Ireland South MEP Mick Wallace has said that he will seek greater ambition on a proposed EU law to restore and rewet peatlands.
In a recent communication to the members of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Wallace said that he welcomed the European Commission’s Nature Restoration Law.
“I will be tabling amendments to the proposal to increase its ambition in a number of respects,” he said.
The independent MEP added that there is “a debate to be had” in relation to increasing the ambition of Article 9 of the proposed law.
Article 9 of the draft law states that, for organic soils in agricultural use constituting drained peatlands, member states shall put in place restoration measures.
Those measures, shall be in place on at least:
- 30% of such areas by 2030, of which at least a quarter shall be rewetted;
- 50% of such areas by 2040, of which at least half shall be rewetted;
- 70% of such areas by 2050, of which at least half shall be rewetted.
Under the law, member states may put in place restoration measures, including rewetting, in areas of peat extraction sites and count those areas as contributing to the law’s targets.
Member states may also put in place restoration measures to rewet organic soils that constitute drained peatlands under land uses other than agricultural use and peat extraction and count those measures as contributing up to 20% of the law’s targets.
Wallace had contacted the committee to dispute the testimony of Niall Curley, a policy officer at COPA COGECA.
Curley had earlier told the committee that only 20% of the law’s targeted land for restoration could be accounted for by land rewetted by Bord na Móna.
Wallace had pointed out to the committee that this 20% figure pertains only to land that is not used for agricultural purposes or peat extraction, and thus that there was no upper limit on what proportion of the target could be met with land used for peat extraction.
On foot of Wallace’s comments, Curley acknowledged that his testimony to the committee was mistaken in this regard.
Curley also told the committee that the commission’s law, as it is currently drafted, does not draw a distinction between the acts of “restoring” peatlands and “rewetting” them.
Wallace also criticised Curley in this regard, saying that Article 9 of the law clearly mentions both restoring and rewetting where it outlines the targeted peatland area.
However, Curley stuck to his guns on this point, stating that, under the annexes to the law which outline the measures the member states will be asked to take to form their restoration plans, only measures that lead to rewetting are mentioned.
Curley noted that, under the current Czech presidency of the Council of the EU, it is expected that additional information and clarification on these measures will be made. For example, a potential measure to convert arable peatland to pasture peatland is expected to be advanced.
“More examples may be forthcoming. However, up to now, this proposal does not make a distinction between restoring and rewetting. And I would ask what is the difference between restoring wetland areas and rewetting wetland areas, if not the recreation of high water tables on the land in question,” Curley added.
“Thus I reject MEP Wallace’s assertion that I am incorrect in this instance.”
Addressing Wallace’s desire to seek greater ambition for the targets under the law, the COPA COGECA policy analyst said: “There can be no misunderstanding on the principle of this, this current proposal will remove thousands of acres from active production.
“Increasing the ambition of this proposal will surely be the demise of hundreds if not thousands of rural areas across Ireland… [The] removal of active, productive agricultural and forestry land from use [will] be taking away the future of these areas and the people who live there,” Curley commented.