Farmer queries regarding the new Agri-Climate Rural Environment Scheme (ACRES) continue to flow in to advisers at a high rate.
Reports from discussions held to-date are mixed, with some farmers concerned about the measures available to improve their chances of securing entry, while others are worried that a large percentage of funds received will be swallowed up by costs of compliance and administration.
Many farmers who are participating in the Green Low-Carbon Agri-Environment Scheme (GLAS) have become accustomed to the annual payment and therefore are determined to apply to ACRES.
Some of these farmers have a significant area of extensive grazing or stonewalls, which is providing the basis for a good foundation payment without high compliance costs.
The Irish Farmers Journal is also receiving a high level of correspondence following our coverage in recent weeks. Many queries received in the last week relate to the selection of different measures and the make-up of plans.
This week, we are profiling a number of case studies to shed some light on the different options available.
Case study 1: this example is closely aligned to how many plans were drawn up under GLAS. The winter bird food plot is essentially wild bird cover. This was a popular option in GLAS due to the fact that it improved an applicant’s chances of securing access by positioning it in Tier 2.
Reports are variable on whether farmers will opt for this measure again. Where farmers are availing of contractors to complete works, up to 60% to 70% of the payment could be attributed to costs.
Reports indicate that this time around, farmers will go for the option to plant at least 100 trees.
This will also represent a significant costs and some smallholders are said to be considering organic farming as an alternative option.
Low-input permanent pasture was the most common measure under GLAS and this is almost certain to be the case again.
The payment for the results-based grassland measure is potentially higher, but many farmers are unlikely to select this measure as the payment is less certain.
Other options such as planting new hedgerows also have a significant cost of compliance, particularly with materials increasing in price.
Case study 2: This example relates to a highly-stocked drystock farmer who gains access via Tier 2 by merit of the high stocking rate. There is likely to be less scope to avail of the extensively grazed pasture option and in such an option, the only real way of accumulating a significant payment without high compliance costs is stone wall maintenance. Grass margins, whereby a margin is fenced and left ungrazed, may be an option for cattle farmers, but it is not a runner for sheep farms that require additional fencing.
Case study 3: There are numerous alterations for measures under tillage. This example works on an equal split between spring and winter crops and also takes into account compliance with new nitrates requirements. Payment rates are relatively low for a 50ha farm and additional measures would be required to bring payment rates closer to the maximum level.
Case study 4: The number of dairy farmers participating in GLAS was low, which is not surprising. It is likely to be a similar situation in ACRES, with the exception of farms that have a strong interest in certain measures. The tree belts for ammonia capture is among the highest paying. Payment rates under grassland measures such as riparian buffer zones or the management of intensive grassland next to watercourses can be significant but it is questionable if this would be enough to entice participation.
Case study 5: This example is a smaller farm of mixed quality land. The farm is opting for tree planting to secure Tier 2 access and has two sections of ground that might suit extensive grazing and winter bird food plot. The farm is at a crossroads however, as outside of a desire to plant a new hedgerow, the farmer is indifferent to the other measures and is selecting to try and increase the overall payment.
The farm is in a dairy stronghold and a decision on joining will be weighed up on whether or not it is more economical to progress down such a system or avail of demand for grass via making forage for sale or contract rearing heifers, etc.
Case studies 6 and 7: These two case studies are outlined in the ACRES specifications. Commonage lands will assume priority in ACRES and in both cases, the farm is availing of a results-based payment via a co-operation plan. Where the maximum base payment of €7,000 is not drawn down through commonage or co-operation payments, then measures from the full listing can be selected.
Entry routes to the co-operation scheme will be covered in detail in the coming weeks.
Scrutinise plans and
potential costs
It is important that farmers closely scrutinise measures they are considering and assess these to see what financial benefits will be accrued after costs of compliance have been factored in to the equation.
These can vary greatly between farms and are strongly influenced by aspects such as if contractors are hired to complete works or if owned machinery or labour is utilised.
For example, the returns from wild bird cover could be in the region of 70% of the total payment where own machinery is used and a labour cost is not attributed, while in contrast, 70% or higher of the payment could be swallowed up if a contractor is being hired to complete the entire job.
