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

2. Natura 2000 in Ireland

3. Process for compilation of the PAF
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)

4. 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)

5. 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*

6. Peatlands measures in the PAF

7. 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

8. 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

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

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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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.

15. Irish & EU funded research in results-based solutions

16. 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

17. The current RDP:
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

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

23. 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

24. Thanks for your attention