Nature Restoration Law: Motion [Private Members]

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes that:

— while preventing further decline in the current state of biodiversity is an essential element in ensuring the resilience of our planet and our food production systems, we recognise that certain steps must be taken to improve the state of biodiversity across the Europe Union (EU);

— the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 already sets out a commitment to legally protect a minimum of 30 per cent of its land, including inland waters and 30 per cent of the sea in the EU, of which at least one third should be under strict protection;

— therefore, under the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, 10 per cent of the land in Ireland will be strictly protected and the definition of strictly protected areas by the European Commission ensures they are fully and legally protected, and that natural processes are therefore left essentially undisturbed from human pressures, and they further state that many strictly protected areas will be non-intervention areas, where only limited and well controlled activities that either do not interfere with natural processes or enhance them, will be allowed;

— under the draft Nature Restoration Regulation for organic soils in agricultural use constituting drained peatlands, EU member states shall put in place restoration measures on at least:

— 30 per cent of such areas by 2030, of which at least a quarter shall be rewetted;

— 50 per cent of such areas by 2040, of which at least half shall be rewetted; and

— 70 per cent of such areas by 2050, of which at least half shall be rewetted;

— EU member states may put these restoration measures, including rewetting, in areas of peat extraction sites and also may rewet organic soils that constitute drained peatland under land uses other than agricultural use and peat extraction, and count those rewetted areas as contributing to achieving the respective targets up to a maximum of 20 per cent of the area;

— the improved negotiating position of the European Council on reducing those targets to 40 per cent of such areas by 2040, of which at least half shall be rewetted, and 50 per cent of such areas by 2050, of which at least half shall be rewetted and that a maximum of 40 per cent of the area that constitutes drained peatlands under land uses, other than agricultural use and peat extraction, can contribute to the rewetting targets and further notes the further, though restricted, flexibilities introduced in Article 9(4);

— according to the European Commission Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, it is proposed that at least 25,000 kilometres of rivers will be restored into free-flowing rivers by 2030, through the removal of primarily obsolete barriers and the restoration of floodplains and wetlands, and therefore recognises the possible impacts this will have at various points along the River Shannon, particularly where it is slow moving and shallow;

— the Government's strategy to increase from 11.6 per cent of the country under forestry cover to planting 18 per cent of the country by 2050, an increase of 55 per cent in the current area that is planted; and

— the cumulative impacts of the Nature Restoration Law, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, both the Irish and EU forestry strategies, as well as significant changes already under way in the current Common Agricultural Policy, where, for example, 46,000 farmers have joined an environmental scheme to protect nature and biodiversity, must be assessed and taken into consideration before we commit to any new requirements, so that we can ensure we are in a position to deliver on our commitments in the near-, medium- and long-term future;

further notes that:

— the EU Commission State of Nature 2020 report states that the decline of protected habitat types and species, whose conservation is of concern, is caused mostly by abandonment of extensive agriculture, intensifying management practices, the modification of hydrological regimes, urbanisation and pollution as well as unsustainable forestry activities, species exploitation, invasive alien species and climate change, and believes that all of these issues must be dealt with in a coherent and co-ordinated way to help restore nature, and that a proportionate and societal response is needed across many different sectors to protect biodiversity, rather than a disproportionate attempt to make agriculture shoulder most of the responsibility; and

— the Nature Restoration Law has been rejected by three separate committees in the European Parliament, resulting in no amended proposals coming from any of the three committees, and that such an unprecedented outcome indicates that a wide variety of members in the European Parliament consider this to be a seriously flawed piece of legislation;

furthermore, notes that:

— the common position of the European Council is a much improved, though still problematic, amended version of the draft Commission proposal, and while a qualified majority was reached, this majority was wafer thin, with the population majority in the EU member states voting to support the proposal being just 1.13 per cent above the requirement level of 65 per cent support, again indicating serious reservations among many member states, even some who in the final analysis voted to support it, with Denmark, for example, having serious reservations about any funding to support farmers participating in the scheme; and

— this is by far the most significant land use change proposal put forward by the European Commission, with massive implications not just for agriculture, food production, food security, rural and regional development, but also for urban and rural planning, and that the proposals put forward were of such scale and overreach that, so far, agreement has not been possible in the European Parliament and is on a knife edge in the European Council; and

calls on the Government to:

— unequivocally reject the European Commission draft Regulation; and

— agree a number of significant changes to the European Council common position including:

— inserting a guarantee in the legal text that while certain measures may be mandatory for EU member states, those measures in all and every circumstance will be voluntary for all farmers and landowners;

— a guarantee that any farmers or landowners participating in schemes under the Nature Restoration Law will be adequately paid for delivering nature-based services and solutions;

— to conduct an immediate audit of all State lands and all lands owned by Bord na Móna and Coillte, and make a full and complete assessment as to how much of these lands can be restored/rewetted before reaching any final agreement on the Nature Restoration Law, as given it will be voluntary for farmers/landowners, it would be a dereliction of duty for any Government to sign up to commitments that a future Government might be unable to deliver;

— to ensure the protection of present farming practices, such as hill grazing, particularly in the context of the definition of favourable reference area in Article 3(5), and its further refinement in Article 12(2)(a)(iii) where records of historical distribution are taken into account;

— to ensure that where State lands are rewetted, that adjoining lands will not be adversely affected;

— to ensure that there is full coherence between EU trade deals, current and new, and the Nature Restoration Law requirements in particular, to avoid carbon leakage, loss of agricultural production capability, disproportionate impacts on rural communities, and also to ensure food security and sovereignty; and

— to ensure that no farmers on privately owned land, be it hill or low-lands of peat soil, will be compelled to rewet any of their lands.

I am sharing time with Deputy Pringle. Which Minister is taking this?

Deputy Dara Calleary

I am.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I had understood it was to be the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan.

Deputy Dara Calleary

He will do the wrap-up.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

At least the Minister of State, Deputy Calleary, is well familiar with the area.

I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this motion on the nature restoration law to the Dáil. At the outset I want to make it clear that those of us who signed this motion are not against nature. Every one of us lives in nature; we promote nature; we were brought up with nature. We come from the land and from knee-high we were always told to make sure we look after birds, bees and whatever, and we have done that. I do not want the narrative to go out that we are opposed to these proposals. However, our motion relates to how they will affect the communities we come from. There are a few different proposals relating to the nature restoration law as set out by the Commission. This has caused a lot of confusion. There is a proposal from the EU Commission and there is also a Council of Ministers proposal. There is also talk of a Parliament proposal. The two heavyweight proposals are the ones from the Commission and the Council of Ministers.

When the three Deputies set out to put this motion together, we did it in as fair a way as possible. After hearing about this for months and months, it is disappointing that the Government has tabled an amendment to the motion. Over the past four or five weeks I have heard the words "scaremongering" and "misinformation". We want the Government to commit that regardless of which proposal might be there, no farmers on privately owned land would be forced to rewet their land. Unfortunately, the Government amendment which came in yesterday does not in any way put that to bed for farming communities around the country.

We need to remember that all areas, from the top of Donegal down to parts of west Cork, out as far as Kildare and down to Monaghan and Cavan, will be affected. I want to be very clear on which proposal I am talking about. With the Commission's proposal, we are looking at the rewetting of agricultural drained land covering about 300,000 ha. I acknowledge that the Council of Ministers is trying to bring that down. However, the Commission proposal would involve agricultural drained peatland. Let no Minister stand up here and say that the State owns agricultural drained peatland because it does not. It was actually the EU that gave farmers grants years ago to drain and shore that land for them to farm. It was especially done in the 1980s and that land was brought on. It was basically like three legs on a stool to balance the stool. Many of the farmers were small farmers who struggled to make a living from the land. We will probably hear today that they will be better off to go down the road of rewetting, that they can get more out if it or whatever. Hills are green far away.

When the habitats directive came into being in Ireland I remember being told by our now President, Michael D. Higgins, that it would not affect anyone. Then the turf-cutting communities in different places were told that they could not cut turf. Farmers were told not to worry and that while they had the designation on it, they would be paid. For the first five years they were paid; there is no doubt about that. However, then they left the farmers high and dry with 36 different regulations on their lands.

The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, would be familiar with this. I have worked with the National Parks and Wildlife Service throughout the country to put farmers' minds at ease on rewetting. I give the Minister of State credit on this. The National Parks and Wildlife Service people went house by house to talk to farmers. I will acknowledge that. That needed to be done on the rewetting of raised bogs. We worked with them and it has been very successful, as the Minister of State will acknowledge. It is not that we are against all of this but I am totally against rewetting agricultural drained peatland for the simple reason that once that goes back to where it was, let no one tell me that it can be rewetted by a few inches. I have heard people say it does not mean farmers could not have cattle or whatever walking on it. I have learnt from the scientists - the National Parks and Wildlife Service has pretty good ones - that to bring peatland back to what it was, they need to bring the water level up but not to flood it. The word "flood" should never be used in this context. It should not be flooded but it needs to be moistened on top. No one can tell me that a bullock, a cow, a ewe or whatever will be running around. I heard the plan would be to have water buffalo; we would look well going down that road.

We might hear, "Oh well, sure we'll look after the farmer." However, what scheme goes beyond five years? Based on reading the Commission's proposal, once it is done it is done, goodbye, close the gate. It is not Deputies Fitzmaurice, Harkin and McNamara or others being unrealistic. When the Commission's proposal went to the fisheries committee, that committee kicked it out the door. The agriculture committee did the same. Deputy Harkin knows much more about Europe than I do. It is split down the middle which is very unusual because generally when a proposal goes in, they have rapporteurs who try to put it through.

A message needs to go out from the Government and from all politicians that in Ireland this year any farmer who wants to comply or wants to get what we used to call the single farm payment, now called basic income support for sustainability, BISS, must now put a minimum of 10% of land aside for what we call space for nature. If they do not do that, they no longer qualify for the eco scheme. Farmers are doing that - I have seen farms in the west of Ireland with 27% and 28% space for nature.

