Chapter I

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.

1.1 The Problem:

There is an apparent lack of knowledge and understanding of Cross Compliance as
evident by the number of penalties imposed each year by the DAFM. These penalties
are a result of failing to meet Cross Compliance standards as discovered by on-farm
inspections.
While much information is published on Cross Compliance by the DAFM, Teagasc and
the Agricultural media, there is still a lack of knowledge and understanding with
farmers on Cross Compliance. The most common breaches on farms for 2010 are
detailed in Figure 1.
Figure 1.1 The most frequent SMRs that were in breach of Cross Compliance
standards 2010:

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

Problem SMRS 2010

SMRS

Source: DAFM 2010

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

4

1.2 Study Objectives

The objectives of the study are:

To establish the level of knowledge and understanding of Cross Compliance by

farmers.

To explore whether there is a link between a knowledge deficit of the Cross

Compliance regulation and the Cross Compliance regulation breaches found on farms.

To investigate what is the best method of transferring information to farmers in areas

such as Cross Compliance.

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.

2.1 Single Farm Payment System (SFP)

The CAP, up to 1992, supported farm output price, using market demand control, by
intervention buying, and storing of market surpluses. This supported farm incomes by
supporting farm output prices. These mechanisms were coupled to farm production,
and remained largely untouched during the first thirty years of the CAPs existence
from 1962 1992 (Bureau & Mathews, 2005).
The 1992 CAP reforms began the move away from farm output price support to direct
farm income support. This direct income support was by an area based system called
Area Aid, and a financial amount per farm animal was called Headage, and were
coupled to farm production.
Under the 2005 CAP reforms Ireland adopted a fully decoupled system of farm income
supports, which became known as the SFP, making it unique among its EU 15
counterparts (Galligan 2007). The value in monetary terms to individual farmers of the
SFP was based on the average value of their livestock Headage in 2000, 2001, and
2002, divided by the average number of hectares declared in their Area Aid application
also for these years. This gave an entitlement value per hectare. Farmers apply
annually, for the SFP, and applications have to be submitted by the 15th May each year.

2.2 Single Payment System (SPS)

Research by Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute Ireland (FAPRI- Ireland
Oct 2003) established a solid economic basis for the adoption of decoupling. After
consultation with stakeholders the DAFM decided to commence this Single Payment
System (SPS) at the earliest opportunity, 1st December 2005 (CAP Monitor 2005). With
the new SPS came new monitoring processes that had to be supported by the
Department (Galligan 2007). This monitoring element of the 2003 CAP reform is
known as Cross Compliance and is a central element of the overall 2003 package.
(Galligan 2007) describes how failure to comply with the various standards will result
in financial penalty and a reduction in the level of SFP received.

2.3 Cross Compliance in detail:

Cross Compliance was introduced in 2005, although the concept has earlier origins in
the USA (ADAS, 2009). It was first employed in the US in 1985 under the title of
Conservation Compliance (Davis et al 2006). In Europe, Cross Compliance was first
discussed in the late 1980s, as measures to integrate environmental considerations into
agricultural policy (ADAS 2009). Cross Compliance was introduced, albeit in a limited
way, by the Mac Sharry CAP reforms of 1992 (Spash and Falconer 1997). The
implementation of the CAP reforms could be characterised more by the term
Evolution rather than Revolution (Galligan 2007).
Cross Compliance has four objectives:
1. To ensure the incorporation of basic standards for environment, health and food
safety, animal welfare in farming.
2. To reinforce the legitimacy of the CAP and its acceptance by all consumers
3. To promote a Sustainable Agriculture
4. To prevent land abandonment by maintaining it in good condition
(DAFM).

To help achieve these objectives, there are 18 Statutory Management Requirements

(SMRs) and four Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC)
requirements associated with Cross Compliance. The SMRs of Cross Compliance
8

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)

Wild Birds Directive 79/409/CEE). This directive is aimed at maintaining and

managing hedgerows, habitats, special areas of conservation, to enhance the
survivability of wild birds.

(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

2.4 Control System:

The DAFM, as the EU accredited paying agency, have primary responsibility to ensure
that the required level of Cross Compliance inspections are carried out, and the
associated penalties be applied for non compliance (DAFM Consultation Paper 2004).
According to Calatrava (2004) the competent control authority is responsible for the
assessment of the severity, extent, permanence and repetition of the detected noncompliance. Davies & Hodge (2006), states that people are perceived to be more likely
to abide by regulation when they believe it is appropriate, fair, equitable in
implementation, efficient/effective in process, proportionate, relevant and necessary.
In the UK, a study on farmers preferences for New Environmental Policy Instruments
by Davis & Hodge (2006) indicates that the more proactive segment of the farming
population emphasises a sense of responsibility and a need for pre-emptive avoidance
of environmental harm, whereas the more traditional opinion, is more accepting of
farming environmental impacts and trends, and see them as an inevitable outcome of
the agricultural processes. Past studies (Brotherton, 1989; Morris and Potter, 1995), on
adoption of environmental management practices, including scheme adoption, have
identified three broad factors as important.
These are:
1. Opportunity (Farm structural issue),
2. Inclination ( Farmer attitudinal issue)
3. Incentive ( Scheme design issue)
Cross Compliance policy and Agri- Environment measures compliment each other,
however Cross Compliance represents the demarcation line between penalising
farmers for the non-compliance with mandatory requirements (the polluter pays
principle) and rewarding farmers for the voluntary provision of environmental benefits
through agri-environmental or animal welfare commitments (Funar 2009).
In order to implement the control programme, each Member State is required to carry
out standard eligibility checks. The rate of on-farm inspections required for CrossCompliance is normally 1% of the farmers to whom the relative SMR or GAEC
applies. However, at least 5% of producers must be inspected under Animal
Identification and Registration requirements (DAFM Consultation Paper 2004). In a
case of a significant degree of non-compliance in a given area of Cross Compliance
11

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

2.6 Detailed analysis of most frequent Cross Compliance breaches

2010
2.6.1 SMR 7 Bovine herd register:
SMR 7, Bovine Identification and Registrations accounted for 42% of all noncompliances. Of these, 45% were related to Cattle Movement Monitoring System
(CMMS) irregularities, i.e. failure to notify movements, births and deaths to the
database. Animal Passport discrepancies accounted for 24%, i.e., no Animal Passports,
missing Animal Passports and surplus Animal Passports. Other Bovine Herd Register
discrepancies accounted for 17%, i.e., no entries, missing entries and incorrect entries
while 14% related to tagging irregularities.

