Some thoughts on the PAF in an Irish context Rebecca Jeffrey Andy Bleasdale Science and Biodiversity Section National Parks and Wildlife Service

Natura 2000 in Ireland

Process for compilation of the PAF 2012-2014 Internal workshops within NPWS Introductory and summary text compiled Government departments requested to provide financial information Preliminary draft produced and circulated to other departments and bodies Meetings/workshops held with key sectors (e.g. agriculture, fisheries and aquaculture, forestry) Draft finalised Updated to reflect 2013 Article 17 and 12 results Period of public consultation with targeting of eNGOs PAF finalised Approved by Government Sent to Commission (November 2014)

Identification of conservation priorities Results of Article 17 and Article 12 reporting Infringement cases Peatlands and other wetlands Upland systems Coastal systems Species-rich grasslands Freshwater pearl mussel Birds in decline (e.g. corncrake, breeding waders, hen harrier)

A strategic approach to improving conservation status- raised bogs 53 SACs 7110 Active raised bogs* 7120 Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion 91D0 Bog woodland*

Peatlands measures in the PAF

National raised bog SACs conservation management plan National Conservation Objective aims to define favourable conservation status Based on Habitats Directive definition of Favourable Conservation Status natural range and areas it covers within that range are stable or increasing specific structure and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance exist and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future conservation status of its typical species is favourable

Site-specific Conservation Objectives Based on the ecological requirements at site-level Each contributes to the achievement of national conservation objective Part of a conservation management planning process/system- set targets for restoration planning

Raised bog restoration plans Costed measures include: Drain blocking Conifer/invasives removal Marginal bunds

Implementing the plans Restoration measures being implemented on additional sites using exchequer funding

Natura 2000 in Ireland 13.56% of terrestrial land is designated as Natura 2000 564,000ha of this is farmed (59%) 35,000 farmers manage Natura 2000 land, in private ownership Farming has a very significant part to play in the management of Natura, for good and bad Very strong farming lobby, with strong representative bodies

Impacts in farmed Natura 2000 in Ireland = Poor Conservation Status overgrazing and undergrazing land abandonment intensification: supplementary feeding, drainage, fertilisation, reclamation permanent habitat loss inappropriate burning peat extraction poor water quality (eg for freshwater pearl mussel) = Poor Conservation Status We need “conservation measures” to address above This is where the PAF comes in! 12

Rural Development in Ireland 1994-2013 Higher payments were available in Natura 2000 Measures were prescription/rule-based Measures were general, not targeted at habitats/species (and not focused on results) Little flexibility or local adaptation (“one size fits all”) Advisory services were not supported by specialists Monitoring and performance indicators were poorly designed A renewed impetus for post 2013, using the PAF Better dialogue, better targeting, better design = better results 13

Payment for Results Result = habitats/habitats for species in good condition A simple concept: Indicators developed and fields scored; the better the product, the higher the payment.

Irish & EU funded research in results-based solutions

The Burren Programme: a hybrid approach Payment for Results Payment for Actions Result = Species-rich grassland habitats in good condition Action = Supporting the farmer to deliver the results

The current RDP: 2014-2020 Close working relationship between Irish AG and ENV Ministries, proposing a greater focus on both improved targeting and results to implement the PAF Locally-led/results-based pilots (€74m for EIPs) Current RDP more likely to be positive for biodiversity, still retaining a prescription focus but testing results-based AES in a “bottom-up” way Commissioner Hogan CAP communication paper on “The Future of Food and Farming” provides a focus on results post 2020 17

Current stepping stones: Supporting PAF priorities Burren Hen Harrier FPM Current stepping stones: Supporting PAF priorities

Irish Reflections on the PAF process so far Focuses attention on OP period Focuses attention on gaps PAF  identify funding priorities and measures A tool for dialogue between different stakeholders; between MAs and DGs re OPs Delivers improved programming of OPs There is an appetite for dialogue for the next PAF Has the potential to be a very powerful enabling tool (but capacity is an issue) Not a “silver bullet” Aspirational; does it have “teeth”? Dialogue between MAs and DGs re OPs? Not sufficiently ‘owned’ or understood by institutions and stakeholders; too detailed? Lack of targets, indicators, monitoring of delivery Link between priorities and measures unclear; format could be improved Difficulty in tracking expenditure on past and current OPs: institutional buy-in? Voluntary AES vs mandatory measures PAF should not be a reporting tool; rather a policy driver for change

Thanks for your attention