They are making their efforts in that regard. If we look at the Commission proposal, 10% would be especially protected. If we look up the meaning of that, we see that we currently have special protected areas under the habitats directive but this new proposal is saying clearly that people could not even walk on the land. I have looked at the proposal of the Council of Ministers. To be fair, it is a more realistic proposal and brings rewetting to probably 90,000 to 95,000 ha. The Government has stated clearly that Coillte and Bord na Móna would cover that. The problem is that I have correspondence from Bord na Móna stating that it estimates it will have about 40,000 ha. I have talked to Coillte, which, between rewilding and everything else, has 30,000 ha. What I am worried about is the gap after that.

No one is creating hysteria that this is going to be coming in tomorrow or next week, and I know Bord na Móna can pick up the slack on a certain amount of it. However, under the current proposals, and even under the Council of Ministers’ proposals, there are still obligations on the rewilding of hills. Every one of us comes from an area where there are hills so that needs teasing out. It needs to be stated clearly that no one would be obliged to do this on any privately owned hill or lowland.

We have been very realistic about this. Any Government down the road, or even next week if it wanted to, could do this by having a constant voluntary scheme over 30 or 35 years. I will not object to that and it is entirely up to a Government to do it. However, we need a clear path. People might ask why, if farmers got a few quid, they would be against it. The big problem is that in communities like the one I come from, whether people like it or not, there are full townlands that are basically peaty soil or reclaimed land, with farmers making a living, rearing families, sending kids to school and going down to the local shop and the local hardware. It is what we call a community. There is a fear in this regard. We know the age profile of farmers. Every one of us in this House is trying to make sure we encourage youngsters to take over farms because every door closed in a community or a local area is another bang to that community. In fairness, there is the derelict property grant and all of the different things to try to bring people back. People may end up in a situation where they do not have to look at cattle, sheep and cows, and they can even plant vegetables if they want, although a lot of the land would not be fit for that. However, if we look at the areas involved, they are predominantly areas with suckler cows and sheep.

We have seen the forestry targets and we know that what the Commission proposes would take out some 2 million acres. Let no one tell me it will be the Golden Vale where we go down and start rewetting because the soil quality is good. It is not going to be in the plains of Meath, where there is good quality land. The other day, I looked at the map showing water quality and I could see where the red and blue areas were, and so on. The Minister of State should have a look at the map of the peaty soil nature of the land. It goes from the top of Donegal, down through Monaghan, Cavan and that area, comes down through Longford, Offaly and a bit of Kildare, takes in all of the west and goes down through Clare and parts of Tipperary to Kerry, and there are pockets in other places, such as parts of west Cork. Outside of that, there are smaller pockets and I am not saying there are no other places, but the vast majority of the land is going to be in that area. If the Government is bringing in legislation, people in that area are going to be more adversely affected.

To be fair, Sinn Féin has put in an amendment that talks about social and economic analysis. The EU talks about this as well but it is kangaroo court stuff what the EU has done. It talks about a social and economic analysis, which means it rings up a few people, and that is it. Where was it done with the people in those areas? It was not done. I ask the Government to rethink rejecting this motion and putting in an amendment. What we have said is very clear and we are realistic and reasonable people. I ask the Government one thing. Whatever negotiations are going on in Europe and whatever promises are being made at the moment, who knows what will get through the Parliament? No one knows. It is Tweedledum and Tweedledee, this one and that one. No one knows. I do not think anyone can put their hand on their heart and say with the best will in the world what will happen.

The Council of Ministers’ proposal is the most reasonable but it needs to be tweaked because out there, the farming community is watching. The Minister has to give farmers those assurances. The one thing I ask is that the Minister of State say clearly that the Government will be put into any legislation that no privately owned land will be involved unless we bring out a voluntary scheme ourselves. That is very important. I will finish my points later in the debate but I now hand over to Deputy Pringle.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this motion on what is an extremely important law, the nature restoration law proposed by the European Commission. This is the most substantial nature legislation that has been put forward by the EU in decades and it comes as a result of the environmental crisis we have been facing and will continue to face for years to come. Because this legislation is so important, it is vital that the information presented today is correct, factual and in the best interests of all involved. The future of our environment involves every single one of us and it is for this reason that my aim today is to counteract the scaremongering and misinformation with verified information and scientific fact, as well as the realities faced by the farming community.

The report of the Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss, published in March of this year, found that over a quarter of Ireland’s regularly occurring bird species are in danger of extinction, at least one third of protected species are declining in population, almost 30% of our semi-natural grasslands have been lost in the last decade, less than half of our marine environment can be described as healthy, over 70% of our peatlands have a bad status and only a small fragment remains intact, the majority of our agricultural soil is in a suboptimal state, contaminated by nitrates and phosphates, and we are consistently losing our hedgerows. In addition, our water quality is continuing to decline, with almost 50% of freshwater systems in Ireland in poor and deteriorating condition.

These are the facts outlined by the report. There is no doubt that nature restoration is something that we have to do. It is essential that we restore biodiversity and bring our lands and water back to a condition where life can be sustainable in the long run. As the report states, “Without action, we will no longer be able to rely on nature for the very services we need to live.” It is devastating to me, then, that the importance of this has been completely undermined and the issue has been completely hijacked to create a farmer versus the environment debate. Let me make it clear that no one is closer to the environment than farmers are, and no one will benefit from nature restoration as much as farmers will. Our farmers know better than anyone the importance of addressing climate change and ensuring that the future of farming is protected.

I believe much of the controversy surrounding this law has been stirred up by big agri lobbyists and even some Government MEPs in order to scare the farming community out of supporting what is in their best interest. I do not blame the farming community for being anxious. Anyone who knows me or who has heard me in the Chamber knows that I am extremely sceptical of the EU. I have never shied away from criticising EU institutions and the proposals they put forward. I understand more than most the distrust towards the EU. I understand that farmers make an income from their peatlands so, of course, they are going to be anxious about any proposals to change how they are used. However, I want to assure farmers that under the nature restoration law, they will not be forced to rewet their peatlands, and any suggestion otherwise from politicians is either disingenuous or wrong.

In fact, the nature restoration law does not address specific implementation at all. It only sets the targets. Suggestions in this motion that the law gives any instruction on implementation are not true. The truth is that the Government has complete flexibility regarding implementation at national level, but it will hide behind the EU, as it does when it taxes people. The law allows member states to determine for themselves how best to achieve the targets as they relate to national circumstances. It is up to the Government how this law is implemented. The law merely sets the targets.

It is completely disingenuous for Government MEPs and the Taoiseach to mislead farmers and the wider public on this. If the Taoiseach really was unhappy with the legislation, why did his MEPs not table a single amendment to it in the EU? The nature restoration law does not force farmers to rewet their lands. In fact, it does not mention farmers at all. If the Government wanted to, it could decide not to involve farmers altogether. We do not need to involve them. The proposal looks for Ireland to rewet approximately 116,000 ha by 2050. Bord na Móna has already committed to rewetting 80,000 ha and Coillte has committed to rewetting 30,000 ha. They alone will meet the Irish target without touching farmers, but why has this not been communicated? The law reads:

The method and scope of restoration, maintenance and compensation measures chosen by Member States to implement the Regulation will determine more precisely which, how and when stakeholders are affected. The possible short-term costs linked with loss of income that certain population groups such as farmers, forest owners or fishers may incur while they transition to more sustainable practices could be partially or totally covered under EU and other sources funding.

The State can decide what happens in this context and how people will be compensated. Even if the Government decided to include farmers, it would be the choice of farmers whether to sign up for rewetting and they would be compensated for doing so. Despite the misinformation being spread, nobody would be forced to do anything. So long as our Government implements the directive effectively and properly, farmers can be protected.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Dara Calleary)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:

"notes:

— the need to reverse the decline in nature and biodiversity, and to ensure the resilience of our planet and our food production;

— the work underway to develop the Nature Restoration Regulation at a European level, and the compromise text, agreed by the Council of the European Union, on a proposal for a Nature Restoration Law; and

— the upcoming negotiations between the European institutions; and

supports the development of a Nature Restoration Regulation, which both protects nature and ensures the future vitality and viability of Irish farming and rural communities.".

I thank Deputies Fitzmaurice, Harkin and McNamara for tabling this important motion. I acknowledge their bona fides in doing so and the fact that they have contributed to a constructive debate on the matter.

The upcoming Montreal global biodiversity framework, which the EU and its member states signed up to at COP15 in December, contains goals and targets to protect and restore nature that will guide national biodiversity strategic action plans throughout the world in the coming years. The EU biodiversity strategy likewise calls for targets and transformative action to restore biodiversity in Europe. One of the commitments under that strategy is to make a proposal on legally binding EU nature restoration targets. The proposed regulation on nature restoration, also known as the nature restoration law, aims to fulfil this commitment. It is significant EU legislation and will have an impact on all areas of society, not just farming. It will produce restoration targets across a wide range of land uses throughout rural and urban environments, including lands in agricultural use and under forestry as well as the marine.

Ireland supports the ambition and principles underpinning the proposal, but it has worked continuously with the EU Presidency and other member states to produce a version of the regulation that strikes a balance between keeping the ambitious goals for nature restoration originally proposed by the Commission and providing flexibility for member states in the regulation’s implementation while keeping a level playing field and reducing the administrative burden. Ireland’s effort, among others, has resulted in a European Council general approach that sees significant flexibility in the requirements, including a softening of the targets in respect of the restoration of agricultural lands, an alignment of the marine requirements with the marine strategy framework directive, and a move from targets to trend-based evidence in respect of urban ecosystems. Ireland voted in favour of the Council Presidency’s proposals at the ministerial Council meeting in Luxembourg on 20 June. They now form the Council’s general approach, as endorsed by the member states. Ireland will continue to work closely with EU colleagues and institutions to seek clarity on alignment and correlation between nature, food, fisheries, agriculture, climate, energy and transport policies at Union level.

