ICSA president Dermot Kelleher has expressed dismay over the agreement arising from the trilogue (EU Commission, Parliament, Council) negotiations on the proposed EU Nature Restoration Law. “It is clear that the strong view arising from the EU Parliament Committees and plenary sessions has been sidelined in favour of the EU Commission original proposals.

The EU Parliament position took out a lot of the more contentious proposals, particularly in Article 9, regarding re-wetting, but this view has been set aside in the negotiations between Commission, Council and Parliament. This now puts Irish MEPs who voted for the EU Parliament position in a very awkward position as the final document will revert to the EU Parliament, and they will be forced to make a decision on a regulation that is very far from the safeguards they claimed they obtained.”

“While the targets for re-wetting are not as onerous as the original EU Commission proposal at a member state level, the fact remains that many farmers are horrified at the potential implications if they are forced to re-wet land or the knock-on impact of adjoining land, in state or other ownership being re-wetted.”

“ICSA is also concerned that the difficult question of how nature restoration will be paid for remains unresolved. Under no circumstances can the CAP be used. The reality is that in some cases, the Nature Restoration Law proposals have profound implications for the value and the viability of farms. This cannot be compensated by derisory sums paid on a short-term basis. The question of compulsion has not been taken out either. Farmers increasingly feel that the powers in Brussels and Dublin are chipping away at their hard-won land ownership rights in this and other examples of emerging policy.”

“ICSA is calling on MEPs to move to oppose this in the final plenary vote of the EU Parliament given that the agreed trilogue position of the parliament has all but been ignored. It must be recalled that two of the European Parliament Committees outright opposed the proposal and that the only proposal capable of getting a majority in the Parliament was barely passed and on the basis of significant modifications. It seems now that the Commission does not respect the democratic mandate of the EU Parliament in its zeal for driving through the Green Deal with no balancing concern for food security.”