REPS Review and Outlook Based on Teagasc National Farm Survey

Encouraging Greater Uptake of REPS

From an early stage it was clear that a proportion of farmers completing REPS 1 contracts were not actively seeking to sign up for REPS 2. Various explanations for this have been advanced. These range from non-compliance resulting in penalties or refund of payments to disillusionment among certain participants with what they perceive as the interference of the scheme rules with traditional trading flexibility associated with cattle systems in particular. Cattle systems account for 50% of REPS participants. Clearly, the impact of inflation on REPS payments is also a significant factor. There are also those who have not fully made up their minds and a further significant group in the planning queue. The backlog situation has a negative effect. It is frustrating for farmers and damages the image of the scheme. It also inhibits planners promoting the scheme and seeking to follow up clients who are lukewarm about the scheme.

Proposals to simplify the proof of ownership and mapping procedures have the potential to free up the planning process and are to be welcomed. On the other hand the impact on planning efficiency of the proposals to simplify/shorten the plan format for extensive farms is less certain. It seems any increase in the payment levels is less imminent and can only be considered as part of the mid-term review. In spite of the negative impact of inflation REPS payments are still attractive in the context of the level of family farm income of the majority of REPS 1 and potential REPS 2 farms. It must be a difficult decision for participants, particularly in the hard-pressed cattle sector to forego the income boost. The economic facts should be made available so that informed decisions can be made.

Potential for New REPS Participants

Turning to the potential for new participants, there are 71,000 non-REPS extensive farmers with the option of joining the scheme on the basis of low organic N production (<170 kg/ha). However, there are inhibiting factors which are likely to limit the number of applicants. These are examined and an estimate is made of the likely participation level in each enterprise category. Attention is drawn in the first instance to 41,000 (58%) farmers in the survey defined `cattle rearing' and `cattle+other' categories. While average farm income (Table 2) is low at €5,906 and €6,822 respectively compared with €11,301 and €9114 for the same categories in REPS the low average farm size in the `cattle rearing' category makes the payments less attractive (Table 3). Also, a high proportion in both categories have less than 10 ha.

Teagasc National Farm Survey (2001 data)

While stocking rate is similar to the equivalent REPS groups, gross output excluding REPS payments is much lower. In general, the characteristics suggest farming is run down. Investment level is low and facilities are likely to be poor. The farmers are older and the number in receipt of pensions is higher. Twice as many are single compared to the REPS groups. Further frontloading of payments up to 25 ha would assist uptake but this is unlikely to exceed 10,000 or 25% of the farms in these categories.

Teagasc National Farm Survey (2001 data)

The `mainly sheep' category has the highest participation level at 9,736 (58%) in REPS. Almost all remaining sheep farms, 6,970 (42%) are in the extensive non-REPS group. These have a lower stocking rate but the average farm size is much larger than the REPS sheep farms. The majority are likely to be hill farms awaiting clarity on de-stocking levels arising from framework plans. A significant proportion, possibly 3,000, are expected to join REPS. The attractiveness or otherwise of the proposed Duchas scheme may affect the number.

More than 2,100 (28%) of the `mainly tillage' category joined REPS. They farm an average of 40 ha. The remaining 5,400 tillage farmers have very large enterprises. They farm up to 63 ha on average. The number attracted to REPS is likely to be small probably less than 1,000.

Chemical N Constraint

There is a reservoir of potential REPS farms in the two remaining categories: `dairying' and `dairying+other'. While these are reasonably intensive farms we should be aiming to attract a significant number into REPS. Though they are well within the REPS organic N limit of 170 kg/ha, high chemical N use poses a problem (Table 4). So far, only 3,485 (18%) of all farms in the `dairying' category and 3,125 (22%) of the `dairying +other' categories have joined REPS.

Almost 9,000 (45%) non-REPS farms in the `dairying' category have an organic N level below REPS requirements. These farms have an average stocking rate of 1.6 LU/ha, similar to the dairying category in REPS. The average number of cows is 37 and 30 respectively. Farm size is similar. While organic nitrogen is relatively low in the dairying category at 133kg/ha, chemical nitrogen application is high at 159 kg/ha. This exceeds of REPS limit by 22 kg/ha. It also exceeds normal nutrient advice. The corresponding REPS group carries 131 kg/ha organic N using 125 kg/ha of chemical N. Assuming strategies to curtail chemical N usage can be encouraged (these are discussed below) perhaps a further 2,000 farmers in this category can be encouraged to join REPS. This assumes the significant number expected to leave dairying will be willing to join REPS.

