The European Union’s Nature Restoration Law could prevent farmers from farming their land without changes to its wording, the European Parliament has heard before a decisive vote on the proposed legislation.
Midlands North-West MEP Luke Ming Flanagan told the chamber in Strasbourg, France on Tuesday that depending on how it is interpreted by national governments, a line in the law dedicated to restoring habitats could be an obstacle to farming.
“We need this to work for all our futures,” he said. “We need to be honest with farmers on what they will have to do. If it is going to cause a problem then we have to admit it.”
Mr Flanagan pointed to article 4 paragraph 2 of the proposed legislation regarding the restoration of habitats.
Markets in Vienna or Christmas at The Shelbourne? 10 holiday escapes over the festive season
Ciara Mageean: ‘I just felt numb. It wasn’t even sadness, it was just emptiness’
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Carl and Gerty Cori: a Nobel Prizewinning husband and wife team
[ Nature Restoration Law: The case in favourOpens in new window ]
[ Nature Restoration Law: The case againstOpens in new window ]
“Depending on how a member state interprets it, farmers could be prevented from farming their land. That’s not scaremongering that’s my honest interpretation,” the Left group independent MEP said, adding that he had submitted amendments to alter it and looked forward to talks with the lead negotiator.
Mr Flanagan also called for the EU to fund €400 billion every six years to pay farmers to protect nature across the Continent, which he said would match payments offered by Switzerland and would be “cheap in comparison” to the €1.8 trillion in economic benefits the law will bring, according to the WWF nature group.
The debate took place before a crunch vote in the European Parliament on Wednesday in which all MEPs will opt whether or not to reject the law outright, in what is expected to be a tight ballot.
Crusade
Manfred Weber, the head of the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), of which Fine Gael is a member, has led a crusade against the law and drove a series of defeats in prior committee votes, as his party seeks to compete with rural and climate sceptic parties before next year’s parliament elections.
As the debate began, the lead negotiator on the law, Spanish centre-left MEP César Luena, pointed out that a string of countries with EPP parties in government, including Ireland, had nevertheless supported a compromise version of the law.
“Please be reasonable,” he appealed to the centre-right group. “We’ve got lots of fake news about this law. I’ll just pick one: that it will harm food security. Look at the science, look at the facts, it’s quite the opposite. We actually need fertile soil and pollinators to ensure food security.”
Several lawmakers pointed out that the temperature in Strasbourg was forecast to reach 37 degrees as the debate took place, more than 10 degrees above the average peak temperature for July in the French city.
“We just experienced the hottest month of June ever recorded both on land and on sea,” said climate activist Greta Thunberg through a megaphone during a protest outside the parliament as the debate took place.
“What we are witnessing now is only the beginning of a climate and biodiversity destabilisation that will continue to spiral and get worse unless we start to act. We demand that the MEPs do not reject this law and vote for the strongest law possible.”
Left Independent MEP Mick Wallace, who also spoke in the debate, told the chamber that the law was “not perfect” but that it was essential for the future of humanity.
“The scientific consensus is if we do not take dramatic action within the next decade we may face damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies,” he said. “Our future depends on it. The Nature Restoration Law is an existential necessity.”
