Farmers and the Department of Agriculture are on a collision course this week over controversial requirements on peatland appeals.
The appeals relate to the categorisation of some 650,000ha of peat soils under the Good Agriculture and Environmental Condition 2 (GAEC 2) rules, affecting close to 35,000 farmers.
The row centres on a contentious Department demand that farmers confirm that land parcels under appeal have never been drained – or to confirm whether drainage works are planned for 2025.
The move has sparked a furious reaction from farm organisations, who say the Department has “parachuted” conditions in that were causing “consternation” among farmers.
“The issue around GAEC 2 lands isn’t necessarily about drainage, but the fact that the GAEC 2 standard has been incorrectly applied on non-peat soils,” said INHFA president Vincent Roddy.
IFA rural development chair John Curran said the GAEC 2 appeals should not prioritise farmers who had drainage works planned this year.
All farmers must be given the opportunity to have GAEC 2 obligations they object to removed, he said.
As we went to press, the Department appeared to be holding firm on its appeals requirements. It conceded that changes to the appeals form were needed to address “some confusion regarding the required documentation”, but gave no indication of major alterations to the process.
INHFA president, Vincent Roddy.
Farmers and the Department of Agriculture are on a collision course this week over controversial requirements on peatland appeals.
The appeals relate to the categorisation of some 650,000ha of peat soils under the Good Agriculture and Environmental Condition 2 (GAEC 2) rules, affecting close to 35,000 farmers.
The row centres on a contentious Department demand that farmers confirm that land parcels under appeal have never been drained – or to confirm whether drainage works are planned for 2025.
The move has sparked a furious reaction from farm organisations, who say the Department has “parachuted” conditions in that were causing “consternation” among farmers.
“The issue around GAEC 2 lands isn’t necessarily about drainage, but the fact that the GAEC 2 standard has been incorrectly applied on non-peat soils,” said INHFA president Vincent Roddy.
IFA rural development chair John Curran said the GAEC 2 appeals should not prioritise farmers who had drainage works planned this year.
All farmers must be given the opportunity to have GAEC 2 obligations they object to removed, he said.
As we went to press, the Department appeared to be holding firm on its appeals requirements. It conceded that changes to the appeals form were needed to address “some confusion regarding the required documentation”, but gave no indication of major alterations to the process.
INHFA president, Vincent Roddy.
SHARING OPTIONS