The Irish Natura and Hill Farmers' Association (INHFA) has carried out a survey to seek farmers' views on Ireland's draft National Nature Restoration Plan.

The survey comes as the first public consultation on the draft plan closed on Wednesday (July 1).

This initial feedback period was run by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to gather public input before submitting the draft to the European Commission later in the year.

Once feedback on the draft is received from the commission, the next version of the plan will then go out to another public consultation, before approval is sought at Cabinet on the final document.

INHFA

In total, 384 farmer members responded to the INHFA survey which ran from Tuesday to Friday of last week.

INHFA national vice president John Joe Fitzgerald said that a major issue for the farm organisation is that land subject to the Nature Restoration Law (NRL) remains eligible for payments under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

He said that INHFA has 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.

In the survey, 87.5% of farmers that this should be a top priority, with a further 8% indicating that this should be a medium to high priority.

The lack of a dedicated nature restoration budget was an issue cited by the INHFA in its decision to withdraw from the Independent Advisory Committee (IAC) which was established to make draft recommendations on the plan.

The final IAC report recommended that "the government act to fund the restoration of nature with specific, adequate, ringfenced funding from the State".

The INHFA survey found differing views on what should happen if a budget is not forthcoming.

35.4% said the plan should be delayed until such time as sufficient funding is made 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.

120 farmers or just over 31% were of the opinion that the plan should be scrapped.

"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," Fitzgerald said.

Nature Restoration Plan

91% of farmers expressed the view that any baseline costs incurred from the implementation of the nature restoration plan should be covered.

"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," Fitzgerald claimed.

"This embeds another layer of regulation across normal farming activity and will impact how land is used, managed and developed," he added.

The survey also asked farmers about their level of concern about the possible impact the restoration plan may have on rural communities and planning.

From a total of 381 valid responses to this question, 257 or 67% of respondents rated their level of concern at a five (the highest level), 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".

61.5% of respondents were against the idea of the same body carrying out both roles, 131 farmers were unsure and with less than 5% did not having an issue with this.