Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Introduction
Introduction:
The European Union (EU) was set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody
wars between neighbors, which culminated in the 1939 1945 Second World War.
In 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community begin to unite European countries
economically and politically in order to secure lasting peace. The six founders are
Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
In 1957, the Treaty of Rome creates the European Economic Community (EEC), or
Common Market.
The EEC, had developed a policy for agriculture called the Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP).
The CAP had the following objectives:
1. to increase productivity, by promoting technical progress and ensuring the
optimum use of the factors of production, in particular labour;
2. to ensure a fair standard of living for the Agricultural Community;
3. to stabilise markets;
4. to secure availability of supplies;
5. to provide consumers with food at reasonable prices.
Ireland joined the EEC in 1973.
The Maastricht Treaty in 1993 changed the EEC title to the European Union (EU).
During the 1980s over production of farm products within the EU led to major
surpluses in Beef, Milk, Wine, Cereals etc. The cost of storing and selling these
surpluses of products outside the EU was an enormous cost to the EU budget. Along
with this, there was growing concern by governments, from farming production
practices, for the environment, in areas such as, increased nutrification of water in
rivers and lakes, loss of wild life habitats, and increasing Green House Gas (GHG)
emissions.
The CAP reforms of 1992, focused more at producers in terms of the environment, and
this led to the introduction of the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS), and
an Area based Payment system called Area Aid, supporting farm income.
In the CAP reforms of 2003 the Area based Payment system became known as the
Single Payment System (SPS).A code of Good Farm Practices (GFP) was established
for farmers to follow, for Animal Health and Welfare, Plant Health, Fertilizer and
Chemical use. It was in conjunction with these reforms that the concept of Cross
Compliance was first introduced. This meant that producers, in order to fully draw
down their income support had to fully comply with environmental standards and other
EU farming regulations.
In 2009 the average Single Farm Payment (SFP) was 17,109 per farm, and an average
Family Farm Income (FFI) of 11,968. This means that the FFI generated from the
farming activity is 43% or 5,140 less than the SFP. In the case of drystock farming
systems, farming activity is not sufficient to cover production costs and a major
contribution from direct payments is needed to make up the shortfall (Teagasc National
Farm Survey 2009).Failure to meet the Cross Compliance standards therefore has a big
impact on the SFP due to financial penalties being imposed based on the level of non
compliance.
To try and help farmers understand Cross Compliance, the EU in 2007 set up a Farm
Advisory System (FAS) in each member state, whos aim is to help farmers meet the
standards of modern high quality agriculture by establishing a comprehensive system
offering advice to commercial farmers, as well as to help farmers to become more
aware of material flows and non-farm processes relating to the environment, food
safety, animal health and welfare, (EU Regulation 1782/2003).
Its important therefore for farmers to have a good knowledge and understanding of
Cross Compliance, so that they farm using GFP, and in doing so draw down without
penalty their SFP.
R8
/a
SM
R
SM 9
R1
SM 0
R1
SM 1
R1
SM 2
R1
SM 3
R1
SM 4
R1
SM 5
R1
SM 6
R1
SM 7
R1
8
G
A
EC
R7
SM
R6
SM
R5
SM
R4
SM
R3
SM
SM
SM
SM
R2
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
R1
% Penalties
SMRS
Nitrates
SMR 7-
SMR 8/8a -
SMR 9 -
SMR 11 -
GAEC -
To create a knowledge and attitude index using the typical farmer profile established
from the questionnaire
Chapter II
Literature Review
Literature Review:
Every farmer in receipt of a SFP must adhere to the rules and regulations set out under
GFP, and verified under Cross Compliance. According to figures available from the
Central Statistics Office (CSO), there are 128,000 farm holdings in the republic of
Ireland. Out of these 128,000 farm holdings, 121,231 SFP applications were processed
in 2011 (DAFM CAP update Feb 2012). The 121,231 farm holdings in Ireland under
EU law must farm within the parameters of the Cross Compliance standards to receive
their SFP, and the other 6,770 must farm in accordance to the rules and regulations
under GFP.
regulations are based on 18 Community legislative acts in the areas of Public, Animal
and Plant Health, Environment and Animal Welfare. The Directives that these areas are
concerned with are:
(i)
(ii) Ground Water Directive (80/68/CEE). This directive aims to protect ground
waters from chemical spills, pesticides, weedkillers, sheep dips etc.
(iii) Sewage Sludge Directive 86/278/CEE. This directive aims to protect mainly soils
from heavy metal contamination which can occur with excessive spreading of
sewage sludge.
(iv) Nitrates Directive 91/676/CEE. This directive is aimed at controlling the leaching
of nutrients from farm yards and fields into water bodies such as rivers and lakes.
(v) Natural Habitats Directive 92/43CEE. This directive is aimed at protecting and
maintaining habitats for enhancing the survivability of native flora and fauna.
GAEC covers four issues,
1. Protecting soil from erosion,
2. Maintaining soil organic matter,
3. Maintaining soil structure,
4. Ensuring a minimum level of maintenance and avoiding deterioration of habitats.
EU Member States are required to define at national and regional levels, the minimum
requirements for GAEC relevant to those areas. These requirements should also take
into consideration the specific characteristics of climatic and soil conditions, existing
farming systems, land use and rotations and farm structure.
In addition to the four issues covered under the GAEC, REG.1782/2003 also
establishes the obligation for Member States to maintain 80% of land under permanent
pasture.
Calatrava (2004) suggests that Cross Compliance therefore aims to prevent further
environmental damage by reinforcing legislative standards to protect the environment
9
and nature. This suggests that Cross Compliance was introduced as a result of
environmentally unfriendly farming practice.
Examples of these unfriendly farming practices are:
1. Over grazing of hill areas leading to soil erosion, and land slides.
2. Over fertilisation of land leading to nutrient loss into water bodies such as rivers
and lakes.
3. Removal of farm hedgerows and habitats, which reduce the levels of natural flora
and fauna.
4. Continuous tillage which reduces soil organic matter, and leads to soil erosion by
water or wind.
However Funar (2009) asserts that Cross Compliance is only to contribute to the
development of sustainable agriculture, not to address all environmental problems. In
addition, Kristensen and Primdahl (2004) suggest that the original reason for Cross
Compliance in the EU was to limit over production, rather than to enhance or safeguard
the environmental dimensions of farmland.
There is now a growing body of opinion that agricultural payments should no longer be
granted to farmers who fail to comply with basic rules in certain important areas of
public policy (Farmer & Swales, 2007). Although ADAS (2009) acknowledges that
Cross Compliance would impose some costs to farmers, it was emphasised that it
provided a means by which farmers are accountable to society for the SFP, in terms of
being good stewards of the land.
It is now acknowledged, that as part of the McSharry CAP reforms in 1992, Ireland was
successful in securing enhanced EU support for some extensive and more
environmentally friendly farming supports. The whole direct payments system which
incorporated Cross Compliance as part of the reforms has been a major financial benefit
to Irish farmers (DAFM Consultation Paper 2004). The SFP is worth 1.2bn to Irish
farmers each year, with REPs being worth about 300m per year.
10
application, the number of on-the-spot checks can be increased for the following
control period (Calatrava 2004). Calatrava also adds that the selection of holdings that
form the control sample will be based on a risk analysis, according to the applicable
legislation or appropriate to the given requirements. In addition the risk analysis can be
based on a single farm, specific farm categories or on geographical zones. The DAFM
has to elaborate a control report for every on-the-spot control and each farmer should
be informed of any observed non-compliance.
2.5 Penalties:
Financial penalties are applied in cases of non-compliance with regulations or GFP.
If Cross Compliance breach is found, it will then be necessary to report on the severity,
extent, permanence and repetition of the breach (DAFM Consultation Paper 2004). The
severity of the breach is defined by the importance of the issue, taking account of the
aims of the measure associated with that breach. The extent of the breach is determined
by whether the non- compliance has far- reaching impact or confined to the farm itself.
Permanence is determined by the length of time the effect lasts relative to the
possibility of rectifying the result by reasonable means. Repetition is determined by
whether or not such a breach occurred previously (DAFM Consultation Paper 2004).