Farmer queries regarding the new Agri-Climate Rural Environment Scheme (ACRES) continue to flow in to advisers at a high rate.
Reports from discussions held to-date are mixed, with some farmers concerned about the measures available to improve their chances of securing entry, while others are worried that a large percentage of funds received will be swallowed up by costs of compliance and administration.
Many farmers who are participating in the Green Low-Carbon Agri-Environment Scheme (GLAS) have become accustomed to the annual payment and therefore are determined to apply to ACRES.
Some of these farmers have a significant area of extensive grazing or stonewalls, which is providing the basis for a good foundation payment without high compliance costs.
The Irish Farmers Journal is also receiving a high level of correspondence following our coverage in recent weeks. Many queries received in the last week relate to the selection of different measures and the make-up of plans.
This week, we are profiling a number of case studies to shed some light on the different options available.
Case study 1: this example is closely aligned to how many plans were drawn up under GLAS. The winter bird food plot is essentially wild bird cover. This was a popular option in GLAS due to the fact that it improved an applicant’s chances of securing access by positioning it in Tier 2.
Reports are variable on whether farmers will opt for this measure again. Where farmers are availing of contractors to complete works, up to 60% to 70% of the payment could be attributed to costs.
Reports indicate that this time around, farmers will go for the option to plant at least 100 trees.
This will also represent a significant costs and some smallholders are said to be considering organic farming as an alternative option.
Low-input permanent pasture was the most common measure under GLAS and this is almost certain to be the case again.
The payment for the results-based grassland measure is potentially higher, but many farmers are unlikely to select this measure as the payment is less certain.
Other options such as planting new hedgerows also have a significant cost of compliance, particularly with materials increasing in price.
Case study 2: This example relates to a highly-stocked drystock farmer who gains access via Tier 2 by merit of the high stocking rate. There is likely to be less scope to avail of the extensively grazed pasture option and in such an option, the only real way of accumulating a significant payment without high compliance costs is stone wall maintenance. Grass margins, whereby a margin is fenced and left ungrazed, may be an option for cattle farmers, but it is not a runner for sheep farms that require additional fencing.
Case study 3: There are numerous alterations for measures under tillage. This example works on an equal split between spring and winter crops and also takes into account compliance with new nitrates requirements. Payment rates are relatively low for a 50ha farm and additional measures would be required to bring payment rates closer to the maximum level.
Case study 4: The number of dairy farmers participating in GLAS was low, which is not surprising. It is likely to be a similar situation in ACRES, with the exception of farms that have a strong interest in certain measures. The tree belts for ammonia capture is among the highest paying. Payment rates under grassland measures such as riparian buffer zones or the management of intensive grassland next to watercourses can be significant but it is questionable if this would be enough to entice participation.
Case study 5: This example is a smaller farm of mixed quality land. The farm is opting for tree planting to secure Tier 2 access and has two sections of ground that might suit extensive grazing and winter bird food plot. The farm is at a crossroads however, as outside of a desire to plant a new hedgerow, the farmer is indifferent to the other measures and is selecting to try and increase the overall payment.
The farm is in a dairy stronghold and a decision on joining will be weighed up on whether or not it is more economical to progress down such a system or avail of demand for grass via making forage for sale or contract rearing heifers, etc.
Case studies 6 and 7: These two case studies are outlined in the ACRES specifications. Commonage lands will assume priority in ACRES and in both cases, the farm is availing of a results-based payment via a co-operation plan. Where the maximum base payment of €7,000 is not drawn down through commonage or co-operation payments, then measures from the full listing can be selected.
Entry routes to the co-operation scheme will be covered in detail in the coming weeks.
Scrutinise plans and
potential costs
It is important that farmers closely scrutinise measures they are considering and assess these to see what financial benefits will be accrued after costs of compliance have been factored in to the equation.
These can vary greatly between farms and are strongly influenced by aspects such as if contractors are hired to complete works or if owned machinery or labour is utilised.
For example, the returns from wild bird cover could be in the region of 70% of the total payment where own machinery is used and a labour cost is not attributed, while in contrast, 70% or higher of the payment could be swallowed up if a contractor is being hired to complete the entire job.
This is a subscriber-only article
SHARING OPTIONS: