Final CAP post-2027 submission · Part I

We’ve put our plan for the next CAP on the record.

Coupled support built around the family farm. Coupled payments scaled to verified quality and front-loaded to the family farm. A grass-finished bonus with residency that means something. A fair deal for the drystock finisher. And a voluntary retirement and transfer package that helps land move to the next generation.

Submitted by Brendan Kennedy  ·  Working farmer, Co. Tipperary  ·  July 2026

⬇ Download Part I (Word)

Ireland currently holds the Presidency of the Council of the European Union and is helping advance negotiations on the next EU budget and agricultural framework. This is therefore an important moment to put a practical Irish proposal on the record. IrelandCattlePrice.com has made that submission. Here it is in full.

Why this proposal has been updated

If adopted in its proposed form, the Commission's 2028–2034 financial framework could reduce the agricultural funding available to Ireland substantially. Ireland's direct-payment allocation could move from roughly €1.2 billion a year towards €900 million, depending on the final EU agreement, the national allocation and the detailed rules ultimately adopted.

Any serious proposal must respond to new information. This one does.

The payment model was always designed as a share of the available budget rather than as a fixed euro promise. That means a smaller budget would produce a smaller payment rate. It would not require an unfunded commitment. The rates would be recalculated against the final allocation so the scheme remained within the money available.

The policy direction stays the same:

• Target support at the small family farm.
• Reward verified quality and performance.
• Give the finisher a direct place in the payment system.
• Reward genuine grass finishing.
• Help land and viable businesses move to the next generation.

Purpose

This submission proposes a design for Coupled Income Support in the post-2027 CAP that would help keep cattle on small family farms; improve the genetic, health and market quality of the national herd; reward efficient grass-based finishing; treat the drystock finisher fairly alongside the suckler breeder; and operate alongside a separate voluntary retirement and transfer package.

It is offered by a working beef farmer on behalf of the farmers who report prices to IrelandCattlePrice.com.

The context

Ireland has roughly 55,000 suckler herds. More than 44,000 of them keep 25 cows or fewer. The average herd is approximately 16 to 20 cows, while only a very small number of herds hold more than 200 cows. The suckler herd has also fallen substantially over the past decade.

On the average suckler farm, direct payments account for a very large share of family farm income.

That tells us two things. First, the suckler sector is overwhelmingly made up of small family farms, and support should be built around that reality. Second, a flat payment per animal risks rewarding numbers without improving breeding, fertility, health, efficiency or market value. The design should help retain cattle on the land while also rewarding better outcomes.

A note on the smaller budget

If the proposed 2028–2034 framework is adopted with a substantially reduced agricultural envelope, the coupled-support allocation available to Ireland would also be smaller. The beef payment rates in this proposal would therefore have to adjust to the final pot. The structure would not change:

• The first 25 cows would receive the strongest support.
• Cows 26 to 100 would receive the standard rate.
• Support would be capped at 100 cows.

A reduced budget should not be spread evenly across every animal regardless of scale. That would hit the smaller suckler farmer hardest, because that farmer depends most heavily on the payment.

Front-loading protects the family farm first.

The coupled allocation for the beef measures should be treated separately from retirement, establishment and land-transfer support. Those measures should draw from the final generational-renewal allocation, national co-funding and any establishment framework ultimately adopted.

The possible restructuring of the CAP into a more flexible national framework may give Ireland greater discretion in how support is designed. Any additional flexibility should be used transparently, within the final EU rules, and without spending the same pot twice.

Proposal 1 — the breeder, paid per suckler cow

The breeder would receive a base payment per eligible suckler cow. That payment would not be determined by animal numbers alone. It would scale against a limited set of independently recorded breeding, fertility, health and calf-performance indicators. Those indicators could include verified genetic merit, calving interval, calf survival, maternal performance, health status, calf growth and relevant carcass traits.

The final scoring system would need safeguards for differences between breeds, land types and production systems. Higher verified genetic and management performance would attract the full rate. A base rate would remain available to eligible animals meeting the minimum standards.

The payment would be front-loaded: the first 25 cows at the enhanced rate; cows 26 to 100 at the standard rate; no payment above 100 cows.

Because most Irish suckler herds keep 25 cows or fewer, the enhanced first tier would reach most of the sector. The cap would keep the payment directed towards family farms rather than the largest units.

A farmer with 20 well-bred, fertile, productive cows should be rewarded more strongly per head than a much larger operation keeping poor-performing animals primarily to draw a payment. That is the point of the design.

Proposal 2 — the drystock finisher, paid per animal slaughtered

The finisher who buys weanlings or stores may keep no breeding cows. A cow-based payment does not reach that farmer. The finisher should therefore receive a separate coupled payment on eligible animals slaughtered.

The payment could take account of age at slaughter, carcass grade, fat specification, verified residency and overall market suitability. Younger, efficient finishing should be rewarded where it is achieved without compromising animal welfare or relying on unrealistic systems.

