‘Common-sense approach’ for Active Farmer under BISS required, say ICSA

The thorny issue of stocking rates as a means of defining ‘an active farmer’ raised its head again last week. Department data show there were 8,691 claims submitted in the 2026 Basic Income Support for Sustainability Scheme (BISS) applications for meeting the active farmer check by a means other than using 2025’s stocking rate.

Applicants must prove they are an active farmer and most participants meet the conditions by using their previous year’s stocking rate. That must maintain a minimum of 0.10 LU/ha (the equivalent of roughly one ewe or 0.1 of a suckler cow per hectare) to qualify for schemes like the BISS and the Areas of Natural Constraints.

ICSA Rural Development chair Edmond Phelan has said that if previous year’s stocking figures are good enough for one department calculation, they should be good enough for slurry import limits too.

“We have seen the department accept the use of prior-year stocking figures for Active Farmer purposes under BISS; we are simply asking that the same common-sense approach be applied to slurry imports under the nitrates rules.”

Mr Phelan believes compliance can cause conflict: “The ICSA have repeatedly highlighted the difficulties for farmers who have to make decisions about slurry imports during the spreading season without knowing what their final stocking rate for the year will be. It is particularly challenging for beef farmers, who trade animals throughout the year.

“The slurry spreading season closes at the end of September, yet farmers do not know their final stocking rate until mid to late January. Farmers are trying to do the right thing and make the best use of available nutrients, but they are being asked to make decisions without having all the information available to them.

“That leaves them trying to work within a system that creates unnecessary uncertainty.”

He said using the previous year’s stocking rate for slurry imports would give farmers certainty from the outset. “It would provide a straightforward system that farmers and advisers can work with and remove a lot of the confusion that currently exists. This is not about weakening the rules. It is about making them practical. Farmers need a system that reflects the reality of how farms operate and allows them to plan ahead knowing they are on track.”

Concluding, Mr Phelan said the department should move on this now: “It’s a simple, sensible proposal that would make life easier for farmers while still meeting the requirements of the nitrates rules. If previous year’s stocking figures can be used for Active Farmer checks, there is no reason they cannot be used for slurry import limits too.”