2.6.2 SMR4 Nitrates:

SMR 4 Nitrates accounted for 17% of all non-compliances. 38% of these related to the
inadequate collection of livestock manure, other organic fertilisers, soiled water or
silage effluent, while 21% related to the inadequate management of the storage
facilities for livestock manure, other organic fertilisers, soiled water or silage effluent.
14% of breaches were where there was a failure to minimise the generation of soiled
water and 12% of the breaches were for structural defects to storage facilities leading to
direct or indirect runoff to groundwater or surface water. Stockpiling of manure on
lands during the prohibited period accounted for 7% of the breaches, and the remaining
8% were for a range of smaller breaches.

2.6.3 SMR8/8a Sheep/Goats:

Ovine identification and registration accounted for 18% of the breaches in 2010.
However 60% of these breaches were as a result of Flock Census problems. Failures to
adequately maintain the Flock register accounted for 28%, and 12% related to tagging
irregularities.

13

2.6.4 SMR9 Plant Protection Products:

SMR 9 Plant Protection Products accounted for 9% of all breaches. Unregistered
products were 65% of these breaches, while 14% of breaches were for the failure to
maintain a Products register. No Chemical Store warning sign was 5%, while 3% of
breaches were for inadequate storage facilities. The remaining 13% of breaches were
spread over 14 further minor breaches.

2.6.5 SMR11 Food/Feed hygiene:

SMR11 Food/Feed hygiene accounted for 3% of all breaches in 2010. The inability to
store, transport or use feed in a manner as to avoid contamination accounted for 28% of
breaches, while 15% of breaches related to the use of unauthorised/ illegal substances.
The inadequate separation of dairy sources from contamination was 12% of breaches
while 10% were related to the dairy/milking parlour not being kept clean or in good
repair. Inadequate control of vermin on the farm was 9% of breaches with a further 7%
of breaches recorded for the incorrect use of feed additives or veterinary medicinal
products. Poorly labelled or products with missing labels accounted for 7% while 6%
were for products that could come in contact with milk. The remaining 6% was spread
over 3 further minor breaches.

2.6.6 GAEC Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition:

GAEC accounted for 8% of all breaches. Failure to prevent the encroachment of
invasive species accounted for 40% of these breaches, with 36% relating to the failure
to control noxious weeds. Rutting or poaching of land that was leading to soil erosion
was16% of breaches, with the remaining 8% of breaches were spread out over 5 further
minor breaches.

14

2.7 Relationship between Cross Compliance, Good Farm Practice and

EU schemes:
Farmers participating in EU funded schemes must comply with GFP e.g.
Disadvantaged Areas Payments Scheme (DAS), on-farm investment schemes such as
the Targeted Agricultural Measures Schemes (TAMS), the Rural Environment
Protection Scheme (REPS), and the Agricultural Environment Options Scheme
(AEOS). Although there is a similarity between GFP and Cross Compliance they are
not the same. GFP requirements cover a wider range of legislative measures than do the
Cross Compliance requirements associated with the SFP.

Figure 2.1 Links between SFP, Cross Compliance, & GFP.

There is a clear linkage between Cross Compliance and Agri- Environmental Schemes
as Cross Compliance supports the transition to higher standards that may then become
Agri- Environment measures, Bartram (2004). Although this does suggest that farmers
who already are participating in an environmental scheme will be more likely to be
compliant for Cross Compliance. However Nitsch and Osterburg, (2004) and Calatrava
(2004) make the point that in some cases standards may not be too different from GFP
or in other cases, they might be too similar to some of the standards set for Agrienvironmental schemes posing co-ordination difficulties.
15

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.

2.8 Advisory System (FAS):

The Farm Advisory System (FAS) is a major component of the 2003 Common
Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform. Member States have the obligation to establish a
system for advising farmers on land use and farm management. The primary function
of FAS is to assist farmers to fulfil their Cross Compliance obligations and to help
farmers avoid financial reductions under the SMRs and GAEC.
Van Oost (2011) states that the FAS does not replace the different existing advisory
systems in the Member States but officialises a system with a clear goal for Cross
Compliance. In addition he also states that following advice is by its very nature
voluntary. Making advice obligatory for farmers will not guarantee the uptake of the
advice and would be inefficient use of co-ordinating funds. Furthermore an effective
FAS is based on a trustful relationship between the farmer and the advisor. In
addition the commission also considers the FAS advice should be voluntary for
farmers, since following advice by its very nature is voluntary. However, Member
States have to give priority to farmers who receive more than 15,000 of direct
payments per year (ADAS 2009).

17

2.9 Farmer Behaviour/Attitudes:

It is important to establish a broad definition of attitudes in order to decide its role in
this study. Measurement is one of the prime problems in the study of attitudes Rajecki
(1939). Allport, an eminent social psychologist provided an early comprehensive
definition of attitudes. An attitude is a mental and neutral state of readiness,
organised through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the
individuals responses to all objects and situations with which it is related. It is unlikely
that people are born with their current attitudes towards this, that, and the other. It is
far more likely that they acquired these attitudes along the way. Attitudes can arise
from single and multiple experiences, both direct and indirect (Rajecki 1939). One
factor that affects farmers attitudes to new policy is the impact on costs. Whilst Cross
Compliance requirements do not necessarily directly increase costs, they can reduce
income by increasing management costs Davies & Hodge (2006). A study in England
completed by Momenta (2007) demonstrates that awareness of Cross Compliance has
risen since 2005. Momenta found that 98% understood some, most or all requirements,
an increase of 11% since 2005. The Alliance Environment report (2007) which
evaluated the application of Cross Compliance across Europe suggests that Cross
Compliance has improved farmers awareness of their obligations but has been less
successful in developing farmers understanding of those obligations, and in sustainable
agriculture more generally. In Ireland there has been no such study completed to date
about farmers attitudes towards Cross Compliance. An assumption on the state of
awareness by Irish farmers could be made however, based on media articles associated
with Cross Compliance. ADAS (2009) states that the key behavioural issue is the
negative attitudes to Cross Compliance by farmers as evidenced by the review of media
articles and feedback from industry advisors in this research. As described earlier,
penalties associated with Cross Compliance inspections are generally low in relation to
the scale of SFP payments from which the deductions are made. In the media, Cross
Compliance articles have been seen to be provoking fear in farmers about Cross
Compliance inspections. The Irish Farmers Journal has a dedicated weekly article
documenting farmers bad experiences with inspectors and inspections. In the Journals
edition dated 7th April 2012, a front page headline said I didnt sleep the night before
the inspection because of the worry. This type of journalism of course has been
around for a long time. Bucchi (2002) states that the idea that science is too
complicated for the general public to understand became established as a result of
18