I will try to address the specific concerns raised in the motion. The restoration of habitats, particularly drained agricultural peatlands, is of concern to farmers. However, restoration does not necessarily mean the cessation of current land use. Rather, it is an opportunity to work with landowners in order to reach agreed restoration objectives. The definition of “rewetting” proposed in the general approach is a process of changing a drained peat soil into a wet soil. This definition allows Ireland to determine for ourselves what “rewetting” means in our national circumstances. In addition, targets for the restoration of peatlands have been moderated to 30% of drained peatlands under agricultural use by 2030, with one quarter of the area to be rewetted. This increases to 40% by 2040 and 50% by 2050, with half of the area to be rewetted and the remainder to be restored through other methods. The general approach also includes an agreed new paragraph that allows member states that are heavily affected to apply a lower percentage to the rewetting requirement.

In Ireland, the estimated amount of drained peatland under agricultural use is approximately 332,000 ha. When the targets I have set out are applied, this means that we will have an obligation to rewet just under 25,000 ha by 2030. Allowing for the flexibilities in the proposal, this is lower than the restoration targets already set out in policy under the national Climate Action Plan, which includes a commitment to rewet 33,000 ha of Bord na Móna land by 2030 and 77,600 ha overall. In addition, the Commission has confirmed that the restoration works under way at the time the regulation comes into force can count towards targets. This means that the commitment to 77,600 ha of peatland rehabilitation using Bord na Móna lands under the Climate Action Plan can count towards overall restoration targets if that work is under way by the time the regulation comes into effect. In turn, this could reduce the demand on landowners.

It has always been, and continues to be, the Government’s position that any contribution to rewetting targets by private landowners will be voluntary and incentivised. This has been stated publicly several times at various forums. The nature and scale of the incentives will be developed as part of the development of the national nature restoration plan.

On the specific question that Deputy Fitzmaurice raised about the protection of current practices such as hill grazing, the definition in the regulation relates to putting measures in place to restore habitat areas listed in annex No. 1 of the habitats directive where there have been known losses. Many of the habitats, such as heaths and grasslands, depend on sustainable agricultural practices such as grazing to maintain them.

Regarding the concerns raised about rewetting's adverse effects on adjoining lands, I draw the House’s attention to the site-specific restoration plan for the raised bog natural heritage areas that have been developed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, and the Department using the most up-to-date scientific methodologies available and best practice models gained from other projects, such as Coillte, EU LIFE and Bord na Móna’s restoration programme. Restoration plans have been developed to ensure that restoration work’s impact on surrounding agricultural land is kept to a minimum. By raising the water table, it is not intended to flood the land, but to ensure that it remains wet enough to encourage the growth of sphagnum moss within a protected site. In order to help allay concerns about the potential impact of restoration on areas of land adjacent to the now designated bogs, the NPWS has developed drainage management plans for raised bog special areas of conservation, SACs, as part of the national restoration programme. These plans ensure that water flow paths are assessed and potential impacts on adjacent lands are remediated.

There is still a need for clarity around issues of alignment and correlation between nature, food, fisheries, agriculture, climate, energy and transport policies at a Union level as well as a need to align the EU regional goals and targets with international commitments.

These areas will be clarified as we work towards developing nature restoration plans. Ireland will continue to engage with the Commission and colleagues in other member states in this regard.

The proposed regulation provides an opportunity for transformative change in achieving nature restoration in Ireland and the EU as a whole. However, planning and achieving the legally-binding targets set out within the timescales given will be challenging and will require considerable effort and additional capacity to develop. The next steps will include a requirement for each key Department, including the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, to undertake as a priority an analysis of the likely sectoral impacts in order to inform a coherent national impact assessment, including the economic costs arising, as relevant. This will include a full national impact assessment of the proposals, including those economic costs. I will draw the Minister's attention to Deputy Fitzmaurice's proposal around the social costs as well. Each key Department will need to allocate the necessary resources and expertise to engage fully in the development of the national restoration plan, its implementation and monitoring, and reporting on the required actions thereafter in accordance with the timeframes and milestones agreed as part of the regulation.

No one is in doubt, as the Government amendment states, that there is an urgent need to reverse the decline in nature and biodiversity. However, we will do this with continued engagement with stakeholders from across all sectors and in this process that is a fundamental element of the development of the national restoration plan.

Deputy Marian Harkin

The Ministers of State and the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach will have to be patient. I am recovering from a bad bout of laryngitis but I have to speak on this motion. This regulation is the most profound and far-reaching legislation on land use change ever proposed by the European Commission. Even though they do not know it, it will impact every man, woman and child, both rural and urban, in terms of land use, planning and infrastructural planning. It will significantly impact settlement patterns along with urban, rural and regional development. I am sorry to have to say this, but the Government decided that it was worth just 90 words of an amendment that contains no commitments and is completely bland. I do not often stand up in this House and strongly criticise responses because, while they may be unsatisfactory, at least some of the time an effort is made to address the issues set out in the motion. However, the Government amendment sidesteps the core issues, avoids the hard questions and glosses over the critical issues that must be answered. In plain, old-fashioned paternalistic political speak, it is basically saying, "Don't worry, boys and girls; we will look after you." The Minister of State and I both know that will not cut it. Those 90 words do not give any commitments that people want to hear today. I have listened to many politicians and commentators talk about this proposal. I have heard them engage in scaremongering and try to portray people who question the Commission's proposal as not caring about the environment. We do care. What we really care about is having good legislation to underpin the policies. The Commission's proposal was not that. Its aims are good, but what we need to examine is the where, when, who and how. That is all we are doing today.

A little bit of context never goes astray. Three committees in the European Parliament could not agree any common position on this legislation. Two rejected it outright and the third was evenly split, so no proposal will go to the plenary sitting in July or September. I spent 15 years in the European Parliament and I never saw that happen to any legislation, let alone important legislation. Even on the services directive, which was horrible legislation initially, some sort of position was taken in the Parliament. That tells us that this legislation, despite its good intentions, is flawed. That is being generous. We will hear cheap shots being made about the European People's Party ruling the roost. It has 176 seats out of 705, less than 25% of the Parliament. If three committees cannot come to an agreed position and two reject the legislation outright, that tells us that this is a position that broadly reflects the view of the Parliament. While I am no longer involved in the day-to-day workings of the European Parliament, I am told that this proposal will struggle to get through in any shape or form. It may get through but it will struggle. That is no basis for agreement or any kind of conciliation.

To be fair, the Council of Ministers has made a reasonable effort at reining in the overreach and competence creep of the Commission in this case, and has produced a common position that could form the basis of an agreement. I am not sure how Ireland contributed. All I heard from our Ministers was that they were gung ho. Perhaps we have to thank the Belgians, Austrians, Dutch, Poles, Finns, Italians, Danes and Swedes for injecting some reason and perspective into this discussion. Now, at least, we have reached a point where there is a document with a wafer-thin majority in support of it. In order to take this through on qualified majority voting in the Council, those in favour had to represent 65% of the population of the EU. In fact, they represent 66.13%. The majority is wafer-thin and includes Denmark, which only supported this proposal at the end. It has serious concerns about paying farmers for restoration. For many countries, including Ireland, I am led to believe that is an important issue. Why is there no mention of recompensing farmers in the Government's 90-word amendment? The Minister of State has said already that it needs to happen. Why is there no Government commitment to do so in the amendment? Why is there no word on voluntary participation in any schemes? Again, that is something that has been mentioned time and again. Where is the Government commitment to this today? Is there no agreement between Government parties on it? Why did the Government not at least add another 90 words to its amendment and make some definite commitments? I am not talking about the Minister of State or another Minister. Why could the Government not make commitments to those whose lives, livelihoods and communities will be most affected?

Many people are concentrating on the issue of rewetting the land, and I can see why. It took generations to drain that land to support farm families. Now, the Commission proposal and, to a lesser extent, the Council proposal would see significant tracts of land rewetted. As Deputy Fitzmaurice said, what we are looking at here are drained organic soils, and we know where they are in the country. They are along the Atlantic coast, in the north west, west and south west, in parts of the midlands and some pockets elsewhere. The Minister of State came to Leitrim. I thank him for his work on Shass Mountain. He did good work. However, when he came down on his first visit, I pointed out to him the biodiversity that was all around us. There is extensive farming in most of these areas. Yet, under this proposal, they would be the areas hit first and hardest. Again, we have to ask if this is making sense and if it will deliver.

It important to state that the Council position is the position of only one of the three legislative bodies. Why, for example, could the Government not guarantee, in its amendment to the motion, that all Coillte and Bord na Móna lands will be available for rewetting when the time comes? I do not know about the Minister of State, but I will not be here when the time comes for that to happen. I wonder if people will hear, at that time, that there are challenges and issues. I want to hear the Government's position on this.

While much of this debate is on rewetting, the major commitments are on restoring habitats and ecosystems.

That is where the rubber will hit the road. If we look at the definition of "restoration" in Article 3.3, which I do not have time to go through but I know the Minister of State has read, "good condition" in Article 3.4 and "favourable reference area" in Article 3.5, we see quite strict criteria laid down. This was a regulation. If we link that to Article 4, which we must, because it gives us the restoration targets, 90% of the area of each group of habitat type listed in annex 1 currently not in good condition must be restored by then.

