Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Jun 2024

Vol. 1055 No. 4

Nature Restoration Law: Motion [Private Members]

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

recognises that:

— the Nature Restoration Law aims to halt the decline of nature, work towards restoring habitats across the European Union (EU), whilst also targeting habitats that contribute most to the capture and storage of carbon;

— the Nature Restoration Law will target 20 per cent of each EU Member States land area and, as Ireland comprises of 6.9 million hectares of land, the Nature Restoration Law will potentially be applied to 1.38 million hectares;

— the Nature Restoration Law has prioritised Annex 1 habitats as well as existing designated habitats such as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA);

— currently there are 670,000 hectares of Annex 1 habitats in Ireland which are predominantly peat based, but also include coastal habitats, however, critically there is also 620,000 hectares of land that is now being farmed that was previously an Annex 1 habitat, and this delivers a combined total of existing and lost Annex 1 habitat of 1.29 million hectares;

— there are 900,000 hectares of designated habitats (SAC and SPA), however, most of these designated habitats are also existing Annex 1 habitats;

— the Nature Restoration Law is due to be ratified on 17th June, 2024, by the EU Council of Ministers, following agreement on a Consolidated text of the Resolution by the European Parliament on 27th February, 2024; and

— if ratified, each Member State has two years from the date of ratification to develop their National Restoration Plan, and this plan will define how the law is implemented and will require approval from the European Commission;

notes that:

— the Nature Restoration Law will provide for legally binding targets around the restoration and re-establishment of habitats that Member States have to deliver upon;

— while the targets up to 2030 can be delivered by State lands, beyond that it becomes uncertain as the overall 20 per cent target poses challenges for Ireland, as this cannot be delivered from State owned lands alone;

— in the consolidated agreement supported by the European Parliament there have been changes made in Article 9 of the Nature Restoration Law that will see a reduction in the target area, and there have also been changes that detail how the rewetting target is applied for Member States which does not imply an obligation on farmers;

— however, under Article 4 of the Nature Restoration Law, there is a requirement to deliver on the restoration of existing Annex 1 habitats and the re-establishment of these lost habitats which will include drained peatlands, and critically there is no opt-out for farmers and landowners;

— this creates a major problem, as:

— on drained peatlands (under Article 4), there will be a requirement to restore and re-establish lost habitats, with rewetting being the most effective way of doing this, and lands which are rewetted will be unable to support current farming activity;

— on the uplands, which are predominantly peat based, farming activity will be compromised (and may also cease) in favour of the restoration and re-establishment of these habitats; and

— farming activity, and the requirement that lands are defined as an agricultural area, are a prerequisite for support under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) programme, and these lands may not be eligible for CAP support as the restoration of these lands will take precedence over agricultural activity; and

— beyond the 20 per cent of the land area prioritised for restoration there will be an impact on land not directly subject to actions under the Nature Restoration Law, as land availability becomes an issue driving price increases for rental and sales of land; and

calls on the Government to:

— develop a National Restoration Plan that delivers on climate action through the protection and restoration of nature that also ensures the voluntary nature of actions on farmland, as well as the protection of farmers livelihoods; and

— ensure that farmland targeted under the Nature Restoration Law can continue to operate a range of agricultural activities that ensures that these lands can continue to be defined as an agricultural area under CAP programmes, and that such status can be maintained.

I move this motion on nature restoration law in my name and that of my colleagues in the Regional Group. This proposed law aims to halt the decline of nature and restore habitats across the EU, with a particular focus on areas that capture and store carbon. While the intent of this legislation is undeniably noble, it brings significant implications for local farmers who have been the backbone of our rural communities for generations.

At the outset, I say that I hope we have a respectful debate on this topic because this House needs to answer the question as to why it did not use the Lisbon treaty's yellow card provision to raise concerns about the European Commission's proposal. This provision allows both Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann, and not the Government, to block draft laws. Only the Swedish Parliament raised a yellow card on the nature restoration law due, in part, to concerns similar to those expressed in Ireland about agriculture land use. Despite three Oireachtas committees examining the proposal, this did not happen here. I would like a report presented to this House explaining why Irish farmers' concerns were not relayed back to the Commission through the formal mechanism open to us.

My issue is not with the principle of rewetting State lands but with the non-voluntary, or even compulsory, rewetting of private actively farmed land. As I pointed out to the European Commission, my late father and many more like him laid shores with their bare hands to drain land and, in some cases, they received State grants do so.

We spent generations in Ireland trying to improve farmland, with strong advice from State bodies like Teagasc, and we just cannot turn this on its head at the stroke of a pen.

The facts of the nature restoration law are that it targets one fifth of each member state’s land. That is 1.38 million ha here in Ireland. That is equivalent to the total land area of counties Cork and Galway combined. This law prioritises Annex I habitats as well as special areas of conservation and special protection areas. In Ireland, we currently have 670,000 ha of Annex I habitats, which are predominantly peat-based soils, with an additional 620,000 ha of land that were formerly Annex I habitats but which are now being actively farmed. That is a total of 1.29 million ha of both existing and lost Annex I habitat. Additionally, we have 900,000 ha of designated habitats, but most of these overlap with the 1.29 million ha of Annex I land.

These numbers mean that even if we included all peat-based soils and designated lands, approximately half of which are being actively farmed today, we would still find ourselves with the equivalent size of County Carlow needed to meet our nature restoration law target of one fifth of the country. Achieving this target is difficult. The practical reality is we cannot find an area the size of counties Cork and Galway to designate on State lands alone.

After 2030, lands that are farmed today will be included, significantly impacting on the viability of family farms in the country. Moreover, under Article 4 of the nature restoration law, there is an obligation to restore and re-establish lost habitats, particularly drained peatlands. With regard to this, the EU Commission has deemed that rewetting these lands is the most effective way to achieve this. However, by rewetting lands, it cannot support current agricultural activities. Since the ability to farm these lands is a prerequisite for accessing CAP payments, this poses a real and direct threat to farmers’ livelihoods.

While some amendments have been made to reduce the target area and to clarify that rewetting does not imply an obligation on farmers, this requirement to restore Annex I habitats remains compulsory. This means farmers will face restrictions on their land use, leading to potential losses in income and increased costs.

The nature restoration law is essential in our fight against biodiversity loss and climate change, and that needs to be acknowledged. If it is not implemented through this mechanism, I fear another method will be found which could be far more restrictive. It is important to remember that the law includes provisions for flexibility and support for farmers, with initiatives such as the proposed carbon credit certification scheme, which can provide new opportunities for farmers who voluntarily choose to rewet their lands, contributing to both climate mitigation and their economic stability. The introduction of this certification process, which has been long delayed by our own Government, could also benefit more farmers and act as an incentive to leverage private sector funding onto our farms, a point I have raised in this House previously. However, it is also evident that the law’s implementation could significantly impact on our farmers who play a crucial role in maintaining our rural landscapes and the economies of many of our towns and villages.

To address these concerns, we propose the development of a national restoration plan that balances climate action with the protection of farmers’ livelihoods. This plan would ensure any actions on farm land are voluntary and designed to allow agricultural activities to continue, thereby maintaining land status under the CAP payments. This is a simple ask we are making. Farmers should not be forced to rewet their lands. This should be voluntary, and in doing so, they should be able to draw down their area-based payments under the CAP programme.

There has been a lot of media commentary over recent days and weeks about a top-down approach towards environmental laws being enforced and environmental measures being introduced in this country. The last thing we need to see is that approach being taken with this proposal. Any measures that take place need to be voluntary. Any farmer who wishes to continue to farm on their land, whether it is peat-based soil or not, should be facilitated in continuing to do that. By all means put incentives in place but ensure that, if farmers do go down the environmental road, they can still access their CAP payments. This is a very basic thing we are asking here and we do not believe it is unreasonable.

This approach is far more likely to be effective in achieving the goals that are set out by this proposed law, encouraging farmers to volunteer rather than forcing them and their families off the land, and I hope a reasonable approach can be taken to this legislation if it does come forward. We are yet to see what the Council of Ministers will do about it. We do know the Government’s position is that it wants to see the legislation adopted. If this legislation is not adopted, the likelihood is alternative legislation will be introduced in this House, but what we are looking for here is balance. Anything that happens must be voluntary and farmers not only need to be adequately compensated for it but also need to continue to get access to the agricultural payments they have historically established on their lands.

I commend the motion to the House.

I commend Cáit, our administrator, on putting together this Private Members’ motion and Deputy Naughten and others who have contributed a huge amount to putting this motion together. As the Regional Group of Independent TDs, we are seen to have a common and sensible approach to everything. This nature restoration law has caused huge anxiety. The way it was introduced and presented caused a great deal of confusion. It also lent itself to those who wanted to scaremonger to do so. We have arrived at a situation where we are on the cusp of the Council of Ministers pass this law. One thing that keeps coming back to me and to others is that if the scheme is voluntary, it will work, but if it is not voluntary, there will be protest. We cannot have the top-down approach people believe is coming from the Government and parties within the Government.

I am a bit older than Deputy Naughten and I put in the shores in the land in our farm back in the seventies, when we were getting grants to drain land. We drained land successfully and it has been used as grassland ever since. I know of many farmers in my locality who did this at the time. If you tell people they must flood these lands to rewet them and try to force that on them, you will hit at their rights of how they should use their own land. The only way we can get people to properly sign up to this is for it to be voluntary.

The amount of public land available will not meet what we would be signing up to. Therefore we will have to look at where we will get the rest of the land. The kernel is that we must make sure that if a farmer wants to rewet their land, it is done on a voluntary basis with proper compensation.

In the past, some of the schemes that were put in place gave compensation for a number of years and then the scheme was taken off the agenda. When people lose part of their livelihood, they need to be compensated for that for as long as they have the loss. Second, many farmers have said to me that if you take the public lands where Bord na Móna is located and rewet that land in a substantial manner, you will create knock-on problems for adjoining farmers who may not be rewetting their land. How can they be compensated for the damage caused to their ground?