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

The understanding of a farmers attitudes to Cross Compliance can also help in

improving the programmes effectiveness in relation a number of issues.

2.10 Knowledge Transfer and Communication in Agriculture:

Scientific communication addressed to the lay person has a long tradition Bucchi
(2004). Also Bucchi states that there is a need for mediation between scientists and the
general public. Categories of professionals and institutions to perform this mediation by
means of the metaphor of translation is crucial for affective knowledge transfer in
Agriculture. In addition he introduces the diffusionist concept, which is simplistic
and idealised. The diffusionist concept demonstrates that scientific facts need only be
transported from a specialist context to a popular one, in this case, from the researcher
to the farmer. However if we acknowledge that the language of legislation or science
can be difficult to understand in lay terms , it is obvious that such a method will not
work in Agriculture and Agri- policy. There must then be a translator between the
scientific hierarchy and the farmers at whom the policy is targeted to. In other words,
the DAFM and FAS are seen as these translators. They interpret the scientific language
and deliver it to famers in a more user friendly manner. There are other translators in
the mix, such as the media, which also have a translator role to play. When describing
farmers behaviour earlier, the media was described as having certain indifference
about communicating scientific knowledge. As it publishes scientific and policy facts
often without detailed explanation, or translation. However the influence of the media
is large-scale, and the general public depend on it to meet their needs for information.
A direct transfer of knowledge from the scientific to the general public, Hilgartner
(1990) proposes a Continuity model of scientific communication. Buchhi (2004)
describes it as a gradual change in the styles of communication/reception along the
continuum. One of the most detailed models of this continuum has been developed by
Clotre and Shinn (1985) who identify four main stages in the process of scientific
communication.
These are:
1.

Intraspecialist,

2.

Interspecialist,

3.

Pedagogical

4.

Popular level.
20

The Intraspecialist level is that found in a typical scientific journal.

The Interspecialist level would be information shared among peers of a scientific
discipline, for example in Agriculture, this would be the researchers.
Fleck (1979) describes the Pedalogical level as the text book science. In Ireland, the
DAFM, Teagasc, Universities, are responsible for publishing guidelines and text
associated with farming.
Finally the Popular level is where the Farm Advisory and media are situated. Although
the intended recipient, the farmer, could be considered to be on this scale also. The
model is depicted by figure 2, in the shape of a funnel. The purpose being to emphasise
the growing solidity and simplification of the information, level after level until it
reaches the farmer. The continuity model can be considered a useful frame of reference
as it describes some sort of ideal flow of communication in routine circumstances. How
well communicated through each layer, agricultural knowledge is the more effective
and usable it is at ground level by the farmer.
Figure 2.2 Flow of Communication through the different layers:
Based on the Continuity model of Scientific Communication Buchhi (2004).
(1)Intraspecialistic
(Specialised Journals)

(3) Pedogogical stage

(DAFM)

(4) Popular stage

4

(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

2.11 Knowledge transfer at the popular level:

One could go into detail about the Agricultural Education System when talking about
communication and knowledge transfer. Considering the continuity model in Figure
2.2, the highest level of education would be at the broad end of the cone, Teagasc as the
National Agricultural Education provider in Ireland, has the FETAC level 6 Education
at the narrow end of the funnel (popular level). However for this study it is not an
objective to go into detail regarding this education system.
One of the main roles of mainstream advisory is to provide advice and knowledge to
farmers on request. At the popular level we have three main players:
1. The farmer
2. The media
3. Advisor/Consultant.
Concerning Cross Compliance, the Farm Advisory (FAS) was established in every
member state. Its primary function is to assist farmers to fulfil their obligations and to
help farmers avoid financial reductions under the SMRs and GAEC. It can be asserted
then that in order for the FAS to achieve its function, it must be communicating at the
popular level of the scale. The media plays an important role of communicating
information to the farmer however as described by ADAS (2009) earlier it may not
always be reliable. Finally of course farmers themselves share information and this
would be at the popular level also. Advisory Discussion Groups, Advisory Farm Walks,
Advisory Information Seminars, are important opportunities for farmers to get together
and discuss Cross Compliance issues.

22

CHAPTER III
Materials and Methods

23

Materials and Methods:

A questionnaire was completed by 209 farmers. The survey was conducted over a two
week period in February 2012. It was first piloted by a group of FETAC level 6
Teagasc students in Co. Roscommon. In addition advisory staff from Teagasc offices in
Longford and Roscommon gave feedback and suggestions for improvements as well as
Tim Hyde and Catherine Keena of Teagasc National Environmental Section.
The questionnaire was to collect data to investigate, farmers level of knowledge and
information of Cross Compliance. The sample was non- random, targeting attendees of
the Beef Technology Adoption Programme (BTAP) information meetings organised by
Teagasc nationally in February 2012.
The locations and dates of these meetings were sourced from the National press and the
Teagasc public internet site. The following locations are where the surveys were
conducted, Roscommon North (Teagasc Office, Castlerea) Roscommon South,
(Teagasc Office, Roscommon Town), Longford (Teagasc Office, Longford Town),
Ballinasloe (Teagasc Office, Ballinasloe), and (Toghers Hall) Newbridge, Co. Kildare.
The use of these meetings were made available through the kind permission of the staff
in the Teagasc offices concerned. A questionnaire was distributed to each farmer who
was willing to participate as they took their seats at each BTAP meeting. Before
answering the questionnaire a short explanation was given to each respondent to the
questionnaire. This briefly explained the purpose, objectives and extent to how the
information would be used. In addition the respondent(s) were shown a colour copy of
the Explanation Handbook for Agricultural Practice Regulations and a copy of the 2006
Single Farm Payment Explanatory Handbook. These items related to question one in
the questionnaire. A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix B.