The payment should also be front-loaded and capped so that it supports the working family farm rather than concentrating most of the money in the largest feedlots.

The breeder and finisher payments should pull in the same direction. The breeder produces an animal capable of performing. The finisher brings that animal to slaughter efficiently and to specification. Public support should recognise both parts of the chain.

Proposal 3 — a grass-finished bonus with real residency

Bord Bia's Grass Fed Standard requires at least 90% grass or grass forage in the diet and more than 220 days at pasture over the animal's lifetime. That standard supports the marketing of Irish beef. It does not by itself create a meaningful grass-finished payment for the farmer at the factory gate.

This proposal would add a separate grass-finished bonus on eligible cattle. The bonus would sit on top of the breeder or finisher payment and would require genuine residency on the finishing farm. A minimum period of six to nine months should be considered, subject to the final scheme design, animal category and production system. That period should be verified through existing movement records and, where relevant, Bord Bia or Department data.

The existing Grass Fed Standard could help verify lifetime feeding and grazing criteria. It should not be presented as automatically proving final-farm residency, because that would require movement-record checks as well.

The purpose of the residency rule is simple. A farmer who buys an animal shortly before slaughter should not receive the same grass-finished reward as the farmer who carried the animal through the main finishing period. The herd-size cap and residency rule would work together to keep the support directed at genuine family-farm production.

Proposal 4 — a voluntary retirement and farm-transfer package

Payments alone will not renew the sector if land and viable businesses do not move. Ireland has had no new national early retirement scheme since the previous scheme closed to new entrants in 2008. Many farmers continue working well beyond traditional retirement age because there is no dignified and financially realistic route to step back. At the same time, younger trained farmers and new entrants struggle to secure land, livestock and working capital.

The Commission's generational-renewal proposals point towards a stronger future focus on establishment aid, investment support, finance, training and advisory services. They also propose that a minimum share of future agricultural spending should be dedicated to generational renewal. Any future Young Farmers' Starter Pack should be treated as a possible framework combining several forms of support, not as a guaranteed cash payment of a fixed amount to every entrant.

The Commission has also proposed that pensioners would cease to qualify for the main area-based income support from 2032, subject to the final legislation. That is not the same as an automatic ban on every farmer receiving both a State pension and every form of agricultural support.

Ireland should not wait for a cliff edge. It should design a voluntary scheme that farmers would actually choose. We propose:

A fixed-term retirement payment

An annual payment for a defined period to an older farmer who transfers active management and eligible land through sale, gift, succession or a qualifying long-term lease. The recipient should be a trained young farmer, genuine new entrant or other qualifying active farmer under the final rules.

A dignity clause

The retiring farmer should be able to retain the dwelling house, an appropriate garden or paddock, and reasonable personal security. The retirement payment should be designed to complement the State pension rather than automatically reduce or replace it.

A business-transfer top-up

A higher rate should apply where a functioning livestock or tillage enterprise transfers with the land. That could include breeding stock, machinery, farm records, grazing infrastructure, contracts and established production capacity. The aim is to transfer a viable business rather than an empty block of ground.

Establishment support for the entrant

The transfer package should connect with whatever EU and national establishment framework is finally adopted. Support could include establishment aid, low-cost finance, investment grants, training, mentoring and working-capital support.

The exit of one generation and the establishment of the next must be designed together. Releasing land is only a success if it reaches a genuine entrant or smaller active farmer rather than being absorbed automatically by the largest operation nearby.

Common qualifier — quality and compliance

Participation in the breeder or finisher measure should require active membership of a recognised quality-assurance programme; compliance with relevant animal-health, identification and movement rules; accurate records; and engagement with an approved adviser or improvement plan where required.

A temporary or minor audit issue should not automatically remove an entire public payment where the problem is unrelated to the measure. Proportionate sanctions and a clear route to correction would be needed.

The purpose is to tie public money to properly run, improving farms. It is not to create another box-ticking exercise.

How the books balance

The beef measures would be funded from the coupled-support allocation available under the final CAP rules. The payment rates would be calculated only after the final allocation and eligible population were known. That would prevent the scheme from making fixed promises beyond the available budget.

The retirement, transfer and establishment measures would not be charged to the beef coupled-support pot. They would draw from the final generational-renewal allocation, national co-funding, rural-development measures, and any establishment framework ultimately agreed.

A smaller budget would reduce the rates. It would not change the order of priority. The first 25 cows would remain first in line. The family farm would remain the focus. The coupled pot would be spent once.

The bigger point

Even the best coupled payment treats the symptom more than the disease. It may slow the fall in cattle numbers. It may improve breeding, efficiency and market suitability. But it cannot by itself create a fair farm-gate price.

Support can help keep cattle on the land. Only a fair market can make the enterprise pay.

Price transparency and targeted support should therefore be pursued together. That is what this site is for.