk about: the link between poor safety practices and low margins, and the barrier this creates to improving the safety record of the sector.
EID: tagging proving to be a topic too hot to handle
Minister for Agriculture Michael Creed.The introduction of compulsory EID tagging was always going to be contentious. While the issue has been rumbling on for years, the last week has taken farmers and farm organisations by surprise.
Perhaps Minister for Agriculture Michael Creed’s lack of consultation with farm organisations was part of a strategy to give them political cover on an issue where a consensus was always going to be hard to reach.
This week, Darren Carty looks at the impact on farmers. He calculates the total cost to the sector to be €2m. For the hill lamb, there is a real issue in relation to the added cost relative to the market value of the lamb.
Farmers are being told that the move will see improved market access for sheepmeat, with the inference that this will be reflected in price – although trying to benchmark delivery in this regard is impossible.
Has there been adequate research carried out into tagging options? Are plastic tags still the best way forward and has the potential of microchipping been fully explored?
Meanwhile, should the full costs of compulsory tagging be left at the door step of farmers – or should all stakeholders make a contribution?
Targeting any unspent funds as part of the Sheep Welfare Scheme would also help farmers during the transition period.
FINANCE: low-cost loans for the dairy sector
Minister for Agriculture Michael Creed launched the nationwide rollout of the Milkflex loan scheme. As Thomas Hubert reports, the scheme, pioneered by Glanbia, will allow farmers to borrow up to €300,000 over eight years. The scheme’s main appeal is its flexibility, with repayments linked to cashflow and milk price. Even the availability of the scheme should give farmers more negotiating strength in dealing with the pillar banks.
It will come as a disappointment to non-dairy farmers that Minister Creed has failed to commit to a date for the rollout of the low-interest agri-loan scheme, instead indicating that he does not believe there are cashflow issues on farms.
Rather than be guided by the comments of the banks, the minister should engage with local merchants who are much closer to the coalface on this issue.
INSURANCE FRAUD: balance required when it comes to data
We are all paying to protect a system that’s daft. Insurance companies are forbidden from sharing data on individuals’ claims records. There is unquestionably a significant fraud problem in insurance in Ireland and we all end up paying more as a result.
Data sharing plus the conceptually simple step of the gardaí being able to tell if a vehicle was insured by feeding the number plate into a central system would go a long way to reducing abuses that are so clearly present. We could then move on to some more sensible system of compensating soft-tissue injuries which gain such high court awards in Ireland compared with other jurisdictions.
AGRIBUSINESS: LacPatrick must be forward-looking
As the dust begins to settle on what has been a fast-moving three weeks for the board for LacPatrick, it is important that its focus remains forward-looking.
There will always be the temptation to look back and rake over coals but this will be of little benefit to farmer suppliers. The sole focus in the coming weeks should be on negotiating a deal that will protect the long-term interests of dairy farmers – a deal which will ultimately be accepted or rejected by the membership. While the backdrop may not be ideal, a successful partnership/merger deal has the potential to deliver long-term dividends for farmers.
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: