Dr. Catherine Farrell:

That is a very big question. What we need to do is make a thorough assessment or inventory of what we have in terms of our peatlands. We selected out the cream of the crop, as it were, back in the 1980s and 1990s but sadly we allowed their continued and ongoing degradation. Some of those examples that we designated as SACs are of a lower quality than areas that exist outside of the SAC network. We need to get back to assessing what is there and looking at the inventory but it is not just about conservation. It is also about reducing the risk of devastating events such as bogslides, fires and so on. We have to combine these conservation aims with reducing the risks relating to degraded peatlands. A national inventory is required.

We must target areas that are hotspots for nature conservation and look after them but also those hotspots that are going to cause huge problems and lead to huge costs to the State in terms of water and carbon loss and potentially, the loss of human life at some point. The important thing is to get them all back on a trajectory of recovery. I have worked on degraded peatlands and often the ones that are outside the network can give back the most in terms of a minimal intervention. The more degraded the system is, the easier it is to work with in some ways because one can start to push it back and get positive responses. I would not be prejudiced against a peatland because it is not as good looking as the next. They all have their role. Each peatland has to be assessed at site level and catchment level and there is no easy way around that. Doing that will make a hugely significant contribution. It also overlaps with Mr. Purser's work in terms of the areas that should be restored under forestry and the areas that can remain under this continuous cover forestry, with added benefits for biodiversity. They all need restoration and they can all contribute to that 30% target.