24

3.1 Constructing the Questionnaire:

A number of techniques can be used to collect survey data. For this study it was
necessary to take a Qualitative approach rather than a Quantitative one. It is not
possible to develop a questionnaire which can be analysed properly unless the methods
of analysis were first established. The parameters for the population being surveyed
were set at beef farmers attending the BTAP meetings. The question format was
Closed type as this gives more scope for cross tabulations during the analysis stage.
The primary function of the questionnaire layout was to develop a knowledge and
attitude index of the farmers being surveyed. It was also constructed in a manner that
made it possible for Bivariate (ANOVA) and Multivariate (MANOVA) analysis.

3.2 Data storage and analysis:

All the data from the questionnaire was input into a computer database and analysed
statistically. For selected qualitative traits frequencies and percentages were examined.
The significance of differences between frequencies were analysed using the
Pearson test. The software used was SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences). PASW Statistics 18.0.0 (2009) including WinWrap Basic, Copyright 19932007.

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

Table 3.1 Description of variables used in ordinal regression model

______________________________________________________________________
Variable title

Description________

Measurement

Read

Ever read issued material

Measured on 3 classes

Term

Ever heard of Cross Compliance

Yes=1 No=0

Inspect

Ever had an inspection

Yes=1 No=0

Inspected

What was inspected

Measured in 5 classes

Penalty

Ever receive a penalty

Money

Estimate of money lost to penalty

Fears

Strongest fear of inspection

Measured in scale x5 classes

Info

Most CC info

Measured in scale x7 classes

Internet

Web access

Yes=1 No=0

Services

On-line services

Measures in 5 classes

Events

Attend events

Age

Age

Measured in 5x9yr bands

Education

Education

Measured x5 classes

Situation

Full/Part time

Measured x2 classes

Paperwork

Who does paperwork

Measured x5 classes incl. other

Records

Are records done for 2011

Measured 5x Yes=1 No=0 n/a=3

Enterprise

Main Enterprise on farm

Measured x5 classes incl. other

Land

Land area Ha

Log of total farm area

Scheme

AEOS/REPS

Measuredx3 classes

SMR/GAEC

Knowledge of SMRs/GAEC

Measured 18x4 classes

Opinion

Opinion of Cross Compliance

Measuredx3 classes

Yes=1 No=0 Dont Know=3

Measured in classes x4

Yes=1 No=0, +4 classes if Yes

27

3.3 Problems encountered with Questionnaire:

Firstly the target respondents were all attending a voluntary event. This alone may have
some bias in the results as only farmers who chose to attend were surveyed. Due to the
events being voluntary and the study dealing with attitudes and behaviour, there may
have been a certain type of farmer who was within the target, but decided not to attend
the event. It is unknown the possible significance associated with this scenario.
The questions were closed, requiring the respondent to pick a certain answer from a
list. The respondent was not given the opportunity to elaborate on responses. Only
respondents who agreed to take part in the survey were handed a questionnaire,
however out of 230 handed out, 209 came back completed. The respondents who
changed their mind may have had a significant issue with Cross Compliance that was
not possible to quantify for this study. Due to the nature of the questionnaire,
respondents were required to answer from memory. Some answers may have been
answered less accurately than what was in fact the case regarding knowledge and paper
work.
Every BTAP event was held in a different venue and this made it difficult to come up
with a distribution plan as entrances/exits and seating arrangements differed between
locations.

28

Chapter IV
Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data

29

Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data

After the data was inputted, frequency and cross tabulation tables were generated, and
examined. The generation of these was guided by the objectives of the study. They
were put in a loose order to direct their presentation and interpretation.
The presentation order is:
1. Profile of Farmers
2. Knowledge Index of Farmers
3. Attitude Index of Farmers

4.1 Profile of Farmers

Almost of the farmers (74%) were between 40 and 60 years of age.
Compared to the CSO farm survey (2007) the average age of farmers in Ireland is 48 so
the farmers in this study are fairly representative of the National average.
The data in Table 3.1 sets out the farmers age profile.

Table 4.1 Age distribution of farmers in the study group:

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

Figure 4.1 Typical farmer profile from survey population.

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%)

Figure 4.1 illustrates the components of the typical profile of the

farmers surveyed for this study.

32

4.2 Knowledge index:

Momenta completed a survey in England (November 2005) and concluded that 97% of
those questioned had heard of the term Cross Compliance (ADAS 2009). Similarly
98% of the respondents for this study had heard of the term Cross Compliance also.
Various aspects of the questionnaire dealt with knowledge of Cross Compliance and
general farm practice by the farmer. In building the knowledge index, the responses by
the farmer can give an indication of their level of knowledge on the subject in question.
Figure 3.1 on page 26 gives a graphic representation of these causal assumptions for the
knowledge objectives in the questionnaire.

4.2.1Farmer Use of Information Literature

The DAFM issued each farmer in the country with a copy of the information handbook
for Good Agricultural Practice Regulations and a copy of the SFP Booklet. The
competent national authority (DAFM), were required to provide the farmer, by 2005,
with the list of SMRs, and the GAEC to be respected (Calatrava 2004). From the 209
farmers surveyed 129 (62%) stated that they had read the literature. Only 15% went on
to state that they used the literature often, and 38% admitted to never using the
literature for information. The remaining 47% used the literature seldom for
information. In addition 68% of the respondents still have the documentation to hand.

4.2.2 Farmer Management of Cross Compliance Paperwork

Recording of farming activities and events is an important element in meeting Cross
Compliance requirements. These records are examined if an on farm inspection takes
place. The data in Table set out the farmers responses to the keeping of the records or
commonly referred to as the paperwork.

33

Table 4.2 Person who normally does farm paperwork:

Number of Respondents

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.

