The Irish Natura & Hill Farmers Association (INHFA) have called for the costs imposed through restrictions applied under the Natura 2000 designations to be addressed in this year’s budget. Speaking on this, National President Vincent Roddy outlined how an estimated 30,000 landowners, with over 800,000ha of lands designated Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protected Areas (SPA), have for over twenty years, dealt with restrictions that have undermined the income potential on these lands.

These restrictions have stated Roddy “reduced farming income, devalued the property price of these lands and prevented the opportunity to generate income from other sources such as windmills.”
“At the time of the initial designations these facts were recognised and a payment of €242/ha was made to farmers through REPS” added Roddy.

From next year we will, continued the INHFA President “see no direct payment for designated lands as the new Agri-environment scheme ACRES requires specific actions on designated lands before any payment is made. As these actions and payment rates are also available on non-designated lands then farmers with SAC and SPA lands are effectively left without a specific payment.”

This stressed Roddy “is not acceptable and runs contrary to the Natura Directives that require Member States to ensure economic requirements are taken into account when measures are being imposed in order to protect these habitats.”

Based on this the 38 Activities Requiring Consent (ARC’s) are, he added “clearly imposed measures designed to protect these habitats with a mandatory requirement under the habitat directives to ensure landowners and farmers are not at a loss as a result of complying.”

• In our budget proposals we have stated Roddy “sought a budget of €200m to address the cost of this compliance and it is vital that the State accepts their responsibilities here and pays landowners the money they owe.”

• The INHFA have also called for additional support of €50m for farmers under a fodder aid measure paid through a top-up to the ANC. On this Roddy maintained that there are many farmers especially on our hills that were unable to avail of the current fodder support scheme. “These farmers like other livestock farmers are experiencing major difficulties as the price of animal feed skyrockets and financial support is essential.”

• Beyond this the organisation have also sought improved support for the sheep sector through a commitment to deliver a €20/ewe payment in the new Sheep Improvement Programme which would include a payment for shearing and dipping and an environmental payment for habitat management.

• A budget of €1m towards the development of an Irish woolen industry.

• For Suckler farmers the organisation have expressed major reservations with regard to the Suckler Carbon Efficiency Programme and are looking for an additional stand-alone suckler welfare scheme similar to BEEP with a budget of €85m. The INHFA are also seeking additional funding of €4m annually to support the marketing of naturally reared suckler beef.

In relation to our suckler and sheep sector the INHFA Leader concluded by emphasizing “how these sectors, which are predominantly extensive, have major marketing potential that we must capitalise on and this budget can be a starting point in developing on this potential.”

The full budget submission can be read HERE

Dear Minister Ryan,

I am writing to you as President of the Irish Natura & Hill Farmers Association in relation to current proposals around Climate Change targets. As a farming organisation representing thousands of members on hills, lowland and high nature value lands, these proposals are of major concern to us and our rural communities.

The proposals agreed by Government will see a reduction in Green House Gas (GHG) emissions for agriculture of between 22 and 30%. Our understanding is that you and your party colleagues are determined to see a 30% reduction in agriculture. You have outlined that this is necessary to ensure other sectors of the economy and households are not over-burdened through potential GHG reductions and possible penalties.

In driving this narrative, the finger of blame is being pointed at farmers who are understandably quite annoyed at the divisive manner in which the debate is being conducted. Moreover, we should all recognise that the targets set for each sector were decided on by the Government and Oireachtas without any consultation. It is very wrong to blame the farming community for targets they never agreed to and never got the opportunity to engage on.

As the debate on sectoral targets proceeds, and with it increased demands on our farmers it is essential that there is due consideration relating to key points before we discuss any reductions. These include:

The Irish Natura & Hill Farmers Association (INHFA) have launched their policy paper on public access that calls for new legislation around dog control, public indemnity and a public education programme.

Speaking on this, National Vice-President Pheilim Molloy explained how the policies outlined are based on the outcomes from a survey conducted with the INHFA membership over the last number of weeks.

Following this survey there was, stated Molloy “a real concern relating to the threat posed to farmers and their livestock from walkers bringing dogs onto our hills and farmlands. On this basis we are asking our Oireachtas members to legislate and ensure all non-working dogs are not allowed onto our hills and farmlands.”

“While legislation such as this will clearly reduce the impact of stress and damage to farm animals such as sheep, it will also provide absolute clarity for anyone accessing our hills and reassurance to farmers and landowners in the event of non-compliance” added Molloy

With concerns around insurance also featuring strongly in our survey we have, continued the INHFA spokesperson “outlined the requirement for the Oireachtas to compel through legislation that anyone involved in accessing for recreational purposes property that is not theirs, to have private and public liability insurance.” “In proposing this we are conscious that other sectors of our economy could benefit through reduced insurance exposure which could be an added incentive” maintained Molloy.

The Irish Natura & Hill Farmers Association (INHFA) have cautioned against proposals for any further reduction in our suckler herd. Speaking on this National President Vincent Roddy stated “how Government imposed targets to deliver a reduction in our overall emissions and specifically a 22% to 30% reduction in agriculture must not involve further reductions to our suckler sector.”

This sector has, he added, “seen a significant reduction over the last ten years with numbers falling by 160,000 cows, from 1,067,398 in 2012 to 907,059 in 2021, which represents a 15% fall in our overall herd.”

While this reduction has been off-set by increases in other sectors of agriculture it is stressed the INHFA President “absolutely unacceptable that there would be any further reductions demanded here. However, what is even more disturbing are proposals made by some commentators, that our suckler sector should be sacrificed, to allow further expansion of the dairy sector.”

When assessing our farming systems and their impact with regard to GHG emissions. The vast majority of our suckler farmers are, maintained Roddy “operating an extensive farming system that enables the sequestration of carbon, a fact that has also been confirmed in an EU Report titled, Grazing for Carbon.”

The Irish Natura & Hill Farmers Association (INHFA) have taken issue with additional conditions to the new fodder support scheme that will see many of their members lose out.

Speaking on this National President Vincent Roddy outlined how the decision to exclude farmers on lands classified as Category 1 land under the Areas of Natural Constraint Scheme “will see up to 30,000 drystock farmers excluded from this vital support.”

This decision has he continued “come as a bolt from the blue as there was no indication that drystock farmers on these lands would be excluded.” Many of these farmers have, stated the INHFA leader “already factored in the fodder support announced in early May when they took up meadow ground and purchased fertilizer.”

“To now deny them that support is unacceptable and has to be reviewed” added Roddy.

In a direct call to the Minister the INHFA President reminded him of the demands made at the Associations National AGM held just two weeks ago which he attended. “At this meeting I welcomed the decision to support all drystock farmers, but also stressed the need to go further and support those farmers who are not in a position to make hay or silage and will need to buy fodder.”

It is, he continued “our understanding that some of these farmers have Category 1 lands and when we assess the changing route of the Fodder Support Scheme there is (albeit accidental) now an option to support all farmers on Category 1 ANC lands with a top-up ANC payment.”

When assessing all aspects relating to this scheme the INHFA leader stressed how the Minister and his Department must honor the commitments they have given to all drystock farmers. This he stated “is about trust and expectation – drystock farmers trusted what they were told last May and held up meadows and spent money in the expectation that support was promised.”

“It is vital that the Minister now delivers on the commitment made and the proposals we have outlined, relating to top-up payments for the farmers with the highest natural constraint is an option well worth considering” concluded Roddy