Mr. Joe Condon:

The evidence I am giving is not my opinion but is based on research I have looked into and this is evidence given at another Oireachtas committee by a person involved in rewetting. It was stated that emissions following the rewetting of former agricultural land can be very high in respect of methane. That comes from 2007 but a more recent study has been done in Ireland itself and the results state, "the climate cooling effect ... at our study site is projected to plateau within a few decades of rewetting ... and the climate warming impact of sustained CH4 emissions is likely to predominate for the next two centuries". This project was funded by Bord na Móna and the EPA.

At present, a farmer would not be an intentional polluter. If he were to rewet his land, then he would be an intentional polluter. If we look at Article 16, there would be a catch-22 situation in this scenario. If he does not obey the law, he will be in an illegal situation while if he obeys the law, he will be a polluter and also in an illegal situation. This is the anomaly that has developed in this regard from this science. We are looking at this from the reputational value of the products we are producing on our land. There is another scenario where we have an Irish grass-fed standard, which crosses into the North of Ireland. We will have a country that is not going to be impacted by the nature restoration law but this product is directly linked to land on both sides of that Border. Reputational issues could arise in this regard.