When all the aforementioned situations are determined, the level of the sanction will be
determined.
The DAFM Consultation Paper (2004) details the methodology behind the sanction
process. The DAFM Consultation Paper (2004) states if non- compliance is due to
negligence then, normally the penalty is 3% of the Single Farm Payment for the year in
question. However, on examination of the control report and taking into account the
permanence, extent or the severity of the breach, the 3% may be reduced to 1% or
increased to 5%. If repeated non-compliance is found then the penalty imposed will be
multiplied by 3 up to a maximum of 15% of the Single Farm Payment. In addition
Section 6.2 p10 of the paper states that if intentional non-compliance is found then the
penalty is 20% of the direct payments referred under the council regulation 1782/98 for
the year in question. However an examination of the control report and taking into
account the permanence, extent or severity of the non-compliance the 20% may be
reduced to 15% or increased to 100%.
12
13
14
Whilst Cross Compliance requirements do not necessarily directly increase costs, they
can reduce income by increasing management costs (Davis & Hodge 2006). On the
contrary, Cross Compliance can be viewed as a source of income associated with
receipt of the SFP. Some press articles often emphasise the link between complying
with Cross Compliance conditions and receiving the SFP. This supports the suggestion
by Davis & Hodge (2006) that the requirements are perceived as regulation with an
economic incentive. If this is the case then Farmer et al (2007) suggests that different
ways to safe guard the environmental benefits delivered by Cross Compliance may
need to be found if the SFP is to be reduced in the near future. As well as this, the Rural
Environmental Protection Scheme which was first introduced in 1994 is no longer open
for new applications.
One of the outcomes of the 1992 CAP reforms was the requirement for each member
state to put in place a National Agri- Environmental Scheme to cover a minimum
period of 5 years, The Living Farmland (2008). REPS 1 (1994- 1999) was voluntary
and open to all farmers. Under the terms of the scheme, an evaluation report was
submitted to the EU. As a result of the very positive report, the European Commission
approved a new REPS scheme (REPS2) which commenced in 2000. Following that,
REPS 3 was introduced in 2004. Near the end of 2005, there were over 47,000 farmers
in REPS with almost half in REPS3. This represents approximately one quarter of all
farms in Ireland, and accounts for about one third of all the land in the country being
farmed. The autumn of 2007 saw the commencement of REPS4 and this scheme closed
in July 2009 to new applications. The REPS has been a major contributor to farm
income for participating farmers since 1994. The average farm payment in REPS in
Ireland was 6,000 per year. In fact Agri- Environmental Schemes play a major role in
terms of total income support in many parts of the EU (Calatrava 2004). In addition a
study by Brouwer, F. (2004) on direct payments and Agri- environmental support in the
EU shows that at least half of family farm income on holdings in the northern part of
the UK, Denmark, Sweden and some regions in Germany and France comes from agrienvironmental payments. In Ireland, payments under the CAP have evolved to be
compensatory in nature (Galligan, 2007), he also states that the full reliance on these
payments for a high percentage of total net farm income is widespread in some parts of
Ireland especially in cattle and sheep farming areas of the Midlands and West of
Ireland. As set out earlier, the Teagasc National Farm Survey 2009, established that
16
SFP was the family farm income in drystock farming systems, and also paid about 48%
of farm production costs.
In light of this, as mentioned earlier under the heading of penalties, the loss of moneys
due to non-compliance has a significant impact on farm incomes in these farming
systems.
17
advances made in physics during the early decades of the 1900s. In addition Buchhi
(2002) describes how researchers have also pointed out the tendency for the media,
mainly the press, to depend on specific events or on social rather than scientific
priorities, and to emphasise risk over other features. Within the context of this study the
same can apply to Cross Compliance. There tends to be a lot of emphasis put on the
inspection process and penalties rather than information about the SMRs and GAECs.
However Bucchi (2002) goes on to say that journalists by contrast see it, as their duty to
express public opinions and demands. They describe their mission in terms of the
public needs for information, which justifies their indifference to the priorities set by
the scientific agenda. In this instance the scientific agenda is Cross Compliance.
Peoples attitudes can be heavily influenced by media and experience. Over the past
number of years there has been uncertainty as to the exact detail of SMRs and GAEC,
ADAS (2009). Most of the information provided has been through the REPS scheme
and GFP. This tended to be selective and only dealt with issues such as nitrates, soils
and hedgerow maintenance. In 1991 a study by the National Science Foundation
(America), it complained that only 6% of interviewees were able to give a scientifically
correct answer to a question about acid rain, but it neglected the fact that specialists
themselves still disagreed as to what those causes actually are Buchhi (2002). Similarly
this could be the case for Cross Compliance and Agri Environmental Schemes.
However the Farm Advisory Service is in place to make information available to
farmers but there may be a number of issues around policy scope, individual
requirements and policy implementation Davies & Hodge (2006). Across most Member
States there is a shared opinion that there is considerable scope for improving
effectiveness through clarification of the rationale for a number of the standards, both
SMRs and GAEC.
As recognised by a few studies (Farmer and Swales 2007, Silock and Swales 2007), the
added value of Cross Compliance largely lies in its role in encouraging behavioural
change on-farm which facilitates better delivery of desired environmental outcomes.
This is achieved in Ireland by advisory discussion groups, advisory farm walks/demos,
information seminars and conferences, and information literature. More generally the
farmers behavioural change is one of the key determinants on the effectiveness of
Agri- environmental policies. As far as Cross Compliance is concerned, the
effectiveness of the policy is dependent on the change of farmer behaviour to move
away from farm management practices that damage the environment ADAS (2009).
19
Intraspecialist,
2.
Interspecialist,
3.
Pedagogical
4.
Popular level.
20
(Media/Advisory/Farmer)
(2) Interspecialistic
(Research peers)
Rositi (1982) makes the point that the prerogative at the popular level is particularly
important when communication must pass through several sectors. In other words, the
right of the farmer to carry out their duty as stewards of the land is very important and
their sole function must not be lost in translation through the layers.
21
22
CHAPTER III
Materials and Methods
23
24
25
Figure 3.1. Graphic representation of the causal assumptions for the Knowledge
and Attitude index.
Advisor/Consultant
On- line service
Attend events
Education
Knowledge
Paperwork
Records
REPS/AEOS
SMR/GAEC
Farm size
Fears
Attitude
REPS/AEOS
Age
Opinion
Figure 3.1 is partially based on the two-factor factor analysis diagram (De Vaus 1996
fig 15.2) .The diagram above demonstrates the approach that was taken in the analysis
of the two indexes. A basic assumption was made from the questionnaire, the different
variables that may contribute to a farmers level of knowledge and attitude/behavioural
influences. By drawing lines from the different assumptions it was possible to try and
map out possible correlations to be explored. In addition it also was a simple method of
exploring possible relationships between the indexes (Bucchi 2004).
26
Description________
Measurement
Read
Measured on 3 classes
Term
Yes=1 No=0
Inspect
Yes=1 No=0
Inspected
Measured in 5 classes
Penalty
Money
Fears
Info
Most CC info
Internet
Web access
Yes=1 No=0
Services
On-line services
Measures in 5 classes
Events
Attend events
Age
Age
Education
Education
Measured x5 classes
Situation
Full/Part time
Measured x2 classes
Paperwork
Records
Enterprise
Land
Land area Ha
Scheme
AEOS/REPS
Measuredx3 classes
SMR/GAEC
Knowledge of SMRs/GAEC
Opinion
Measuredx3 classes
27
28
Chapter IV
Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data
29
Age Category
Number of
Farmers
Up to 30
29
14
31- 40
49
23
41- 50
50
24
51- 60
57
27
61+
24
12
Total
209
100
The majority of the farmers were beef producers. Out of the population of 209
farmers surveyed, 67% were beef producers and 29% with a mixture of cattle and
sheep. From among the surveyed farmers one was in dairy, four farmed sheep only,
30
and three had tillage as their main enterprise. This is typical of the results as the
questionnaire was non-random. The attendees of farmers that were at the BTAP were
primarily cattle producers. In addition for this study it was important to target farmers
that may be affected the most by a Cross Compliance inspection or penalty.
