Dr. Humberto Delgado Rosa:

There is nothing new from the duties that derive from the habitats directive. Here I am discussing non-protected habitats. There is nothing in the regulations that encroaches on private property rights. It is a decision of the member states in the nature restoration plans that must be done in full consultation with stakeholders.

Let me address the farmers. What would I say to a farmer who has all of his land in drained peatland? The first thing I would say is that it depends on the decision of the member state that he can fully maintain, as is, his own activity. That specific farm does not need to be put under restoration. It will depend on national decisions and conveniences.

It is true when we say for each €1 invested there are €8 of benefit. Much of this benefit is public benefit for which there should be public money going to support these public works. The rewetting, when it does come in, changes production. By the way, allow me to dismiss something. We are not preaching at all that Ireland should put water buffalo on drained peatland in the future. We refer in our examples and the considerations that some forms of production, paludiculture, some kinds of berries, water buffaloes in some areas can be options to maintain other kinds of production. It depends on what is possible in Ireland and that is dependent on the Irish situation that I do not know enough about. There are several levels of rewetting. Rewetting is bringing up the water table but not up to the surface as compatible with maintaining some types of use so production can be affected or changed but not fully changed everywhere, depending on the option of the member state.

We are seeing that there are societal trends on peatland which are different from the past. In the past there was peat extraction for energy and there was drainage for agricultural production. Nowadays, we are seeing that these ecosystems are crucial for climate change purposes. There is a value in carbon. There is a carbon farming initiative being shaped. Imagine in the future that adding to the normal production of a grassland there is another production, either biodiversity or carbon capture which can have a monetary value to it. Policies can be devised to pay ecosystems services.

My final comment is on methane from rewetting. We have heard that when rewetting is done there are also methane emissions. All of the studies we have seen so far indicate that climate benefits, even counting this methane emission from rewetting vegetation. I am not aware of a specific Irish study that would show otherwise but we are very receptive to any scientific information that you may wish to make us aware of.