The vote yesterday (Tuesday, May 24) in the European Parliament agriculture committee to reject the proposed Nature Restoration Law occurred because farmer concerns were “not taken seriously”.
That’s according to Sinn Féin MEP Chris MacManus, who said that there was “too much ambiguity” in the legislation on the impact it would have for family farmers.
The agriculture committee voted against the proposal yesterday by 30 votes to 16.
The vote was the first of a set of key votes across a number of committees before the parliament as a whole adopts its position on the controversial legislation.
MacManus said that nature restoration and protection had to take place, but that it “must be done correctly with the full participation and say of rural Irish communities and family farmers”.
“It really is a pity that certain sections of the European Commission and other stakeholders did not properly engage with those who have a clear understanding of rural communities, including Irish family farmers in the west and midlands of Ireland,” he said.
“If they had done so, we would have had a Nature Restoration Law that would have been inclusive and unambiguous with realistic goals and measures,” he added.
MacManus said that he would have been happy to support such a law.
“Everyone wants to see nature restored and protected, and there is still time for the Nature Restoration Law to be salvaged if rural concerns are taken on board, but there needs to be substantive consultation and engagement with local farming and rural stakeholders,” the Midlands-Northwest MEP commented.
However, he also called for MEPs that are “vehemently opposed” to the Nature Restoration Law to also show cooperation and to be objective.
“There is much anxiety from family farmers in Ireland around the Nature Restoration Law that must be addressed, particularly the concerns around rewetting and the impact it could have on sheep and suckler farmers,” MacManus said.
“It is of immediate concern for any farmer operating on peat soils. There must also be clarity on funding and property rights also.”
The parliament’s environment committee is due to vote on the proposal in the coming days. MacManus called on that committee to take on board family farmer concerns.
“Forcing the Nature Restoration Law in its current form may indeed protect, restore, and enhance biodiversity but there is too much ambiguity around the unintended consequences for family farmers and rural communities,” he remarked.