Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome this motion and the opportunity to speak on the protection and restoration of nature. Sinn Féin completely supports and prioritises the need to protect nature. The scale of the crisis relating to biodiversity cannot be understated. Sinn Féin opposed the nature restoration law but we certainly support the aim behind it. In the absence of real funding, however, we will have another five years without progress.

I have met with farmers in communities and farm organisations to discuss this issue. Unlike some of the other MEPs, Sinn Féin's MEPs submitted amendments at EU level at every opportunity. I commend the work done by Chris MacManus in this regard. I hope that in the count taking place in Castlebar, Michelle Gildernew will be successful in retaining her seat. Farmers need somebody like Michelle Gildernew. She served as Minister of agriculture in the North and, unlike some others, she knows the importance of working with farmers to tackle the climate crisis we face.

Sinn Féin has engaged constructively on this issue at every opportunity. We will continue to do so. We did not sit back and say we did not like the nature restoration law, nor did we scaremonger in respect of it. We voted against it because it is not a plan; it simply involves signing up to legally binding targets. If targets were the answer, we would have solved the climate and biodiversity crises long ago. The Government is great at setting targets. What it is not good at is meeting those targets, regardless of whether they relate to emissions, biodiversity, social and affordable housing or whatever. Targets are the easy part. A plan to hit those targets is the hardest part.

In 2019, a biodiversity emergency was declared in Ireland. Five years of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party in government have failed to reverse or even halt the biodiversity decline. Ireland should not need the EU to tell it to protect biodiversity. We should not need a legal obligation to address the biodiversity collapse. What greater incentive could there possibly be? We do not require an EU target. There is no need or advantage to be gained from doing this at EU level. It even creates greater challenges in attempting to bring countries with different landscapes under the same terms. There is an overlap between Articles 4 and 11 which means that in the Irish context, peatlands are dealt with twice. This Government has made no progress on biodiversity in five years. Kicking the matter off to Europe was just a way of delaying action here. The Government wants to lecture the Opposition and farmers for not going along with the narrative that it is addressing biodiversity. We simply cannot afford to get this wrong.

From my perspective, the question was framed incorrectly. For us in Sinn Féin, the question is not whether to protect biodiversity but how we protect it. Five years have passed and the Government still does not have a plan. This was abundantly clear in the report of the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss, which pointed out that the Government has comprehensively failed to adequately fund and implement existing national legislation and policies and EU biodiversity-related laws and directives. Sinn Féin has consistently called for money to be allocated in respect of nature restoration. In our alternative budget each year, we have set out our costed proposals. We have shown a clear commitment to nature restoration. Almost every Government measure seems to be aimed at penalising local communities and ordinary citizens. There is virtually no collaboration or engagement, and there is no sign that Ireland or the EU are making any meaningful difference. Indeed, we have antagonised communities. Irish farm families are fearful for their futures.

There is an underlining issue of trust here. Farmers were given assurances in the past regarding areas of natural conservation. Farmers were pushed into intensive farming practices in order to make a living. The EU nature restoration law came about in this context. While the Government might say that the 20% target is EU-wide and not specific to Ireland, people do not trust that this will be the case. The Government says that the legally binding nature of the law is on member states, not on individual farmers. Again, however, the trust is not there that it will not be passed on to them. When farmers hear that there is a legal obligation on the State but that everything will be voluntary for them, they are right to want guarantees.

The level of snobbery on the part of people in areas that will not be affected by this towards those who will be and who have real and genuine concerns is breathtaking. It is not the way to go. That is why I am proud that Sinn Féin stands for meaningful action and working in collaboration with those who will be affected by the measures involved. We support the restoration of nature. If it is done right, rural communities certainly can benefit. However, it cannot just be about setting targets, hoping for the best and imposing measures to reach those targets at the last minute.

The absence of a plan and funding was the reason Sinn Féin MEP Chris MacManus rightly voted against the nature restoration law. There should be no surprise whatsoever at the position adopted by Sinn Féin. The real unanswered question is how Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael supported a proposed law that was flawed and lacked the concrete funding measures. The farmers who will be affected the most by the approach are the poorest farmers in Ireland. They are the ones who are most eager to play a positive and constructive role in respect of climate action and biodiversity. I see that every day in my county of Mayo. They are the farmers who use the least amount of artificial fertilisers and pesticides. They have the lowest stocking rates and the greatest levels of biodiversity on their farms already. They are the farmers who know they have a part to play in addressing the climate and biodiversity crises.

The starting point should be to acknowledge the incredible work many of those to whom I refer already do. Much more needs to be done. Going back to 1997 when we had the European Acts around the designations, the reason trust has broken down with farmers is that time and time again promises have been made but have not been delivered. We have an opportunity to build trust with farmers. They are more than willing to do this work. As its custodians, they really value the land they farm. We have to ensure their survival, however. If you are fighting for your survival, on one hand, and trying to fight climate change, on the other, it does not work. We have a lot to do in terms of building back trust with farmers. They will be the greatest allies in addressing climate change.

See this speech in context