This Policy and Institutional Review (PIR) for Ireland is intended to characterise biodiversity spending and the context in which it is made. It examines direct spending and indirect spending in areas of environmental protection. It also looks at the extent to which Government Departments and Agencies consider biodiversity in their core policies, whether the sectors for which they have responsibility are supported by biodiversity and ecosystem services, and whether some of their policies conflict with biodiversity. The PIR complements the national biodiversity expenditure review (NBER) undertaken in 2017 and will inform the financial needs assessment now being undertaken to determine thetype of expenditure needed to implement the National Biodiversity Action Plan 2021-2025, along with the question of how to mobilise these resources. ; Irish Research Council ; National Parks and Wildlife Service
Abstract Background In common with many other countries, native forest in the Ireland is under pressure from a variety of sources. Although the area of forest has increased to 10.5% of the land area of Ireland, this is comprised mainly of exotic conifer species (6.8%). Native species woodland represents only 100,000 hectares (1.4%) of the land area. In addition, much of this area is fragmented and comprised of a narrow range of species. Just 20,000 hectares is represented by woodland resembling the ancient woodland that once covered much of Ireland. Methods This paper examines the natural capital value of the existing area of woodland as represented by the value of the ecosystem services it provides. Results The results demonstrate a significant economic value in excess of €67 million per year. We discuss the consequences of the erosion of this value that could result from continued mismanagement of native woodland. The results show that current government policy is failing to realise the economic value of native woodland and is deficient in terms of the continuity of support. Conclusions The paper demonstrates the very significant values that could be supplied by a gradual expansion of woodland area up to 100% of the current forested area, especially if this expansion is targeted at areas with the highest potential for amenity and water resource protection.
AbstractModels of ecological response to multiple stressors and of the consequences for ecosystem services (ES) delivery are scarce. This paper describes a methodology for constructing a BBN combining catchment and water quality model output, data, and expert knowledge that can support the integration of ES into water resources management. It proposes "small group" workshop methods for elucidating expert knowledge and analyses the areas of agreement and disagreement between experts. The model was developed for four selected ES and for assessing the consequences of management options relating to no-change, riparian management, and decreasing or increasing livestock numbers. Compared with no-change, riparian management and a decrease in livestock numbers improved the ES investigated to varying degrees. Sensitivity analysis of the expert information in the BBN showed the greatest disagreements between experts were mainly for low probability situations and thus had little impact on the results. Conversely, in our applications, the best agreement between experts tended to occur for the higher probability, more likely, situations. This has implications for the practical use of this type of model to support catchment management decisions. The complexity of the relationship between management measures, the water quality and ecological responses and resulting changes in ES must not be a barrier to making decisions in the present time. The interactions of multiple stressors further complicate the situation. However, management decisions typically relate to the overall character of solutions and not their detailed design, which can follow once the nature of the solution has been chosen, for example livestock management or riparian measures or both.
Ecological restoration is key to counteracting anthropogenic degradation of biodiversity and to reducing disaster risk. However, there is limited knowledge of barriers hindering the wider implementation of restoration practices, despite high level political priority to halt the loss of biodiversity. In Europe, progress on ecological restoration has been slow and insufficient to meet international agreements and comply with European Union Nature Directives. We assessed European restoration experts' perceptions on barriers to restoration in Europe, and their relative importance, through a multiple expert consultation using a Delphi process. We found that experts share a common multi‐dimensional concept of ecological restoration. Experts identified a large number of barriers (33) to the advancement of ecological restoration in Europe. Major barriers pertained to the socio‐economic, not the environmental, domain. The three most important being insufficient funding, conflicting interests among different stakeholders and low political priority given to restoration. Our results emphasize the need to increase political commitment at all levels, comply with existing nature laws, and optimize the use of financial resources by increasing funds for ecological restoration and eradicate environmentally harmful subsidies. The experts also call for the integration of ecological restoration into land‐use planning and facilitating stakeholders' collaboration. Our study identifies key barriers, discusses ways to overcome the main barriers to ER in Europe, and contributes knowledge to support the implementation of the European Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and the EU 2030 Restoration Plan in particular. ; We appreciate the support given by BiodivERsA (project funded under the EU Horizon 2020 ERA-NET COFUND scheme), and the EKLIPSE project (European Union Horizon 2020 grant agreement 690474), and particularly by Juliette C. Young. JCS research is financially supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Education and Universities and European Regional Development Funds (FEDER; project COSTERA, RTI2018-095954-B-I00). PMRG research is funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through FCT Investigator Program grant number IF/00059/2015, and Centro de Estudos Florestais is supported by FCT grants UID/AGR/00239/2019 and UIDB/00239/2020.