Crucially, Article 4.2 is further refined in Article 11.2(a). However, we see that, for example, if we take hill lands, which are common lands in the part of the country I represent and largely originally peatlands, we see there could be a legal requirement on a farmer to re-establish them from an agricultural ecosystem or grassland back to an annex 1 heathland. Article 11 is very clear. I do not have time to read it, but it goes through the habitat types and favourable reference areas going back as far as 70 years, in other words, not what it is now but what it was 70 years ago where the Council is talking about historical distribution. This regulation needs to be totally tightened up. I want to hear the Government clearly articulate the Irish position and what it proposes to do. The Minister of State cannot guarantee the European position, I know that, but I still do not know what the Government position is, particularly on Articles 3, 4 and 11, which I have spoken about here.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Pauline Tully)

I ask Deputy Kerrane to move the Sinn Féin amendment to the Government amendment.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1:

To insert the following after "supports the development of a Nature Restoration Regulation, which":

"ensures that:

— public participation underpins the whole nature restoration planning process;

— any such schemes that are developed are voluntary and not mandatory;

— those who undertake the nature restoration measures are financially supported to do so;

— all such plans shall be subject to socio-economic impact assessment; and

— public bodies are mandated and legally obliged to engage with farmers and landowners on adjacent lands where those bodies undertake rewetting and provide assurances that, where there may be unintended consequences from this rewetting, remedial works be carried out; and

which".

I welcome this motion and commend the Independent Group for bringing it forward. It is really timely and important that we have this debate given that the vote will take place in a matter of days at this point. Obviously, it is clear from the debate this morning and from previous statements that were made in this House a number of weeks ago that we all agree there is a very obvious decline in biodiversity, and we all agree on the need for us to work to prevent any further decline and improve it as much as we possibly can.

Of course, it is also important to say that farmers are not against this objective. They are the very ones who have looked after and minded the land across this State for generations. How we implement the law and what that law actually looks like, however, and the impact that it will have on farmers and communities right across the State, is the issue we have. We have to remember, and it has been mentioned previously, that the EU has form here, which we saw previously with the habitats directive. Lessons have to be learned by Europe with regard to that directive when it comes to any new law and particularly this law. There is an onus now on our Irish MEPs to play their part, and on Europe, to get this right.

The initial text on which this law was first published, which will be voted on next week, was never going to be acceptable. It ignored land ownership by seeking mandatory rewetting and tried to insist on farmers once again doing more without any intention of putting actual adequate funding in place in the first place. This was totally unworkable. Concerns raised at that time, and which remain, are genuine and we make no mistake in listening to farmers or acting on their behalf. If we did not do that then that would be a mistake. That is why we supported the rejection of the law at the agriculture committee in the EU. From an agricultural perspective, which was the job of that committee to determine, the law was absolutely intolerable. Despite this, we worked constructively. We did not simply reject the law. We did not walk away. We tabled 19 amendments to address concerns expressed to us by farmers. We supported the compromise text in the latest vote as it included the very amendments we put forward and sought. These amendments are reflected in the amendment we put forward this morning to the Government amendment. It provides an explicit obligation that rewetting be voluntary, not mandatory; national restoration plans must provide for a socioeconomic impact of the implementation of the restoration measures; compensation schemes for farmers and landowners who choose to undertake nature restoration measures; a new chapter on funding, including a mandate for a permanent dedicated nature restoration fund outside of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, to provide additional financial support for farmers and others involved in nature restoration; and a new chapter on public participation meaning that farmers, fishers, foresters, the business community, civil society, landowners, land users and the general public must be engaged in the preparation, review and implementation of Ireland’s national restoration plan. These are our red lines: voluntary, not mandatory; public participation in our own national plan from start to finish; permanent funding outside of CAP; and a national socioeconomic impact assessment to be carried out on any measures proposed.

Included in our amendment is addressing that issue raised by the farmers in the midlands, of which the Minister of State is aware, not just to say that adjacent lands will not be adversely affected by rewetting on State lands, as proposed in the motion, but to add to it that if there are unintended consequences by rewetting on State lands, remedial works will be undertaken. That is what the farmers in the midlands have sought. That is fair and proper. It should be addressed by the Government, and it has not been addressed to date. I have raised it here previously, as have colleagues. If this is not addressed then the Government will add to the worry and fear that is there already. Let us not, therefore, let that situation go out of control altogether. Let us deal with it now that it has been raised as an issue.

We have been constructive at EU level. We have tabled amendments at every opportunity that has been available to us, and we will do likewise here. The Government in its amendment to this motion still does not outline its commitment and proposal with regard to what is now the greatest challenge for Europe and the State to get this right. It is regrettable that it has not done that in its amendment to the motion.

Deputy Darren O'Rourke

I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion and this urgent issue today, which is the EU's nature restoration law that addresses the crisis in biodiversity, and we have a crisis in biodiversity. Some 85% of Ireland's habitats are in inadequate or poor states. Despite the green image of our island, our forest cover stands at just 11%. This pales in comparison to the European average of 35%. The number of near pristine river sites in Ireland has declined from more than 500 in the 1980s to just 32 today. Many species are declining rapidly or becoming extinct. Almost one third of our protected species are declining in population. Some 63% of Irish bird species are on a list of concern with 37% on the amber list and 26% on the red list. There has been a colossal 40% drop in our watering birds since the late 1990s. These are detrimental facts. To add to this, more than half of Ireland's native plants are in decline.

We are in a state of biodiversity emergency. Without decisive action to restore nature, our future and that of future generations is under threat. We all must act to protect nature. Our future and that of other generations depend on it. On that there must be no question. The question before us, therefore, is not about if we do this but rather how we do this.

For Sinn Féin, it must be a question of pathways, not cliff edges, incentives and rewards rather than punishments, and partnership and engagement rather than adversary and division. That is the basis of a just transition that ensures that no-one is left behind. The nature restoration law has the potential to be an important part of this journey, but we must make sure we get it right. A critical component of this is that farmers and rural communities are seen as essential partners in this process. They must be recognised and valued for their contribution as custodians of the land.

The Government amendment is so broad as to be meaningless. It does not address the concerns that have been raised by very many people who are committed to see the type of nature restoration that is needed.

It is not enough for the Government to dismiss those concerns as it so often has. It must address them and must provide assurances that those concerns are being heard and will be addressed. That is why Sinn Féin has tabled our amendment to the Government's amendment, to strengthen it and actually address the concerns that have been raised.

There is a specific concern about public participation, to ensure that public participation underpins the whole nature restoration planning process, and a concern that any schemes are voluntary, not mandatory. I listened closely to the Minister of State's closing contribution. I heard him on radio recently, saying that provision could not be provided at a European level and the State would only aspire to it in the future. That is not strong enough. I will listen to the Minister of State's closing contribution and I want to hear clear commitments that these schemes will be voluntary rather than mandatory. The concern is that this will be imposed and that a bureaucrat will draw lines on a map, whereas if it is voluntary, it puts pressure on the State to design schemes to ensure that people will opt into it. That is the preferable proposition. I think it is the only way that this will be done. By doing that, one can address concerns and ensure that the farming community can come on board with this and play the active part that it wants to play.

We also seek to ensure that those who undertake the nature restoration measures are financially supported to do so and that all such plans would have a socioeconomic impact assessment. We seek to ensure that public bodies are mandated and legally obliged to engage with farmers and landowners on adjacent lands where those bodies undertake rewetting and provide assurances and financial supports, and that where there are unintended consequences, remedial works will be carried out to address those concerns and to do so in partnership rather than in an adversarial way.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

We need a nature restoration law but like all laws, it needs to be workable. There were significant issues relating to this in its inception. I accept that considerable work has been done. That is the idea of negotiation and politics. We get to something that works. I would like to think that nobody is going to stand up and say that we are not in the middle of a biodiversity crisis. The figure about 1 million species facing extinction will not leave my head. In fairness to Deputy O'Rourke, he laid out the particular key performance indicators, KPIs, that are not going in the right direction in this State and across this island. That is what we need.

It is fair to say that public participation is a necessity. It makes absolute sense. We all know about the issue across the board with the farming community and others. They realise the issues and want to work on them but the problem is that we have not had much co-operation and at times, whether in here or outside, people just shout at each other and work for particular constituencies, which is not always helpful. If we are going to put schemes in play, there needs to be funding. That makes absolute sense. Moreover, it has to be outside the Common Agricultural Policy. There will be unintended consequences. What we are saying about rewetting makes sense, which is that it is voluntary and not mandatory. If there are unintended consequences from the rewetting of public lands, these issues should be dealt with. Regarding the socioeconomic impact, of course it makes sense for any plan that is put in place to have the ability to be revised and checked on the basis of how it has an impact.

I will say something about farmers that I have said before. This State, the Department, Teagasc and others went out to agriculture consultants and others and asked them at one point 20 years ago if they knew any young fellows who would be interested in being dairy farmers. They made incentives and went out and hunted. If the Minister of State wants to bring about changes, he will have to engage with farmers and rural communities properly.

Deputy Patricia Ryan

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion on the EU restoration law. It is our collective responsibility to safeguard protected areas and to nurture biodiversity, as without it, farming is not possible. However, the balance between preserving our natural world and ensuring the livelihoods of our farmers remain uncompromised is critical. They have, after all, been on the front line of our battle against climate change. As we scrutinise this law, it is incumbent on the Government and State bodies to shoulder their responsibility robustly. We cannot in good conscience place the entire weight of nature restoration on our hardworking farmers. Their contribution to this cause is undeniable but the lion's share should not fall solely on their shoulders. The engagement of our farmers in nature restoration should be a shared commitment, centred around volunteerism.

Therefore, Sinn Féin's amendment would ensure that public participation forms a cornerstone of our nature restoration plan and process. We seek a voluntary, not obligatory, model where farmers and other land users actively elect to contribute, hence our second amendment provision insists that the schemes developed are discretionary. For those who choose this path, our third amendment proposes adequate financial support as the incentive and reward for their added efforts. This approach will stimulate widespread public participation and inspire other communities and members to contribute. However, the integration of ecological and economic considerations remains a pressing concern. To address this, we propose a provision in the amendment demanding a socioeconomic impact assessment for all plans. Only by understanding the implications can we craft solutions that are fair, efficient and sustainable. Finally, we propose a critical provision in the amendment obligating State bodies to collaborate with farmers and landowners on adjacent lands for any rewetting initiatives. We must provide assurances that if there are any unforeseen consequences, remedial actions will promptly follow.