The request we have is simple: respect the livelihood of farmers, respect their tradition and respect what they have done to try to protect the environment and nature for generations. What we will do in the future is help them to continue to protect it by giving them the supports they need. Where they give land over to rewetting they should not lose their CAP entitlements for that land. That is key and we need to be clear about what we are giving and saying to farmers. It has to be plain language. They need to know what they will get and that it will be built into the legislation that what they are getting will continue to be there for them for as long as the land is rewetted. It is important we do this and that we do it properly because people are waiting in the wings who want to pounce, create mayhem and upset and put fear into farmers and their families. It is important we do this in a way that we bring farmers along with us, but do not cajole them and anything that is done should be done voluntarily. That is the key word in all this.

Looking back in time to when we were putting the shores in the ground and getting grants for it, the Department of agriculture advised what to do. Farmers put their own resources into reclaiming land. They did so for a single purpose, to try to increase their income and to make a living off the land. For farmers around east Galway, there would be land of 30, 40 or 50 acres on which people were able to make a living. Now, with all the advice they have got from all the different Government agencies on how to farm their land and invest in it, they have been left in a position of not being too sure who or what to believe into the future. Furthermore, we can see from the statistics in Ireland and across Europe, that we have a situation where young farmers are not coming in to farming. There is a decline in the number of farmers in Ireland and across Europe. Farmers are still farming into their 80s because no one wants to take on the succession rights of a farm because it is too much trouble and there is no real living in it. It is hardship. Why then should we bring in legislation that will compound that in the future? I appeal to the Government. It is important we have straight talking, the language is clear and at the heart of all this, built into the legislation, is the word "voluntary" and that no other nuance is put into legislation that would leave farmers thinking something will come at them down the road, which will not work.

Over the years, I have seen schemes brought in that were great for the first year or two and then the money was reduced and something else happened and then the scheme was gone. If you ask people around the Burren or Woodford in my constituency where the hen harrier scheme and other such schemes are now and what they are getting, they will say they were let down. We also had the agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES. Many farmers wanted to go into ACRES, demonstrated by the numbers, yet their payments were delayed for much longer than they should have been. That was a breach of faith by the Department of agriculture towards farmers. Farmers find it hard to make a living, but when they enter into an agreement with a Department, it is realistic for them to expect to get paid when they expect to. Farming relies on cashflow and if the grants do not come on time, there is a problem. Farmers are trying to invest in the targeted agriculture modernisation scheme, TAMS, at the moment and some products such as drinking troughs manufactured out of recycled plastic in this country do not qualify for VAT relief, whereas if farmers put in a concrete water trough, they will get a VAT refund on it. We are doing some things that make absolutely no sense or are not practical at all.

It is important that this has been the biggest talking point in rural Ireland with respect to what will happen farmers in the future. It is important we make sure we get this right at least. I have faith in both the Ministers of State that they will do that and that they will listen. I remember when farmers from the midlands visited the House, the Ministers of State, Deputies Noonan and Hackett, listened to them. It is important to listen, but then we need to act in a positive way to make sure that whatever legislation we put in place is the right legislation to make sure people can do this on a voluntary basis, with open arms and can see in a transparent way what they are getting themselves into.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Senator Pippa Hackett)

I thank Deputy Naughten and his colleagues for raising this important topic. The Government is not opposing the motion. The proposed regulation on nature restoration, better known as the nature restoration law, is landmark EU legislation and will have an impact on all areas of society, including farming. It is my strong belief that the impact of the nature restoration law will be positive for society, farming and our wider environment because restoring nature is essential.

The nature restoration law will introduce legally binding restoration targets for a broad suite of marine and terrestrial habitats, including grasslands, woodlands, sand dunes, rivers, lakes, peatlands and other wetlands. This will inevitably have policy, legislative and sectoral implications for the responsibilities of many Departments, from housing and planning to energy, forestry, fisheries and water. It is up to each member state to decide how it will achieve these targets by making a national restoration plan within two years of the regulations coming into force. This is very much in our hands in Ireland as a member state, when it comes to how we implement the law in the Irish context. Restoration of habitats does not have to mean cessation of current land use. Rather it is an opportunity to work with landowners to reach restoration objectives and clearly, given that two thirds of our land is farm land, that will include farmers. Farming and nature simply have to work side by side. It cannot be either-or.

In this vein, work has already started on a stakeholder engagement process to develop the national restoration plan. Farmers, foresters, fishers, landowners and their representatives will be centrally involved in this process. It has been stated repeatedly previously in this Chamber and elsewhere and I will state it again with clarity, that all restoration measures will be voluntary. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. The legal obligation to achieve the proposed regulation's targets is on the member state, not individual landowners. This is why any restoration measures that landowners choose to participate in will be well-incentivised and well-resourced, as they will be voluntary. The Government will be the first to say that we will only achieve our common goal of restoring nature with proper incentives, resources and engagement and communication with farmers. Schemes and incentives will be designed in partnership with all stakeholders in the next two years as part of the nature restoration planning process. Farmers know the land and the natural environment better than anyone so we will be calling on their expertise to shape this.

The timing of the completion of the national nature restoration plan is aligned with the opening of the Government's €3.15 billion climate and nature fund in 2026. This fund will be key to resourcing the measures in the plan. The Government knows that this approach of proper incentives and proper resources is the only way to ensure that the nature restoration plan delivers for Ireland, delivers for restoring nature across our country in line with our obligations and targets, and supports farmers and rural communities at the same time.

Turning specifically to some of the concerns of farmers, I appreciate that uncertainty arises from the proposed regulation in respect of the restoration of drained peatlands in agricultural use and the future eligibility of land payments under the Common Agricultural Policy, matters that are being raised in this debate. There has previously been confusion around the targets for restoration being equated to areas to be rewetted. I regret to say that some of that confusion has been created deliberately to sow fear. This was never the case. Even the original Commission proposal saw rewetting as part of the restoration measure and did not comprise all of the measure. The restoration of drained peatlands does not necessarily mean bringing the water table to surface level or higher. Rewetting is just one of several tools available for the restoration of target ecosystems. The proposed regulation defines "rewetting" as the process of changing a drained peat soil towards a wet soil. There is no reference to water tables or land being permanently wet. In fact, this definition allows Ireland to determine for ourselves what “rewetting” means in our national circumstances. Last year, some Teagasc data showed that there was a sizable portion of farmed land on peat soils that was wetter than we had given it credit for. That land is still being farmed, albeit with some difficulty at certain times of the year – we have some fairly wet soils on our own farm – but it can still be farmed and managed.

The Government is confident that the 2030 and 2040 rewetting targets, at a minimum, can be met entirely on State lands. I remind the House that the targets being put forth under the nature restoration regulation are lower than the restoration targets already set out in national policy under the Climate Action Plan, which includes a commitment to rewetting 33,000 ha of Bord na Móna lands by 2030 and 77,600 ha overall. In addition, the Commission has confirmed that the commitment to 77,600 ha of peatland rehabilitation using Bord na Móna lands in the Climate Action Plan can count towards the overall nature restoration law targets if that work is under way by the time the regulation comes into force, potentially reducing the demand on private landowners further. Moreover, this is without counting the several thousand hectares of restoration work currently being undertaken and planned by the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Turning to the future eligibility of land for payments under CAP, I wish to state clearly for the record that restoration measures will not negatively impact any existing CAP commitment or any other scheme or incentive delivered by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. This has been confirmed by Commissioner Sinkevičius. The CAP regulations are explicit, in that the area eligible for direct payments is not reduced when subject to certain EU requirements relating to environmental protection and remains eligible for direct payments. Restoration measures on agricultural ecosystems are about bringing more nature back to farms, not taking that land out of farming. Any payments to support this work will not, to my mind, be compensatory. Rather, they will be rewarding in nature, as this is essential work that needs to be done.

The Government is committed to ensuring that nature restoration provides additional income streams for landowners and farmers and brings benefit to rural economies. Tens of thousands of Irish farmers are already taking part in voluntary nature restoration under CAP programmes, for example, ACRES co-operation, as well as LIFE programmes, EIPs and the NPWS farm plan scheme. We want to continue and build on that approach. The nature restoration plan will allow us to do just that.

Deputies Lowry and Shanahan are sharing time.

I welcome the Government's acceptance of the Regional Group's motion. Equally, we insist that the concerns raised by us are taken into account during implementation.

Obviously, there is widespread awareness of the need for ecological restoration. By degrees, we have damaged our ecosystem and are knowingly driving it to the verge of ruin. We each have a moral responsibility to do all that we can to counteract nature’s decline. It is our duty to secure our world for the generations to come.

In simple terms, helping to restore the ecosystem involves creating the environmental conditions that make it easier for plants and animals in the habitat to recover. Restoration is a process aimed at assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or even destroyed. The types of restoration measures needed can vary from one ecosystem to another and depend on its current state of degradation, species composition and its sensitivity to change. Restoration can involve either passive or active measures. Passive restoration could, for example, involve protecting an area from human burdens and then allowing it to recover naturally over a period. In such cases, simply removing the pressures and threats on the area is all that is required to enable the ecosystems, their habitats and their species to recover naturally.

Unfortunately, active restoration is the method that is most often used at this point. This is required where the ecosystems have been heavily degraded or in cases where regular management is needed. This process involves not only removing the source of damage, but also taking actions that will encourage and assist in the recovery of the process. These methods most commonly involve restoring hydrological conditions, such as removing invading undergrowth, in addition to adapting management and land use practices. It can also involve reconnecting a river with a surrounding flood plain, resulting in the rewetting of the previously drained land.

