Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

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.

See this speech in context