Therefore this group were regarded to be the ideal farming group to target for the
study.
Approximately 55% of farmers surveyed declared themselves as in full-time farming.
As a result of this the distribution between full-time and part-time farmers for this
study is ideal. Within the group 138 (66%) are farming up to 80 hectares for the year
2012, with half or 69 farmers, farming up to 40 hectares, and the remaining 69
farmers, farming 40 to 80 hectares.
Over 80% were or still are participating in an environmental scheme. In addition 17%
of the population were currently taking part in the AEOS scheme. Some of these may
have also indicated their participation in REPS so there may have been some cross
over between responses. However 16% of the farmers surveyed have no experiential
knowledge of environmental scheme obligations.
Thirty six percent of those surveyed indicated that they had no formal agricultural
education. The remaining respondents possessed a Certificate in Agriculture (31%)
and 15% had completed a FETAC level 6 Advanced Certificate in Agriculture, while
the remaining 14% completed the One Year Programme in an Agricultural College.
From the data collected in the survey Figure 3.1 below shows the typical farmer
profile of the population surveyed.
31
40-60 yrs of
age
(64%)
In REPS or
AEOS
Cattle
producer
(84%)
(96%)
Typical
Farmer
profile
Farming
Farming
80 Ha
full-time
(66%)
(55%)
Some
Agricultural
Education
(64%)
32
33
Myself (farmer)
139
66
Spouse
28
13
Son/Daughter
Advisor/Consultant
34
16
Total
209
100
Surprisingly 66% of the respondents manage their own farm paperwork themselves,
with an advisor/consultant accounting for 16% of the population. When examining the
figures from table 3.2, 13% of the paperwork is completed by a spouse and the
remaining 4% of the population rely on their son or daughter to do the paperwork.
Keeping farm records up to date is important, and especially when most farm
inspections occur at short notice (usually 48hrs). The data in the following table gives
an indication of how up to date these records are. Since the study questionnaire was
completed in mid February 2012, farmers were asked to indicate the paperwork
situation for 2011.
Number of
n/a
Respondents
Animal Remedies
162
77
Slurry records
98
47
Fertiliser records
109
14
52
Flock register
65
130
31
Herd register
195
93%
The majority (93%) stated that they had their herd register documents up to date for
2011. Only 77% have animal remedies records up to date even thought they are
34
contained in the same book. Fertiliser usage accounts were up to date by 52%, however
considering that 82% of the population have some sort of experience with an
environmental scheme this figure is surprisingly low. Likewise 47% of farms have
records of slurry usage up to date.
(supplementary measure 1 of the terms and conditions for farmers participating in REPS and AEOS states that all
farmers must have fertiliser and slurry records completed for each calendar year however it may be assumed that
not all of the population surveyed were still in REPS at the time of the survey)
% Good knowledge
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
SM
R1
SM
R2
SM
R3
SM
R4
SM
R5
SM
R6
SM
R7
SM
R8
SMR
Good knowledge
35
Apart from SMR6 Pig Registers, farmers indicated they had a reasonable knowledge of
all SMRs and GAEC. SMR7 Bovine herd registers scored the highest knowledge level,
and this is not surprising since the 96% of the farmers in the survey farmed cattle.
The data in the following table sets out a summary of the knowledge responses across
all SMRs and GAEC.
Table 4.4 Summary of Knowledge for all Cross Compliance SMR and GAEC.
Good
Fair
Poor
None
SMR x18
45.1%
25.1%
12.7%
18.8%
GAEC x4
47.6%
36.4%
10.5%
7.8%
About half the farmers in the survey indicated they have a good knowledge of all SMRs
and GAEC. Since not all the SMRs apply to drystock farmers, such as pig registers, pig
housing, using sewage sludge, etc, accordingly the more applicable SMRs to drystock
and GAEC will be examined in detail. These are the SMRs and GAEC that frequently
get penalised from inspections.
These are:
SMR 4 Nitrates
SMR 7 Bovine Herd Register
SMR 8/8a Sheep/Goat Flock Register
SMR 9 Plant Protection Products and storage
SMR 11 - Animal Feed Hygiene and Storage
GAEC Good Agricultural Environmental Condition
In Figure 4.2 farmers indicated a good level of knowledge in the SMRs and GAEC that
attract penalties. This may indicate that while farmers know about the SMR, but are not
familiar with the details associated with it. The Bovine Herd register is a good example,
in that this register also includes the recording of animal remedies used on the farm. In
the survey results, 93% of farmers indicated their Herd Register was up to date,
however 77% said their animal remedies in the Herd Register was not up to date.
Technically these Herd Registers are not up to date and would attract a penalty if
inspected.
36
Figure 4.3 Relationship between Knowledge and SMR and GAEC penalties.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Penalty
EC
G
A
SM
R
11
9
SM
R
SM
R
8/
8a
7
SM
R
SM
R
Knowledge
SMR 4 Nitrates
SMR 7 Bovine Herd Register
SMR 8/8a Sheep/Goat Flock Register
SMR 9 Plant Protection Products and storage
SMR 11 - Animal Feed Hygiene and Storage
GAEC Good Agricultural Environmental Condition
Figure 4.3 above shows the relationships between farmers understanding of the SMRs
and GAECs after being superimposed on a graph with the most common Cross
Compliance breaches that imposed a penalty in 2010. From the table there are some
significant observations to be made. Although 76% of cases stated that they had a good
knowledge of SMR7 (Bovine herd register), 42% of all non-compliances for 2010
related to this SMR7. In addition 17% of the breaches related to SMR4 (Nitrates),
however 46% of cases claimed to have a good knowledge of this. In relation to
SMR8/8A (Sheep/Goats register) 24% claimed to have a good understanding however
the breaches associated with this obligation accounted for 17% of all non-compliances
for the same year. Furthermore 9% of all breaches related to SMR9 (Plant protection
37
products) with 43% indicating a good knowledge of it. 54% of cases claimed to have a
good understanding of SMR11 (Food/feed hygiene) where 3% of the total noncompliances were found.
Figure 4.4 Knowledge index of farmer profile from the survey population
Reads Cross
Compliance
Literature but
seldom uses it
Do own farm
paperwork
farming
purposes
Knowledge
Index
SMRs in detail
66% of their
records up to
to avoid penalty
date
Gets most
Has a
information
familiarity with
from media
Figure 4.4 above is the knowledge index that was completed once the results were
analysed. Once the responses of the total population were analysed, the average scores
for knowledge based questions provided the components for the knowledge index.
Pearsons Correlation Coefficient was used to investigate the possible significance
between the causal assumptions and the SMRs and GAEC. These variables were first
38
identified when compiling the causal assumptions for the knowledge index during the
initial data analysis. Given the non-random nature of the sample, a simple sample mean
is not representative of the knowledge of the farming community as a whole. Bivariate
analysis (Pearson ) was used to see if there was any significance between those causal
assumptions and Cross Compliance SMRs and GAEC
SMR4
SMR7
SMR8/8a
SMR9
SMR11
(Nitrates)
(Bovine
Register)
(Sheep
Register)
(Plant
Protection
Products)
(Feed
Hygiene)
GAEC
Education
**
***
Farm walk
**
*
*
Public meeting
*
*
No event attended
**
Leaflet/booklet
**
Media/newspaper
***
*
*
*
Advisor/Consultant
***
***
***
Farm size
**
**
***
***
Web access
REPS/AEOS
***
***
Read explanatory
handbook
Used explanatory
handbook
39
Never in an
***
***
Environmental
Scheme
GAECs: the four GAECs have been combined for the bivariate analysis
A significant negative relationship was found between education and the farmers
understanding of three of the statutory management requirements in the sub-group of
problem SMRs and GAECs. There was a significant relationship between education
and SMR9 (Plant Protection Products) (p= 0.585) (sig= -0.038), followed by SMR7
(Bovine herd register) (p= -0.026) (sig= -0.026) and SMR4 (Nitrates) (p= 0.585)
(-0.038). This negative significance value suggests that as education increases the level
of understanding of the SMRs mentioned will increase.
