Mr. Vincent Roddy:

I thank the Chair and the committee for the invitation to address the committee. The committee has the statement that was sent in and to stay within five minutes or so, I will read a shortened version of that, if that is okay. I understand committee members also have, with that statement, proposals around the EU biodiversity strategy, which the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association, INHFA developed.

In our submission we have focused on the EU nature restoration regulation, as it is a major concern for many our members who operate on peat soils. As is clear from the submission, there is a lot of detail to cover in this regulation, which is why we have not included details around the land use review. However, we are happy to discuss this with committee members today. When seeking solutions to the concerns outlined in the nature restoration regulation, it is vital that the science detailed is not just accurate but relevant to the land type and country. We must also consider the socioeconomic factors pertaining to local economies. The lands targeted under this regulation are actively farmed and delivering in terms of animal welfare, the environment and our local communities. When considering any environmental concerns we must recognise that these lands are delivering and are compliant under CAP regulations. Under these regulations, farmland must comply with good agricultural and environmental condition, GAEC. In the new eco-scheme we also see additional requirements. Under the new agri-climate rural environment Scheme, ACRES, farmers will see these lands being scored under a habitat scorecard. In relation to these habitat scorecards, it is also worth noting that under a number of European Innovation Partnerships, EIPs, and the previous agri-environmental scheme, namely, the results-based environment-agri pilot project, REAP, similar habitat scorecards were positive on biodiversity outcomes. Continuing on the subject of CAP regulation, the new suckler herd support scheme, like its predecessor, has strong elements relating to the delivery of improved environmental outcomes, most notably the carbon navigator. On our hills, we have commonage management plans with specific requirements concerning minimum and maximum stocking rates. Beyond CAP is the Bord Bia scheme, Origin Green, which drives sustainable food production. There are also EU quality schemes that have sustainability as their hallmark, such as Connemara hill lamb. Everything outlined so far is positive in terms of food production and land use. However, if we go down the road proposed under the nature restoration regulation, we will undermine the quality and sustainability of food produced from these lands because we will be saying the land itself is the problem. This will create enormous reputational damage to the food we produce and will risk all of this on science that we believe is questionable.

The nature restoration regulation is a progression of the EU biodiversity strategy, and will provide the legal framework for its implementation. The regulation sets out a clear plan with specific timelines and restoration targets. In the context of the EU biodiversity strategy, this proposes to double the area of land designated, and the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association's position in this regard is clear. We will not accept any further designations to our lands. This view has been formed on the back of current land designations, both special areas of conservation, SACs, and special protection areas, SPAs, which were implemented without proper consultation and which have undermined farmer income. They have also failed in their intention to deliver improved biodiversity. This failure is the result of farmers and landowners being sidelined and not supported through this process. Unfortunately, the process followed in the nature restoration regulation is more of the same. There is scant reference to the landowners with no ring-fenced budget or recognition of their property rights.

The regulation covers a total of 23 articles and 78 recitals. While the recitals provide valuable insight as to how the proposal will be implemented, they are not legally enforceable. For this reason we will focus primarily on the 23 articles, specifically Articles 3, 4, 9 and 16. Article 3 covers definitions, of which 15 are detailed. Of particular interest is Article 3(3), which defines the meaning of restoration as "the process of actively or passively assisting the recovery of an ecosystem towards or to good condition". While the word, "actively" is quite clear,"passively" is non-interference. This is the model favoured for the delivery of stricter protected designation as outlined in the EU biodiversity strategy. It is also important to recognise that this designation type is to be targeted at carbon rich soils, such as peatlands, and will need to cover at least 10% of the EU land base. However, it could be higher, and we believe this is effectively rewilding by another name. Article 4(2) states "Member States shall put in place the restoration measures that are necessary to re-establish the habitat types listed in Annex I in areas not covered by those habitat types." In public discussion of this regulation, most of the focus has been on drained peatlands, as detailed in Article 9. However, our hills and upland areas feature strongly in these restoration targets, as detailed in Annex 1 to the birds and habitats directive that covers both wet and dry heathlands and blanket bogs, which are dominant on our hills.

In an Irish context, we maintain that the areas described in Articles 4(1), 4(2) and 4(3) are agricultural areas or permanent grassland and they are agricultural ecosystems. If we ever go down this road, they should only be dealt with under Article 9.

Due to the possible rewetting of drained peatlands, Article 9 has been the subject of the majority of discussion around the regulation. This proposal is very concerning. Similar to Article 4, there is the prospect of a law being developed with which it is not possible to comply. If members wish, we can discuss this presently. It is important to recognise that when defining this proposal under Article 9(1), it is specified that it is " in addition to the areas that are subject to restoration measures under Article 4(1), (2) and (3)". This means that while these areas, that is, drained peatlands, are recognised as an agricultural area that could still support agriculture activity, as defined under Recital 55, the areas under Article 4, that is, hill lands, are viewed as existing habitats. We in the INHFA are of the view that all lands are agricultural areas and should only be viewed in this context. If they are ever accepted as non-agricultural areas, they will not be in a position to avail of future baseline payments under the Common Agricultural Policy.

On the objective of restoring these peatlands through rewetting, we have major reservations with regard to the science cited, which has been acknowledged to be utterly lacking. The only thing the scientists will stand over is that they are not sure whether rewetting will make emissions worse or better than they currently are.

Article 16 covers access to justice. It is quite shocking that there is no direct reference to the property owners. While members of the public can challenge the plan or any failure to act on details of the plan by a competent authority, which could be the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, they must, in order to do so, have a sufficient interest or maintain an impairment of right. It is very concerning that while it is specified that "Member States shall determine what constitutes a sufficient interest and impairment of a right", there is a free pass for "any non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law". They "shall be deemed to have rights capable of being impaired and their interests shall be deemed sufficient." There is a major concern that this could be abused by environmental NGOs. We are not saying it will happen but it could, and that would be to the detriment of landowners.

We look forward to members' questions.