Fianna Fáil MEP Billy Kelleher has indicated that he will not be voting in favour of the EU Nature Restoration Law in its current form.
Kelleher said that he is “unable to support” any form of the law that would include mandatory rewetting targets on member states.
He was reacting to details on the compromises being negotiated by the various political groupings in the European Parliament.
According to the Ireland South MEP, the measures currently on the table in the parliament are even more damaging to the farming community in Ireland than the original proposal from the European Commission.
He added that he “does not see any way back in terms of the parliament’s position”.
Kelleher said: “At present, the parliament’s negotiator is proposing that 30% of previously drained agricultural land will be restored with at least 50% [of that] to be rewetted by 2030.
“By 2050, they want 50% of previously drained agricultural land restored, including 66% [of that] rewetted,” he added.
“This would have a devastating impact on Irish agriculture. Thousands of farmers have, over the last 60 years, reclaimed land from peatlands for use as farmland. If this land was rewetted, we would imperil their farms and livelihoods, and further drive up the cost of land in this country.”
Kelleher said that the drafters of the proposal do not understand the “unique circumstances” of Irish land usage.
Apart from the agricultural impact, the MEP also raised concerns over how the law would affect Ireland’s ability to build homes and develop the economy.
“There needs to be greater flexibility for national governments and local authorities in terms of green spaces and housing. We are in a very difficult position here in Ireland concerning home construction,” he said.
“We cannot have a situation where nature restoration targets could inhibit the building of homes for our citizens.”
Kelleher called on the European Commission to withdraw the proposed law and “start from scratch”.
He went on: “What I cannot understand is why no detailed impact assessment has taken place on how implementation of this proposal would affect agriculture, urban planning, energy production, and a whole host of other crucial issues.
“The mind boggles how the commission could entertain such a proposal,” Kelleher added.