We believe in the principles underpinning the draft regulation. However, with these focused and considered amendments, we can strive for balance, nurture public participation, and ensure a solution that resonates with all stakeholders. Let us strive for restoration, not in isolation but as a community united in purpose.

Deputy Thomas Gould

Academic studies have shown that when people are included and empowered to impact climate change interventions, they become much more successful. Far too much of this Government's approach to climate change is to put one group against another. This motion is here today because members of the farming community are scared for their livelihoods and because they have not been consulted, engaged with or included. I commend my party colleagues, Deputies Kerrane and O'Rourke, on the amendment they tabled that would see proper consultation take place on these proposals and ensure that we all work together, because we have to work together. We cannot see farmers lose out on business because the Government refuses to engage or listen.

I live in an area that has below-average tree density and a severe lack of green spaces. In parts of Cork city, the only place you will find diverse habitats is when you go to derelict buildings that are falling down and overgrown. The Government talks a lot about what ordinary people need to do to fight climate change but there is an opportunity for the Government to invest in communities that need this, like Knocknaheeny, Farranree, Gurranebraher and areas of Mayfield, to restore nature to local communities in a real, impactful way. The benefits would be twofold. You would see an increase in habitats and biodiversity but also a decrease in people having to get into their cars to drive to parks far away, when they should be able to stay locally. Across Cork city, there is not an option for many families and they have to drive to a park. That does not make sense.

There is an urban-rural divide on climate issues. The Government needs to bring people together. We all need to work on this together and empower the change. As the Minister of State knows, Cork is a city that has been prone to flooding. One recommendation that has existed for years is to plant native trees upland to help to soak up the water, to slow it down before it floods the city, as well as for carbon uptake. This has not happened. We have been talking about it for decades and still we are here. We need to move ahead with that.

Deputy Martin Browne

I thank the Independent Group for tabling this Private Member's business and Deputies Kerrane and O'Rourke for the amendment.

Urgent action is needed to address the fact that when it comes to our climate, future generations are under threat but the manner in which the nature restoration plan was initially presented rightly caused considerable concern among farmers and rural communities. When the initial text was published, questions arose as to whether rewetting would be an obligation or voluntary, why a socioeconomic impact assessment of the implementation of the restoration measures had not been carried out and whether compensation or funding for farmers would be involved. We called this out because Sinn Féin does not support mandatory rewetting and we believe those who are carrying out the work must be incentivised and rewarded.

Furthermore, the State has an essential role to play in any rewetting efforts. State lands and State agencies must lead from the front. We were constructive, therefore, in our subsequent engagements in Europe and the following measures have since been included: a definition of rewetting and an explicit obligation that it be voluntary for farmers; a requirement for national restoration plans to provide for an estimated socioeconomic impact of the implementation of the restoration measures; compensation schemes for farmers and others who choose to undertake nature restoration measures; a new chapter on funding, including a mandate for a permanent, dedicated nature restoration fund to provide additional financial support for those involved in nature restoration; and a new chapter on public participation, meaning all stakeholders and communities must be engaged in the preparation, review and implementation of the plan.

Fine Gael’s group, the European People's Party, EPP, and others on the right rejected what we had engaged and pushed for. They rejected new funding for our producers, a socioeconomic impact assessment, a guarantee that rewetting would be voluntary and public participation. Why did they do this? It is too serious for our farmers, and it is too serious with regard to climate action. All is not done yet. The matter will now go to a plenary session at the European Parliament, and we will fight to strengthen the Council’s amended position for our farmers and rural communities. We will do this for our rural communities and our climate targets.

Monday was the hottest day globally ever recorded. Action is needed now, and if we work together on this, we can secure nature restoration that strikes the correct balance, and farmers and rural communities will not be left carrying the burden. Moreover, we can contribute to measures aimed at mitigating the climate burden future generations will have to carry.

Deputy Holly Cairns

The nature restoration law is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the EU to take action on the massive loss in biodiversity over recent decades. The intention of the law to restore damaged ecosystems to a healthy state in Ireland and throughout Europe, and to attempt to prevent the collapse of our wildlife and slow the progress of the climate crisis. The measure will cover at least 20% of the EU's lands and sea areas by 2030 and, ultimately, all ecosystems in need of restoration by 2050.

At this point, however, we do not know what the finalised law will be or whether it will even be passed when it goes forward to a vote of all 705 MEPs on 11 July. If it is fatally undermined, there will be plenty of blame to go around because there has been an incredible level of scaremongering with regard to its content, with the rewetting of peatlands being the main point of tension. I can understand the confusion and worry of many farmers with regard to this law. Farmers deserve clarity and reassurance on the potential impact the process will have on them, their land and their livelihoods. Over recent months, the law has been through several committees of the European Parliament, with roughly 2,500 amendments proposed, so it is no wonder people are trying to keep up with the progress and are unclear as to what is going on.

This confusion has been made much worse, however, by the spread of misinformation by politicians within the process, that is, politicians who should know better. The most serious opposition has come from the EPP, the grouping Fine Gael calls home at the European Parliament, which has led the effort to block the Bill on committee stage. It is concerning to see centre-right parties, including Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, move to the right on climate issues at the European Parliament. Unfortunately, they are not alone in taking an environmentally unfriendly stance. Sinn Féin's Chris MacManus voted against one of the most important items of EU legislation in the Union's history at the agriculture committee. He said there was too much ambiguity about the impact the law would have on farmers. A question I keep coming back to is why MEPs from Government parties are fighting against measures proposed by the nature restoration law, while simultaneously backing their own climate action plan, which is more ambitious on targets for biodiversity than the ones they rail against at the EU. The coalition parties appear to be odds with one another on the issue. The Minister of State has indicated nature restoration will happen, whereas the Taoiseach believes it goes too far and it is not clear where the Government as a whole stands on this issue.

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 more frequent and hazardous weather events and the increasing destruction of our planet. To date, we have not done a fraction of what is required. Ireland's emissions are increasing, not decreasing and if we continue on our current path, it will result in the unthinkable. The scale of biodiversity damage is frightening. Figures from the National Parks and Wildlife Service show 91% of protected habitats are in poor or inadequate condition and more than 50% are declining, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. Half of our rivers, lakes and coastal waters are ecologically substandard, with 18.5% of monitored rivers severely polluted. The recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss are unequivocal. They urge the State to take prompt, decisive and urgent action to address biodiversity loss and restoration and seek leadership on protecting Ireland's biodiversity for future generations. On the nature restoration law, such leadership has, sadly, been lacking in many parties.

The nature restoration law is a direct response to the climate and biodiversity crises. The proposal acknowledges that certain groups, such as farmers, will be impacted more than others, and consequently, national EU funding is proposed as part of its implementation. Many of the fears surrounding the law are unfounded. The Government's own climate action plan commits to peatland restoration. In fact, as the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine pointed out, the commitments on rewetting peatland can be met on State-owned land, and it is absolutely vital those commitments be met. When these bogs were in their natural condition, the carbon within the bog was contained. Once they were drained, the same carbon they once stored was released into the atmosphere. According to the International Peatland Society, Ireland’s peatlands are estimated to emit the equivalent of about 8.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. Bringing these bogs back to a state where they can once again store carbon is essential for meeting our climate targets and restoring the native biodiversity that used to flourish on these lands.

The targets are relatively modest. The 2030 targets under the law are lower than the coalition's own targets and lower than those set out in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine's Acclimatize programme. It is astounding that we are debating targets that are lower than the ones we have already set in Ireland, ones that have been set by some of the very parties that are arguing so strongly against them at the EU. This narrative being created around rewetting proposals in the Bill, whereby the Government will acquire private lands by compulsory purchase order, CPO, or destroy farmland, is not backed up by fact. Rather, the nature restoration law has the potential to be transformative. It will provide new funding streams for farmers to ensure the viability of farming long into the future.

To be clear, there will be no future for farming unless we protect our ecosystems and our biodiversity. Comments from elected representatives regarding how any kind of climate action is bad for Irish agriculture, is irresponsible and so on contribute to a narrative that results in the people and communities who will be most affected by climate change being the most reluctant to take climate action. When these conversations happen, you would swear farming communities have nothing at stake in respect of climate action, but the opposite is true. Arguably, they 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 crises, including many farmers I speak to, so I find it deeply frustrating when this discussion pits farmer against farmer and farmers against environmentalists. It presumes farmers either do not care or perhaps do not understand the impact of climate change.

This is insulting to farming communities and it is also simply untrue.

Finally, I must ask the Deputies in this Chamber who oppose the nature restoration law what their plan is for the agriculture sector if we fail to take climate action. Where do they see the future of the industry if we keep letting emissions rise and allow soil degradation to continue, alongside more and more biodiversity loss? Our planet is facing an existential crisis. The debate on climate change and biodiversity loss deserves nothing less than honesty, at least from our politicians.

Deputy Bríd Smith

I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about this subject again. It seems to me that there is a bit of a competition in the House on the nature restoration law with various groups wanting to prove they are the ones most opposed to it. This is the second time in a week we have had a lengthy motion essentially calling for an outright rejection of the proposed nature restoration law. One must wonder what nature did to deserve such attention. At least this motion differs from last week's motion where we had a conjuring up of a lurid fantasy of 200,000 cattle being culled in the fields of Ireland.

This is an odd fish because in many parts it is hard to disagree with. It states some basic facts but then ends with just as determined a call for total rejection and demands that various guarantees are inserted. Oddly enough, from my understanding of the proposed and modest law, guarantees are already there to ensure that any rewetting of bogs, for example, is voluntary. This motion, at least, does acknowledge that there is a biodiversity crisis, before going on to explain that it is not as urgent as to require any actual actions, and that anyway it is not just the fault of agriculture - it is the fault of forestry, of invasive species, of urbanisation, and so on. If anyone and everyone is responsible, really it is no one's fault, and certainly nobody can be asked to do anything about it. It seems that Deputies might support a cull on mink as a response, but do not ask them to reduce the dairy herd or even think of restoring the already supposedly protected sites for nature. That would be going too far.