In figure 3.1 p 26, (Graphic Representation of causal assumptions for the knowledge
and attitude index), information channel is a brief reference to a number of individual
predictors contained throughout the questionnaire. The individual predictors were used
in the detailed bivariate analysis. These are, leaflet/booklet, media/newspaper,
advisor/consultant, read explanatory booklet, use explanatory booklet and internet use.
When referring back to the table 4.5 above, SMR 8/8a (Flock register) has a negative
significance value (p=0.795, sig= -0.018) to leaflets/booklets.
This suggests that if farmers use booklets and leaflets less, knowledge of the SMR 8/8a
will decrease, however it interestingly shows that knowledge of the other SMRs and
GAECs will remain independent of such literature. There is a strong significance
between the media and SMR11 (Animal feed/hygiene) (p= -0.005, sig= 0.945) and
GAEC (p= 0.006, sig= 0.411). The strongest relationship under information channels
was found to be that of the advisor/consultant. Four out of five SMRs demonstrated a
significant relationship between advisor/consultant and knowledge. SMR8/8a (Flock
register) (p= 0.981, sig= 0.002) was the strongest relationship. SMR7 (Bovine register)
(p= 0.968, sig= -0.012) also had a strong relationship, likewise so did SMR9 (Plant
protection products) (p=0.858, sig= -0.012). However SMR11 (Animal feed/hygiene)
was regarded as significant but only just, with a value of (p= 0.482, sig= 0.049). There
40
41
Finally the relationship between farm size (Hectares) and knowledge was correlated.
The subsequent findings showed one Cross Compliance obligation to have a significant
relationship, SMR9 (Plant protection products) (p= 0.519, sig= -0.045). Although not a
very strong significance, it can be acknowledged that larger farms were located in
tillage areas and in addition, there may be more up to date re-seeding regimes on the
larger holdings.
organisations. Information regarding Cross Compliance was received by 29% via SMS
on their mobile phone.
Number of Respondents
135
65
Farm walk/demo
106
51
Consultant/advisor
101
48
Leaflet/booklet
76
36
SMS
61
29
Internet
57
27
Other
(TV/radio/paper)
43
Number of Respondents
150
72
111
53
98
47
Extra paperwork
86
41
85
41
result
Not knowing what to
expect
Additional
inspections
regulations
The prospect of additional inspections caused concern among 47% of the farmers
surveyed. When exploring the knowledge index earlier, 66% of farmers declared that
they themselves do the farm paperwork, however 41% of them would be fearful that
more paperwork would be the result of a consequence of a Cross Compliance
inspection. The potential higher costs of making adjustments to the farm from the
findings of a Cross Compliance inspection accounted for 41% of the concerns.
Although financial loss was the most feared consequence and higher costs to meet
regulations the least feared, it may be viewed by the farmers, 84% of whom have
experience of Environmental scheme regulations that any potential large cost to comply
with the obligations may already have been incurred in the past. Funar (2009) makes
the point that there is a compliment between Cross Compliance policy and AgriEnvironment measures.
Agricultural events are seen as the optimum method of informing farmers about new
agricultural policy or schemes. They are an opportunity to mix experts from different
layers of the communication continuum, i.e. people from the Intrasocialist (legislators),
Interspecialist (Researchers), Pedogogical (DAFM) and finally the popular level
(Media, advisory and farmers themselves). To establish what were the preferred events
for the farmers to attend in relation to Cross Compliance, it was first established how
many out of the population of 209 attended a Cross Compliance event. One hundred
44
and six (62%) attended a Cross Compliance specific event in the past. These were
organised by the various farm organisations and consultants.
Number of Respondents
Public meeting
83
40
Farm walk
46
22
No event attended
84
40
It can be determined from the table above that 40% of the respondents did not attend
any Cross Compliance event. Although 62% stated that they attended a cross
compliance event there may have been a small number who attended both public
meetings and farm walks. Nearly twice the number of events attended were public
meetings, with farm walks making up for the remaining 22%. Public meetings tend to
be held in the evening time and farm walks tend to be held during daylight hours which
certainly clashes with working hours. This may explain the large difference in
attendance at both events.
Rajecki described how attitudes can arise from single and multiple experiences, both
direct and indirect, in addition Allport (1939) makes the point that people are unlikely
to be born with their current attitudes towards this, that, and the other. In fact it is far
more likely they acquired these attitudes along the way. In order to investigate this
notion, farmers were questioned on their experience of the Cross Compliance
inspection process. The rate of on-farm inspections required for Cross Compliance is
normally 1% of the farmers to whom the relative SMR and GAEC apply (Calatrava
2004). At least 5% of producers must be inspected under Animal Identification and
Registration requirements (DAFM Consultation Paper 2004).
45
Number of Respondents
REPS
98
47
Farm Yard
67
32
DAS
48
23
41
20
Scheme
Dont know
From the survey 62.7% of the farmers stated that they had received an on-farm
inspection in the past. The data in Table 4.9 shows the highest number 47% of
inspections were for REPS. A further 32% of farmers stated that their farmyard was
inspected and 23% were inspected in relation to the Disadvantaged Area Scheme
(DAS). Those participating in the Suckler Cow Welfare Scheme accounted for 20% of
the inspections. Looking at the figures in Table 4.9 it is possible that a number of
farmers got inspected on a variety of these areas, possibly on different occasions.
Furthermore out of the population of farmers, who declared that they had received a
Cross Compliance inspection in the past, only 13% said they had received a penalty.
The data in Table 4.10 sets out the details on penalties.
Number of Respondents
None
181
87
1 to 500
15
500 - 1,000
12
1,000 +
0.5
Total
209
100
46
Of those farmers inspected, 13% received a penalty. Only one farmer indicated that the
penalty received was greater than 1,000.
An explanation for the difference between farmers being informed that they have
received a Cross Compliance penalty and the financial penalty being declared is
because there is an appeals process in place whereby the farmer can reply with
supporting documentation to the sanction authority (DAFM) within 14 days (DAFM
Consultation Paper 2004). In fact 481 appeal cases were received by DAFM in 2008
across the various different schemes. This represents an increase of 22% on 2007
according to the DAFM appeals office report (DAFM 2008). If such appeals are
successful then the penalty is not applied.
The key to understanding farmers attitude to cross compliance is to consider the
external and internal factors that influence their behaviour and how it impacts on their
engagement and willingness to change. One might expect those farmers who received a
financial penalty to have a negative view on Cross Compliance however the
distribution was pretty even across those who did receive a penalty and those who did
not.
Number of Respondents
Positive
82
39
Necessary
78
37
Hindrance
49
23
Total
209
100
It is clear from the data in Table 4.11 that the majority, 82 of the respondents, agreed
that Cross Compliance is positive for Agriculture in Ireland, however similarly 78
stated that Cross Compliance was only necessary for Irish agriculture. The remaining
49 were not so positive towards cross compliance. It was mentioned earlier about the
47
Table 4.12 Farmers experience of inspections and its influence on their attitude
Experience
Opinion
Never received an
Positive
Necessary
Hindrance
43.5%
35.8%
20.5%
40.3%
37.5%
22.0%
29.6%
37%
33.3%
inspection
Received Inspection but
no penalty
Received a financial
Penalty
df= 208
sig= 0.048
t=0.795
When looking at the data in Table 4.12 above it is clear that those farmers who received
a financial penalty have a less favourable outlook on Cross Compliance. In fact the
highest numbers of negative responses are from this category. The most optimistic
farmers were those who had never received an inspection before, closely followed by
those who received an inspection but did not receive a financial penalty as a result.
These results support Rajecki (1939) when he states that attitudes can arise from single
and multiple experiences, both direct and indirect. In addition Davies & Hodge (2006)
suggest that one factor which affects farmers attitudes to Cross Compliance is the
impact on costs. The data in Table 4.12 above demonstrates this affect on farmers
attitudes.
