EU Biodiversity strategy 2030

News from the EP

An interesting article, 2030 is too far away for GWP* to be introduced, needs to be pushed hard now.

Hitler and Sri Lanka could have been left out to be honest.

I don't think I've yet been at a farmers meeting that started on time 😄

So here’s some random stuff I wrote down. I’m a terrible note takers so I’m not going to stand over this in court, or my grammar and speeling pisstakes, if others differ, off with them.

A lot of speakers called for what is most important to myself, retention of control of my own land and destiny in favour of compensation.

Michael Fitzmaurice talked about the vote in the dail during the week where only 11 TD’s voted in favour of legislation making NRL effects voluntary – The minister keeps saying this but we know past verbal agreements around the habitats directive did not hold. Legal text is needed to protect farmers. An adverse effect of NRL could be if EU/State monies are drawn down on an enterprise, and someone decides that enterprise is harming the aims of the NRL, the monies can be withdrawn.

Michael McNamara spoke of favouring collaborative work but instead we are put into a battle. That we must have legal guarantees that any NRL action or measure is voluntary, again something our minister has said in words but refuses to put into law. He said it was profoundly wrong, after decades of telling farmers to drain and pull out scrub that all of that now must be reversed without financial aid. He doesn’t believe that society will pay for NRL, even though they will benefit from it, unless it’s voluntary on farmers part.

James Staines solicitor said rewetting is only a very small part of the NRL. That the NRL is coming in as a regulation and not a directive. The effect of this method is that it can be introduced much, much faster. A citizen or eNGO can sue the state if the NRL isn’t being implemented. The EU Commissions version of the NRL is the one up before a vote next week. The Council of Ministers version is better (I use the word loosely), the Parliament couldn’t agree on a version of their own. He sees no evidence of non CAP funding. Natura 2000 birds and habitats directives become much stronger with the introduction of the NRL. He doesn’t believe the appropriate research into a national NRL plan will or can be done. Rather that it’ll be a messy, crude big red line job based on “European” research like with SAC and not done with accuracy. Property rights in Ireland are not absolute. The State can interfere – planning was given as an example – with no automatic right to compensation. Land can be made worthless through designations, planning will be complicated on non designated land which is adjacent to designated land (or sea – ask me how I know). Experience of previous designations indicate huge problems for farmers with no compensation.

Ciaran Dolan, barrister, the NRL is NOT VOLUNTARY, it IS COMPULSORY, MANDATORY. The EU Commission is specifically introducing it as a regulation and not a directive. Our Oireachteas  will have zero oversight over the NRL – I note Marian Harkin TD was strongly agreeing with that fact. If the EU Parliament votes for this NRL, the Commission can implement secondary regulations with no oversight from the Dail. Basically EU law overrides our own. There is no compensation for things like public health, but his opinion was there must be compensation for restoration. He gave an example of putting  the weight of making a building special needs accessible solely on the owner  was unconstitutional, that regarding the NRL the Govt & Oireachteas must have regard for the long term burden being placed on us landowners in regards to Just Transition. A very detailed account of habitats must be drawn up in a short time. Will there be a funded appeals process? He believed the SAC appeal regime had worked well previously. Planted peat land may not be allowed to be replanted, leading to a land value of zero.

Colm Markey MEP

NRL needs to be voluntary, as mandatory is difficult to fund from legal perspective, although it can get some degree of compensation. It can’t affect your neighbour. It must be incentivised, dedicated fund outside of CAP, private funding. There needs to be a definition of “restoration”. Funding sources are very vague.

Various comments from the alphabet soup of farm orgs

Most if not all wanted compo from outside CAP.

Most wanted voluntary nature to be solid in law, not soft talk from a minster who won’t be there in X years/decades time.

In the past, monies for these lands had disappeared at the first sign of recession, ie REPS.

Banks don’t want to know about designated land.

Incentive led scheme would be better than a feared law for results.

A farmer could be made reinstate a marsh or grove of trees (just examples) that may have been present in the past.

Past poor treatment of SAC/SPA farmers.

Teagasc research on lesser amount of drained peatland was referenced.

Article 4 a particular problem as wet and dry heathland to be restored

Article 11 restoration to times at least 70 years and longer ago, those lands may not exist in anything like that state today.

Cattle & sheep and their subsidies may be removed from hills, leading to massive fuel build up and knock on massive wildfires.

Article 12 Subsidies that have the effect of interfering with NRL may be withdrawn.

Low value designated land being bought up by NPWS for €3-400 an acre.

Land, which it’s only income generating possibility is from state grants with no commercial activity = worthless.

Income is not the sole issue, but diversification options, planning will be gone.

A historical note on designated lands, REPS paied €242/ac, then AEOS paid €150/ac, then GLAS €79/ac, and ACRES now €0/ac. Despite all the talk it’s clear the EU/Govt do not value designated land.

No employed person in society does work for free, save voluntary groups, why should farmers tolerate any different?

Mention of Ireland saving the world, versus carbon emitter like China or rain forest destruction in Brazil. Latvian peat, Brazilian woodchip all got honourable mention. Is climate change ONLY happening in Ireland/EU?

Farmers being driven off land through reduced payments.

Birdwatch Ireland attempted to highlight opportunities for farmers. That agri environmental schemes were very popular. That they need to be funded more. Apparently you cannot rear a family on 50 dairy cows. Raising the water table should be looked forward to as a drought mitigation action, that it is not land saturation. That there are no land designations within the NRL. Made remarks on the now defunct Burren Life. That nothing will be burdened on farmers, the legal burdens are only on the state (I have a pre loved dam in Ukraine to sell you if you believe that). Michael Fitzmaurice interjected that EIP’s were voluntary and that was the whole point.

To be fair NPWS did send someone on their day off, but I had stopped caring by then. Sorry.

There was some people there that shouldn’t be let out without adult supervision. The risk that is public meetings. I thought the moderation was poor.