The President of the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association (INHFA), Phelim Molloy, has today issued a strong statement challenging what he describes as “categorically false and misleading claims” in public and media discourse that the Nature Restoration Law (NRL) is voluntary for farmers. Mr Molloy confirmed that the INHFA has formally requested the removal of its name and the names of its representatives from the final report of the Independent Advisory Committee (IAC) on the implementation of the NRL.
“The narrative that the Nature Restoration Law is voluntary for farmers is simply untrue,” said Mr Molloy. “Farmers, particularly those with farmlands classified as containing Annex I habitats, are now subject to significant obligations under Article 4 of the law. These obligations must be considered in virtually every farming activity, and that is not voluntary by any reasonable definition.” He emphasised that the burden of Article 4 places real and ongoing constraints on farm families, comparable to — and potentially exceeding — those previously experienced under SAC and SPA designations.
The INHFA is particularly concerned about the implications of Article 4 of the Nature Restoration Law, which requires Member States to restore and maintain habitats listed under Annex I. Where such habitats occur on farmland, farmers must actively “have regard” to these requirements in their day-to-day operations. “This effectively embeds a layer of regulation across normal farming practice,” Mr Molloy stated. “It impacts how land is used, managed, and developed. To suggest otherwise is misleading to both farmers and the wider public.”
The INHFA also highlighted a fundamental flaw in the IAC process — the absence of any confirmed or dedicated funding to support implementation. “Farmers were led to believe that a €3.15 billion fund would underpin the rollout of this law. That funding has not materialised. The IAC was asked to produce a report without any clear budget, making it impossible to deliver a credible or implementable plan,” said Mr Molloy. He warned that baseline costs associated with compliance — particularly on lands affected by Article 4 — have not been assessed or accounted for, leaving farmers exposed to potentially significant financial burdens.
The INHFA further cautioned that farmers may be required to engage with multiple state agencies to demonstrate compliance, many of which lack a practical understanding of farming realities. “This creates a perfect storm of bureaucracy, cost, and stress. Farmers are being asked to navigate complex and unclear requirements without adequate support or clarity,” Mr Molloy added.
While the INHFA engaged constructively and in good faith throughout the IAC process, Mr Molloy confirmed that the organisation can no longer stand over the final report. “In its current form, the report does not reflect the realities facing farmers, nor does it provide a workable pathway for implementation. For that reason, we have formally requested that the INHFA’s name and our representatives be removed from any association with it.”
Despite this decision, the INHFA reaffirmed its commitment to engaging with the Government. “Farmers are the primary custodians of the land and key stakeholders in any environmental policy. We remain ready to engage constructively with Minister Christopher O’Sullivan and the Department — but this engagement must be grounded in realism, transparency, and proper resourcing.”