48
Less positive
about Cross
Compliance if
inspected
for information
Attitude index
recieved
Positive about
Concerned most
Cross Compliance
with financial
if never inspected
costs of penalties
Likely to be
successful in
appealing a
penalty
When examining the diagram above it is possible to see the attitude of the average
farmer in the population. It details the preferred ways of getting information such as
from media sources, interacting with other people, be it an advisor/consultant or at a
farm walk or meeting. With 72% of the farmers stating that financial loss due to Cross
Compliance penalties, it is clear that this is a concern for most farmers. In addition
farmers in general are positive about Cross compliance, however once experience of an
inspection or financial penalty, there tends to be a change to a more negative attitude to
49
Cross Compliance. As described earlier the majority of responses that thought Cross
Compliance was a hindrance to Irish agriculture were from those who had received a
penalty in the past.
To investigate whether there was any relationship between the age groups of the
farmers and their fears associated with Cross compliance inspections some cross
tabulations were made.
The older age group of over sixty, 62.5% said they were least worried about a financial
loss from an inspection. In contrast farmers under thirty were most fearful of a financial
loss from an inspection. In addition the youngest age group of thirty years of age and
under were most worried about additional paper work. In fact 55.1% feared additional
paperwork whereas again the older age group of over sixties were not so fearful with
only 29.1% stating that they feared more paperwork. By studying the results it can be
seen that the younger farmers fear financial loss and not knowing what to expect from
an inspection but in contrast the older generations fear extra paper work and higher
costs to meet regulations.
As with the knowledge index, the causal assumptions for the attitude index are shown
in figure 3.1 page26 there were a number of predictors shared between the two indexes.
The objective of this correlation is to investigate whether some of the various sources
of information have an influence on farmers attitude towards Cross Compliance. Given
the wide range of influence, the relationship between types of attitudes and opinions of
Cross Compliance is best shown by estimating the cumulative probabilities of opinions
across a set range of attitudes. For this study the range was set at Good (Positive),
Necessary (Neutral) and Hindrance (Negative). Question 22 of the questionnaire asked
famers to tick the statement that most described their opinion of Cross Compliance.
Given the non-random nature of the sample, it could not be determined the proportions
of farmers that fall into the three opinions across the wider farming population,
however it was possible to capture the bulk of the diversity of viewpoints within the
farm population.
50
Table 4.13 Relationship between the causal assumptions for Attitude Index and
farmers opinion of Cross Compliance.
Causal assumptions
Necessary
Hindrance
Age group
Education
Advisor/consultant
***
Farm walks
***
***
Public meetings
***
Leaflet/booklets
**
Media source
**
**
***
REPS/AEOS
***
**
Never in Environmental
***
***
scheme
Internet access
The first causal assumption to be investigated was the mean age group of the farmers
surveyed. There was no significance between the age of the farmers and their opinion
of Cross Compliance. Unlike the findings with the causal assumptions for knowledge,
education did not have any significance on the opinions of the farmers, however the
advisor/ consultant variable had a strong significance for necessary but a weak
relationship with hindrance. The figures suggest that farmers who get most of their
information from an advisor or consultant are more likely to have a neutral opinion of
Cross Compliance over a positive or negative one. On the other hand, farm walks had
more of a relationship with opinions. The strongest significance was the necessary
opinion (p= 0.938, sig= -0.005), however the more negative opinion, hindrance (p=
0.824, sig= 0.016) had a moderate relationship with farm walks. This suggests that as
attendance of farmers at farm walks increases, the significance of a negative opinion
will increase also, however the neutral opinion (sig= -0.0005) will have a stronger
51
52
CHAPTER V
Discussion and Conclusions
53
Discussion
On farm inspections carried out by the DAFM determine how the Cross Compliance
regulations are being implemented at farm level. Results from inspections completed in
2010 and recently published by the DAFM shows that compliance with the regulations
on Nitrates, Bovine Herd registers, Animal Feed storage and management for vermin
control attract an increasing number of penalties. These penalties are applied mainly to
the SFP, which reduce its financial value, which can be as much as 1,000 per farm.
This study set out to investigate the knowledge and understanding by farmers of Cross
Compliance regulations.
4. To create a knowledge and attitude index using the typical farmer profile
established from the questionnaire
To collect data, a questionnaire was developed for farmers to complete. The target
group of farmers selected were those most affected if they received a financial penalty.
An examination of the Teagasc National Farm Survey for 2009 showed that for
drystock farmers, the SFP accounted for 100% of their income, and 48% of their farm
production costs. In February 2012, Teagasc were holding a series of information
meetings on BTAP, which was targeted at drystock farmers. This was an opportunity to
get farmers to complete the study questionnaire. Permission was got from Teagasc
54
advisers to attend meetings in Roscommon, Longford, and Kildare. As a result over two
weeks in mid February 2012, farmers attending the meetings completed 209 usable
questionnaires.
The results were inputted and analysed using the SPSS computer programme.
55
Likewise the same trends showed up in the other SMRs. This shows that there is a lack
of knowledge by farmers on the detail of the SMRs. This lack of detailed knowledge
leaves them open to breaches in the regulations, which if inspected will incur a penalty.
Cross Compliance regulations were implemented over the years 2005, 2006, and 2007.
The DAFM produced information books for farmers on Cross Compliance. These were
circulated to all farmers in Ireland. From the 209 farmers surveyed 129(62%) indicated
they had read the books. At this stage only 15% of farmers indicated that they continue
to use the books for information. Interestingly farmers still cite the media as their most
common source of information. When booklets and leaflets as a source of information
was examined in the study they were found to have a neutral impact on knowledge.
This would suggest that farmers get literature but fail to use it to any significant degree
for information.
The strongest relationship under information channels was found to be that of the
advisor/consultant. Four out of five SMRs demonstrated a significant relationship
between advisor/consultant and knowledge. SMR8/8a (Flock register) (p= 0.981, sig=
0.002) was the strongest relationship. SMR7 (Bovine register) (p= 0.968, sig= -0.012)
also had a strong relationship, likewise so did SMR9 (Plant protection products)
(p=0.858, sig= -0.012). However SMR11 (Animal feed/hygiene) was regarded as
significant but only just, with a value of (p= 0.482, sig= 0.049). There was no
relationship of significance with the advisor/consultant and SMR4 (nitrates) (p= -0.051,
sig= 0.466) and the GAECs (p= 0.340, sig= 0.071). The Nitrates SMR result is
interesting, and suggests that because Nitrates are a complex issue for farmers, they get
advisers/consultants to complete all the science associated with it, without imparting
any knowledge to the farmer. In reality what happens is the farmer uses the
adviser/consultant to complete his fertiliser, slurry records, and these are passed on to
DAFM without the farmer getting any knowledge or understanding of them. This might
also explain why only 47% of farmers had their slurry and 52% had their fertiliser
records up to date for 2011, in February 2012, as they are waiting for the adviser/
consultant to complete them.
Farmers often complain about the level of paperwork associated with farming now.
However when farmers were asked the question who normally does the paperwork,
66% answered they did themselves. Cross Compliance records are complex to do and
56
bring up to date correctly, so its no surprise that these can easily be incorrect if
completed in a hurry, after notice of an inspection is received by the farmer.
DAFM, Teagasc, and Consultants hold information events and farm walks. For
information on GAEC, farm walks had a high significance for information at (p= 0.129,
sig= 0.09). This is understandable in that the GAEC issues are best seen and explained
out on farms.
About 50% of farmers said they interact with an adviser or consultant by attending farm
walks or demonstrations, or meeting the adviser/consultant one to one. FAS is a service
recommended by the EU to be put in place in each Member State to help farmers meet
the Cross Compliance requirements and thereby reduce the number of penalties
incurred.
The Internet is now a growing source of information. An Internet connection was
present on 77% of farmers homes, however only 27% said they used it for information
about Cross Compliance. There are many documents on the internet associated with
Cross Compliance, however it tends to be in a formal language targeted at those in the
interspecialistic and pedagogical stage of the continuum of communication.
ADAS (2009) described how farmers are heavily influenced by the media and their
attitude towards Cross Compliance. Within this study, the analysis supports that
assertion by showing that there is an influence for all the population. All three opinions
have a credible significance value, however there is a very strong significance for
hindrance (p= 0.999, sig= 0.000). The second strongest relationship is the positive
opinion (p= 0.761, sig= -0.021).There was a negative correlation coefficient, therefore
it suggests that there is a probability that as media sources increase, the opinion of
Cross Compliance becomes less positive. This finding supports that of ADAS (2009)
who stated that a review of farming press articles examined between 2004 and 2008
showed that there were many articles with a negative attitude towards Cross
Compliance. This view is supported by Jones (2006) also.
