Mr. Joe Condon:

To go back to Mr. Punch's point on Article 16, we believe there is a catch-22 in this. We believe that the law on rewetting of agricultural land will be a fact. The scientific evidence on rewetting of agricultural land is also a fact. According to an expert who gave evidence to this committee, emissions following the rewetting of formerly agricultural land can be very high and could persist for decades after rewetting. Based on this evidence, an NGO could take a case that its right to a clean environment under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is being impaired by rewetting and that such rewetting of agricultural land is not compliant with prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources under Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Based on those two facts, farmers could be before the courts if they rewet and if they do not rewet.