The battle over the EU’s controversial nature restoration law has intensified in recent weeks, with waiting for clarity on the key questions they have around how it will impact their livelihoods.

The debate has largely focused on rewetting peatlands.

The proposals on the table will slap a legally-binding requirement for Ireland to rewet anything from 80,000ha right up to over 150,000ha of peat soils.

Just weeks ago, Minister for Agriculture Charlie McConalogue claimed on the national airwaves that State lands could meet any rewetting obligation laid down by Brussels right up to 2050. He heralded this a key win for Ireland at the Council of Ministers.

However, Minister of State Malcolm Noonan repeatedly states that these State lands will only meet 2040 targets and that farmland will fill the remainder. These apparently contradictory positions from Government are unsettling farmers.

McConalogue’s claim is based on the Council of Ministers’ lower targets being accepted by MEPs and the European Commission. Both currently want higher targets. Will the minister’s claim weather the looming trilogue?

McConalogue has also claimed that “ministers, my Department and my respective colleagues” are the only source of “definitive facts” on rewetting proposals, as opposed to the “fearmongering” of others.

Does that test apply to Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, who warned that elements of the proposals “go too far”?

The nature restoration debate entered the chambers of Dáil Éireann last week. But holding Government to account was sacrificed at the altar of political grandstanding.

Interruptions

A series of interruptions from some rural Independents saw the debate suspended. Twice. The second suspension ended the debate. Ultimately, the charade let ministers partially off the hook from responding to genuine fears, concerns and questions raised during the lengthy debate.

There are also the questions which haven’t yet been heard. Rewetting is only half the story affecting drained, farmed peatlands.

Restoration measures will need to cover at least the same area of land that rewetting will, but we have heard little on what will qualify as “restoration”. Will hedgerow management suffice, or will cuts be sought on stocking rates and fertiliser? The question hasn’t been answered.

The restoration proposals also go far beyond peatlands. They seek to boost carbon in tillage soils, increase levels of high-diversity features on farmland and improve the number of farmland birds. It isn’t known exactly what will be required from farmers to meet these targets.

At this stage, it is generally assured that farmers will not be faced with rewetting ultimatums. But most other concerns have gone largely unaddressed and clarity has yet to come on other key aspects of the proposed law. Answers are needed.