After all the negative press recently about Cross Compliance, its interesting to see
from the study that 77% of farmers said that Cross Compliance was necessary or
positive for farming in Ireland
The fears of additional inspections, additional paperwork, and higher costs to meet
regulations were cited almost equally by 45% of farmers. Interestingly however as
farmers get older they express less of a fear of financial loss, but the fear of extra
paperwork increases.
This view of Cross Compliance can change depending on whether a farmer received a
penalty or not. Those farmers who have received a penalty, only 30% rate Cross
Compliance as positive for farming. Approximately 44% of the farmers surveyed that
never received an inspection indicated that Cross Compliance was positive for farming
in Ireland.
58
59
5.3.1 Recommendations
1. Use FAS to put on Cross Compliance information events such as farm walks,
meetings etc. The information here must be at the Popular level.
2. Target the SMRS that have the highest levels of non compliance for extra FAS
translation input at the popular level.
3. Upskill farmers using IT training courses to improve their use of the internet
especially for interaction with dedicated web sites such as DAFM, and Teagasc.
4. DAFM should look at ways as to how they can reduce the farmers fears and
concerns associated with Cross Compliance inspections.
5. DAFM, Teagasc, Advisers/Consultants should publish positive articles, by using
farmer case studies, on the benefits of the Cross Compliance regulations.
60
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, j,(2004), This green and pleasant land... and the EU and DEFRA want to keep it
that way with Cross Compliance, British Dairying, 10 (6), pp 14-18
Alliance Environment (2007) Evaluation of the applicatgion of cross compliance as
foreseen under Regulation 1782/2003: Synthetic Summary. Deliverable prepared for
DG Agriculture.
Allport, Floyd Henry (1939) Social Psychology. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1924.
Bartram, H. (2004) Cross- Compliance: an environmental regulators view, paper
presented at the seminar Evolution of Cross Compliance. Concerted Action
Dveloping Cross Compliance in the EU: Background, Lessons and Opportunities.
Granada, Spain, (19-20 April 2004)
Brotherton, I. (1989) Farmer participation in voluntary land diversification schemes:
Some observations from theory, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 299- 304
Brouwer, F. (2004) Direct Payments and agri-environment support in the EU, paper
presented at the seminar Evaluation of Cross- compliance. Concerted action
Developing Cross Compliance in the EU: Background, Lessons and Opportunities,
Granada, Spain, (19- 20 April 2004)
Bucchi. M (2004) Science in Society; an introduction to social studies of science;
translation by Adrian Belton. pp 108-118
Clotre, M. and Shinn, T. (1985) Expository practice: social, cognitive and
epistemological linkages. pp 31- 60
Crowley C., Walsh J and Meredith D (2008), Irish Farming at the Millennium A
Census Atlas; pp 13-166.
Davies, B.B. & Hodge, I.D., (2006). Farmers Preferences for New Environmental
Policy Instruments: Determining the Acceptability of Cross Compliance for
Biodiversity Benefits. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(3), pp.393-414.
De Vaus, D.A. (David A.) (1996) Surveys in Social Research 4th edition, London;
UCL Press, 1996. Fig 15.2
Defra, (2009). Evaluation of Cross Compliance. Prepared by ADAS, Central Science
Laboratory
Department of Agriculture and Food (2004), Cross compliance Consultant paper: pp
5-10.
FAPRI-Ireland Partnership (2003); The Luxemburg CAP Reform Agreement:
Analysis of the Impact on EU and Irish Agriculture. Teagasc Rural Economy Research
Centre.
61
Farmer M.,(2007) The possible Impacts of Cross compliance on Farm Costs and
Competitiveness. A research paper for the 26th April Cross compliance Policy Seminar,
Brussels. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP).
Farmer, M. and Swales, V. 2007. Future Policy Options for Cross Compliance.
Background Paper for the Cross Compliance Policy Seminar, 26 April 2007, Brussels.
Fleck L (1979) Genesis and Development of a scientific fact, Chicago, university of
Chicago Press. English trans. T. Trenn (1979)
Funar, S. (2009). Cross Compliance and the Common Agricultural Policy. Veterinary
Medicine, 66(2), pp.170-174.
Galligan, K (2007), An analysis of the Single Farm Payment 2006: Regional
distributions and effects of a hypothetical shift from a historic to a regional model of
payment.Dissertation submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements or the degree of
master in science in economic policy studies, University of Dublin Trinity College
2007: pp20-28
Hilgartner, S. (1990) The Dominant View of Popularization, Social Studies of
Science, 20: 519- 539.
Inge Van Oost (2010) Commission report on the Farm Advisory System (FAS);
Dublin AKIS- 4 February 2011.
Kristensen, L. and Primdahl, J. (2004). Potential for environmental cross-compliance
to advance agri-environmental objectives. Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and
Planning, the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University. Report from the EU
Concerted Action Project: Developing cross-compliance in the EU background,
lessons and opportunities.
Morris, C. And Potter (1995). Recruiting the new converstaionists: Farmers
adoption of argr-environmental schemes in the U.K, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol 11,
pp. 51-63.
Osterburg, B. and H. Nitsch (2004), Environmental standards and their link to
support instruments of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, Paper prepared for the
90th EAAS Seminar, Multifunctional agriculture, policies and markets in Rennes, 2829 October, 28- 29.
Rajecki, D.W (1939), Attitudes, Themes and Advances 1990. pp 30
Rositi, F. (1982) cited in Bucchi (2004) communicating science.
Silcock and Swales (2007) Cross compliance: a policy options paper. Prepared for
Land Use Policy Group, June 2007
Spash, C.L. and K. Falconer (1997), Agri-environmental policies: cross-achievement
and the role for cross-compliance, in F.Brouwer and W. Kleinhanss (erds), The
Implementation of Nitrate Policies in Europe: Process of Change in Environmental
Policy and Agriculutre, Keil: Vauk Publisher, pp. 23-42
62
63
Appendix A
64
SMR2
SMR3
Sewage sludge
SMR4
Nitrates
SMR5
SMR6
SMR7
SMR8
SMR10 Hormones
SMR11 Food/ Feed Hygiene incl. Dairy/ Milking Parlour
SMR12 Feed
SMR 13 Notifiable Diseases
SMR 14 Swine Vascular Disease
SMR 15 Bluetongue
SMR 16 Animal Welfare (Calves)
SMR 17 Animal Welfare (Pigs)
SMR18 Animal Welfare (General)
GAEC1 Soil Erosion
GAEC2 Soil Structure
GAEC3 Maintenance of Land
GAEC4 Protection and Management of Water
65
From 2006:
SMR9- Authorisation, placing on the market, use and control of plant protection
products
SMR10- Concerning the Prohibition of the use in stock farming of certain substances
having a hormonal or thyrostraic action of beta- agonists
SMR11- General Principles and requirements of food law and laying down procedures
in matters of food safety
SMR12- Rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible
encephalopathy
SMR13- Community measures for the control of foot and mouth disease
SMR14- General Community measures for the control of certain animal diseases and
specific measures relating to swine vesicular diseases.
SMR15- Specific provisions for control and eradication of bluetongue
66
From 2007:
SMR16- minimum standards for the protection of calves
SMR17_ Minimum standards for the protection of pigs
SMR18- Rules concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purpose.
67
Number of Respondents
Compliance:
Yes
206
98
No
Number of Respondents
Yes
129
62
Appendix A Table 5 Used Good Farm Practice Book or Single Farm Payment
Booklet for information:
Number of Respondents
Often
32
15
Seldom
98
47
Never
79
38
Total
209
100
68
Appendix A Table 6 Still have the Good Farm Practice Regulations and Single
Farm Payment Booklet:
Number of Respondents
Yes
142
68%
No
67
32
Appendix A Table 7
Myself (farmer)
139
66
Spouse
28
13
Son/Daughter
Advisor/Consultant
34
16
Total
209
100
Appendix A Table 8
SMR1
Poor
Fair
Good
12
26
78
93
12
37
44
Conservation of wild
birds
Number of
Respondents
%
69
None
Poor
Fair
Good
12
48
146
1.4
5.7
44
55
Protection of
ground water
Number of
Respondents
%
None
Poor
Fair
Good
45
30
52
82
21.5
14.4
24.9
39.2
Sewage
Number of
Respondents
%
70
Appendix A Table 11
SMR4
Poor
Fair
Good
15
16
81
97
39
46
Nitrates
Number of
Respondents
%
46% of farmers stated that they had a good understanding of SMR4 Nitrates. The
majority of the population stated that they had a good or fair understanding of SMR4
with 81 stating fair and 97 stating good.