It cannot be disputed that we urgently need to take steps to try to right some of the wrongs that have led us to the point where this has become a crisis, nor can we deny that there is no longer time to sit back and wonder what the future holds. The sombre prospects for our natural environment are staring each of us in the face. The ecological catastrophe that exists was not caused intentionally. It has evolved through a lack of knowledge and recognition that damage was being caused. In past decades while awareness was growing, there was no great sense of urgency in taking steps to halt its progress.

Safeguarding our environment should be a collective responsibility. It is a shared duty that we all bear. Across the world, it is generally the case that there are certain sectors where the impact of this responsibility will be more keenly felt. The argument is that the efforts of these select sectors will ensure faster and more durable results. Consequently, they are targeted and bear the brunt of emission reductions and financial costs. This is the risk and the hazard to Irish farmers. Farmers are the custodians of our land bank. They know how to sensibly manage and care for the land. Farmers, more than anyone else, respect nature. That is why the Government must give a firm guarantee that agricultural activities can and will continue as they have always done on farmland across the country and that the agricultural sector will not become the financial fall guy in our efforts to achieve our aims.

Our country cannot shirk our responsibilities or fail to play our part in the mammoth task that lies ahead, and neither do we wish to, but as we strive to protect our critical ecosystem, we must remain cognisant of the fact that those who can do most to achieve this must not and should not be placed under any financial burden in their efforts. The concern surrounding the nature restoration law for Irish farmers remains the lack of clarity on how the law will be financed if it is implemented. There is also immediate worry about the inclusion of non-deterioration in Article 4 regarding its impact on Natura 2000 farmers.

For the longer term all farmers share the anxiety regarding the absence of the economic impact assessment. This is a grave omission that serves to increase worry and concern. For many farmers it is conspicuous by its absence. If such a document were in place, it would help farmers and those aligned with agriculture to gain an understanding of how the nature restoration law will affect farm production choices in the years ahead.

While farmers are fully aware that Ireland has the potential to meet its targets up to 2030 by using land owned by the State, they are equally conscious of the fact that this is now fewer than six years away. They know that in the context of planning for their futures, this is a relatively short time. Once this 2030 commitment has run its course, all eyes will turn to the use of farmland. This is why we need a nature restoration plan that balances climate action with the voluntary use of farmlands and protects farm livelihoods. Equally critical is the need for a guarantee that land remains classified as agriculture under CAP. Farmers need a solid pledge from the Government that agricultural activities can and will continue on their lands without jeopardising targets set by the nature restoration law. I acknowledge the commitment of the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, on these matters and certainly hope the commitments and promises made today will be enshrined in whatever legislation is brought before this House.

The European Union has been working on the nature restoration law for many years and we know the law is a community attempt to halt habitat slide and restore biodiversity loss, which is an obvious imperative. The law is primarily intended to target habitats that contribute to carbon capture and storage. While initial targets up to 2030 can be delivered from our bank of State land, the progressive rising targets cannot be achieved from State lands alone. The annexe 1 habitats are specifically targeted for restoration and include drained peatlands, much of which are presently in agricultural use, and for which no opt out exists for farming or associated landowners. Restoring these lost habitats means implementing rewetting and, while this is welcome from a biodiversity perspective, it means such lands cannot be used into the future as they presently are for productive farming. There is an obvious risk for the agricultural economy and to farming family livelihoods. At present, the lands must be defined as for agricultural use. They must be supported under the Common Agricultural Policy incentive scheme. That is what this motion is calling for. The restoration of lands may take precedence over preserving lands within the CAP programme, so we ask that they be preserved within this programme. The requirement to provide land for the restoration programme will also further diminish the availability of agricultural land, thereby increasing future land prices and, by extension, future production costs. This is an unwelcome consequence that will impact Ireland's competitiveness in national and exported food pricing.

Recent years have rightly seen an increased emphasis on tackling climate change and biodiversity loss, and this is certainly in the interest of every global citizen. However, Ireland is firstly an efficient food producing agricultural nation and the impacts of such proposed climate policies are placing a heavy and disproportionate burden on our indigenous agricultural sector. It is therefore incumbent on our environment Ministers attending the European environment discussions this week to have at the top of their agenda both just transition and economic sustainability objectives for our agricultural and rural community. The unique capability of Irish lands to produce both productive and economic output that sustains farming incomes must be recognised within this European legislation, and that is what this motion calls for.

I thank the Regional Group for bringing forward an important motion on an issue that is of real concern to farmers the length and breadth of this State. We have to start from the point that to date this has been handled very badly. We have had reports from Europe, most of which have come to farmers via the media. It is not the way to bring farmers with us and is a prime example of how not to do climate action when it comes to agriculture. Everything regarding farmers, climate action, what we are asking farmers to do and what we are rewarding farmers for doing, has to involve bringing farmers with us. That is critical if we are to meet the targets that have been set out. We also have to be mindful of the fact that farmers are up for the challenge of climate action. They want to look after and care for their land and they want to see it retained and minded for the next generation. Of that there is no doubt. The latest example of that is the huge oversubscription of farmers into the ACRES scheme. They wanted to be part of it. They did what was asked of them but they were not paid. Payments that were due last December did not come through until two months later and the balancing payment due at the end of May has now been pushed out to the end of June. That is another example of the Government showing how not to do climate action. Sometimes farmers get accused of not being up to the challenge, but when they get involved and do what is asked of them, the Government lets the side down. That is not good enough and should not happen. This Government needs to make certain that the balancing payments for ACRES participants are paid at the end of this month and not any later. This Government also needs to ensure that the new and latest ACRES participants are paid on time. That is absolutely essential because, otherwise, what is known as the flagship environmental scheme within the Department of agriculture will not work and farmers will not engage in it. Why should they, when they are not paid for what they are being asked to do? Of course, some of the compliance and measures you have to take part in under some of these schemes cost money. Farmers are down money then, at a time when costs are already through the roof and many of them are struggling as it is.

When nature restoration came before Europe there were a number of debates. The point was made that an impact assessment had not been carried out. I recall from an article on the front page of the Irish Farmers' Journal that the Minister of State at the Department of housing said that an impact assessment would be taken and would be under way. I would really like to know where that is at.

There are a number of outstanding issues relating to where we are now as we approach and look at the national plan, which will be really important. The point has been made several times in this House about voluntariness and the fact that measures in this new law have to be voluntary. That is proven in what has been said here by everyone on this side of the House, and I appreciate and accept what the Government has said with regard to measures being voluntary. That is important. Any large change to land use, such as that being proposed in nature restoration, has to be handled carefully. All of us in this House know how precious land is to farmers and what it means to them. It can be an emotive issue, and we need to come at it carefully in terms of the national plan. I call again for the most widespread consultation at all levels, not just within our farming and rural communities, but that everyone is brought to the table and we find that balance. This is not the first issue where environment and farming have different ideas and views. That is why we have to find the balance and get it right. It is so important.

On funding, it has been said time and again that we need a dedicated fund separate from CAP. By the looks of the law as it has been passed to date, they are talking about looking at the next multi-annual financial framework post 2027. That lack of guarantee on funding at EU level is of concern to farmers. Again, when one looks at ACRES and how they have been treated financially in that regard, farmers will be seeking absolute guarantees on payments, and it has to be done outside of CAP. CAP was initially established to support food production and has moved an awful lot to environmental matters. We need to hold CAP for what it was brought about for and anything else needs to be additional to that.

I raised previously the issue of compensation.

We had an amendment to the initial text that was passed last July, but this was then removed. Compensation is really important. The Minister of State knows that because he was present at the meeting that I and others attended with farmers who are farming near lands that are currently being rewet by Bord na Móna. These farmers were not looking for a red cent in compensation. They were seeking a guarantee that if any damage was done, it would be rectified. That is a fair ask, and it is something we have to make sure is there to ensure farmers feel protected from any decisions made in the context of rewetting.

An issue has been raised by the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA, an organisation that really needs to be discussed and brought to the table in the context of what is being requested under this new law. The idea of the priority being given to Natura 2000 sites up to 2030 is of concern to the INHFA and to many farmers. They are the farmers who are already doing the most for nature and for restoration on their lands. They are already very restricted as to the farm practices they can engage in on their lands. I ask that this widespread consultation begin as soon as possible and that the Minister of State provide an update on the impact assessment. That is really important.

I welcome this motion and the opportunity to speak on the protection and restoration of nature. Sinn Féin completely supports and prioritises the need to protect nature. The scale of the crisis relating to biodiversity cannot be understated. Sinn Féin opposed the nature restoration law but we certainly support the aim behind it. In the absence of real funding, however, we will have another five years without progress.

I have met with farmers in communities and farm organisations to discuss this issue. Unlike some of the other MEPs, Sinn Féin's MEPs submitted amendments at EU level at every opportunity. I commend the work done by Chris MacManus in this regard. I hope that in the count taking place in Castlebar, Michelle Gildernew will be successful in retaining her seat. Farmers need somebody like Michelle Gildernew. She served as Minister of agriculture in the North and, unlike some others, she knows the importance of working with farmers to tackle the climate crisis we face.

Sinn Féin has engaged constructively on this issue at every opportunity. We will continue to do so. We did not sit back and say we did not like the nature restoration law, nor did we scaremonger in respect of it. We voted against it because it is not a plan; it simply involves signing up to legally binding targets. If targets were the answer, we would have solved the climate and biodiversity crises long ago. The Government is great at setting targets. What it is not good at is meeting those targets, regardless of whether they relate to emissions, biodiversity, social and affordable housing or whatever. Targets are the easy part. A plan to hit those targets is the hardest part.

