The advisory committee on nature restoration has expressed \u201cdisappointment and frustration\u201d at the exclusion of nature from a significant plan for public spending over the next decade. <\/p>\n
Its members said nature has been \u201csidelined\u201d in the Government\u2019s \u20ac275 billion National Development Plan<\/a>, which is to underpin projects of national importance up to 2035. <\/p>\n The issue was raised during a series of meetings that will feed into the committee\u2019s recommendations for the State\u2019s first Nature Restoration Plan. <\/p>\n A draft of the plan is due to be published early next year and the final document by September. <\/p>\n A 13-member independent advisory committee was appointed to guide the process, with members drawn from farming, nature conservation, environmental non-governmental organisations, forestry, fishing, academia and the local authority sector. <\/p>\n Over a series of meetings and presentations since last spring, a number of key concerns were raised. <\/p>\n These included the need for committed funding, effective incentives for farmers and landowners, enforceable targets for nature restoration and clear mandates for public bodies and State-owned companies. <\/p>\n How to fund the plan was a recurring theme and minutes of one meeting state: \u201cThe committee outlined its disappointment and frustration at the nature element having been sidelined in the recently revised National Development Plan\u201d. <\/p>\n They continue: \u201cUrgent clarification is required from Government on this point.\u201d <\/p>\n The committee also referred to the role the \u20ac3.14 billion Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund should have in financing the nature restoration plan. <\/p>\n Most of that fund has been allocated to the planning of MetroLink<\/a>, a decision criticised by environmental groups and farming organisations. <\/p>\n While the advisory committee was meeting, a parallel series of \u201cleaders forums\u201d was under way, with participation from different sectors. <\/p>\n The farming forum heard money was the chief concern for farmers who want to give up land for nature but cannot remain financially viable if they do. <\/p>\n The urban forum heard of the challenge of making room for nature and green spaces at a time of intense pressure for new housing and other developments. <\/p>\n A third strand of meetings, called \u201ccommunity conversations\u201d took place around the State. These were open to the general public to attend. <\/p>\n