Appendix A Table 12
SMR5
Poor
Fair
Good
12
28
74
95
13
35
45
Habitats
Number of
Respondents
%
45% of the farmers responded by stating that they had a good understanding of SMR5
with 35% stating fair. 13% of the respondents admitted that they have a poor
knowledge of SMR5.
71
Appendix A Table 13
SMR6
Poor
Fair
Good
178
14
11
85
Pigs
register
Number of
Respondents
%
Like SMR3 Sewage Sludge, SMR6 Pigs register is not regarded as significant to the
targeted population, however pre-judging whether a farmer keeps pigs or not would be
bias to the study. Understandably 85% stated that they had no understanding of Pigs
register, with only 6 (3%) stating that they had a good knowledge.
Appendix A Table 14
SMR7
Poor
Fair
Good
34
159
16
76
Bovine
Herd
Register
Number of
Respondents
%
76% of the farmers stated that they had a good understanding of SMR7 Bovine Herd
Register. The remaining 24% declared that they had a fair understanding of SMR7.
Going by the enterprise distribution, the responses for poor and no understanding may
be the sheep only farmers.
72
Appendix A Table 15
SMR8/8a
Poor
Fair
Good
132
26
51
63
12
24
Sheep/Goats
register +
remedies
Number of
Respondents
%
Fifty one of the farmers responded by stating they had a good knowledge of SMR8/8a
and 26 responded by stating fair. The figures suggest there is an understanding of
SMR8/8a by farmers who do not have sheep as there are only 65 farmers in the
population with sheep.
None
Poor
Fair
Good
33
16
71
89
16
34
43
Plant Protection
Products
Number of
Respondents
%
43% of the farmers stated that they have a good knowledge of SMR9 plant Protection
Products. However 16% of the population stated that they had no knowledge of the
SMR in question.
73
None
Poor
Fair
Good
108
23
38
40
52
11
18
19
Hormones
Number of
Respondents
%
The majority (52%) of farmers have no understanding of SMR10 Hormones, while only
19% stated they had good knowledge of the SMR.
None
Poor
Fair
Good
22
12
61
114
10
29
54
Food/
Feed
Hygiene
Number of
Respondents
%
54% of farmers stated that they had a good knowledge of SMR11 Food and Feed
Hygiene. The remainder is nearly evenly distributed across fair, poor and no
understanding.
74
None
Poor
Fair
Good
69
23
47
70
33
11
22
33
BSE
Number of
Respondents
%
Nearly the same amount of farmers stated that they had no understanding or knowledge
of SMR12 BSE as those who stated Good. This suggests that there is a significant
difference in knowledge across the population for this SMR.
None
Poor
Fair
Good
41
25
66
77
20
12
32
37
Notifiable
Diseases
Number of
Respondents
%
77% of the farmers stated that they had a good knowledge and understanding of
SMR13/14/15 Notifiable Diseases however 32% stated that they had only a fair
understanding with 20% stating that they had no understanding.
75
None
Poor
Fair
Good
49
147
23
70
Animal
Welfare
Number of
Respondents
%
The farmers that responded with a good understanding of SMR 16/17/18 Animal
Welfare was very significant. 70% stated that they had a good knowledge of the SMR
whereas only 3% stated they had no understanding.
None
Poor
Fair
Good
22
28
86
73
10
13
41
35
Soil
Erosion
Number of
Respondents
%
The majority of the farmers (41%) responded by stating that their knowledge of
GAEC 1 Soil Erosion was fair. 35% responded with good however.
76
None
Poor
Fair
Good
24
25
77
83
11
12
37
40
Soil
Structure
Number of
Respondents
%
There is very little difference between fair and good for GAEC 2 Soil Structure with 77
farmers stating fair and 83 farmers stating good understanding. In addition there is
similarity between poor understanding and no understanding of the GAEC with 25
stating poor knowledge and 24 admitting no knowledge
None
Poor
Fair
Good
13
15
65
116
31
56
Maintenance
of Land
Number of
Respondents
%
The majority of farmers indicated that they had a good knowledge of GAEC3
Maintenance of Land, with116 of the total population indicated Good, 65 stating fair
and there was not much difference between poor and none with 15 and 13 respectively.
77
None
Poor
Fair
Good
20
56
126
10
27
60
Protection and
Management of
Water
Number of
Respondents
%
60% of the farmers responded stating that they had a good knowledge of GAEC
Protection and Management of Water. 27% of the respondents stated that they had a
fair understanding of the GAEC however only 3% admitted to not having any
knowledge.
78
None
Poor
Fair
Good
SMR1
5.7%
12.4%
37.3%
44.5%
SMR2
1.4%
5.7%
23.0%
69.9%
SMR3
21.5%
14.4%
24.9%
39.2%
SMR4
7.2%
7.7%
38.8%
46.4%
SMR5
5.7%
13.4%
35.4%
45.5%
SMR6
2.9%
5.3%
6.7%
85.2%
SMR7
3.3%
4.3%
16.3%
76.1%
SMR8/8a
63.2%
12.4%
51%
SMR9
15.8%
7.7%
34%
42.6%
SMR10
51.7%
11.0%
18.2%
19.1%
SMR11
10.5%
5.7%
29.2%
54.5%
SMR12
33.0%
11.0%
22.5%
33.5%
SMR13/14/15 19.6%
12.0%
31.6%
36.8%
SMR16/17/18 3.3%
2.9%
23.4%
70.3%
GAEC1
10.5%
13.4%
41.1%
34.9%
GAEC2
11.5%
12.0%
36.8%
39.7%
GAEC3
6.2%
7.2%
31.1%
55.5%
GAEC4
3.3%
9.6%
36.8%
60.3%
Management
Requirement
79
Appendix A Table 27 Percentage of scores for all the Cross Compliance SMR
and GAEC.
Good
Fair
Poor
None
SMR x18
45.1%
25.1%
12.7%
18.8%
GAEC x4
47.6%
36.4%
10.5%
7.8%
Appendix A Table 28
Education
Farm walk
Public meeting
No event attended
Leaflet/booklet
Media/newspaper
SMR4
SMR7
SMR8/8a
SMR9
p= 0.585
P=0.071
P= 0.241
P=0.951 P= 0.249
P=0.235
-0.038
-0.026
0.082
-0.004
0.077
P= 0.402
P= 0.711
P= 0.086
P=0.049 P=0.056
P=0.129
0.058
-0.26
0.119
0.137
0.09
P= 0.049
P= 0.236
P= 0.236
P=0.411 P= 0.668
P= 0.395
0.142
0.136
0.082
0.057
0.014
P= 0.065
P= 0.089
P=0.219
P=0.245 P=0.850
P=0.161
-0.128
-0.118
-0.085
-0.081
0.104
P= 0.223
P= 0.268
P= 0.795
P=0.123 P= 0.028
P= 0.114
0.085
0.077
-0.018
0.107
0.115
P= 0.417
P= 0.041
P= 0.285
P=0.068 P=0.945
P= 0.411
-0.056
0.142
0.074
0.0127
0.006
P= 0.958
P= 0.981
P=0.858 P= 0.482
P= 0.340
-0.051
0.004
0.002
-0.012
0.071
P= 0.014
P= 0.159
P= 0.096
P=0.519 P= 0.280
Advisor/Consultant P= 0.466
Farm size
SMR11
0.080
0.132
0.030
-0.013
0.152
-0.005
0.049
GAEC
P=0.596
80
-0.170
-0.098
-0.115
-0.045
Read explanatory
P=0.465
P= 0.685
P= 0.739
P=0.155 P= 0.794
P=0.061
handbook
0.051
0.028
-0.023
0.099
0.061
Used explanatory
P=0.047
P=0.043
P= 0.254
P=0.002 P= 0.018
P=0.019
handbook
0.138
0.140
0.079
0.211
0.016
Web access
P=0.211
P=0.088
P= 0.458
P=0.056 P=0.075
P= 0.117
0.87
0.118
0.52
0.132
0.142
P=0.964
P= 0.884
P=0.368
P=0.028 P= 0.260
P=0.448
-0.003
-0.010
0.060
-0.152
0.059
Never in
P=0.881
P= 0.820
P= 0.135
P=0.015 P= 0.286
P= 0.133
Environmental
0.010
0.016
-0.104
0.169
0.210
REPS/AEOS
-0.075
-0.018
0.163
0.123
-0.078
0.074
-0.403
Scheme
Number of Respondents
Yes
46
22
No
163
78
Total
209
100
Only 46 (22%) farmers out of the 209 survey stated that they attended farm walks.
