THE ‘flat’ design of the Farmer Fuel Support Scheme has been heavily criticised by Cork ICMSA which warns that it fails to recognise the periods of heaviest usage.
The organisation’s West Cork chairperson DJ Keohane said that ‘regrettably’ the scheme has failed to recognise the significantly higher levels of fuel usage on farms during the months from March to July.
‘The case ICMSA is making is that the fuel scheme is ‘flat’ and based on five-twelfths of total fuel usage for the year,’ he said. ‘But the reality is that diesel usage on farms is much higher during the March to July period and that should have been weighted along the lines of, say, eight-twelfths of the total annual usage to reflect the much heavier outlay usage and much heavier financial outlay during this
period.
ADVERTISEMENT
‘Fuel usage is always considerably higher from March to July, particularly with silage, slurry spreading and other essential farm activities going on. We just think that this hasn’t been recognised and that, essentially, lower fuel usage during the ‘shoulder’ months of the year is artificially pushing down the average figure for the March to July period.’
Mr Keohane, a Timoleague farmer, called for a review of the decision and cautioned that the €58m remaining from the scheme must be retained within the farming sector and paid to farmers.
‘With the average farmer set to receive approximately €600, that money will be eaten up straight away. It is akin to a sprinkle of rain falling on my fields at the moment – it won’t make any substantial difference either way. There’s a drought on farms, and there’s a drought in farmers’ bank accounts,’ he said.
‘For all farmers fuel costs are a massive issue and this support – appreciated as it is – is only putting a plaster on a wound that requires major surgery. We desperately need meaningful measures that address the underlying costs of farming and ensure that farm families can continue to operate viable businesses into the
future.’
Mr Keohane noted that while the payment itself was laughably inadequate set against the increased costs of fuel farmers incurred, the scheme design was a model of straightforward clarity and he said that the Department should certainly emulate that that model where possible across their whole range of schemes.
‘The scheme design was clear and good, but the amount is nowhere near sufficient, and the method of calculation was slipshod and incorrect,’ he concluded.