In 2019, a biodiversity emergency was declared in Ireland. Five years of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party in government have failed to reverse or even halt the biodiversity decline. Ireland should not need the EU to tell it to protect biodiversity. We should not need a legal obligation to address the biodiversity collapse. What greater incentive could there possibly be? We do not require an EU target. There is no need or advantage to be gained from doing this at EU level. It even creates greater challenges in attempting to bring countries with different landscapes under the same terms. There is an overlap between Articles 4 and 11 which means that in the Irish context, peatlands are dealt with twice. This Government has made no progress on biodiversity in five years. Kicking the matter off to Europe was just a way of delaying action here. The Government wants to lecture the Opposition and farmers for not going along with the narrative that it is addressing biodiversity. We simply cannot afford to get this wrong.

From my perspective, the question was framed incorrectly. For us in Sinn Féin, the question is not whether to protect biodiversity but how we protect it. Five years have passed and the Government still does not have a plan. This was abundantly clear in the report of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss, which pointed out that the Government has comprehensively failed to adequately fund and implement existing national legislation and policies and EU biodiversity-related laws and directives. Sinn Féin has consistently called for money to be allocated in respect of nature restoration. In our alternative budget each year, we have set out our costed proposals. We have shown a clear commitment to nature restoration. Almost every Government measure seems to be aimed at penalising local communities and ordinary citizens. There is virtually no collaboration or engagement, and there is no sign that Ireland or the EU are making any meaningful difference. Indeed, we have antagonised communities. Irish farm families are fearful for their futures.

There is an underlining issue of trust here. Farmers were given assurances in the past regarding areas of natural conservation. Farmers were pushed into intensive farming practices in order to make a living. The EU nature restoration law came about in this context. While the Government might say that the 20% target is EU-wide and not specific to Ireland, people do not trust that this will be the case. The Government says that the legally binding nature of the law is on member states, not on individual farmers. Again, however, the trust is not there that it will not be passed on to them. When farmers hear that there is a legal obligation on the State but that everything will be voluntary for them, they are right to want guarantees.

The level of snobbery on the part of people in areas that will not be affected by this towards those who will be and who have real and genuine concerns is breathtaking. It is not the way to go. That is why I am proud that Sinn Féin stands for meaningful action and working in collaboration with those who will be affected by the measures involved. We support the restoration of nature. If it is done right, rural communities certainly can benefit. However, it cannot just be about setting targets, hoping for the best and imposing measures to reach those targets at the last minute.

The absence of a plan and funding was the reason Sinn Féin MEP Chris MacManus rightly voted against the nature restoration law. There should be no surprise whatsoever at the position adopted by Sinn Féin. The real unanswered question is how Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael supported a proposed law that was flawed and lacked the concrete funding measures. The farmers who will be affected the most by the approach are the poorest farmers in Ireland. They are the ones who are most eager to play a positive and constructive role in respect of climate action and biodiversity. I see that every day in my county of Mayo. They are the farmers who use the least amount of artificial fertilisers and pesticides. They have the lowest stocking rates and the greatest levels of biodiversity on their farms already. They are the farmers who know they have a part to play in addressing the climate and biodiversity crises.

The starting point should be to acknowledge the incredible work many of those to whom I refer already do. Much more needs to be done. Going back to 1997 when we had the European Acts around the designations, the reason trust has broken down with farmers is that time and time again promises have been made but have not been delivered. We have an opportunity to build trust with farmers. They are more than willing to do this work. As its custodians, they really value the land they farm. We have to ensure their survival, however. If you are fighting for your survival, on one hand, and trying to fight climate change, on the other, it does not work. We have a lot to do in terms of building back trust with farmers. They will be the greatest allies in addressing climate change.

This debate is necessary, especially in light of the fact that the matter to which it relates is subject to a vote at EU Council level. That vote, it must be remembered, has been delayed, which, in itself, sends a key message about the current composition of the nature restoration law.

There can be no doubting the very fact that nature is facing a crisis. On a global level, it is starkly apparent though a number of recent studies carried out on biodiversity loss have indicated that nearly 50% of species are in decline. Poorer countries are the first to really feel the effects of this. We see this already in terms of food insecurity and the impacts it is having on livelihoods as well as on flora and fauna. We are not immune. The warning signs have been there for nearly half a century through the continuing downward trends apparent in every biodiversity indicator. This led to a biodiversity emergency being declared in Ireland in 2019.

More than five years have passed and we have failed to reverse this decline in any tangible way because there has been a failure to develop a roadmap to provide assistance to those who need help in making a change, such as our family farmers, while demanding more from the big polluters, who are not subject to the same requirements.

For a nature restoration law to work, there must be a cast-iron guarantee of long-term support and funding. That is why Sinn Féin tabled amendments for a socioeconomic impact assessment, which was passed in July 2023. However, Sinn Féin had to vote against the final version in February due to the absence of dedicated long-term funding and the deletion of the reference to compensation measures for family farmers who might be adversely affected. Nature restoration is achievable if the right approach is adopted. The approach taken is the wrong one. The motion calls for the voluntary nature of actions on farmland to be assured. I agree with this. I highlight how the NRL places no obligation on farmers. It places the obligation on states and, therefore, it is up to the Government to ensure that all actions are voluntary. The best way to deliver this with the certainty that the NRL can work is through guaranteed, dedicated, targeted and ambitious funding.

Farmers here and across Europe have given their verdict on the law as currently devised. Many countries have either opposed its current wording or have abstained for the reasons I have given. As I said, the delay to the vote indicates that this is not adequate and does not deliver for farmers and rural communities. Nature restoration is needed but it must be done right. Farmers and rural communities must be given commitments on funding, resources and the voluntary nature of the NRL.

The position relating to this matter has been laid out well by a number of speakers, including Deputy Kerrane. Deputy Conway-Walsh put it particularly well when she said that we are all in support of the restoration of nature and that we all accept the fact of the biodiversity crisis. The particular issue that we had, which relates to the motion we are dealing with today, was the fact it can only exist if there is a plan and funding. Outside of that, we just have targets and impositions. Many have spoken of where farmers stand with regard to their particular issues at this time. I am sure many of us heard this when canvassing. They can see they get less for doing more, and they find they are being vilified. If we are talking about the sustainability of farming and the family farm, we have to work alongside farmers.

In fairness, many of the previous speakers, including my colleagues, spoke about the amendments from Sinn Féin, in particular from Chris MacManus, that were not accepted. That is the reason we did not support this. We know the issue with the Common Agricultural Policy is that it has been reducing in real terms. We know some of this reduction is because the European Union is deciding to put its money elsewhere, sometimes into places which the Irish people would not accept as the right place to put it, for example, into militarisation, the building up of the military-industrial complex and such things that Ursula von der Leyen would like to see happen. Whichever MEPs are elected, we need to make sure we make a strong case in Europe in that regard.

As we are dealing with the issues that face farmers, I take the opportunity to note that I have spoken with the Minister, Deputy McConalogue. I welcome the fact that Teagasc met a number of farmers who were severely impacted following the serious flooding in the Cooley Peninsula around Hallowe'en 2023. Many of them had to do mitigating works and they were afraid this would not be looked after. The Minister has indicated to me that a great deal of work is being done and that a scheme is on the way. However, I would like the Minister to follow up with information in that regard because we need to get that information to the farmers as soon as possible. Beyond information, we need to make sure they get the necessary funding while we also carry out the mitigation and flood protection works that are necessary everywhere. There are a number of places in my constituency where works need to be done as soon as possible.

I reiterate the point made by the IFA recently in demanding justice for farmers who had sheep culled during the foot and mouth crisis. A number of cases were taken but, at times, some of the funding was inadequate. I have raised this issue before with the Minister for agriculture. It is not going away.

On 27 February, we witnessed a historic vote in the European Parliament. MEPs in Strasbourg voted to approve the first-ever EU-wide nature restoration law to tackle the existential climate and biodiversity crisis. The Socialists and Democrats group, in which we in Labour are deeply proud to now be represented following the election last night of my dear friend Deputy Ó Ríordáin, was instrumental in seeing through the passage of this important directive.

It was the first major new EU biodiversity law since the 1992 habitats directive and it deserves all of our support. Unfortunately, opposition to the nature restoration law has been expressed by those who are outright climate change deniers but also by those who we might describe as climate change tolerators, namely those who engage in insidious undermining of the necessary measures that we need to tackle biodiversity loss and the climate crisis and those who express opposition on some vague basis to this nature restoration law. I listened in disbelief just now to the speeches of the Sinn Féin Deputies who say they are for nature restoration but against the nature restoration law for some vague and ill-defined reasons. I listened in disbelief when I heard them say that we do not need the EU to protect biodiversity. Of course we do. We need solidarity on a trans-European and transnational basis in order to address what is an international and transnational crisis. I wondered to myself what newly elected MEP Senator Lynn Boylan might make of the speeches we have been listening to from Sinn Féin in the Dáil today. They were extraordinary.

I am very glad that Deputy Ó Ríordáin’s election to the European Parliament last night staved off the threat of another climate change tolerator in the European Parliament. I am very sorry that it was at the expense of a Green Party MEP. I pay tribute to former MEP Ciarán Cuffe, for whom I have the utmost respect and who has played an enormously important role in the European Parliament on climate issues. I hope we will see Grace O’Sullivan hold her seat.

We have seen some very damaging action from what would historically have been seen as the centre-right ground at European level recently. European People's Party, EPP, MEPs submitted amendments amounting to a boycott of the legislation and were joined by European conservatives and reformists, as well as the far-right Identity and Democracy group in the Parliament. I commend the Fine Gael MEPs who faced down pressure from within their own grouping, which is to their credit. However, it is concerning, now that the final votes in the European election are being counted, that the EPP is courting parties which are climate-denying parties and that the EPP as a grouping is standing in the way of the sort of progress on climate and biodiversity that we need to see. The leader of the EPP, Manfred Weber, who the EPP initially sought to make chief Commissioner, embarked on what can only be described as a personal crusade to kill the nature restoration law. That is a real worry when we see the EPP gaining ground. I again express my relief that Dublin voters have recognised the importance of a counterbalance to the EPP in electing Deputy Ó Ríordáin, the first Socialists and Democrats MEP from Ireland in a decade.