Table 4.3 Paperwork up to date for 2011

Paperwork

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)

4.2.3 Farmers knowledge of Cross Compliance SMRs and GAEC.

Although not all SMR and GAEC obligations apply to every farm enterprise, the
farmers in this study were asked to give feedback on their knowledge of each of the 18
SMR and 4 GAEC provided in a table in question 21 of the questionnaire. The
weighting of the answers were scaled as Good, Fair, Poor and None.
Figure 4.2 Respondents who rated SMRs & GAECs with a good
knowledge.
80

% 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

R9 R10 R11 R12 4/15 7/18 EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4

SM SM SM SM 3/1 6/1 GA GA GA GA
R1 R1
SM SM

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

Does not use

Do own farm

the internet for

paperwork

farming
purposes

Knowledge

Does not know

Each farmer has

Index

SMRs in detail

66% of their
records up to

to avoid penalty

date

Gets most

Has a

information

familiarity with

from media

the main SMRs

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

Table 4.5 Relationship between causal assumptions of knowledge index and

understanding of the problem SMR and GAEC obligations for Cross Compliance
by farmers.
Causal
assumptions for
knowledge

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

*** = Strong Relationship, ** = Moderate Relationship, * = Weak Relationship,

= No significant relationship
Relationship is based on Pearsons Correlation Coefficient .

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

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 relationship between internet access and knowledge bore no significance to the
understanding of any of the SMRs and GAECs.
Like information channels, attendance at events was broken down into individual
predictors. These were farm walks, public meetings and no event attended. Attendance
at farm walks yielded two significant results, SMR7 (Bovine herd register) (p= 0.711,
sig= -0.26) and GAEC (p= 0.129, sig= 0.09). This indicated that as fewer farmers
attend farm walks, the levels of knowledge decreased for SMR7, however the
relationship between the numbers that attended farm walks and knowledge of the
GAECs was strong.
In contrast, there was a strong relationship between SMR11 (Animal feed/hygiene) and
public meetings (p= 0.668, sig= 0.030). Furthermore GAEC (p= 0.395, sig= 0.014) had
a strong relationship although not as significant as farm walks. Finally for events, the
possible relationships between there being no events attended was investigated. SMR11
(Animal feed/hygiene) (p= -0.013, sig= 0.0850) was the only strong relationship. As the
number of farmers that did not attend farm events would increase, it could be expected
that the level of knowledge associated with SMR11 would also decrease, this was due
to the negative correlation coefficient found (p= -0.013).
Whether participation in an environmental scheme bore any significance was also
investigated. SMR4 (Nitrates) (p= 0.964, sig= -0.003) and SMR7 (Bovine herd register)
(p= 0.820, sig= 0.016) showed the strongest relationship between the participation in
the schemes and knowledge of these SMRs however the same two SMRs showed
significance between never participating in a scheme and knowledge of the SMRs. If
compared to the figures for participation the significance of the above variables are
weaker. There may be some irregularities with the analysis for non-participation as the
frequency of cases within the total survey population was relatively small.
If the Explanatory Handbook for Good Agricultural Practice Regulations and the
booklet on the Single Payment Scheme were read, it resulted in a strong relationship
with SMR7 (Bovine herd register) p= 0.685, sig= 0.028), SMR8/8a (Flock register)
(p= -0.023, sig= 0.739) and SMR11 (Animal feed/ hygiene) (p= 0.794, sig= -0.018),
suggesting that reading this material would increase knowledge of these obligations.

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.

4.3 Attitude index:

The attitude index was compiled by asking farmers for various bits of information that
would be added together to generate an overall attitude/behaviour profile. The aim of
this was to investigate whether the knowledge index has any influence on behaviour or
vice versa.
As mentioned earlier on page 20 according to Clotre and Shinn (1985) there are four
main stages on the scientific communication level. Farmers normally communicate
within the popular level. A list of the most common methods of communication at the
popular level in agriculture was given in the questionnaire and each respondent was
asked to give the source where they receive the most information about Cross
Compliance. Media sources, such as newspaper, radio, television, at 65% was the cited
the most as a source of information about Cross Compliance. As stated by Buchhi
(2004) journalists see it their duty to express public opinions and demands. Journalists
also describe their mission in terms of public opinions need for information. Cross
Compliance meetings and farm walks are organised by DAFM, Teagasc, Consultants,
regarding Cross Compliance obligations and Environmental schemes, and 51% of the
farmers indicated they had attended such farm walks. Farm consultants and advisors
accounted for 48% of the information received by farmers regarding Cross Compliance.
The DAFM and Teagasc publish a large volume of leaflets and booklets every year to
update farmers on new developments in agriculture. Literature associated with Cross
Compliance was read by 36% of the respondents. IT technology played a less
significant role in the transfer of Cross Compliance information, in fact 77% of the
farmers declared that they have an internet connection, but only 27% stated that they
used it to find information on Cross Compliance. In addition the use of SMS updates
and notifications has been a long time established by consultants/ advisors and farm
42

organisations. Information regarding Cross Compliance was received by 29% via SMS
on their mobile phone.

Table 4.6 Sources of Cross Compliance information to farmers.

Source
Media

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)

4.3.1 Fears associated with a Cross Compliance inspection:

The data in Table 4.6 shows that the most common source of information about Cross
Compliance is the media. ADAS (2009) states when describing media articles
concerning Cross Compliance that there are still concerns raised about inspections,
in fact Allen (2004) states that the initial negative reaction to the measures of Cross
Compliance concentrated on the potential cost of impact. With Allens statement
considered it is no surprise that 72% of farmers selected financial loss through penalties
as their biggest concern. The uncertainty of not knowing what to expect during an
inspection accounted for 53% of responses. With regard to the uncertainty, ADAS
(2009) describes how articles in the Farmers Weekly (UK) suggested that there were
many farmers with a negative attitude towards Cross compliance. This in part is due to
uncertainty and confusion about the measures in Cross Compliance. Likewise the
archives of the Irish Farming press are weighted more towards negative articles than
positive.

43

Table 4.7 Farmers Fears associated with Cross Compliance inspections.

Fear
Financial loss as a

Number of Respondents

150

72

111

53

98

47

Extra paperwork

86

41

Higher costs to meet

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.

