REPS 2000 and Beyond

Introduction

It is now clear that EU agricultural policy is putting and will continue evolving to place more emphasis on rural development, the environment and animal welfare. The greater the participation of farmers in REPS, the better Ireland will be placed to meet challenges on the agricultural environment front. For example, the Good Farming Practice standards introduced last year pose no challenge to farmers who are already meeting REPS requirements; neither should they have any difficulties in complying with whatever measures Ireland takes to implement the Nitrates Directive and other EU environment laws.

A consultation process has begun leading into a mid term review of REPS2 in 2003. All stakeholders will have an opportunity to take part in this process, out of which the Department may look for changes in REPS in its discussions with the Commission in 2003.

The Rural Development Programme provides for total spending on REPS to 2006 of €2.04 billion. Current trends in participation would keep spending below the level at which this EU funded programme could be fully used. There could be a further knock on effect if changes in the CAP reflect the thinking in the current reform proposals which envisage increased EU funding of rural development measures. Failure to take up EU funding in the current programming period could make it harder to argue funding for Ireland in the next period.

Progress Report on REPS

Numbers of Planners

The Department has approved 1,285 planners for REPS 2 (see table 3). However, only 656 of these have had plans approved up to October 2002. During the first 20 months of REPS 2, about 25,000 applications were made to the Department. This represents an average of about 38 plans prepared per active planner over the 20 month period, or about two REPS plans per month. It is estimated that 85% of REPS 2 participants were also in REPS 1. If the REPS 2 targets are to be achieved, it is estimated that at least 6,000 new farmers must join REPS 2 each year up to 2006 in addition to 85% of REPS 1 participants rejoining.

The data in Table 3 shows that less than 100 planners have prepared more than 50 REPS 2 plans, while over 900 approved planners have 20 plans or fewer. While some REPS planners have a full workload with their existing clients, most farmers who wish to join REPS should be able to engage the services of an approved planner. While higher output from some planners would help to accelerate the take up of REPS 2, the quality of plans cannot be sacrificed for quantity. For long-term success and continued funding by the EU, REPS must be seen to deliver environmental benefits.

POSTAL SURVEY RESULTS

Of the 32,000 farmers who have completed their REPS 1 agreements about 19,000 have rejoined REPS 2. The Quality Services Unit within the Department carried out a postal survey of 1,000 farms who have not rejoined to seek their views on their main reasons for not doing so and also to determine satisfaction levels with REPS 2. The following are some of their findings:

The main reasons given for not joining were

When asked specifically if they were considering joining REPS 2, 63% said, "Yes".

Satisfaction levels

• Overall the majority of farmers were very satisfied (18.5%) or satisfied (53.7%). Of the remainder 10.18% were dissatisfied, 7.5% were very dissatisfied. A further 10.32% failed to complete this section of the survey.
• When the farmers who are no longer actively farming were asked how satisfied were you with the REPS scheme while farming, 72% were either very satisfied or satisfied. Of the remainder 16.7% were dissatisfied.

UPDATE ON PENALTIES

Table 4 gives a breakdown of reasons why penalties were applied. The highest number of penalties (561) were applied to farmers for non-compliance with undertakings relating to the visual appearance of the farmyard. Some 657 farmers did not comply with Measure 5 involving stock proofing of farm boundaries (274) and hedgerow/stonewall maintenance (383). Also high in the rankings of offences were undertakings in respect of the nutrient management plan. However the majority of these penalties were associated with a failure by the client to provide adequate animal housing and waste storage facilities in place to control pollution arising on the farm. This would indicate that compliance with chemical and organic fertiliser limits is usually not a problem for REPS farmers who are usually relatively extensive in their production methods. It also highlights the critical importance of controlling point sources of pollution on the farm especially in the current environment where water quality and the improvement of water quality are of major importance.

Conclusion

There are currently about 36,000 farmers in REPS. For environmental and socio-economic reasons a much higher level of participation is desirable. Teagasc Farm Survey results show that REPS plays a major role in improving farm incomes - in the order of about €100 per ha. It is also very clear that both nitrogen and phosphorus is more efficiently used on REPS farms. Our target in the Rural Development Plan 2000-2006 is for 60,000 - 70,000 farmers participating in REPS for each of the next four years.

The decision to make available to REPS Planners, the LPIS maps, parcel numbers and parcel areas, in addition the change in the land ownership requirements and the introduction of a simpler planning document for smaller and less intensive farmers should speed up the planning process. Clearly if the target of 60,000 farmers in REPS is to be achieved the role of REPS planners in the process is pivotal.