We have seen fearmongering, disinformation and indifference, which have caused confusion around the nature restoration law. However, the aims behind it are simple. The aim is to restore at least 20% of the EU’s land and sea area by 2030 and all its ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050. This is crucial. We have seen more than 80% of Europe's assessed natural habitat in poor condition. In Ireland, draining, mining and the use of wetlands and peatlands for farming has meant that 85% to 90% of wetlands and peatlands are degraded and in poor condition. We are seeing human-driven change driving ecological collapse. We are living through an extinction event. It is deeply distressing to hear that the birds we are used to hearing sing are endangered. Future generations will be robbed of the joy of hearing the songs of corncrakes, hen harriers and curlews, which are going silent in many areas where they were once heard. There is algae covering Lough Neagh, poisoning local wildlife and endangering human health. Native tree species are struggling for space.

We have to change this. We were all heartened by the recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss, and I hope we will see those implemented. They illustrate the power of politics to make pivotal and transformational changes to stem the ecological collapse that we are seeing.

At European level, we have seen real leadership from within the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, as well as from within the Green group. I commend Mr. César Luena from the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats and from our sister party in Spain, who is the chief negotiator on the nature restoration law and who has shown immense commitment, along with so many others in the Green movement and the centre-left movement, to see this vital law passed. That type of political leadership at European and national level is what it takes. That is what it takes to secure the necessary changes to address climate loss and climate change and to secure a just transition, which is an integral component of our Labour Party climate action policy.

I thank our colleagues in the Regional Independent Group for introducing this motion because it gives us a valuable opportunity to discuss the issues facing us all, the farming sector included. While I acknowledge the Government will not oppose the motion, I also acknowledge the concerns around aspects of the text of the motion which have been expressed by some environmentalists, notably Friends of the Earth. There are some inaccuracies within the motion. For example, Article 1(2) of the nature restoration law states:

This Regulation establishes a framework within which Member States shall put in place effective and area-based restoration measures with the aim to jointly cover, as a Union target, throughout the areas and ecosystems within the scope of this Regulation, at least 20 % of land areas and at least 20 % of sea areas by 2030, and all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050.

This is a Union-wide target that covers all member states rather than a member state target. That is an important correction. Second, the target relates to area-based restoration measures. Existing agri-environmental schemes which have the objective of incentivising farmers to manage habitats sustainably qualify as an example of an area-based restoration measure. Third, there is an assumption within the motion that restoration implies habitats are not farmed. In reality, farming is essential to the management of many of these protected semi-natural habitats.

I have spoken before in this House about the success of some of these agri-environmental schemes like the Burrenbeo Trust project in the Burren in County Clare, with which I am very familiar. It has been so successful in incorporating farming methods with the protection of habitats and biodiversity. This is part of our just transition. It is only with the input of those who are being asked to make changes, and by bringing them with us, that Government can adequately identify, address or avoid issues of climate change. That is what we mean by a just transition. It applies within the agriculture community and within farming families as much as it applies to all of us in urban and rural settings.

The very nature of farming requires skill and flexibility. My experience of meeting with farmers from across the country shows and provides evidence that they are willing and eager to make a difference. They must be treated with respect, however. Farming communities must be brought with us, just as every community must be brought with us to tackle what is, as I said, an existential threat. It is that spirit of just transition which drives the measures that are advocated in this nature restoration law. We must embrace that spirit here at national level, as we have seen the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats group and the Green group do at European level, when it comes to tackling this existential threat of biodiversity and climate loss.

The nature restoration law is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the EU to take action in respect of the massive losses of biodiversity in recent decades. The Social Democrats are very supportive of the nature restoration law. It is vital to restore damaged ecosystems to a healthy state in Ireland and across Europe, to attempt to stop the collapse of our wildlife and to slow the progress of the climate crisis. These measures have to be done in collaboration with communities because we need to bring people along with us on climate action. These measures also need to be taken really quickly because we do not have time to wait.

It is important to look at some of the facts. The need for far-reaching climate action simply could not be more urgent. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent assessment report shows a temperature rise of 1.1°C. This has resulted in frequent and hazardous weather events and increasing destruction to the planet. The scale of biodiversity damage is frightening; one third of our protected species and 85% of our protected habitats are in poor condition.

From my perspective, the major initiatives and successes the Government has had to date could be summarised as baby steps when it comes to the actual crisis we are facing and the need for action and the scope of that action. While I welcome those baby steps, they are not big enough or quick enough. They are not at the scale we need. To date, we have not even done a fraction of what is required. The Environmental Protection Agency stated that if every measure in the Government’s climate action plan was fully implemented - which we know will not happen - emissions would fall by 29% by 2030. If we continue our current path, it will result in the unthinkable.

The restoration of peatlands is essential. When these bogs were in their natural condition, the carbon within them was contained. Once they were drained, the carbon they once stored was released into the atmosphere. According to the International Peatlands Society, Ireland’s peatlands are estimated to emit the equivalent of around 8.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. Bringing these bogs back to a state where they can once again store carbon is absolutely essential in meeting our climate targets and restoring the native biodiversity that flourished within them.

One thing which continues to be spoken about in the context of the nature restoration law is that the State could meet its targets out to 2030 and 2040 on State land. That will not happen unless the remit of both Coillte and Bord na Móna is changed in order that biodiversity becomes a key priority of theirs rather than having a purely commercial remit, which is what they have at the moment. There was no change to the remit of Coillte and Bord na Móna in the Government's biodiversity plan, which was the absolute primary missed opportunity in all of this. If the Government had brought that in, we would have seen the systems changes we need to see in this country to start addressing biodiversity loss.

I will use one species, the hen harrier, as an example. On paper, the hen harrier the most protected and studied species in Ireland. Yet, from 2015, when there was a breeding population of between 108 to 157 pairs, we are down to between 85 and 106 pairs. That is a 59% decline, which is almost one third, since 2000. This species will be extinct in 25 years unless we make the changes required. That means making tough decisions when it comes to where Coillte is planting and how peatlands are being managed. Currently, there is more breeding happening outside special protection areas, SPAs, for this species than there is within them because of the level of afforestation in those SPAs. That does not make any sense at all.

When we get protection measures right, we get matters right for farmers as well. On "Morning Ireland", Mr. Jonathan Blackmore, a beef farmer from Co. Limerick, talked about his land and how he used to see it as wasteland when it was designated as having hen harrier status. He said it was like the death knell for their family and for their land. When they went through the process and learned how valuable their land actually was and that this poor and unproductive land was actually rich and valuable and worth fighting for, the pride in his voice could be heard when he spoke about that. Farmers and landowners are doing the heavy lifting. They will also have to do it when it comes to protecting this species. The Government needs to do more so that it is not overseeing the extinction of this species. It will be extinct in 25 years, and that will be the legacy of this Government if it does not get this right.

Mrs. Oonagh Duggan of BirdWatch Ireland has stated the Government is quietly quitting on this iconic bird. Hearing her say that was such a strong statement and it is important to put it on the record. It is not something this Government wants as its legacy. I ask the Minister of State to prioritise changing the remits of Coillte and Bord na Móna. If we are committed to restoring our biodiversity, this is how we do it. If the State bodies we have are not changed to reflect biodiversity, nature and the crisis we are in and continue solely on a for-profit basis, all those other nature restoration laws will mean nothing. We will never meet them and they will just be a target.

There has been an incredible amount of scaremongering about this law, particularly directed at farmers. We need to be really clear that there is no future for farming unless we protect our ecosystems and our biodiversity. Comments from elected representatives about how any kind of climate action is bad for Irish agriculture are irresponsible.

You would swear that farming communities have nothing at stake in relation to climate change, but the opposite is true. We arguably have the most to lose from extreme weather events and biodiversity loss. Most people agree on the need for substantial action to address the climate and biodiversity crisis, including many farmers I speak to. It is deeply frustrating when this discussion pits farmer against farmer and farmers against environmentalists. It presumes that farmers do not care about the disastrous impacts of climate change or do not fully understand the issue. This is insulting to farming communities and simply is not true. There is no future for the agriculture sector if we fail to take climate action and no future for farming if emissions continue to rise, soil and water quality continues to degrade and more and more biodiversity is lost.

The nature restoration law is a substantial step forward, but it is not enough on its own. The legally binding target for the reduction of emissions is 51%. We are not any closer to meeting that target than we were 12 months ago. Our planet is facing an existential crisis. It is past time the Government started to act like it.

I thank the Deputy. Next is People Before Profit-Solidarity. Deputies Murphy and Barry are sharing.

There has been so much scaremongering about the nature restoration law over the past couple of years that you would have thought it is a powerful law that will drive farmers off their land. The truth is it is anything but. We have another EU proposal that has been gutted again and again by right wing parties in Europe, egged on by the big agribusiness and big farmer lobby. To top it off, it has not even been passed by the Council of Ministers yet and, given the swing to the right in the European elections, it is questionable whether it will be passed at all or gutted even further before being passed. Even if it is passed, member states will have wide latitude in implementing it. We all know what that looks like in practice from how this State implements EU environmental directives. It does not implement them, and we have the fines and court cases to prove it. In this context, the motion is really an attempt to kill off the nature restoration law entirely while giving words of kindness and words in the right direction. It is akin to pulling the plug on a patient on life support.

The dire situation of nature and biodiversity in this country has been endlessly recited inside and outside of this Chamber but still very little is being done about it. The Government acknowledged in its sixth national report to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2019 that 91% of listed habitats had an unfavourable conservation status, with 31% of them declining even further. Overall, around half of habitats were declining in quality. BirdWatch Ireland reported in 2022 that almost two thirds of Ireland's bird species are in serious trouble. We have loads of excellent proposals from the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss and the Children and Young People's Assembly on Biodiversity Loss. I sit on the environment committee, which reviewed and endorsed those reports. We have a national biodiversity action plan which now has a statutory basis, but it still seems the Government will not take action on the biggest threats to biodiversity.