Table 4.8 Attendance at events

Event

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

Table 4.9 Areas of the farm that received an inspection.

Area inspected

Number of Respondents

REPS

98

47

Farm Yard

67

32

DAS

48

23

Suckler Cow Welfare

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.

Table 4.10 Estimate of financial loss to Cross compliance breaches.

Cross compliance penalty

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.

4.3.2 Farmers Opinions of Cross Compliance

Table 4.11 Farmers opinions of Cross Compliance and Irish Agriculture.

Opinion of Cross Compliance

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

possible influence on a farmers attitude towards Cross Compliance if they received a

penalty.
The data in Table 4.12 below shows the attitudes of the farmers who received financial
penalties compared to those who did not.

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

Figure 4.5 Attitude index of farmer profile from survey population

Has contact with

an advisor/
consultant
Uses the popular

Less positive
about Cross

media and contact

Compliance if

with other people

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

Opinions of Cross Compliance

Positive

Necessary

Hindrance

Age group

Education

Advisor/consultant

***

Farm walks

***

***

Public meetings

***

Leaflet/booklets

**

Media source

**

**

***

REPS/AEOS

***

**

Never in Environmental

***

***

scheme
Internet access

*** = Strong relationship, ** Moderate Relationship, * Weak Relationship

= No significant relationship
Relationship is based on Pearsons Correlation Coefficient

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

relationship with the population. In comparison, public meetings had less of an

influence on all three opinions, however the relationship with hindrance is very strong
(p= 0.983, sig= 0.001).
Leaflets and booklets have a significance in two areas, necessary (p= 0.554,
sig= -0.041) and hindrance (p= 0.621, sig= 0.034). It is clear by comparing both values
for significance that the negative view is stronger but the difference is small, in fact the
significance of both is weak overall. 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 have 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 for cross compliance, positive opinion will decrease. 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.
The participation in an environmental scheme had a moderate level of significance for
necessary (p= 0.729, sig= 0.024). A positive opinion of Cross Compliance had a
stronger relationship (p= 0.744, sig= 0.023). The correlations for the opinions of
farmers that were never in a scheme may be skewed as there were a small number of
farmers that had never participated in an environmental scheme.
Finally internet access had a moderate significance towards a positive opinion for Cross
Compliance (p= 0.627, sig= -0.034).
Attitudes and opinions are strongly influenced by advisors/consultants, farm walks,
public meetings, leaflets/booklets, media, and being involved or not involved in an
environmental scheme. Being never involved in an environmental scheme coming up
with a strong positive relationship is interesting, and it could be due to these farmers
having little experience of the Cross Compliance or Good Farming Practice regulations.

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.

The following objectives were set out for the study:

1. To establish the level of knowledge and understanding of Cross Compliance by
farmers.
2. To explore whether there is a link between a knowledge deficit of the Cross
Compliance regulation and the Cross Compliance regulation breaches found on
farms.

3. To investigate what is the best method of transferring information to farmers in

areas such as Cross Compliance.

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.

5.1 Knowledge of Cross Compliance

Up to 98% of farmers indicated they had heard of the term Cross Compliance, and this
is similar to a study carried out by ADAS in England where 97% said they heard of the
term.
With regard to the level of formal agricultural training by respondents, it is interesting
that 64% stated they had some formal level of agricultural training. Education has an
important positive influence on knowledge of Cross Compliance SMRS.
The typical farmer profile in the study was:
Aged between 40 & 60, a cattle producer, farming full time with up to 80 hectares of
land, has some formal agricultural training, and has experience of being in an
environmental scheme such as REPS or AEOS.
While the results show that farmers indicated they had some knowledge of the most
frequently encountered SMRs, such as Nitrates, Herd Registers, Animal Feed and
Storage, and Crop Chemicals and Storage, it was in these same SMRs that they
received the most penalties. This would indicate a superficial knowledge, but they
missed the detail of the SMR, which got them into trouble. This was very evident when
the penalties issued in each SMR were examined in detail. A good example of this was
in the case of Bovine Herd Registers. The register is comprised of:
Calf births registration
Calf/Animal tagging details
Animal movements on and off the farm details
Animal deaths and disposal
Animal remedies used in the herd.
The penalties received by farmers were applied across all these areas.

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.

5.2 Attitudes and Opinions of Cross Compliance

The general media was indicated by 65% of farmers as their main source of information
on Cross Compliance. A study carried out by ADAS in England found that the media
often highlight concerns associated with inspections. Likewise in Ireland, the Irish
Farmers Journal has run a series of articles on the Cross Compliance Inspection.
These media articles tend to emphasise the negative aspects of inspections.
According to Rajecki(1939), attitudes can arise from single or multiple experiences,
either direct or indirect. Attitudes can be positive or negative depending on the
situations experienced. In the study farmers were asked to express their concerns or
fears with Cross Compliance inspections. Financial loss was cited by 72% of farmers,
while not knowing what to expect was indicated by 53% of farmers.
The 72% of farmers indicating financial loss as their main fear is surprising, when 87%
of farmers that had an inspection never received a penalty.
Is this fear exaggerated by negative press?.
57

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

5.3 Conclusions and Recommendations

Since the CAP reforms of 1992, a range of new regulations governing farming practices
have been introduced throughout the EU. More recently in 2005 Cross Compliance and
Good Agricultural Environmental Condition regulations began to be implemented. The
main income support to farming also changed in 2005 to the SFP. The SFP for drystock
farmers is often more than 100% of their income. Non compliance with Cross
Compliance and GAEC regulations can give rise to financial penalties which are
deducted from the SFP. While 66% of farmers have some form of formal Agricultural
training, this alone is not sufficient for farmers to have a good knowledge of the
regulations. The study found that farmers have a general knowledge of the Cross
Compliance regulations and GAEC, but lack an in depth or detailed knowledge. This
lack of in depth knowledge, led the farmer to think he was in compliance, but in actual
fact inspections showed up this was not the case.
When farmers actively engage with information sources such as the general media,
events and farm walks organised by agricultural advisers/consultants, the farmers
knowledge of the regulations increase. This knowledge increase occurs when complex
technical information is translated by the adviser to the popular level of the farmer.
Not only does the farmers knowledge increase, their attitude towards the Cross
Compliance obligations tend to be more positive. This is borne out in the literature by
Cloitre and Shinn (1985). In situations where farmers use agricultural
advisers/consultants for the more complex areas of the regulations little knowledge is
transferred to farmers.
Farmers attitudes and opinions can change towards the regulations, depending on the
farmers experience. Farmers that received a financial penalty, tended to be more
negative towards the regulations. The EU are anxious that the knowledge level of the
regulations with farmers increases, and to help this an advisory system called FAS is
now available in all Member States.