It is odd that having identified the forestry policy as one of the multiple pressures on nature, the motion does not explain why a commercial monoculture policy that has planted an invasive species on lands and bogs for commercial profit has damaged nature here, or why the State's forestry arm, Coillte, is one of the greatest forces for harm to nature and how its latest deal with Gresham House Investments ensures the hardening of policy in the years ahead.

It is also odd that the motion forgets to mention the EU Commission's state of nature report for 2020, which specifically emphasises the negative impact of intensive agriculture, with farmland birds and pollinator habitats being particularly affected. As one of the report's authors said at the time, the report "drives home quite how urgent action has become to save what’s left of Europe’s nature”.

It is worth saying again for the record that we are living in an era of a sixth mass extinction event. The Deputies who propose this and other motions were, like myself, lucky enough to be born at a time of greater species diversity, of greater numbers of pollinators and of lower CO2 levels. We have a sense of what the loss is, or least we should have that sense, because we can see it in real time in the decline of nature all around us. The younger generation, unfortunately, will not know of this, aside from documentaries or records kept in a museum.

If one is arguing here that this law is not good enough, then fair enough. There is, however, a moral, social and political duty on us to propose an alternative, to acknowledge the great and devastating harm done and being done to nature, and to address the issue. The motion here does, at least, address what causes the damage but only to claim that agriculture should not be asked to shoulder a disproportionate burden of any measure. What do we mean by agriculture, especially here in Ireland? I have never heard these Deputies acknowledge that there is a huge class divide in agriculture; mention that farm incomes have such a huge spread of inequality, with many earning less than €10,000 or €20,000 per year while others can earn up to €100,000 or €200,000; or discuss the geographic aspect to that inequality.

We have a broken and unsustainable model of agriculture here that is punishing many ordinary farmers. It has done so for years by pushing a type of intensive dairy model that has enriched a few and made the lives of many farmers more precarious. Addressing the nature and climate crises could be an opportunity to address that inequality and to allow family farms and sustainable agriculture to thrive. It could take on the vested interests of the processors and retailers, for example. It could move away from the insane policy of growing the dairy herd, with all its negative impacts on water quality and on sustainable farming. It could reward farmers for actually feeding the world and not insist they create markets abroad for dairy products.

Once again, this motion taps into the fear that farmers and farming communities feel. Some of that fear is deliberately stoked up with false and misleading takes on this and other measures, but the fears are real. Poorer and smaller farmers rightly fear that they will be asked to make the changes in order to allow larger and more damaging dairy practices, for example, to continue and that rewetting would be banked so carbon credits will allow Goodman-type enterprises to continue with business as usual. This is not a wholly irrational fear. Farmers have seen how this State, at all levels, will push the vested interests of a minority of the rich and wealthy regardless of its impact on our environment or on the majority of farmers.

When ones takes away the bluff and bluster in this and previous motions, what we have is a call for the status quo to remain. While nature may be dying before our eyes, the central message here is not to do anything to address it and certainly not to try to change the business model that has served a few so well.

As I said last week, there is much to be angry about in rural Ireland, including the policies this Government has implemented, with climate change and nature loss among them. Years ago a popular piece of graffiti was doing the rounds. It was an image of a bee and it was saying "If I go, you’re coming with me". It meant that if we lose keystone species like bees - if they perish - our future is in doubt. We are a part of nature. The demand to preserve the status quo is a demand to continue the slide into the sixth great extinction event. It does not stop with bees and all Members here would do well to remember that.

Deputy Seán Canney

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. I welcome the staff from the Tuam office who are here today to do some training, and also Rory from County Derry who has joined us as well.

I must first compliment Deputies Fitzmaurice and Harkin and the group for bringing forward this motion. It is timely that we discuss this in an open and forthright way. There is a lot of fear, anxiety and worry among farmers on what the future holds for them, especially for young farmers who are deciding whether to get into farming or to go out working while farming part-time. Some of the issues arise because the communication process is not very well attended to. This leaves the place open for every kind of conjecture and every kind of fear to be put in place.

I am disappointed in the Government's response today because the motion we are discussing relates to how we protect farmers and their livelihoods, while at the same time having climate action measures which we all accept are needed.

The request in this motion is to bring in legislation to ensure no private lands will have to be rewetted, which is a very simple ask. If someone wants to do it on a voluntary basis, they can do it on a voluntary basis if the compensation measures are there and it is worth their while to do it. The Government keeps saying there are enough public lands that can be rewetted to meet the requirement up to 2050. If that is the case, why can we not enshrine in legislation that private farms will not have to be used unless the farmer does it voluntarily? Why can we not build that into legislation? This is a very reasonable thing to ask. The motion in the House today is very reasonable.

I heard some of the Deputies questioning the motivation for people speaking about this particular subject. As a Deputy coming from a rural constituency in Galway East, I know it is a serious issue.

I know the geography of the land there and there are a lot of wetlands. They may not have them in the big dairy centres or the major production plants or feeding plants that we have around the country. We may not have the rewetting issues there but in the family farm that I was raised on, which was a full 30 acres, we had to do some drainage back in the 1960s and 1970s. I partook in that and we put in shores to make sure we had enough land to try to eke out an existence. At the same time, my father had to work all his life and we had to help my mother farm the land. Part of that process was reclaiming land and putting land that was wet into use as summer land. It did not have any effect on nature and it helped us to produce good-quality food for the table for ourselves and to keep the farm viable.

The other big issue I want to raise relates to compensation. This comes up all the time because we are told that if someone's land has to be rewetted, they will receive compensation. The word "compensation" is a bad word for farmers because the history of compensation is that schemes have been set up to deal with the habitats directive but as governments come and go, so do the compensation funds. I have asked before for it to be enshrined in law that if somebody is rewetting their lands, the farmer should be compensated for that and that compensation should be for ever more rather than just for two or three years until the Government says it has no money to do it or is reconfiguring the scheme. There is a lot of polished language around it but the net result is the farmer ends up with no compensation. The designation plans we have at the moment have been a bad experience for farmers. We need to bring certainty to whatever is being done.

The other question I want to raise relates to the issue of public lands and particularly Bord na Móna lands. We will have huge intensification of rewetting on those lands. I do not know how many thousand hectares are going to be rewetted. Coming from a construction background, I understand well that if you put water into land, it will seep into the ground and bring up the water table in the ground and that will spread wherever it will find a level. Adjacent lands will be compromised with the rewetting. This problem has not been looked at properly. I compliment the Minister of State as he attended a meeting here with some farmers' representatives. They have a concern about the unintended consequences of rewetting this Bord na Móna land. Any land that is rewetted is going to cause issues on adjacent lands. It is no fault of the farmer but they will be left with the consequences. Before any rewetting is done, we have to see the engineering proposals as to how it will be contained within the lands it is supposed to be contained in, even though I do not think that is possible. Second, if it does breach the land it is supposed to be contained in, how will the farmers be compensated for that or how will the problem be addressed on their lands? That needs to be done. The Minister of State gave a commitment that he would look at that. I would hope that would be done well in advance of any proposal being brought forward.

Some people wonder about how we are going to achieve the climate action plan. From my own experience, if we keep pushing and forcing stuff on people, we will get pushback and we will not get things done. We seemingly see farming, farmland and agriculture as a soft touch. For instance, we need to tackle public buildings. The Minister of State knows this and I know he agrees with it. There are thousands of public buildings that we need to retrofit, which are pumping CO2 into the air. It is an investment we have to make in all the things we do there. We need to look at that.

We need to look at transport. A pet project of mine is the western rail corridor. If we are going to take trucks off the road and get haulage done through rail freight, we have to make sure we have the infrastructure to do it. I have total belief that we can do it. We need to do it urgently so we can take the vast majority of our goods - though not all of them - off the roads and just have them freighted. Places like Coca-Cola down in Ballina are already doing this. They are doing it because it was set up by a number of individuals who saw the potential 20 years ago in rail freight. The West on Track group dealt with Irish Rail and had an awful job convincing it to do this. I know the Minister for Transport is very positive towards rail, rail freight and rail passengers. Let us get on with those things, which are easy to do and will help people, rather than getting pushback.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae

It is inherently wrong to rewet land that people suffered for and worked hard to dry in the first place. People are saying it is inevitable and it has to be done. It does not have to be done. There is enough sequestering of carbon emissions by other land holdings like our forestry and hedgerows. We are doing more than our part. The version of the EU nature restoration law approved by the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and the other Council members sets stringent and unrealistic targets for Ireland, requiring the rewetting of at least 24,000 ha by 2030, followed by 66,000 ha by 2040 and an astonishing 83,000 ha by 2050. Do people really realise what that is going to mean on the ground? As the EU Council's adopted position is now within the trilogue discussions phase with the European Parliament and Commission, it is evident that the concerns of rural communities and farmers in Ireland have been left behind. The voices of Irish farmers and rural communities, such as those I represent from County Kerry, should have been heard but they have not. Their interests should have been safeguarded but they have not been. Instead, what we are witnessing is a railroaded proposal that undermines those interests. I do not expect the Greens to have any understanding whatsoever of people who work on land and worked hard to make it green. I do not expect the Greens to understand that but I would have thought that people in Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil would. However, they do not have such an understanding, or if they have, it is like they are selling their souls to the devil. They have sold their souls so they can sit over there as Ministers and they forget about farming. They forget that we are an agriculture-based economy and they do not give a damn about it or about the people either.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I have to concur with every sentiment and syllable Deputy Healy-Rae said. I am tired and weary of listening to Deputies in this House from the left, like Deputy Bríd Smith and Deputy Cairns, talking as if we were Neanderthals or backward people. We understand the land. We know about land. We do not bring in lurchers when we talk about greyhounds and we do not do stupid things like that. We know what we are talking about, thankfully. We do not profess to know everything about everything but we know about this. It is our duty as rural representatives to represent the people of Ireland when they have been abandoned by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and are being attacked by the Greens and all the NGOs and activists who are besmirching those good people who drained the land, made a proud living off the land, reared their families off the land and educated their families. Sadly, some of these people are now up here as part of the second generation and they do not like the land at all now. They get cosmopolitan when they come up here, like the people in RTÉ. They might not even understand some of our language at all any more. That is B.U. The Minister of State knows what that is. I will not say it here in this Chamber.

