Dr. Humberto Delgado Rosa:

I thank Deputy Harkin for reminding me that we had the occasion to meet with Irish farmers some weeks ago in Brussels. I can reconfirm the figures. It is, of course, a national option but, for sure, these targets of 30% restoration by 2030 on drained peatlands, a quarter of which should be rewetted, could be obtained by using non-agricultural land, depending on Irish choices. I am not sure about the target up to 2050, which is for 70% rewetted, but for sure, for 2030 and in some areas up to 2040, it is, as I said, an Irish decision because the flexibility is ingrained within the proposal.

The Deputy is right that, of course, the final outcome of whatever is the legislation is always different to what the Commission proposed. We propose but we do not decide; it is the Parliament and the Council that decide in the negotiations, of which we also are a part.

With regard to objections, let me remind the Deputy that the call for binding targets for restoration came from the Council - several Council conclusions related to climate and biodiversity actually called for that - and from the Parliament. There are many decisions that originated from the Parliament requesting binding measures with regard to several kinds of ecosystems. In that sense, we have followed requests by those co-legislators.

With regard to member state objections, as far as I am informed, there is no member state with a formal position of fully objecting to the proposal. All member states have some concerns, observations or questions to be raised on, say, article X or article Z, but I do not have to hand the full list of what is each member state’s position on each aspect. Of course, for some, draining peatlands is an issue and, for others, marine restoration is an issue.