This morning I heard on the radio that the EPA published its latest report on water quality. It shows there has been no improvement. By some measures it is getting worse. Water quality is improving in 187 water bodies and declining in 232 others. Only 15% of our water bodies have high-quality status, while 45% are substandard. Four rivers and 11 lakes are rated bad, which means that, like Lough Neagh in Northern Ireland, they are ecological disaster zones. What is the cause of this ecological disaster, this ecocide being wreaked on our society? Primarily, it is caused by industrial agriculture overstocking the land and having to use huge amounts of artificial fertiliser as a result, and by the failure to invest in proper sewage and water treatment facilities. Rather than tackling either of those issues, the Government is promising to defend the nitrates derogation to its inevitable death. It refuses to tell the truth to farmers and squirrels away billions in so-called rainy day funds rather than investing some of the €65 billion surplus in essential sewage and water treatment infrastructure.

One proposal that both the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss and the Oireachtas environment committee have supported is for a referendum to insert the rights of nature and of people to a healthy environment into the Constitution. This is supposed to be looked at by the Government but in reality it seems it will play for time and kick the can down the road until the next general election.

One area where we can agree with the Regional Group is that there needs to be proper funding provided along with the nature restoration law so that farmers are properly rewarded for restoring nature and their livelihoods are protected. The Government has the money to do this at national level regardless of what happens at European level. It should make a cast-iron commitment that no small farmer will lose out financially as a result of action for nature restoration. There should be a commitment in our national restoration plan to distribute income in the farming sector away from big farmers and the agrifood industry and towards small farmers. That needs to happen at European level and in Ireland if there is to be a just transition towards sustainable farming that ensures food security, enhances biodiversity and reduces carbon emissions.

For those reasons, we in People Before Profit supports a stronger nature restoration law at European level that is fully implemented nationally, but we need to go beyond that. We need to make the kind of transformative eco-socialist changes that will end the climate and biodiversity crises. That means breaking from industrial, for-profit agriculture entirely and moving towards an eco-socialist system that produces food for people, not for profit, and that has protection and stewardship of the land at its core. As long as capitalism remains dominant in our agricultural and economic system, not even our rivers will run free.

The motion reads:

— the Nature Restoration Law aims to halt the decline of nature, work towards restoring habitats across the European Union (EU), whilst also targeting habitats that contribute most to the capture and storage of carbon;

— the Nature Restoration Law will target 20 per cent of each EU Member States land area and, as Ireland comprises of 6.9 million hectares of land, the Nature Restoration Law will potentially be applied to 1.38 million hectares.

Notwithstanding the nods to the rhetoric of just transition, I see the motion as an attempt to water down an already severely watered-down nature restoration law. The motion makes no mention of the fact that modern industrial farming aimed at maximising profit is in contradiction to biodiversity and restoration of nature. In that context, to call on the Government to "ensure that farmland targeted under the Nature Restoration Law can continue to operate a range of agricultural activities that ensures that these lands can continue to be defined as an agricultural area under CAP programmes, and that such status can be maintained" can only be seen as a backward step. Many people in the past week decided to cast votes for Independent candidates. Many who cast those votes saw them as votes for change and progress. The motion is a good example of how right-wing Independents stand in the way of progress and progressive change. Four of the Deputies who signed the motion are former members of Fine Gael.

I mentioned that the nature restoration law has already been watered down. This happened last year in the European Parliament when the European People's Party - the sister party of Fine Gael - and the far right joined forces to support a raft of amendments, for example, adding conditions under which application of the law may be suspended. This is an example of what the Government describes as centre-right politicians joining forces with the far right not just on migration issues but to block progressive change on climate. The nature restoration law does not need to be watered down but to be strengthened. I have run out of time. I hope to be able to expand on that at a later date.

I thank the Deputy. I turn now to the Rural Independent Group. Five Deputies are sharing.

The recent support for the EU nature restoration law by 11 Irish MEPs, including all representatives from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party earlier this year, has raised concerns about the future of Irish family farms.

This law, part of the European Green Deal, requires Ireland to rewet vast areas of land, which is posing a significant threat to small farmers and food security. People broke their backs and worked hard to drain land and turn brown land into green. They slaved for it. The man sitting to my left, for example, broke his leg flagging it in a drain. Many people in this Dáil might not know what that means, but I know what it means and he knows what it means.

While the motion to support this law is commendable in its environmental intentions, it lacks concrete measures to protect farmers. It fails to provide a clear plan for safeguarding farmers' livelihoods and does not mandate consultation with farmers before implementing policies that could jeopardise their livelihoods. The law offers no new financial compensation for farmers, yet it threatens their livelihoods with far-reaching consequences that have not even been explored. The EU nature restoration law will drastically alter land use and agriculture in Ireland. It demands rigorous restoration measures for drained peatlands by 2030, 2040 and 2050, posing a significant challenge for Irish farmers. The law covers various ecosystems, including wetlands, grasslands, forests, rivers and lakes, impacting on productive agricultural land in Ireland, especially in areas with extensive wetlands.

Again, the farmers of Ireland, on whom this is going to be imposed, have worked so hard for so long. They put their savings, their sweat and their broken bones into this, and now this law is being thrown at them with no thought or consideration given to them.

I commend the Regional Group on this very important motion. I have spoken about this issue several times in this House. It will impact on rural counties along the western seaboard and especially Kerry. Much of the land in south Kerry is already taken up by biodiversity but farmers have nonetheless improved their holdings and little fields. I did break my leg in a drain trying to improve a field on our farm, and many other people have had their backs and bones hurt badly doing this kind of work. They were grant-aided because, at that time, if you were not farming your land, it would have been taken off you by the Land Commission. This will impact seriously on many rural towns and villages. If we even take north Kerry as an example, where there is highly arable land now, it benefited from the Arterial Drainage Act 1945. Is all this good work going to be rescinded, with these people drowned out of it again? This will affect towns, villages and houses.

Deputy Cairns said a few moments ago that there will be no future for farming if farmers do not see after biodiversity. Farmers are the custodians of the land and they have always seen after their farms. It is ridiculous to think we are going to rewet land while, at the same time, other entities are sending astronauts to the moon and aeroplanes are flying overhead. There is no comeback to that. What effect are the bombs that are going off daily having? Rockets are going up into the sky with flames under them and the EU wants us to stop burning a few sods of turf in the fire. It has gone mad. I call on the newly elected MEPs to rescind what has gone on at the EU, such as Seán Kelly, Billy Kelleher and Deputy McNamara.

I am from a farming background and all my family, and generations before me, were farmers. What the nature restoration law is doing to farmers, especially small farmers, is making bad land very expensive. If a farmer is farming every piece of a small landholding, with all the laws that are there whereby farmers need to have certain lands for biodiversity and everything else that comes with that, that puts farmers out of reach, so they have to try to change their farming and make themselves smaller, which makes them cease to be viable. Irish farmers, husbands and wives, farm the land, look after nature and put food on our tables. Every time the Government comes in with something, it makes that harder for them.

Food security will be so important for this country. We have seen how many wars have happened, and they are getting closer and closer and more and more frequent. We will rely on the farmers of this country to feed us. We look at emissions in this country and at our carbon footprint. We account for 0.0001% of the issue of global carbon emissions. If we take into account all the imports we are bringing in here to replace the sectors the Government has closed, they far exceed the level of carbon emissions produced here. The Government is imposing penalties on different people in this country to make a change, yet it allows other countries to raise their carbon emissions to provide for us. There needs to be some common sense when we are thinking about these laws.

I compliment the members of the Regional Group on bringing forward this important motion. The EPA has released another report this morning. It is a disgraceful, discredited organisation because it will not look at municipal plants. The Minister of State knows this better than I do. I have put it to him previously. The EPA is discredited, comes out with fake news all the time, and demonises farmers and paints them as the baddies. Of course, farmers are mentioned in this morning's report as well, included with the municipal plants, but it had to say that. The facts speak for themselves. The records are there. The farming organisations and the Government must respect farming. Farmers put food on the table. I come from a small mountain farm and I inherited my ancestral home. There are only grazing hill sheep now because we could not have cattle or crops on it.

We must think of farmers here. Deputy Cairns and all the parties of the left attacked them, yet they want food. What are they going to have - starvation? The Deputies can keep on with their green policies. They blame the Green Party all the time, but they must also lay the blame at the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael MEPs, who voted for this disastrous legislation.

The EU nature restoration law, part of the European Green Deal, requires Ireland to rewet large areas of land, posing a threat to small farmers and food security. The law lacks measures to protect farmers and their livelihoods. It will drastically alter land use and agriculture in Ireland, impacting on productive agricultural lands, especially areas with extensive wetlands. The law targets 20% of each EU member state's land area, potentially affecting 1.38 million ha in Ireland. The recent EU elections have highlighted the growing fatigue towards policies that impact on agriculture. Having canvassed and met farmers, I know they are absolutely furious at the way they have had the finger pointed at them for everything that goes wrong in respect of our environment. They are not the biggest culprits here. Small farmers are going to lose out most here, but pro-farming parties now hold more seats than the Green Party in the European Parliament. The farmers' revolt has affected most EU member states, fuelled by escalating production costs and environmental restrictions. Europe's struggles have created opportunities for American producers and that is what we are facing in this country.

