Dr. Humberto Delgado Rosa:

First of all, I send forth sympathy for the cause as I can also express empathy and sympathy for those who feel concerns on this issue, such as the generations of farmers the Deputy referred to. There is an issue of managing expectations here. The Deputy said he had expected a greater level of detail from my presentation, but I planned for ten minutes and presenting a full regulation in ten minutes would always be squeezed. However, even if I had had much more time, the Deputy could not expect from my presentation comment on what specific land in Ireland would or would not be subject to restoration measures because that is an Irish competence. That is the main point of what I am saying. We provide a lot of flexibility through our regulation. We provide the types of habitats on which restoration will be binding, but how much, precisely where, how and with what funding are fully a national competence.

To go directly to the socioeconomic implications, if I am not wrong it is the Irish Climate Action Plan 2021 that aims at a target of 24%, if my figures are correct, of drained peatland under agricultural use to be rewetted for climate purposes. The draft plan for 2026 goes in the same direction, and the Ag Climatise roadmap refers, if my figures are not wrong, to something like 12%. To put it precisely, what we are proposing in the nature restoration law is 30% of drained peatland under agricultural use by 2030, with just one quarter of it to be rewetted, and for 2050 that is 70%, only half of which is to be rewetted, plus whatever flexibility clauses the members states may wish to apply. The socioeconomic implications for specific agricultural areas are fully a national competence to define. We do not have the figures, the means, the capacity or indeed the responsibility. It falls within subsidiarity. No impact assessment could be done at EU level on the top of the iceberg to go into the detail of every single parcel of land. This is the topic, basically, of subsidiarity.

The Deputy rightly referred to what Bord na Móna is doing on past peat extraction cases. Bord na Móna has become a very good example of extraction to restoration and using the just transition funding. In many sectors we are facing the costs of transition. I can fully understand that. If my family was in coal mining for generations, then it has an impact when somebody tells you that you must stop and do something different because of the climate.

We are not at the stage where we are saying we must stop farming because of the climate but we are saying that on some kinds of soil, there is a public advantage to considering rewetting, part of which is compatible production but maybe not. There is an economic and public benefit that can be used to support the transition and maybe bring in other socioeconomic activities. I gave carbon farming as an example. I have empathy for the concerns. I can certainly imagine myself as a farmer whose land was in my family for generations doing a certain activity and feeling the fear that that someone will question what I do. Whether it is questionable will depend on national planning on that specific plot. I can fully understand that in some cases, the best option will be to maintain the activity and address peatland elsewhere, for example, peatland-extensive sites. I may be repeating myself but it is the essence of the regulation and that is what I can bring to the committee as testimony.