We need understanding. We need appreciation and we need a carrot, not the stick of the media and everywhere saying the farmers are filthy all the time. Deputy Smith said we do not represent the farmers and that there is unfairness. Of course there is. We are like a bad record challenging the moguls in the meat industry and all the unfairness that is there. There is enough land in bogs and forestry. There is a lot of sequestration going on at the moment that is not even being measured.

Walking around any of the buildings here, the heat in the winter is obscene. The Government should deal with what is happening at home and not have closed eyes as regards what is happening. See no harm, hear no harm, speak no harm. The pollution is happening here. The Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has stopped all major road projects. Any lorry driver will tell you he uses less fuel and produces fewer emissions on the motorway but the Minister is clandestine when looking at this, ably supported by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and some of the regional Independents. I compliment the movers of this motion, the Independent Group. Well done.

Deputy Danny Healy-Rae

I too thank the Independent Group and especially Deputy Harkin for being honest and truthful in what she said.

What is wrong about this is that the Government is being ambivalent about the number of acres. It is not telling us the truth. There is no talk about compensation, and the Government just wants to ram this through. It is hitting the farmers on three fronts with these proposals: on the rewetting, on the culling of the cows and on the nitrates. What it is not talking about at all is what this is going to do to all the communities beside the farmers, as well as hurting the farmers. The housewife will pay more for her food, and there will be food scarcity. There is no thought in the world given to this. I do not expect any different from the Green Party, but I am so sorry that there are no Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael backbenchers sitting over there listening to this debate today, because this is where they should be. They have got the support of rural Ireland since the foundation of the State, and this is the way they are abdicating, and falling in behind the Green Party in what it is proposing.

This will break farmers financially. I am telling that the Minister of State that it will. It will cut production, and we have read that it will hurt their income by 29%. At the same time, the Minister of State and the rest of his gang, along with Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, are giving no credence at all to what carbon is being sequestered all around Ireland. He says it cannot be measured until 2027, but in the meantime, he wants to drive the farmers off the land and hurt them after they slaving and breaking their backs to drain the land. They got grants to do it, and they were encouraged to do it by a different crowd than the Green Party.

Deputy Michael Collins

We have very serious concerns about the Government's unwavering support for the EU nature restoration law, following a vote in favour of the drastic rewetting law at the June EU Environment Council in Luxembourg. The law, if implemented, includes legally binding targets that will have detrimental impacts on farmlands and the livelihoods of Irish farmers. The version of the EU nature restoration law approved by the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and other EU Council members sets stringent and unrealistic targets for Ireland, requiring the rewetting of at least 246,968 ha by 2030, followed by 66,580 ha by 2040, and an astonishing 83,225 ha by 2050. To put this into perspective, these targets would encompass an area nearly the combined size of Dublin, Limerick, Galway and Waterford cities by 2030, and by 2050 an area equivalent to the entire agricultural lands of County Leitrim would be affected.

While the Government asserts that these rewetting plans will be voluntary, it is crucial to recognise that once finalised, they will become legally binding. This raises significant concerns for Irish food production, farmlands and the livelihoods of hard-working farmers. Adding to the apprehension surrounding the law, several EU member states, including Poland, the Netherlands, Italy, Finland and Sweden, have expressed reservations about the feasibility and achievability of the objectives. Yet, the Irish Government, represented by the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has chosen to support the law fully without raising any concerns, creating a contradiction between the Government stance at EU level and its actions within Ireland. It is not just the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan. We have heard it here this morning. It is the Social Democrats, the Labour Party, People Before Profit, and all of these anti-real farmers and anti-real community parties out there who support this.

Before embarking on a mission to be seen as the greenest boys in the class at EU level, the Government should have carefully considered the potential impact of these proposals on Irish agriculture and farmers' livelihoods. It should have fully consulted farmers and rural communities in a meaningful way. Before committing to any legally binding targets, the livelihoods of farmers and the sustainability of our agriculture sector must be considered. Clearly, this has not occurred in this case.

Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage (Deputy Malcolm Noonan)

At the outset, before I go into my scripted speech, I would like to thank all the Deputies. I want to thank Deputy Fitzmaurice, and I would like to state that it is not the Government's intention to cause division by tabling a countermotion. I really appreciate the constructive engagement the Deputy has consistently shown down the years with the peatlands in particular. I thank Deputy Harkin as well for tabling this.

We need unity on this across the House. I have had good engagement over the weekend with most of our MEPs. I have not been able to speak to all of them. There are genuine concerns among our Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil MEPs, and it is important to listen to those as well. However, I think we are heading into a place of collective general agreement with the long-held Government position on the nature restoration regulation in this House, both through the statements here a few weeks ago and the debate that has been held here today. I welcome this.

I welcome the Sinn Féin amendment. It is effectively a cut-and-paste from our direction on the nature restoration law around the issues of voluntary and public participation. That will form the basis of the nature restoration plan, and that will be, in itself, a participative process. The plan itself will be binding. That is the consistent commitment we have given over these debates in recent months around the voluntary aspect of it. Our unity here today, and our unity generally in this House, will allay the genuine fears of farmers. Going back to the figures, I cannot keep stressing it, but the EU Council adopted a proposal a few weeks ago that would see 86,000 ha for Ireland, and all met on State land. In fact, we are well on the way there, with a lot of the activities that are already under way.

The proposed nature restoration regulation provides an opportunity for transformative change with regard to restoring nature in Ireland and the EU as a whole. Nature restoration will also deliver substantial co-benefits for climate action such as carbon emissions reductions from land use sectors, climate adaptation and resilience, and enhancement of natural buffers against flooding and coastal inundation. Furthermore, it will deliver significant co-benefits for water quality and the overall ecological health of our rivers, lakes and streams.

The nature restoration law presents significant opportunities to support the achievement of nature, water and climate objectives, as well as substantial co-benefits in rural economies and communities. Its detail is quite intricate, however, and the original drafting did not lend to clarity of objective, measurable outcomes, or means of measurement assessment or accountability. This is why Ireland engaged closely with the EU Council and the EU Commission to develop a text that maintains the high ambition for nature set out by the EU Commission, while providing flexibility with regard to implementation at a national level, by allowing member states to define appropriate restoration measures to reach the targets through the preparation, content assessment and review of the nature restoration plans. The Government has made several drafting proposals. In response to Deputy Harkin, I think we should thank the Irish as well as the Belgians and others for the negotiations. In those negotiations, in the interests of Ireland's nature and people we have sought to ensure we take account of the particular landscape, seascape and land use climate challenges and opportunities for nature restoration in this country. Ireland's contributions have also underlined the important role that agriculture and food production holds both economically and culturally, and the need to balance the future viability of farming with the restoration of nature.

I will now turn specifically to the concerns of farmers. I appreciate that there has been uncertainty arising from Article 9, which concerns agricultural ecosystems, and particularly the requirement to fulfil targets regarding the restoration of drained peatlands in agricultural use. I know Deputy Harkin raised issues around Articles 3(3) and 4(2), and she is absolutely right. We are working towards them. There has been confusion in the past around the targets for restoration being equated to areas to be rewetted, and this was never the case. Even the original Commission proposal saw rewetting as part of the restoration measure, but not all of it. The restoration of drained peatlands does not necessarily mean bringing the water table to surface level, and rewetting is just one of several tools available for the restoration of target ecosystems.

As my colleague the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Calleary stated earlier, the definition of rewetting proposed in the EU Council's general approach is the process of changing drained peat soil towards wet soil. There is no reference in this definition to water tables or land being permanently wet or pickled in this definition. In fact, this allows Ireland to determine for ourselves what rewetting means in national circumstances. Overall, I am satisfied that the bulk of the targets for rewetting proposed in the EU Council text can be reached on State lands. I keep reiterating this.

Rewetting is already under way as part of the restoration of raised bogs and natural heritage areas, and this work includes restoration plans that have been developed to ensure the impact of the restoration works on surrounding lands is kept to a minimum. I have visited many of the sites over recent years, and there is really fantastic work under way. Notwithstanding this, there will be an opportunity for voluntary participation in the restoration effort. It has always been the position that any contribution to rewetting targets from private landowners would be voluntary and incentivised. The nature and scale of the incentive will be developed as part of the nature restoration plan. Any additional measures needed will be developed in consultation and collaboration with landowners. A consideration of the impact of any measures of the landowners' ability to continue the economic use of their land will be at the core of the nature restoration plan. It is important to reiterate that the undertaking of such measures will be voluntary and resourced.

The development of the plan will require an all-of-government response, and each key Department will have to undertake, as a priority, an analysis of the likely sectoral impacts in order to inform the coherent national impact assessment, including the economic costs arising, as relevant. Stakeholder engagement and participation will also be key to developing a robust, collaborative and implementable plan. The regulation, once ratified, will come into force by the end of the year, and member states, including Ireland, will have two years to prepare national restoration plans. This plan will be developed in close partnership with stakeholders from every sector, and we encourage all interested parties to engage positively and constructively in that process.

This goes back to the Sinn Féin requirement for having public participation. The plan will be developed in a step-wise approach. This means that instead of submitting full plans until 2050, within two years of the regulation entering into force, member states will submit national restoration plans covering the period until June 2032, with strategic overview over the period beyond June 2032 and further iterations in 2042.

