ICSA president Dermot Kelleher has welcomed the scrapping of the rewetting of agricultural peatlands proposal in the latest vote on the Nature Restoration Law. He said, however, that the narrow margin in favour of an amended version of the law shows how flawed the original proposal was and demonstrates the need for serious reflection on the EU Green Deal. “The high handed and arrogant approach of the Green Deal, led by Ursula von der Leyen and Frans Timmermans must be abandoned in favour of respectful negotiation with farm representatives who understand the threats to farmers who are expected to implement all these measures. Trust has been lost, particularly because land ownership has been threatened and people’s legitimate concerns ignored.”

Continuing Mr Kelleher said, “It is also critical to understand that farmers are being bombarded with more and more extreme proposals under directives such as the Industrial Emissions Directive and the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive. Pushback such as happened yesterday against the Industrial Emissions Directive is then denigrated and used to justify attacks on farming in the public narrative.”

Mr Kelleher said the Parliament’s decision to scrap Article 9 concerning the contentious issue of rewetting agricultural peatland was a victory for common sense and illustrates the need for more rounded debate. “The latest research from Teagasc indicates that emissions from Irish peatlands have been spectacularly overestimated. It would be a travesty to rewet lands – and destroy the value of that land – based on figures that were wrong.”

Mr Kelleher also welcomed the removal of Article 16 from the final proposal agreed at today’s Parliament vote. “Article 16 would have provided for the possibility for citizens’ groups and environmental NGOs to take legal action against member states for any perceived failure to implement national restoration plans. The removal of this article was something that ICSA lobbied hard for as it essentially would have provided a charter for constant legal battles. It would have served no purpose other than to create massive division and polarise positions.”

“The Nature Restoration Law will now move to the Trilogues phase of negotiations between the three institutions of the EU – The Commission, the Council of Ministers, and the Parliament. There are no guarantees that amendments made by the Parliament today will survive the Trilogue negotiations so there is still much work to be done to ensure our farmers are safeguarded. ICSA also has grounds to remain very concerned about farmers on Natura land as in Article 4 it is stated that nature restoration is to be done on Natura 2000 areas and not on the whole EU territory.”

ENDS