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.