Teagasc National Farm Survey (2001 data)

About 8,300 non-REPS farms in the `dairying + other' category meet REPS organic N criteria. These have a dairying and a cattle enterprise. The average number of dairy cows is 22 compared with 16 for the same category in REPS. The area farmed is also greater at 51ha and 46 ha respectively. Organic N level (123 kg/ha) is slightly higher than for the `dairying' category but less chemical N (140 kg/ha) is used. This group would have to make an average reduction of the order of 13 kg/ha in chemical N to comply with REPS. The comparable group in REPS manage to keep a similar stocking rate using 108 kg/ha chemical N. The conclusions drawn earlier for the `dairying' category could also apply to this group. However, the present poor participation level of the `dairying + other' category in REPS would point to 2,000 additional participants as a significant success.

The foregoing analysis projects an additional 18,000 new REPS participants by 2006. This is considered an optimistic assessment dependent on action on a number of fronts. These include immediate implementation of measures to improve planning efficiency especially the removal of the proof of ownership burden. The midterm review needs to examine the payment issue especially front loading for smallholders. As planners we need to promote the positive aspects of REPS. We need to limit the drop out from REP1 by convincing the farmers with an open mind that it is in their best interest to join REPS 2. It is still not too late to minimise the overall dropout from REPS 1. If 18,000 new participants can be added to the estimated current participation rate, the tally at the end of REPS 2 ought to be at least 53,000 participants.

There are agronomic strategies that the more intensive farmers can use to overcome the barriers created by the REPS chemical N limit. There are other strategies to deal with the organic N restrictions such as increasing milk yield per cow and reducing numbers. Planners and farmers have to work together to enable productive agriculture co-exist along side the environmental requirements of the scheme.

Coping with REPS Chemical N Limit

Lime application allows the N supply built up in the soil organic matter to be tapped. Research has shown that the lime effect on nitrogen supply can be as high as 50-70 kg/ha. This may partially explains why REPS farms can maintain stocking rates while using significantly less N than farms of similar intensity who do not participate in REPS. In grazing trials animals had 18-36% more herbage available on limed plots. It is also acknowledged that on certain soils lime may have a detrimental effect on the bearing capacity of the sward.

Nitrogen from Spring Slurry

Slurry applied in March to the silage ground can supply up to 25kg/ha N to the immediate crop. Assuming 60 % of the farm is closed for silage this is equivalent to 15 kg/ha over the whole farm. This is similar to the average amount the non-REPS extensive `dairying + other' category was found to exceed the REPS chemical N limit. The N contribution to the immediate crop is negligible when slurry is applied in mid season and the back end due to the atmospheric losses.

Lengthening Grazing Season Helps N Budget

Lengthening the grazing season reduces the winter feed requirement. This means a smaller area has to be closed off for silage. As the silage area requires high N levels (110 kg/ha) any reduction leaves more land for grazing and more N for the grazing area. This facilitates the maintenance of a higher stocking rate. This approach is particularly important for dairy farmers who want to maintain a reasonably high stocking rate and join REPS. Strategies for lengthening the grazing season are well documented elsewhere.

Sward Quality and N Use Efficiency

One suspects that sward quality is poor on many low to medium stocked farms where high N levels are being used. Teagasc researcher Dr Noel Culleton sees the availability of new types of mid season perennial ryegrasses as a major benefit to REPS farmers. They have the potential to grow early in spring and provide a good silage crop. The new varieties remain leafy in mid summer and their open swards are favourable to clover. On suitable soils clover is a major asset in REPS given its ability to fix more than 75 kg/ha N annually. It is feasible to carry up to two cows per ha with a good clover sward while maintaining chemical N within REPS limits.

REPS of the Future

There is the view that REPS places too much emphasis on pollution control and nutrient management (Measure 1) and not enough on habitat enhancement. It is argued that the polluter pays principal should take care of the current Measure1 issues and that manure and nutrient management is the remit of national legislation and EU Directives. An alternative view is that water in its many manifestations is our most important habitat. The quality of this habitat is fundamentally linked to the management of nutrients on farms and will ultimately be the acid test of sustainable farming. We also know from experience the legislation on its own has had a poor track record in protecting water quality in Ireland. REPS, on the other hand, is considered to be making a major contribution.

There is pressure to rebalanced REPS payments in favour of habitat enhancement and creation. The National Biodiversity Plan published last April by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands calls for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity as a priority in any future revision of REPS. While it is agreed that REPS must upgrade its biodiversity measures and move from retention to enhancement as an objective, caution is urged in any dilution of the water protection measures. There is also the risk that if the focus of the scheme is unduly narrow it will become the preserve of the few.