Some farm organisations are calling for “active engagement” arising from issues surrounding lie-back requirements under the Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) regulations for catch crops.
The changes by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) announced yesterday (August 30) mean that stubble is acceptable as part of the required lie-back area, provided that:
- The animals can access the lie-back area at all times;
- There is sufficient green cover established in the lie-back area, as required under the stubble management requirements of the Nitrates Regulations;
- There is no repeated poaching of either the lie-back area or the catch crop area.
Macra president Elaine Houlihan is seeking greater engagement with farm organisations around the regulations, stating that “active engagement” is key.
Houlihan said greater work must be done to ensure avoidable consequences to regulation changes which are “simply not practical”.
The DAFM has said that its objective, under the new Common Agricultural Policy Strategic Plan, is to protect soil from poaching and erosion by providing a minimum level of soil cover (which means green cover) and to avoid bare soil during periods that are most sensitive.
The Macra president said: “This has been a difficult year for the tillage sector, and many farmers have been working in good faith to implement these regulations at significant cost, not just in the cost of grass seed but also the additional mental strain.
“Such decisions do little to attract young farmers into tillage sector, which has greater implication beyond the farm gate in terms of the development of rural areas and generation renewal,” Houlihan added.
Macra has highlighted the need for a greater appreciation of the drivers of farmers’ decisions, including the seasonal nature of farming, the interconnectedness of agricultural sectors and the impact of policy and regulations on farm businesses.
Macra agricultural affairs chair Liam Hanrahan said: “Farm business planning is a key part of a viable business, and the introduction of such measures under short time frames is simply not feasible from a practical viewpoint, nor does it support farmers in their financial and farm management planning.”