81
Yes
83
40
No
126
60
Total
209
100
From the data in Table 30, 40% of farmers say they attend public meetings, which
twice that of farm walks. A possible explanation for this may be the fact that farm
walks are on during the day, and public meetings are normally held at night, and
farmers are more likely to attend evening or night events. Although 60% of farmers still
decide not to attend public meetings.
Yes
106
51
No
103
49
Total
209
100
51% of the farmers indicated that they attended meetings organised about Cross
Compliance.
Appendix A Table 32
Number of Respondents
Yes
135
65
No
74
35
Total
209
100
The majority of the farmers indicated that the media incl. paper, tv and radio was their
main source for information.
82
Appendix A Table 33
SMS
Yes
61
29
No
148
71
Total
209
100
Only 29% of the farmers indicated that they receive information via text messaging to
their mobile phone.
Appendix A Table 34 Do you source information for the farm from using the
computer?
Computer Use
Number of Respondents
Yes
57
27
No
152
73
Total
209
100
Table 34 Illustrates that 73% of farmers say they do not use the computer for farm
information while 27% of them say they do.
.
83
Number of Respondents
Yes
76
36
No
133
64
Total
209
100
It is clear by the table above, that leaflets and booklets are not a preferred source of
information as only 35% of farmers stated that they use them for information.
Number of Respondents
Yes
106
51
No
103
49
Total
209
100
Of the farmers that were asked whether they get their information from farm walks and
demos, 51% stated that they attend them and get information about Cross Compliance.
Number of Respondents
Yes
101
48
No
108
51
Total
209
100
The data in Table 37 shows that 48% of the farmers get their information from and
advisor or consultant with the remaining 51% sourcing their information elsewhere.
84
Number of Respondents
Yes
No
204
98
Total
209
100
Only 2% of the farmers stated that they sourced their information elsewhere therefore it
is not an area worth investigating further to determine what these other sources are.
Number of Respondents
Yes
150
72
No
59
28
Total
209
100
The majority (72%) of the farmers selected financial loss from penalties as their biggest
fear associated with a Cross Compliance inspection.
85
Number of Respondents
Yes
86
41
No
123
59
Total
209
100
Less than half (41%) of the farmers, selected extra paperwork as their main fear
resulting from an inspection.
Number of Respondents
Yes
98
47
No
111
53
Total
209
100
The fear of getting additional inspections was a fear factor for 47% of farmers.
Number of Respondents
obligations
Yes
85
41
No
124
59
Total
209
100
Less than half (41%) of the farmers indicated that higher costs to meet regulations
because of an inspection was a possible fear for them. The remaining 59% were not
worried about this.
86
Number of Respondents
expect
Yes
111
53
No
98
47
Total
209
100
Not knowing what to expect once the inspector arrives on the farm was a fear factor for
just over half (53%) of the farmers surveyed. The remaining 47% would not be worried
about this.
Received penalty
Number of Respondents
Yes
25
12
No
182
87
Dont know
Total
209
100
Number of Respondents
SPS application
75
36
Calf registration
70
34
Animal movements
60
29
Herd register
49
23
Nitrates update
36
17
Table 45 represents the percentage of farmers who use the various on-line services.
87
Movements
Herd Register
Calf
registration
16.2
28.2
22.4
33.0
Yes
162
77
No
47
22
Number of Respondents
Yes
70
33.5
No
139
66.5
Animal Movements
Number of Respondents
Yes
60
29
No
149
71
88
Number of Respondents
Yes
195
93
No
10
n/a
Number of Respondents
Yes
36
17
No
173
83
Positive
Necessary
Hindrance
Age group
p= 0.130
p= 0.305
p= 0.209
-0.105
-0.071
0.087
p= 0.066
p= 0.077
p= 0.134
-0.127
0.123
0.104
p= 0.037
p= 0.999
p= 0.472
-0.145
0.000
0.050
p= 0.486
p= 0.938
p= 0.824
0.048
-0.0005
0.016
p= 0.322
p= 0.239
p= 0.983
Education
Advisor/consultant
Farm walks
Public meetings
89
-0.069
0.082
0.001
p= 0.220
p= 0.554
p= 0.621
-0.085
-0.041
0.034
p= 0.761
p= 0.681
p= 0.999
-0.021
-0.029
0.000
p= 0.744
p= 0.729
p= 0.064
0.023
0.024
-0.129
Never in
p= 0.897
p= 0.912
p= 0.423
Environmental
0.009
-0.008
0.056
p= 0.627
p= 0.451
p= 0.209
-0.034
0.087
0.052
Leaflet/booklets
Media source
REPS/AEOS
scheme
Internet access
p= Significance
Number of Respondents
Herd register
195
93
Animal remedies
162
77
Fertiliser records
109
52
Slurry records
98
47
Flock register
65
31
90
Age Category
Number of
Percentage
Farmers
Up to 30
29
14
31- 40
49
23
41- 50
50
24
51- 60
57
27
61+
24
12
Total
209
100
The age category of the group was evenly distributed across the middle three categories
from 31 to 60yrs. The highest number of farmers (n=57) was in the age category of 5160, however age categories 41-50 and 31-40 were following close behind with 50 and
49 farmers respectively. If compared to the figures by the CSO (2007) the average age
for farmers in Ireland is 48.
Appendix A Table 55 Distribution of enterprises across population:
Enterprise
Number
Dairy
Cattle
140
67
Sheep
Mix cattle/sheep
61
29
Tillage
Total
209
100
91
Number of Respondents
Full-time
115
55
Part-time
94
45
Total
209
100
Number of Respondents
Hectares
0-40
68
32
41- 60
41
20
61- 80
29
14
81-100
21
10
101-140
22
10
141- 180
12
181+
16
Total
209
100
Within the group 68 of the farmers are farming up to 40 hectares for the current year
2012 making it the most common area being farmed. The figures suggest that just over
half (52%) of the population are farming 60 hectares.
92
Number of Respondents
Scheme
REPS
173
82
AEOS
36
17
34
16
Number of Respondents
29
14
Cert in Agriculture
65
31
Level 6 (Advanced
32
15
None
76
36
Other
Total
209
100
Cert)
Of the levels of Agricultural education completed, 65 farmers had completed the Cert
in Agriculture, however 76 stated that they had no formal agricultural education.
93
APPENDIX B
94
ANNEX 1
95
Articles
3,4
(1,2,4),5,7
and 8
2.
Articles 4
and 5
Article 3
5.
Article 4
and
Articles 6,
13, 15
fauna.
and 22(b)
Public and animal health
Identification and registration of animals
6.
7.
Articles 3,
4 and 5
Articles 6
and 8
Articles 4
and 7
Articles
3,4 and 5
Article 3
Articles 3, 4
and 5
17(1), 18, 19
and 20
Article
7,l1,12,13 and
15
spongiform encephalopathies
Notification of diseases
13.
Article 3
Article 3
Article 3
Articles 3 and
calves
17.
Articles 3 and
4(I)
pigs.
18.
Article 4
98
ANNEX 2
99
Standards
Soil erosion:
measures
deterioration of habitats
100