Dr. Daire Ó hUallacháin:

Táim buíoch as an deis seo a bheith agam. I will speak a little about agro-ecology. Dr. Schulte, in a previous presentation, mentioned the various demands on land use in Ireland, one of which concerns agro-ecology and the conservation of habitats and species, or the conservation of biodiversity. Approximately 10% of the terrestrial land of Ireland is designated as a special area of conservation under the habitats directive. Approximately 6% is designated as a special protection area under the birds directive. There is some overlap between the two designations. Therefore, in total, approximately 13% of the terrestrial area of Ireland is designated under Natura 2000. This is probably the crème de la crèmeof our biodiversity, species and habitats, and it is afforded the highest conservation priority under European legislation. However, it is important to conserve and enhance other aspects of our biodiversity.
There are habitats and species eligible under the habitats and birds directives but which are not yet designated. Approximately 50% of eligible habitats are designated under Natura 2000. How should we go about conserving the other 50%? There are also species and habitats that are rare or threatened on a national scale. There is high-nature-value farmland. This is a new term that has been bandied out for the past 20 years or so. It is important from its biodiversity prospective. I refer to extensive farmland with highly diverse species and habitats. There are also more common farmland habitats, such as hedgerows, ponds, streams and watercourse margins. There is also a semi-improved grassland and improved agriculture land and forestry. It is important that we aim to conserve not only the crème de la crèmeat the top of the list, namely, the habitats designated under Natura 2000, but also the biodiversity associated with the large proportion of land comprising agricultural land and forestry. It is important that we conserve the biodiversity associated with those habitats because they feature widely throughout the country.
Consider the addressing of the conservation status of these habitats. We can target through two methods, namely, critical conservation, focusing primarily on the top three or four on the list, and more strategic conservation measures. It is a question of using critical or strategic conservation strategies to target the various habitats. There will be different effects in respect of each habitat and species.
The next slide shows differences in regard to how we engage in targeting and the impacts of critical and strategic conservation. For example, there is a difference in regard to the cost-effectiveness of measures. Critical conservation measures will be more costly because they are specific. We can consider more general cost-effective measures for strategic conservation. Any measure that we select must be supported by landowners. There will be an impact on the productivity of landowners as critical conservation measures are likely to have a greater impact on landowners than more strategic measures.
For critical conservation, there is a need to target species and habitats, in addition to specific locations for these species and habitats. A good example concerns the freshwater pearl mussel. We have approximately 27 catchments designated under the special area of conservation, SAC. It is unlikely that we can have conservation measures to target all these catchments.

There will be a report saying that it is better to target where one is most like to receive or gain the most rewards in terms of conservation strategy. By targeting the top eight or so catchments, we are most likely to see the conservation strategy make an impact.

For strategic conservation there is less of a need for such targeting. There are also differences in designation and policies to address habitats and species under critical conservation and those under strategic conservation. There are also differences in the funding available and funding streams that can be used. For example, for critical conservation there is Pillar 2 under the Common Agricultural Policy. The new proposed GLAS scheme, which is a new agri-environment scheme, could be seen as one area for targeting funding towards critical conservation. For strategic conservation there are also opportunities under Pillars 1 and 2. Under CAP, for example, there is the greening of CAP or the greening measures which could be seen as more strategic conservation strategies.

There will also be an impact on landowners if we target critical and strategic conservation. For example, in the case of flagship species such as the corncrake, which has declined for a number of different reasons, one of its main threats has been the change in agricultural practices and the switch from traditional hay meadows to silage production. Let us consider the conservation of the species, as we are obliged to do under the birds directive. There is a requirement, where these species occur, to switch back towards more traditional measures, and these will have an impact on production.

Another species is the freshwater pearl mussel. There may be historic reasons for its decline but one of its main threats is sediment. Conservation of the species would impact on the landowner as he or she would have to implement mitigation measures such as buffer strips or sediment traps.

Species rich grassland has declined massively over the past 50 or 60 years and one of its main threats has been abandonment. Therefore, if we want to conserve such habitats, we need farmers to actively manage and farm the land.

From a strategic conservation point of view, these matters are less resource affected. For example, hydro conservation benefits biodiversity and agriculture because it provides shading, shelter and drainage. Let me give the example of species associated with riparian margins, which benefit the margin and the biodiversity associated with the watercourse and also intercept nutrients and sediment, thus preventing them from getting into watercourses. There are also opportunities to target strategic conservation strategies to more marginal areas of land. For example, a farmer can target areas that are less productive, thus benefiting biodiversity and ensuring a reduced cost for agriculture. The last slide provides a summary and heralds the end of the Teagasc presentation.