Despite its faults, TAMS III has been a hugely popular scheme overall, with the first seven tranches (including the emergency tranche in March) bringing in approximately 42,000 applications. There have been no limits on approvals per tranche so far, with the Minister for Agriculture announcing last week that all eligible applications in tranches six, seven and eight (which closed on Friday 6 June) would be approved. However, a bigger issue is brewing, with TAMS becoming a victim of its own success.

To see it through its five-year period, €370m has been allocated for TAMS. While we have 42,000 odd applications submitted since TAMS III began in February 2023, just 8,000 applications have received funding to date.

The minister stated that “over €70.5m” has been issued to these farmers so far, which equates to approximately €8,812.50 per application.

If all applications under TAMS III tranches one to eight, which, as listed above, come to about 42,000, are paid out the same amount, it will cost the Department €370.125m, meaning the budget has been spent while we are only halfway through the scheme’s tenure.

The minister has acknowledged this and alluded to the fact that a marking scheme may very well have to be brought in.

“In order to ensure that the available budget is distributed fairly over the remainder of the CSP, it may be necessary to limit the number of approved applications per tranche going forward by applying ranking and selection criteria, including for the upcoming Tranche 9, which opened on 7 June and will close on 6 September,” he said.

Ranking scheme

For those not familiar with a ranking scheme under TAMS, it was previously used in TAMS I and II, where applications were awarded or deducted points based on certain criteria. Each tranche, which remained open for a three-month application period, then saw just 2,000 applications approved/tranche, a massive difference to some of the larger tranches under TAMS III, which saw 8,000-9,110 applications received and approved, albeit over an extended time period.

TAMS III actually was launched with a marking scheme, but all tranches so far have seen all eligible applications approved under Ministers Charlie McConalogue and Martin Heydon. Below are some of the criteria that went along with the forgotten marking scheme of TAMS III, which could very well feature for upcoming tranches.

No investment under previous TAMS

Applicants that have had no previous investments in previous TAMS (TAMS I and II) may receive 20 marks. This figure was reduced down from 27.5 marks in the TAMS II score sheet. This feature could also extend across to applicants who have already received money/approval under TAMS III, considering the budgetary restraints.

Size of holding and ANC

All applicants must have a minimum of 5ha, either owned or leased, to be eligible for TAMS. As seen in Table 1, holdings up to 30ha with 30ha of ANC land can receive a maximum of 20 marks (10 marks + 10 marks).

In TAMS II, 0.5 marks were awarded per ha up to a maximum of 50ha (25 marks) while any holding with ANC land received five marks, no matter how much or how little land was involved.

Nitrates

Farmers in derogation or exporting slurry to stay out of derogation could be set to be penalised 20 marks if the minister sticks to the original scoring sheet. This scoring system favours less intensive production, with a sliding scale implemented whereby fewer marks will be deducted from farmers with lower stocking rates than those with high stocking rates. The penalty for those below 170kg N/ha is low, even for those at the upper end, with farmers at 160kg N/ha only penalised 1.6 marks.

Reference costs

The budgetary issues do not bode well for reference costs, as it would be hard to see a worthwhile increase in reference cost amounts (even though reference costs are generally running 10-33% behind actual costs). In TAMS II, applicants who had a proposed reference cost below that of the Departmental costs were awarded points, though it would be hard to see this become criteria, as the applicant did not have to stick to their proposed reference cost and it was often used as an easy way to garner marks.