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

Teagasc (2009), National Farm Survey.

Varela-Ortega, C. & Calatrava, J., (2004). Evaluation of cross compliance:
perspectives and implementation. Seminar, (April), pp.1-29.
Secondary Source (media): Irish Farmers Journal archives 2004 -2012

63

Appendix A

64

Appendix A Table 1 Illustrates both the Statutory Management Requirements

(SMRs) and Good Agricultural and Environmental
Conditions (GAEC) associated with Cross Compliance
SMR1

Conservation of Wild Birds

SMR2

Protection of ground water against pollution

SMR3

Sewage sludge

SMR4

Nitrates

SMR5

Conservation of Natural habitats and Wild Flora and Fauna

SMR6

Pigs Identification and registration

SMR7

Bovine Identification register

SMR8

Sheep Identification register

SMR8a Goats Identification register

SMR9

Plant protection Products

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

Appendix A Table 2 Time-line of the introduction of Cross Compliance SMRs

and GAEC:
From 2005:
SMR1- Conservation of wild birds
SMR2- Protection of Groundwater against pollution
SMR3- Protection of the Environment and Soil when Sewage Sludge is used in
Agriculture
SMR4- Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates
SMR5- Conservation of Natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna
SMR6- Animal (Pigs)- Identification and Registration
SMR6/8A- Animals (Sheep/Goats) - Identification and registration
SMR6/7/8- Identification and Registration of Animals

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

Knowledge Index of Cross Compliance

Appendix A Table 3 Heard of Cross Compliance

Heard of the term Cross

Number of Respondents

Compliance:
Yes

206

98

No

Appendix A Table 4 Good Farm Practice Explanatory Handbook:

Read Handbook

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

Person who normally does farm paperwork:

Number of Respondents

Myself (farmer)

139

66

Spouse

28

13

Son/Daughter

Advisor/Consultant

34

16

Total

209

100

Appendix A Table 8
SMR1

Level of Knowledge SMR 1

None

Poor

Fair

Good

12

26

78

93

12

37

44

Conservation of wild
birds
Number of
Respondents
%

69

Appendix A Table 9 Level of Knowledge SMR 2

SMR2

None

Poor

Fair

Good

12

48

146

1.4

5.7

44

55

Protection of
ground water
Number of
Respondents
%

Appendix A Table 10 Level of Knowledge SMR 3

SMR3

None

Poor

Fair

Good

45

30

52

82

21.5

14.4

24.9

39.2

Sewage
Number of
Respondents
%

There is more equal distribution of responses to the understanding of SMR3 Sewage

Sludge. This may be due to the fact that sewage sludge is used more often in tillage
enterprises than beef enterprises. The result here is as expected.

70

Appendix A Table 11
SMR4

Level of Knowledge SMR 4

None

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

Level of Knowledge SMR 5

None

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

Level of Knowledge SMR 6

None

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

Level of Knowledge SMR 7

None

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

Level of Knowledge SMR 8/8a

None

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.

Appendix A Table 16 Level of Knowledge SMR 9

SMR9

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

Appendix A Table 17 Level of Knowledge SMR 10

SMR10

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.

Appendix A Table 18 Level of Knowledge SMR 11

SMR11

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

Appendix A Table 19 Level of Knowledge SMR 12

SMR12

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.

Appendix A Table 20 Level of Knowledge SMR 13/14/15

SMR13/14/15

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

Appendix A Table 21 Level of Knowledge SMR 16/17/18

SMR16/17/18

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.

Appendix A Table 22 Level of Knowledge GAEC 1 Soil Erosion

GAEC 1

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

Appendix A Table 23 Level of Knowledge GAEC Soil Structure

GAEC 2

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

Appendix A Table 24 Level of Knowledge GAEC 3 Maintenance of Land

GAEC 3

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

Appendix A Table 25 Level of Knowledge GAEC 4 Protection and Management

of Water
GAEC

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

Appendix A Table 26 Summary of Farmers Level of Knowledge of the SMR and

GAEC
Statutory

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

Raw Data of Pearsons Correlation Coefficient to

investigate the influence of causal assumptions for knowledge

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

Establishing an Attitude Index of Farmers:

Appendix A Table 29 Attendance at farm events

Farm Walk:

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

Appendix A Table 30 Public Meeting

Number of Respondents

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.

Appendix A Table 31 Cross Compliance information events

Number of Respondents

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

Where do you hear most about Cross Compliance

Media (incl. paper/tv/radio)

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

The Use of SMS for Cross Compliance Information

Number of Respondents

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

Appendix A Table 35 Use Leaflets/Booklets for Information

Leaflet/Booklet

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.

Appendix A Table 36 Use Farm Walks/Demos for Information

Farm walk/demo

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.

Appendix A Table 37 Use Consultant/Advisor for Information

Consultant/advisor

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

Appendix A Table 38 Use Other Sources for Information

Other information

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.

Fears from Inspections

The farmers were given a list of possible fears one might feel relating to the prospect of
Cross Compliance inspections. Below is a breakdown of the weighted results to that list
of fears.

Appendix A Table 39 Fear of Financial Loss

Financial loss/ Penalties

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

Appendix A Table 40 Fear of Extra Paperwork

Extra paperwork

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.

Appendix A Table 41 Fear of Additional Inspections

Additional inspections

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.

Appendix A Table 42 Fear of Higher Costs

Higher costs to meet

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

Appendix A Table 43 Fear of Not Knowing What To Expect

Not knowing what to

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.