I thank the Regional Group for bringing forward this motion on the nature restoration law because it gives us an opportunity to discuss and debate what might or might not be put onto the Statute Book. I say "might not be" because, of course, we are discussing an item of failed European legislation. As a law, it was controversial from day one, with no agreement at several EU committees, and that was absolutely unprecedented. Eventually, however, after a very rocky path in trilogues and in the Parliament, and following desperate attempts by the then Commissioner Timmermans to change and modify the legislation, he got it over the line and the European Parliament voted narrowly in favour. Nevertheless, it seems to have fallen at the final hurdle, and the European Environment Council could not reach agreement. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, is here. It is my understanding that because of an Irish-led initiative by the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and the Minister of State, we are trying to see whether agreement can be reached by 17 June. I say this just because it is the context in which we are discussing this legislation.

Another point I want to make very clearly is that there is no dedicated fund at European level. There is no money of any kind to support farmers, who will have to comply with this legislation if it becomes law.

We certainly have Ministers standing up in this Chamber to tell us this will be resourced, but let me be clear: this law is not funded at EU level. Indeed, the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, will be aware that countries like Denmark supported this law specifically on the basis that there would be no EU funding. While we can put a national fund in place, it must be ring-fenced and not lumped in with other climate change mitigation measures. We need it to be specifically earmarked for the implementation of this law, if it becomes law. We need guarantees from Government on this and not just some wishy-washy commitment to including it in a package that also includes electric car charging points and retrofitting. These are all important things but we need a separate dedicated fund.

Having said all of that, this motion has merit, as has the law itself. Those of us who have read the legislation know it is voluntary for individual farmers but we also know that, when a commitment is imposed on a state, for example, on Ireland, it will, today or tomorrow, put policies and plans in place that individual farmers will have little choice but to be part of. Anybody who has followed the ongoing impacts of the habitats directive will know what I mean. Indeed, the habitats directive, which was signed into law in the last century, will be central to the outworkings of this law because much of the land impacted by the law is drained peatland. The legislation now includes a derogation but, as we all know, derogations come and go. The importance of this motion is that it proposes that those drained peatlands can continue to be defined as agricultural areas under the CAP. This means that CAP payments could continue to be paid on the land, not by way of derogation but by right. If the House can agree on that, it will be a step forward. It is a long way from perfect but it is a step in the right direction.

I welcome the motion. There are a few things to be said. The Minister, Deputy Ryan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, have gone around Europe, where a lot of countries are kicking back at this law for the simple reason of the consequences it will have. It is bad legislation and should not be let in here.

The Minister of State has spoken about it being voluntary. I will give him an example of what the Department of agriculture is going to do in August with a voluntary measure. If you have peaty type land with green grass growing on it, to receive next year's BISS scheme payment, you have to say you will not plough it, shore it or make any new drain in it. Is that voluntary? Technically it is but realistically it is putting a gun to a farmer's head. That is what this is about.

Small family farms, especially in the west, the north west, the midlands and the south west, will be adversely affected by this. The Government will talk about how measures under Article 9(4) are voluntary, but we should look at the other parts of the legislation. Articles 4(1) and 4(2) catch you on every bit of peaty type ground you could talk about. They put every bit of peaty type ground down as degraded without anyone ever having looked at it, which is unacceptable.

We should be ashamed of what the Minister, Deputy Ryan, has done in going around looking for other Ministers to come on board. The Ministers should have got their answer as to what rural people think of what has gone on in the European elections over recent days. Today and last year, 10% of every farm in this country has been put aside for space for nature because that had to be done under the new BISS scheme and what was called greening but is now called the eco-scheme. That is 1 million acres of Irish farmland that have been put aside under the Department of agriculture's scheme but it is still not enough.

This does not kick in today or before 2030 but after 2030. In fairness, everybody is genuine in saying it will not affect this, that or the other. The State will cover the period up to 2030 but, after 2030, when we go into the straitjacket of the European Court of Justice, that court will rule and the State will have to come in heavily, as every one of us has seen with the habitats directive. We have seen this with the likes of the habitats directive over many years. It is not that a Minister will intend to do this but that the environmentalists will watch. By the way, there are parts of this under which they can object if they think Johnny or Mary down the road is doing harm.

I ask the Minister of State to put to bed this work he is doing in Europe. We do not want it in Ireland. Many countries are opposed to it. We are not radicals. We are all in favour of doing things better. It should be borne in mind that 10% has been put aside. If the State wants to do something on its own lands, let it off and let it do that. No one has a problem with that but, by God, it should not try to force people into anything. This is the way it goes about it. It is not forcing people in the sense of catching them by the neck and saying they have to do something. Instead, it will say that you cannot get the single farm payment unless you do it. I gave the Minister of State the example of what is coming in August, which Ireland tried to kick back on but was not allowed to change, as regards farmers who have peaty type soils. It is not their fault where they were born, whether in the Golden Vale or on peat soil lands. These farmers will now not be allowed to shore it, plough it or make any drains in it. They have to sign up to that. What of the farmer? Because they rely on the single farm payment, they will have to adhere to this. In other words, it is voluntary but it is compulsory.

I welcome the debate. Before I respond to some of the comments, I will put on the record that the comments made by Deputy Mattie McGrath about the Environmental Protection Agency are an absolute disgrace. I call on the Deputy to withdraw them and to correct the record of the Dáil in respect of what he said. His anti-science world view is not welcome in this Chamber. We are seeing it emerge right across Europe in the European elections and we are seeing it here in Ireland. It really is most unwelcome that the Deputy made such comments here in the Dáil Chamber.

I thank all of the Deputies and the proposers of the motion. The Government is not opposing the motion. There are two asks of Government in the motion. It is asked to:

— develop a National Restoration Plan that delivers on climate action through the protection and restoration of nature that also ensures the voluntary nature of actions on farmland, as well as the protection of farmers livelihoods; and

— ensure that farmland targeted under the Nature Restoration Law can continue to operate a range of agricultural activities that ensures these lands can continue to be defined as an agricultural area under CAP programmes.

We have already given those commitments and wholeheartedly support that approach. Some of the figures in the motion as put forward by Deputy Naughten have to be taken with extreme caution. It is not clear where the figure of 670,000 ha comes from but it is important to note that Article 4 targets focus on areas of Annex I habitats that are not in good condition. Using Article 17 data, the NPWS estimates this takes in approximately 467,000 ha. Using that same data, it is estimated that approximately 17,000 ha of Annex I habitat need to be re-established to meet favourable reference area criteria. Most of this is woodland habitat.

As the question has been raised by a number of Deputies this morning, I will reiterate that the Government is certain that we can cover 2040 targets on public land. We also believe that public land could go a long way towards meeting the 2050 targets but we need more research on the issue. That is something we are absolutely committed to doing. We also commit that all measures will be voluntary for farmers. Tens of thousands of them are already participating in schemes through ACRES, LIFE programmes, farm plans and so on. They are involved willingly and are very enthusiastic towards these nature restoration schemes. Details on the numbers of the areas will be worked out in close collaboration with farmers through the restoration planning process. As the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, did at the outset, I will give a commitment that the development of a national plan will be collaborative and that it will be worked on with all stakeholders.

A number of questions and points were raised. I will refer specifically to those raised by Sinn Féin. Deputy Kerrane stated this was handled very badly. I agree it may have been handled badly in Europe but it certainly was not handled badly by Ireland, the Irish Government or our MEPs. We have shown leadership and continue to do so.

Whoever is on this side of the House after the next election must continue that leadership. That is critically important. There is no opt-out here. Nature is telling us we need to act and we are simply not listening. I take on board the points Deputy Kerrane was making about the INHFA and I have met it on a number of occasions. Sinn Féin Deputies are trying to correct the vote of Chris McManus, given the fact the party voted for the nature restoration law here, which was the exact same nature restoration law Chris McManus was asked to vote on as an MEP. He voted against it, and was the only Irish MEP to do so. It is an inconsistency of approach by Sinn Féin.

That is not true.

There was more than one.

I disagree fundamentally-----

Luke 'Ming' Flanagan voted against it.

-----that this Government has made no progress on biodiversity. We have done much more than many Governments in previous years. Deputy Conway-Walsh mentioned Mayo, which probably has more LIFE projects interacting with one other, such as LIFE on Machair, Corncrake LIFE and Wild Atlantic Nature, than any other county. Again, farmers and landowners are participating very enthusiastically in those schemes. I will take back the point made by Deputy Ó Murchú about flooding in the Cooley Peninsula.

I thank Deputy Bacik for the comments she made, specifically the very generous ones she made about my colleague Ciarán Cuffe, who unfortunately lost his seat in the European Parliament last night. He has shown great leadership on the nature restoration law. I hope and know Deputy Ó Ríordáin will take up that mantle.

We are living through a mass extinction. The skies are falling silent around us. This nature restoration law is essential. The Government has committed to developing a nature restoration plan regardless of the outcome of the decision. The Minister, Deputy Ryan, and I will be travelling to Luxembourg next week but, regardless of the outcome of that, Ireland is committed to developing a nature restoration plan.

How does the Minister of State know that if he is going out of government?

It is embedded in the-----

Who says we are if the Minister of State is gone out of government?

It is embedded in the national biodiversity action plan which is now on a statutory footing.

If the Minister of State is gone anything can be taken out of it.

It is embedded in the plan so whoever is standing here will be developing-----

You can change anything you want. It does not have to be green policy everywhere.

-----a nature restoration plan. Whoever is here will be developing-----

The Minister of State is not God.

-----a nature restoration plan and it is important that people are aware of that. Again, I welcome what has largely been a constructive debate. I welcome the fact we can debate it in a mature way and give assurances. This is a much broader issue than just agricultural lands or Annex 1 habitats. It is far-reaching. It is going to involve participation of local government and of many stakeholders. It is critically important we work collaboratively to do this. We are already beginning the process of looking at shaping the public consultation and engagement with stakeholders. I have met farm organisations, and will continue to do so as long as I am in office, to discuss this and allay their fears. I say specifically that farmers have nothing to fear at all from the nature restoration plan, absolutely nothing.

