The Irish Natura and Hill Farmers' Association (INHFA) has said that it is withdrawing its support from a key advisory committee on the Nature Restoration Law.

The Independent Advisory Committee (IAC) on Ireland's Nature Restoration Plan presented recommendations on the plan - which the government must develop by September - to Minister of State for nature Christopher O'Sullivan this week.

The INHFA, whose membership are concentrated in the west and in hill farming areas, has been the most vocal group in opposition to the Nature Restoration Law.

The association is one of the member groups of the IAC, but Pheilim Molloy, the INHFA president, said today (Friday, March 20) that the organisation has formally requested the removal of its name, and the names of its representatives, from the report that went to the minister this week.

Molloy claimed that the suggestion that implementing the Nature Restoration Law would be voluntary for farmers "is simply untrue".

He claimed that farmers whose holdings include certain types of habitats will be subject to significant obligations under the law.

"These obligations must be considered in virtually every farming activity and that is not voluntary by any reasonable definition," Molloy said.

He went on to claim that the Nature Restoration Law would place "real and ongoing constraints on farm families", which, he said, would be "comparable to and potentially exceeding" restrictions under Natura 2000 land designations - the special areas of conservation (SAC) and special protected areas (SPA).

According to the INHFA, the law will require farmers with target habitats - that member states are required to restore - to "have regard" to those habitats in their day-to-day operations.

"This effectively embeds a layer of regulation across normal farming practice. It impacts how land is used, managed, and developed," Molloy claimed.

He also said that the absence of "any confirmed or dedicated funding" at this stage to support the implementation of the Nature Restoration Law is a "fundamental flaw".

"The IAC was asked to produce a report without any clear budget, making it impossible to deliver a credible or implementable plan," the INHFA president said.

He claimed that "baseline costs" associated with compliance with the Nature Restoration Law "have not been assessed or accounted for".

Molloy further claimed that this could leave farmers "exposed to potentially significant financial burdens".

According to the INHFA, farmers may be required to engage with "multiple state agencies" to demonstrate compliance; and that such state agencies may "lack practical understanding of farming realities".

"This creates a perfect storm of bureaucracy, cost, and stress. Farmers are being asked to navigate complex and unclear requirements without adequate support or clarity," Molloy commented.

He said that the INHFA "can no longer stand over" the final report from the committee.

"In its current form, the report does not reflect the realities facing farmers, nor does it provide a workable pathway for implementation. For that reason, we have formally requested that the INHFA’s name and our representatives be removed from any association with it," Molloy said.

However, he also said the INHFA is willing to continue engaging with the government on the Nature Restoration Law.

"Farmers are the primary custodians of the land and key stakeholders in any environmental policy. We remain ready to engage constructively with Minister Christopher O'Sullivan...but this engagement must be grounded in realism, transparency and proper resourcing," Molloy said.