Appendix A Table 44 Respondents who had an inspection and received a penalty

Received penalty

Number of Respondents

Yes

25

12

No

182

87

Dont know

Total

209

100

Appendix A Table 45 On-line services used by farmers:

On-line service

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

Appendix A Table 46 Relationship between farmers with access to the internet

and the use of on-line services:
Nitrates

Movements

Herd Register

Calf
registration

16.2

28.2

22.4

33.0

Appendix A Table 47 Respondents with Internet access:

Number of Respondents

Yes

162

77

No

47

22

Appendix A Table 48 Avail of on-line services

Calf Registration

Number of Respondents

Yes

70

33.5

No

139

66.5

Appendix A Table 49 Register Animal Movements on line

Animal Movements

Number of Respondents

Yes

60

29

No

149

71

88

Appendix A Table 50 Keep Bovine Herd Register Updated on line

Bovine herd register

Number of Respondents

Yes

195

93

No

10

n/a

Appendix A Table 51 Check their Farm Nitrates information on line

Nitrates update

Number of Respondents

Yes

36

17

No

173

83

Appendix A Table 52. Raw Data of Pearsons Correlation Coefficient to

investigate significance of causal assumptions from attitude index
Causal assumptions

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

Pearsons correlation coefficient

Appendix A Table 53 Documentation/Paperwork completed for 2011

Documentation

Number of Respondents

Herd register

195

93

Animal remedies

162

77

Fertiliser records

109

52

Slurry records

98

47

Flock register

65

31

90

Establishing a typical demographic of farmers from survey

Appendix A Table 54 Age distribution of farmers in the study population:

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

Appendix A Table 56 Full- time or part-time farming:

Farming situation

Number of Respondents

Full-time

115

55

Part-time

94

45

Total

209

100

The majority (55%) of farmers questioned declared themselves as in full-time farming,

however with the remaining 45% of the population stating that they are part-time
farming it can be seen that there was a fairly even distribution of full and part- time
farmers surveyed.

Appendix A Table 57 Area of Land farmed by Respondents

Land being farmed

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

Appendix A Table 58 Participation in any Environmental scheme:

Environmental

Number of Respondents

Scheme
REPS

173

82

AEOS

36

17

Never in any Scheme

34

16

A majority of farmers (82%) have been or are still involved in an environmental

scheme. As expected REPS is more dominant than AOES as it was established in 1994
whereas AEOS was established in 2010.

Appendix A Table 59 Agricultural Education Attainment

Education

Number of Respondents

Year in Agri College

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

Statutory Management Requirements (SMR) referred to in Literature review.

[Asterisks (*) denotes SMR or aspects of the SMR also applicable to Good Farm
Practice (GFP]
Applicable from 1.1.2005
Environment
1.

*Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the

Articles

conservation of wild birds.

3,4
(1,2,4),5,7
and 8

2.

*Council Directive 80/68/EEC on the protection

Articles 4

of groundwater against pollution caused by

and 5

certain dangerous substances

3.

* Council Directive 86/278/EEC on the

Article 3

protection of the environment, and in particular

of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in
agriculture.
4.

5.

*Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the

Article 4

protection of waters against pollution caused by

and

nitrates from agricultural sources.

*Council Directive 92/43.EEC on the

Articles 6,

conservation of natural habitats and of flora and

13, 15

fauna.

and 22(b)
Public and animal health
Identification and registration of animals

6.

7.

*Council Directive 92/102/EEC on identification

Articles 3,

and registration of animals

4 and 5

*Commission Regulation (EC) No 2629/97 of

Articles 6

laying down detailed rules for the

and 8

implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No

820/97 as regards ear tags, holding registers and
96

passports in the framework of the system for the

identification and registration of bovine animals.
8.

*Council Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the

Articles 4

European Parliament and of the Council

and 7

establishing a system for the identification and

registration of bovine animals and regarding the
labelling of beef and beef producers.
8A

*Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 of the

Articles

European Parliament and the Council

3,4 and 5

establishing a system for the identification and

registration of ovine and caprine animals and
amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 and
Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC

B Applicable from 1.1.2006

Public, animal and plant health
9.

*Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning

Article 3

the placing of plant protection products on

the market
10.

*Council Directive 96/22/EEC concerning

Articles 3, 4

the prohibition on the use of certain

and 5

substances having a hormonal or thyrostraic

action and of beta-agonists
11.

Regulation (EC) NO 178/2002 of the

Articles 14, 15,

European Parliament and of the Council

17(1), 18, 19

laying down the general principles and

and 20

requirements of food law

12.

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the

Article

European Parliament and of the Council

7,l1,12,13 and

laying down rules for the prevention,

15

control and eradication of transmissible

97

spongiform encephalopathies
Notification of diseases
13.

*Council Directive 85/511/EEC introducing

Article 3

Community measures for the control of foot

and mouth disease.
14.

Council Directive 92/119/EEC introducing

Article 3

general Community measures for the

control of certain animal diseases and
specific measures relating to swine vascular
disease.
15.

Council Directive 2000/75/EC laying down

Article 3

specific provisions for the control and

eradication of bluetongue
C. Applicable from 1.1.2007
Animal Welfare
16.

*Council Directive 91/629/EEC laying down

Articles 3 and

minimum standards for the protection of

calves
17.

*Council Directive 91/630/EEC laying down

Articles 3 and

minimum standards for the protection of

4(I)

pigs.
18.

* Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning

Article 4

the protection of animals kept for farming

purposes

98

ANNEX 2

99

Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions referred to in article 5 and

ANNEX iv of council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003
Issue

Standards

Soil erosion:

- Minimum soil cover

-Protect soil through appropriate

- Minimum land management

measures

reflecting site-specific conditions

- Retain terraces

Soil organic matter:

-Standards for crop rotations where

applicable

-Maintain soil organic matter levels

through appropriate practices
Soil structure:
-

- Arable stubble management

-

Appropriate machinery use

Minimum livestock stocking rates

Maintain soil structure through

appropriate measures
Minimum level of maintenance:

or/and appropriate regimes

Ensure a minimum level of

maintenance and avoid the

Protection of permanent pasture

deterioration of habitats

Retention of landscape features

Avoiding the encroachment of

unwanted vegetation on agricultural
land.

100