If farm payments for lvestock are based on an historic three year average this will severly hurt any farmer who has been building up his business i.e. increasing his flock or heard, particularly young or new farmers.It will also benefit any farmer who has been running down his flock or heard for no good logical reason.Bearing in mind the effects of foot and mouth and the difficulties this caused anyone who was trying to build up their animal numbers it would be much more realistic to use one year such as 2002/3.There is no logic in trying to use a three year averge anyway.There is nothing wrong in using historical figures but there is in using a three year average.

Looking at this from a purely selfish position the majority of established producers will go with historic payments, as indeed I would. Looking to the future I am unsure that this is the corrct approach as it will be make it almost impossible for young farmers or anyone building up there business. The only producers who are disadvantaged by regional payments will be the intensive beef producers, but I believe the beef industry needs to be treated differently if it is not to disappear after decoupling.

Surely the one permanent constant is the land and he who farms it. It is people who change, as we all have. If you look back over the last 5 years it is astonishing how much you and your business have changed. What is the French saying? "Plus ca change, toujours la meme chose" Always the change but it is always the same. For that reason and a selfish one that we have made business changes I believe the fairest way to many would be regional payments. Jack Caley

having not read anything about how a regional payment would be implemented on what would it be based and fairly applied and what sort of figure are we looking at

Peter, No matter what they do this new system will not be fair. There will be winners and Loosers. For us, Historical average will give us a V. High £ / acre, ( ignoring 2001 as no cattle = no grass keep = low forage area etc.) However, our forage area has been rising by 20 - 30 acres per year for the last 4 years ( again ignoring 2001 ). If it were an area payment, we would get a smaller amount per acre, but on every acre. If they do go down this route, or regional payment, Would this mean that every acre of land would receive the same entitlement ?? Would beef money would be spread evenly across dairy farms as well ?? I think that the historic payments are the fairest way, but a sensible approach to growing businesses and new entrants have to be considered and implemented. Daniel.

As yet the whole thing is still in a state of flux which ever system we go for there are going to be winners and losers. Using historic payments will gain the most winners (old established farmers particularly large combinable crop growers) and will produce the biggest losers who will be young people building up and those who have diversified into novel crops which do not attract subsidy. The problem with regionalisation is the livestock versus crops. some countries have announced there intention of putting all the money in a great big pot and paying it out on an acreage basis. This would cut arable payments dramatically and give a huge unintended boost to some very extensive systems It would seem fairer to split the two schemes. This then gives a problem of the mixed farm how are payments made here. Decoupling is supposed to give total flexibility so that people will in future be able to anything with their farms apart from the set aside requirement for arable crops. As a grower who has diversified heavily I feel that it is very important that we are not penalised by other growers being able to grow my crops cheaper because they have the advantage of an area payment I do not have. For this reason I strongly support soem sort of regionalisation. Whichever way I believe it will be a lawyers dream just as happened with the slom milk quota case etc.

I class my self as a developer or new entranteven if SEERAD do not. I appealed aginst grazing categories and stocking rates applied to me for LFASS more than 8 weeks ago and have heard nothing. I now have about 3 times more cows and sheep that I did not have in 2000. I lack Cow quota because of the ridiculous prices and lack of availability. So no idea how my final SFP will work, most ground is rented on Grazing Leases anyway year after year. I hope they have a good appeals process. Without a good SFP I might as well pack up and sell everything as it would never pay any other way ???

of course Scotland and wales will have there own system to chose as there minister wishes!

surely the SFP is to compensate for the bringing in of a new price regime I.e. World price for what we produce. the payment should compensate those who have invested on the basis that subsides would continue at the present rate. If it is regionalised, the payment will be capitolised into the land and rent values. If paid on historical everybody will have a level basis of costs from now on, new entrants will have the benifit of much lower startup costs from now on and will have do do thier costings purely on the returns from the market place. There will have to be a very rapid adjustment of farming to cope. recent history shows that any subsidy tied to the land rapidly passes through a farmers hands, as seen with FBTs based on the landlord getting the iacs payment plus whatever else he can get, it was the same with building grants at 40%, when they stopped the price came down, and the same with the slurry cleanup grants Grumpy.

Grumpy I do not understand how new entrants are going to compete in a market place where some producers are subsidised and they are not. Secondly the historic payments will encourage combinable crop growers into crops where previously there was no subsidy they will have an unfair advantage over the previous growers which will drive us to the wall

Stephen, just why would an arable farmer use his SFP to subsidise growing veg crops that were otherwise unprofitable? From what i have seen these crops require a lot of specilised equipment and skill not often found on a wall to wall grain farm, and i dont think you will see beef farmers queing up to grow aspargus or whatever As for new entrants, they will in future find plenty of land available to farm at a rent that reflects the value of what it will produce, under the present system the rent reflects the value of the payments that it attracts. that is why we see grass lets of 140 pounds plus and FBTs over 100. this level of upfront cost deters most with little or no capitol from starting at any level. If the review is done properly ,the future will start in 2005 with every body on an equal footing with no iacs or quotas to distort what the market is prepared to pay for. grumpy.

As stewart has said in other post,all we do is moan about the amount of subsidy we get. He is probably right. Just how we survive without the marketing aids they get for instance in NZ is another matter. Again, however, I do not think the SFP,s will last long anyway. Farmers are unpopular enough for getting subsidies for something they actually produce. When they get money for nothing (decoupled???) the public will hate us even more. Instead of careering round slow combines driven by hated farmers, they will start and ram them!!! So don,t bank too much on SFP,s or RAP,s too much lads we shall soon be in Stewarts Utopia Jack Caley

grumpy Farmers have always rushed into schemes which look more attractive than there present crops two things have stopped them in the past 1 loss of subsidy and known terminal prices as with combinables 2 lack of skills today there is plethora of advisors out there willing to tell you how to grow any particular crop particularly if they can sell you the seed 3 lack of tackle The role of contractoras today is meaning that many of these more specialist crops are planted and harvested by contractors obligating the need for different machine 4 many of these specialist crops can already be grown by existing machines but just did not recieve subsidy so they attracted higher prices as with borage etc i think if any new land comes up it will far more likely be taken over by existing farmers to spread overheads anyway lastly what do you say to the young man who has just taken over a large grain farm from a large farming company who is unlikely to want to give up its entitlement as it has moved on elsewhere I asm not prpared to give details here but he must be looking at bankruptcy and certainly not his fault

Stephen. round here a lot of the advisors/contractors are frustrated farmers now just waiting for a chance to have a go on thier own As for stopping expansion by existing farmers that is difficult to achive without legislation, but where would draw the line. perhaps the french system? where niehbours have to agree on who farms the land The new entrant outlined is catered for in the 3% reserve provided he started befor the cutoff date in march or may this year i think