The INHFA conducted a survey as part of an engagement process with their member base on the draft National Restoration Plan, which saw the public consultation process for submissions on the plan closing last Wednesday, 1st July.
Speaking on this national vice president, John Joe Fitzgerald, detailed the high level of concern relating to the draft restoration plan. In total, 384 farmers responded, which he explained “was a good reply considering the survey was only opened for a four-day window from Tuesday to Friday of last week, which also coincided with the hottest and possibly busiest week for farmers this summer.”
A major issue for the INHFA since details on the Nature Restoration Law (NRL) first featured in the summer of 2022 was Fitzgerald explained “that land subject to the NRL remains eligible for payments under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).”
As part of this, he added: “critical that this eligibility is conferred by means of the lands being recognised as an agricultural area and not by means of any derogation.” To ensure this INHFA campaigned and got assurances that following wording would be included “Agricultural lands currently defined under CAP regulation should continue to be considered agriculture and maintain eligibility for CAP and other payments, including farmland subject to Articles 4 and 11.”
In the member survey the following question was asked “INHFA has lobbied and been given assurances that lands subject to the NRL will continue to be recognised as agricultural areas and, on this basis, be eligible for CAP payments. How high of a priority do you assess this to be?”
87.5% of the 384 members that responded to the question indicated that this should be a top priority with a further 8% (32) respondents indicating that this should be a medium to high priority.
While the lack of a dedicated budget was a major issue cited by the organisation in their decision to withdraw from the Independent Advisory Committee (IAC), which was established to make draft recommendations on the plan, there were differing views expressed on what should happen if a budget is not forthcoming. Here, survey respondents were split three ways on possible outcomes, with the largest number, 136 (35.4%), expressing the opinion that the plan should be delayed until sufficient funding is available.
138 farmers or one third expressed the view that the plan should go ahead but is confined to State lands such as Coillte or Bord na Mona, while 120 farmers or just over 31% were of the opinion that the plan should be scrapped.
Speaking on this Fitzgerald stated that “while there are differing opinions on this, one thing that is clear from the survey and in engagement with farmers is that, without a dedicated and secure budget then the plan must not proceed on private land.”
In staying with the budget, another question sought clarity on what areas should be prioritised if funding becomes available. This question stated that the INHFA have with land designations always advocated that farmers/landowners should be compensated for baseline costs and asked if a similar approach should be taken to cover any baseline costs incurred from the implementation of the nature restoration plan.
Here 353 of respondents representing 91% of farmers expressed the view that we should cover any baseline costs with the remaining 9% undecided.
On this the INHFA representative detailed how “the demands inside the Nature Restoration Law (especially on Article 4) will impose additional restrictions on farmers, requiring them to have regard for habitat maintenance and restoration as they carry out their day-to-day operations.” This he added “embeds another layer of regulation across normal farming activity and will impact how land is used, managed and developed.”
Outside of farming an issue that always featured, was, Fitzgerald stated “the possible impact the restoration plan might have on rural communities and in particular planning. Here we tried to assess what level of concern existed with our member base especially on planning for dwelling houses and national projects such as roads. Respondents were asked to rate on a scale from one to five (with five being the highest) their level of concern).
From a total of 381 valid responses to this question, 257 or 67% of respondents rated their level of concern at a five with a further 17% or 66 respondents rating their level of concern at a four.
The final question in the survey related to the role of the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). The question stated that “currently it is assumed that the NPWS will have primary responsibility for implementing any final restoration plan. In addition, they are a body that will assess whether the plan is meeting its objectives. Should the same body (NPWS) have responsibility for both roles?”
On this question, 237 respondents (61.5%) were against the idea of the same body carrying out both roles with less than 5% or 16 respondents not having an issue with this, while the remaining 131 respondents or just over one third indicated that they were unsure.
In discussing this Fitzgerald stated how “the response on this reflects the careful consideration given by members as they assess how any plan will be implemented and policed.” In addition to this it may he added “reflect a growing mistrust of the NPWS and any role they may have in the plan.”