We heard that about the habitats directive.

Again, just to reassure on that, what it will deliver for us is better water quality, an enhanced ability of our landscape to purify our water, climate mitigation and nature-based solutions to mitigate flooding, such as the flooding we saw across the country this spring, which was particularly acute. I remind Members that Article 11.11 of the NRL states "Member States shall ensure that the preparation of the restoration plan is open, inclusive and effective and that the public [including all relevant stakeholders are] ... given early and effective opportunities to participate in its elaboration". That is exactly what we have committed to doing and we will continue on that trajectory.

As regards the initiative taken by the Minister, Deputy Ryan, and I to try to bring member states on board, this is the last-chance saloon for nature restoration in Europe. There is no doubt that it has been divisive. It is being shaped by other politics across Europe but there is no doubt Ireland has shown leadership. We have a climate and nature fund. The Sinn Féin MEP knew, going out to Europe when he voted against it, that all actions would be voluntary and that we had a fund in place. We need to show responsibility here collectively. That is the most significant thing for me. Again, I welcome the contributions from the Deputies who proposed the motion because they have been very positively-framed, unlike others here in the Chamber. There is an opportunity now to work together. We will be embarking, as I said, on a national nature restoration plan. There has been significant progress made. Many thousands of farmers are already participating in schemes and are very happy to do so. They are getting good revenue for doing it and that money is embedding itself in rural communities. I heard the comment made by Deputy Danny Healy-Rae that rural towns and villages will not benefit from this. In fact, they will benefit from it. When that money goes into the local economy, it stays there, and that is what we want to see happening. We want to see farmers and local communities benefitting from it.

I welcome the debate this morning. The Minister, Deputy Ryan, and I look forward to attending the plenary in Luxembourg next week and we hope there is a positive outcome from that.

We are running a little early, so with the agreement of the House I propose to allow more latitude to the Regional Group for closing remarks. It does not serve the House well to suspend as we cannot proceed with the next piece of business before midday. If that is agreeable to all Members, I ask the Deputies from the group to close the debate.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Cathaoirleach Gníomhach. I wish the Minister of State a good morning. I am very grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on the nature restoration law. I commend my good colleague, Deputy Naughten, and our group administrator Cáit Nic Amhlaoibh, who did the lion's share of the work preparing this motion to be brought to the floor of the Dáil.

The motion is very timely. All we have to do is look at what is happening in the world at the moment. It is clear our environment is in crisis. There is compelling evidence. It is overwhelming. To be fair, we do not even need to go to the empirical evidence as we can just look back at our own lives. I am from farming stock. When I was growing up 40 years ago there were hundreds of bees in the back garden. There were fish in the rivers. There were birds and butterflies. If you went for a drive on a sunny summer's day like this, your windscreen would be totally caked with insects of all shapes and sizes afterwards. We regarded that as an inconvenience at that time. It is amazing how the inconvenience of the past is now almost an objective of present policy. We need to get back to that.

It is very clear there is a biodiversity crisis and we have to intervene at a State level in a very swift and decisive way before it is too late. On that basis, I welcome the principle at least of the nature restoration law. Is it perfect? Of course not. Is it an okay start? Yes. It is at least a starting point. I echo what Deputy Naughten said in welcoming the amendments that were tabled. They are very sensible proposals tweaking the targets and ensuring it is a voluntary process rather than a mandatory one, which is very important. That message needs to get out there as well.

That there are commitments both this morning and in the Bill that there will be no impact on CAP payments is very important. I hear and understand Deputy Fitzmaurice's concerns. While there is a commitment for a voluntary process, it is important it is a genuinely voluntary one. That commitment must be honoured in full. The Minister of State made a commitment earlier relating to public land, that we should have enough public land to meet the minimum criteria up to 2040 and perhaps even beyond. We are very fortunate the State has large land banks and holdings around the country. We hope that should allow us to deal with the lion's share of the requirement. That is positive.

However, it is like climbing a mountain. It is a massive challenge. It is very important to look around every so often and see how far we have come. Even before this nature law was passed, or passed by the European Parliament at least, there had been much progress, even in Ireland, especially at the farmyard gate and inside it. We mentioned the environmental schemes. Whether it is ACRES, TAMS or BISS, farmers are totally on board here. There are very good schemes relating to slurry management, run-off into rivers and reducing artificial fertiliser. This is very important stuff and farmers are getting incentivised and rewarded, quite rightly, for the work they are doing.

Aside from the farms, there is great work taking place at a community level. There are Tidy Towns groups, environmentalist groups and people planting flowers and trees. Individually all those isolated projects have limited impact, but collectively they really matter. They are having an effect, especially in my constituency. There is a lot of excellent community work.

With regard to the industry environment out there - I am not sure what are the Minister of State's views on this but I presume they are quite similar to mine - and Bord na Móna in particular, there has been an incredible transition and transformation in Bord na Móna. It has really moved from brown to green, and not only that, it has stayed true to its original mandate. It is still an energy company producing excellent energy for the country but in a far more environmentally responsible and sustainable way. I commend Bord na Móna in particular. A lot of companies talk about innovation these days but Bord na Móna is actually doing the work and the innovating. It goes back to the phrase that one should not try to set the standard; one should be the standard. Bord na Móna deserves a lot of commendation in that regard.

I will focus on our motion. It is straightforward. Like all good motions, it is very simple. I very much welcome this. It is necessary and very timely. The main call from the motion is to develop a plan. We have a two-year window to come up with a nature restoration plan. We have the legislation underpinning it, which is almost through the Council of Ministers. It is good that we have legislation to underpin it but we do need a plan to operationalise it, as the Minister of State well knows. Targets are one thing but it is in the implementation where things fall down. While we have legislation underpinning what we are trying to do, it also needs finance to underwrite it. I am very encouraged this morning to hear that €3.15 billion from 2026 is set aside for it.

Deputy Harkin's contribution was very enlightening. There is no funding at EU level. This is a major drawback and we need to go back to the European Union to say that if it wants to have a policy, then it must resource that policy. I am grateful that at a national level at least we see the necessary means for it with the €3.15 billion but again, doubling down on what Deputy Harkin said, it cannot just be a general environmental fund. We need a ring-fenced stand-alone fund within that which is protected from a biodiversity perspective. From a finance point of view this is positive.

It is good that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is the lead agency. Any interaction I have had with it has been very positive. The clue is in the name. It is the wildlife service, so it is appropriate it is tasked with this. From a conservation angle, it makes sense that it is brought on board.

The Minister of State's commitment to consultation and the partnership approach is very important as well. The farming organisations, foresters and fishers need to be on board from the very first day and need to be shaping this policy if we want to get buy-in. As the commitment relates to State land, it is really important that Coillte, Bord na Móna and the National Parks and Wildlife Service will be doing the heavy lifting. It is very positive that public lands are being used and prioritised from that perspective.

The Minister of State, Senator Hackett, referred to the rewetting targets. There is perhaps a perception out there that we are going to start flooding bogs or peatlands. That clarification was very important. There will be no flooding or surface water. It is just bringing the water table up slightly, not even beyond the surface. This is a very important message to get out as well.

In summary, I welcome this plan. It is an opportunity for everybody but particularly for farmers, foresters and fishers, as well as for rural Ireland, industry and the next generation. I very much look forward to this plan being developed in accordance with our motion. I hope it will kick off as soon as possible. I am supportive of it and we will input in the very constructive and reasonable way we always done in the past. I look forward to hearing of its progress.

I thank all my colleagues who contributed to this debate. I thank the Minister of State for clarifying that, regardless of whether this is adopted at EU level, we will see a compulsion with regard to nature restoration in this country. It is set out in statute now and a plan needs to be put in place. What is in that plan is critically important and this is what we are talking about here.

I was disappointed to hear the Minister of State, Senator Hackett, confirm to the House that stakeholder engagement has started. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, disputed the figures I gave. The difficulty is that one cannot dispute the figures I have given. I am not saying they are accurate but one cannot dispute them because we are still waiting on the maps relating to farms and areas in the State that will be impacted by this. Those maps have not yet been published. The Government cannot start stakeholder engagement until people know who will be impacted. The reality is that as we speak the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is going through that mapping process and identifying the lands that may, potentially, be impacted by it. The Government should not put the cart before the horse in this regard. The first thing we need is to identify who could be impacted by this. Let us then have a fair and equitable engagement on it.

Deputy Kerrane is correct to state that CAP cannot be used as compensation. We are not saying that in this motion. We are saying that where farmers have been drawing down payments under CAP there should be provision to ensure they continue to draw down that payment. We are clearly saying that if there are measures relating to nature conservation or restoration, that should be properly and adequately compensated for. Deputy Harkin is correct. When we, as a group, met the European Commission, it categorically told us there is no funding coming from the EU for this process. This has to come from the Exchequer and the Exchequer must underwrite it.

I am aware there has been debate on the Minister, Deputy Ryan, leading the campaign to have this measure adopted at the EU Council of Ministers but, as I said at the outset, the fact remains that this Parliament, unlike our Swedish counterparts, stayed quiet on expressing its formal view to the Commission on these proposals when we had the opportunity to do so.

There are positives in this. I have consistently raised the issue of providing certification for carbon sequestration in this country. We are not doing that like it is being done in Northern Ireland, which is leading and providing a benchmark for it. We are doing it in a piecemeal manner in this country and that should not be the case. I urge all Members to support this motion. Let us commit to protecting our farmers while embracing the environmental benefits for all rather than pitting one community against another, which ultimately undermines those who pay the most and yet will have least to gain. By working together we can create a future where nature can coexist in harmony with agriculture, benefiting both our environment and our rural communities. I hope that we can take a sensible approach, have real engagement and actually listen to people so this is not a top-down directive to people on what they must do but, rather, a real engagement with people on what they can do and how the Government can facilitate them in making that happen.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share