Land designation has not delivered for nature and has fostered resentment in the areas affected by it, writes Ray Ó Foghlú.

Empathy is a virtue in short supply when it comes to tensions between farmers and environmentalists.

I’ve always believed these groups find themselves in conflict because they are among the few who care enough about the issues to stick their neck out.

For this reason, I’ve always tried (sometimes failed) to look beyond the headlines to understand the positions taken, particularly by farmers and their representative groups.

The Nature Restoration Law provided a good example.

At first glance, one might have expected organisations like the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association (INHFA), which represent farmers in uplands and peatlands, to see opportunities for their members in binding national targets for nature restoration.

After all, the natural constraints of their farms often make efficient or profitable food production difficult.

Most are already 100% subsidised by the state. Surely, the chance to stack a new payment for peatland rewetting, woodland creation, or invasive species management on to their farm enterprise would seem attractive?

Yet, this was not the case. The INHFA, along with the rest of Ireland’s farming organisations, vehemently opposed the passing of the law.

Why?

In my view, much of the resistance stems from these farmers’ collective experience with Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) or Special Protection Areas (SPA) designations.

These laws, implemented in the mid-1990s, also originated in Brussels and affected more than 35,000 Irish farmers by designating their lands as SACs or SPAs.

Today, these designations cover at least 2.2m acres of Ireland and significantly restrict farmers’ ability to carry out activities considered normal elsewhere, such as draining, fencing, ploughing, liming, and reclamation.

To undertake such actions, farmers must first obtain consent from the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

These designations have drastically reduced the market value of affected lands due to the limitations on economic activity. They have also excluded these lands from lucrative forestry programmes.

The rationale behind the designations was that the habitats within them were internationally rare and, without legal protection, would likely be damaged or destroyed for agricultural or silvicultural purposes.

From the farmers’ perspective, the implicit quid pro quo was that the State would acknowledge these restrictions by financially rewarding good stewardship of such habitats.

Broken promises

The problem is, in many cases, this compensation either didn’t materialise or fell significantly short. Where supports were introduced, their real value has steadily declined.

A sheep farmer in west Galway recently told me his early REPS (Rural Environment Protection Scheme) payments amounted to about €11,300 in the late 1990s. Today, he expects his ACRES payment to be around €7,000.

In an era of increased urgency around biodiversity loss and climate change, one must ask: why are we paying those most capable of delivering solutions even less?

Vincent Roddy, president of the INHFA, likens these land designations to a burden on a farmer’s title - and it’s hard to disagree.

Better the devil you know

The entire debacle has hardened attitudes at the farm level. Many farmers now prefer to focus on buying and selling livestock - a space where they retain at least some agency - rather than pin their hopes on the uncertainty of the next ‘scheme’ to come along.

This sentiment is reflected in their leadership. Lobbying efforts on behalf of marginal land farmers are primarily centred on headage-style ‘price per ewe’ or “price per suckler cow” payments, despite these sectors being in long-term structural decline.

There’s little by way of a future-oriented vision, one that integrates agricultural traditions with the realities of climate change, biodiversity loss, and demographic and socioeconomic challenges.

The truth is, we’ve given farmers little reason to believe such a future exists.

For some, the price paid by farmers on designated lands might seem acceptable if the laws achieved their goal of protecting nature

Unfortunately, they haven’t.

Biodiversity has continued to decline, even on designated lands. From the sessile oak woods and wet heaths of south Kerry to the curlews and hen harrier habitats of the Slieve Aughties, the situation remains dire.

Biodiversity has continued to decline, even on designated lands. \ Ray O Foghlú

Thirty years on from Natura 2000 designations, 85% of these habitats are in unfavourable condition.

This represents a failure of historic proportions. From the State’s perspective, it’s a case study on how not to address biodiversity loss.

For environmental NGOs and campaigners, it was a missed opportunity, an instance where an enormous common cause with affected farmers went unrecognised.

If Ireland is to succeed in halting biodiversity loss, the Government must grasp one fundamental truth: the barriers are rarely technical.

We can restore bogs, protect ancient woodlands, and reintroduce missing species, but we can do none of this without landowners seeing it as being in their own best interest.

Ray Ó Foghlú is an environmental scientist and woodland conservationist He is the farm programmes co-ordinator with the Hometree charity.