Carol Nolan (Laois-Offaly, Independent) | Oireachtas source

As the Minister of State will be aware, the recommendations contained in the Report of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss have not been met with universal approval despite the glow and spin that has been given to them. That also comes within the context of fears around the mandatory rewetting of drained peat farmland and the annihilation of many farmers' capacity to sustain a livelihood on the land or to pass a farm onto the next generation.

Only two weeks ago, I hosted a cross-party briefing on this very issue, which was well attended by Deputies and Senators, whom I thank for their attendance. I also acknowledge the attendance of the Minister of State and thank him for attending. At the briefing, as he is aware, farmers expressed their genuine and well-founded concerns and fears. They also stated quite clearly that there had been little or no consultation or dialogue.

Farmers are custodians of the land. They have always taken care of the environment. They have passed their farms down to the next generation in good order. It is wrong to scapegoat farmers in any way. There needs to be fairness, respect and dialogue. The Minister of State will have heard about the IFA meeting in Tullamore, in my county, Offaly, which took place last week. Farmers spoke about their concerns which are well-founded. There is a tendency to expect farmers and rural communities to take everything lying down. As we know, there are two sides to every story.

People want to play their part, but if we are to bring everybody along collaboration is key. We must also admit that not every proposal will be correct. We all want to do our bit for the environment; that goes without saying. However, not every proposal will be suitable or appropriate. There needs to be a realisation that sometimes there is overzealous ambition which ignores the voices of those who are affected. That is fundamentally wrong. In this case, the voice of the farming community is being ignored.

I welcome moves during the week in Brussels by the European People's Party to reject the nature restoration law because it sees the flaws in the proposal. As I said, very often the flaws are not seen in time and then there is a disaster or an issue that is made worse by actions that are taken. We do not need that. I commend farming organisations for raising issues and representing farmers. The ICMSA and IFA have been very vocal on this issue.

In respect of the biodiversity report, it is clear from even a cursory reading that attempts are being made to consolidate and normalise an essentially elitist form of environmental ambition. Thankfully, as I said, there has been pushback in the European Parliament in respect of the nature restoration law.

The flaws are seen in the Parliament. The tide may be turning, as more people wake up to the reality of what is happening and the impact these EU laws will have on farm incomes and food security. Is anybody thinking about food security? We saw the vulnerabilities during the outbreak of the Ukrainian war. Certain food products were becoming less common on the shelves because of that war; mainly grain products. Is anybody thinking ahead about food security? I will raise that point strongly, because it is valid.

The report before us today, however, is plain bogus, with a number of assumptions barely reflecting reality at all. Farmers are already moving heaven and earth to be environmentally compliant, because they have to be in the majority of the schemes. In the majority of cases, they are doing more to nurture and nourish the soil and the land than all of the eco-NGOs combined. Many of these people have never set foot on a farm. They are academics behind desks. They have never set foot on a farm. It is wrong to ignore the voice of the farming community in this regard and yet, what does this report recommend? It recommends more financial support for eco-NGOs, but more levies and fines for farmers and for agri-exports which will destabilise our economy. It would be laughable if it were not so dangerously absurd. I have rarely read a report more in thrall to the idea of overzealous environmental regulation. This report reads like a wish list of punitive recommendations dressed up in the fuzzy and childish language of those who have not got a clue about what it takes to keep a financially stable agriculture sector going. We need collaboration. We do not need to be dictated to in rural Ireland.

The report did not mention, in any shape or form, the ash dieback situation. I found that very peculiar. I attended a well-attended meeting in Thurles a number of weeks ago. It is a very serious issue affecting thousands of acres across this State, but it is also affecting wildlife. There has not been one mention of that issue in this report, where we have a rotting crop that is not being dealt with. It would appear there are gaps in this report. I was disappointed not to see the ash dieback situation, which is a serious eco-disaster, addressed or mentioned in any shape or form. Forestry was mentioned, but ash dieback was not. I call on the Minister to make recommendations that the ash dieback situation would be included in the report.

See this speech in context