Knowledge gaps will need to be addressed and this will form part of the plan. For terrestrial habitats, member states will have until 2030 to determine 90% of the condition of the habitats. For marine habitats, 50% of the knowledge gaps will have to be closed by 2030. This concession was of particular interest to Ireland as we have a significant marine area of some 500,000 sq. km, much of which is uncharted.

We need nature and we need food. The scientific evidence is definitive that the security of both are interconnected, even more so in a climate-changed world. We should be mindful of that. The EU Council's general approach to the proposed nature restoration law is the best chance we have of achieving this. I again ask all Members of this House to engage positively and constructively in the coming weeks and months. I also urge our MEPs to support the law in the European Parliament.

Deputy Brian Leddin

In my view, Deputy Fitzmaurice, whom I hold in very high esteem and who introduced this motion, represents his community and constituency very well. I can say the same for the cosponsors of the motion, Deputies McNamara and Harkin. However, with respect to them, I believe they are wrong with this motion. The nature restoration law is not the portent of doom that many portray it as; it is critically necessary legislation whose purpose is to restore nature. The reason is that the destruction of nature is the destruction of ourselves and our communities, including our rural communities, which depend on nature, whether it is through farming, water resources, tourism and so on. I ask respectfully that they withdraw the motion in the interests of their communities and future generations.

I listened to the Sinn Féin speakers, who argued for their amendment. The basic premise of their argument is that the Government's countermotion does not have all the detail they would like it to have. It seems there is not anything they actually disagree with in the Minister's amendment. Am I to take from this that they will then support the Minister's amendment? If they and other Opposition members were to do so, it would send a strong message from Ireland ahead of the plenary vote in the European Parliament that is coming up. If, however, they opt to go against the Government amendment, one with which they do not actually disagree, then they can rightly be rejected as a party that is not serious on this issue, one that is playing politics and is seeking to run with the hare and hunt with the hound.

I urge colleagues to support the amendment moved by the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, and to support the development of the nature restoration regulation, which both protects nature and ensures that the future viability of Irish farming and rural communities is assured.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. I thank Deputies Fitzmaurice, Harkin and McNamara. It was not a motion that I could cosign, but I recognise their bona fides and I see where they are coming from. It is important that a focus is placed on this very significant initiative from Europe in order to ensure fulsome information goes out. That it is voluntary in nature and its implementation is being left to each member state is also very important. It is most disingenuous, unhelpful and dangerous to set up a false divide between us and them and between Deputies from rural areas and other Deputies. I have the privilege of representing a diverse constituency, with the three Aran Islands in addition to Inishbofin, Connemara, and from Galway city to south Mayo. I have stood up here repeatedly on the side of small farmers and for fishermen. If I had time, I would go into how the EU policies systematically undermine those livelihoods. However, I firmly believe that balanced rural development is important for the solutions we need to introduce.

I thank Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin and welcome the recent publication of the report of the citizens' assembly. Dr. Ní Shúilleabháin referred to her utter frustration and the "fundamental disappointment in the capacity demonstrated by the State to coherently and deliberately tackle biodiversity loss." It is in that context that she and the 100 representatives of the citizens' assembly went on to make 159 recommendations.

The report states:

We are consistently losing our hedgerows, likened by one speaker to the blood supply system of the countryside. Only 2% of the country has native woodland. Over a quarter of Ireland's regularly occurring bird species are in danger of extinction. At least one third of protected species are declining in population, an invisible tragedy happening both on land and under water. Almost 30% of our semi-natural grasslands have been lost... Less than half of our marine environment can be described as healthy.

That is not the latest position, however, because the latest is the ruling of the European Court of Justice on 29 June that Ireland had breached its obligations under the habitats directive.

Earlier in the year, we had other research from Belfast telling us that there are more losers than winners. The researchers were from Queen's University Belfast. In May 2023, they concluded that some 48%, almost half, of more than 71,000 species included in the analysis are undergoing population decline. The report states that global diversity, life on Earth, is entering its sixth mass extinction. As I have only two minutes, I cannot read out all of that but the background to it was the declaring of a climate emergency in 2019, and a biodiversity emergency.

We are here to discuss a specific regulation that leaves flexibility to each country. I share some of the concerns on the ground from the ordinary person in relation to the EU's double policies and doublespeak. While there is an emphasis on climate measures and them being very important, there is also warmongering. There is also a military-industrial complex that will completely take away any of our targets in relation to climate change. There is a doublespeak and treblespeak going on. There is also the continuation of emissions trading. This is concept of the market taking charge and being the most important thing in making progressing on emissions. I am completely cynical when it comes to the doublespeak of the EU. I have no difficulty with this particular issue, but I deplore what the various MEPs have done - one from Sinn Féin and the others from Fine Gael - instead of sticking with the process and bringing appropriate amendments.

As I stand here, it is honestly nauseating that we are continuing on with a false debate in the face of the existential crisis that we face. Dr. Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin referred to the meitheal. This is the most fundamental concept; that we would be in this together to face the threat we have, not by punishment but by us recognising that the only way out of this is that there will be no future for small or big farmers if we do not embrace the steps that we need to take.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I thank all the different speakers who have spoken, regardless of whether it was giving us stick or supporting us. I thank those who came to the House to speak in this debate. A few points need to be addressed. Let us be honest with the people out there. A regulation has no flexibility.

I heard references to various areas of biodiversity loss. I have looked into the hedgerow part of it. When someone says something nowadays, we must bear in mind that the test that was done was based on 10 sq. km in Monaghan and it was just said that the rest of the country is that way. That could be completely wrong. Down my way, there are more hedges than ever there was. We need to be very careful about what we say.

A lot of Deputies referred to water quality.

They should take a look at the map that came out last week showing where the water quality was supposed to be not so good. Was there bogland or peaty land on that? The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, should have a look at where the peaty land was and the quality of water in that area. He and his colleagues might educate themselves on that.

I welcome what the Minister of State said about the original document being a step too far, noting that the Council of Ministers got together and that the proposal being worked on now is a more realistic document. Over the past month, in regard to that more realistic document, I have heard MEPs, Deputies, Ministers and others saying, "Do not worry, guys, this is voluntary." That is the only thing we are asking. We are asking the Government to legislate to ensure this will be voluntary for private landowners. The Government has been saying that, but then I listened to the Minister of State's speech. He talked about Bord na Móna and Coillte, indicating that the work would mostly be done by them. However, there is an "if" there and we are afraid of that "if". It is the "if" of which farmers around rural Ireland are afraid. When I spoke earlier, I said there was no problem with the Government bringing in a scheme and that nobody is going to stop it from doing so. However, the "if" is to do with the question of whether the scheme will be voluntary. If it is to be voluntary, why is that not stated in legislation or written down somewhere? If it is to be voluntary, why will the Government not support our motion and agree to put that in legislation to ensure we take the fear out of it? That is all we are asking for in this motion.

I have heard people say this is the second time we have discussed this issue in the space of a week. Last week, we debated a motion on the culling of the national herd. That is nothing to do with the nature restoration law. That law will be voted on next week in Brussels. In other countries such as Holland and Germany, there has been a pushback against it. The Minister of State knows the amount of work that has been done around the country on rewetting. Ordinary people worked with the different bodies involved to do it, as he has recognised. It is not that we are against all this. The one point I want the Minister of State to be clear on is that there is a fear out there among people with agricultural drained peatlands and land on the hills. They are the two groups. He can put this to bed fairly quickly by saying, "Okay, we will put it in legislation". He is already saying it is voluntary. All he has to do is put the issue to bed by taking out the confusion and mixed messaging in order that people know they have a future in their communities. At the moment, there is fear out there.

There are areas not far from my home where people have reclaimed their land and it is all they have. Their farms are 100% drained peatland. The EU gave them grants years ago, back in the 1980s, to shore and put in a pipe. People came in with a digger and did it. Some did it with a spade and shovel. Those people have reared their families off that land. They are contributing in their own way to their communities as well as someone in the Golden Vale is doing. The land might not provide their full income and they might have to work outside it, but they are doing the best they can. Their youngsters might be on the ladies' or men's football team, soccer team or rugby team. Their husbands or wives might be going down to the hardware shop and so on to buy stuff to keep someone else's youngster in a job. There is a fear out there that this will be taken away.

The Minister of State has the ball in his hand and the opportunity to say he will put this into legislation and take the fear factor out of it. We have been told it will be done on State land and those lands will make up a lot of it. However, I worry about what Bord na Móna has said. When the State land is being done, it needs to take a leaf out of the book of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and talk to people. Bord na Móna has not done that and there have been problems in parts of Offaly and other parts of the country. It is the one thing that needs to be done to quell the fear. No one can stand up here and say what will be proposed. The Council of Ministers has a proposal and there is a proposal from the Commission that is drastically worse. I do not think anyone knows how the votes will go. I do not know what the MEPs will do. I have heard criticism of different groups. If the European Parliament's environment committee was split down the middle, it is clearly a fairly contentious issue.

I thank the Minister of State for listening to what I have said. I ask him to withdraw his amendment and agree to what we are proposing. I would say in response to Deputy Leddin that we have stated in our document that all the Council of Ministers' proposal needs is tweaking to ensure no private lands are included. It would be happy days if that were done. We must also ensure that when the public lands are done, the farmers around those lands are not subject to rewetting. The NPWS did that when it did the work. It made sure of it. Bord na Móna, however, does not appear to be doing it and no one seems to be giving the people there the kick in the ass they need. I ask the Minister of State to withdraw his amendment, agree with what we have said and legislate for what we have sought.

Amendment to amendment put.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Pauline Tully)

In accordance with Standing Order 80(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time this evening.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 5 Jul 2023

Nature Restoration Law: Motion [Private Members]

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Jul 2023