I welcome everyone back to this committee. Apologies have been received Seanadóir Noel O'Donovan. The first item on the clár today is engagement with witnesses on funding for LIFE programmes. At the end of last year, the joint committee agreed to carry out further scrutiny on EU legislative proposal COM (2025) 555. This omnibus proposal encompasses a wide range of policy areas, including the EU LIFE programme, the fund for the environment, sustainability and green transition. As it stands, the proposal will lead to the cessation of the EU's only ring-fenced fund for climate and environmental action. The purpose of our meeting this afternoon is to have an engagement with stakeholders on this topic. This is meeting is the first of two meetings. The second will be with LIFE programme project partners.

I welcome the following witnesses to the committee: from the Department of Energy, Climate and the Environment: Mr. Conor McCabe, director, responsible for EU presidency programme management and EU funding, and Ms. Aideen Reilly, assistant principal officer; from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, Mr. Niall Ó Donnchú, director general, and Ms Heather Cuddy, assistant principal officer. They all very welcome here today. I remind all in attendance to ensure their mobile phones are on silent mode or switched off.

Before I invite the witnesses to deliver their opening statements, I advise everybody of the following in relation to parliamentary privilege. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction, please.

In terms of format of the meeting, I will invite witnesses in turn to make an opening statement for a maximum of five minutes. Once they have been delivered, I will then call on members of the committee, in the order they indicate to me, to put their questions. We operate a rota system which gives everybody an initial five minutes to engage with witnesses for both questions and answers. As usual, it is essential for members to put their questions succinctly and witnesses to be succinct in their replies. When all members who have indicated have had their initial engagement and time permitting, we will have a second round where members will get three minutes for both questions and answers. Please note the duration of the meeting is limited and the times must be strictly adhered to so I ask everybody to be focused, as usual, on their contributions.

I will now call on each organisation to deliver their opening statement as follows: Mr. McCabe and then Mr. Ó Donnchú.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. My colleague Ms Aideen Reilly will deliver our statement.

I thank the committee for the invitation to appear before it today. I am appearing in my capacity as the manager of the Irish national contact point for the EU LIFE programme within the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. In this role, the team works directly with potential and successful applicants to develop project ideas, improve proposals and navigate the various programme rules and systems.

The team also represents Irish interests in the development of the yearly calls and hosts information days, training and workshops for various stakeholders. It has been involved in the discussion of the future of the LIFE programme under the new multi-annual financial framework, MFF. My remarks will focus on how the programme operates, Ireland’s track record with it and the critical implications of the proposed changes to the next EU budget. At a time when environmental and climate challenges demand focused EU support, the potential loss of LIFE as a dedicated instrument raises serious concerns that merit scrutiny. I believe Ireland’s successes provide compelling evidence of why LIFE must be protected.

The LIFE programme is the European Union’s dedicated funding instrument for environmental and climate action. Established in 1992, it was the only EU programme with an exclusive focus on supporting the implementation, enforcement and development of EU environmental, climate and clean energy legislation. In the current 2021 to 2027 period, it operates through four sub-programmes, covering nature and biodiversity, circular economy and quality of life, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and the clean energy transition. LIFE is directly managed by the European Commission and operates on a bottom-up basis. It funds pilot, demonstration and strategic projects that are designed to test solutions, build capacity and support the practical delivery of EU policy. This includes projects that are innovative but not readily fundable under larger instruments due to scale, risk profile or non-commercial public benefit.

Ireland’s participation in LIFE provides a strong evidence base. Since 1992, Ireland has secured over 100 LIFE projects, with total investment exceeding €200 million. In the current programming period to date, 52 Irish projects have been approved, with an EU contribution of almost €58 million and a total project value of over €100 million. Ireland’s participation rate is high relative to population size and reflects sustained engagement by public bodies, NGOs and local organisations.

Strategic projects illustrate the programme’s function in practice. LIFE SNaP Ireland supports nationwide implementation of biodiversity prioritised action frameworks and Natura 2000 objectives. The marine protected areas LIFE project supports the designation and management of marine protected areas in line with EU and national commitments. Earlier projects, such as Burren LIFE, tested results-based agri-environment approaches that were later incorporated into national policy instruments. These examples demonstrate how LIFE operates as a mechanism for piloting approaches that are subsequently mainstreamed.

The committee will be aware that the European Commission has proposed a restructuring of the EU budget for the period 2028 to 2034. Under the proposal, the existing LIFE regulation would be repealed, and activities currently supported under LIFE would be integrated into larger funding instruments through mainstreaming and split between the European competitiveness fund and the national and regional partnership plans. Activities under the nature and biodiversity sub-programme, including support for Natura 2000, species and habitat conservation and nature restoration, would be expected to fall primarily within the proposed national and regional partnership plans. Within that framework, it is expected that they would compete with a wide range of other priorities, such as regional development, agriculture, fisheries and broader economic and social objectives.

The circular economy and quality of life sub-programme, which supports actions on waste, water, air quality, chemicals, pollution prevention and environmental governance, would also be largely absorbed into the national and regional partnership plans. In practice, these actions would compete with infrastructure, competitiveness, digitalisation and social inclusion measures within nationally determined programming envelopes. Activities currently supported under the climate change mitigation and adaptation sub-programme would be expected to be spread across the national and regional partnership plans and the proposed European competitiveness fund. Within those instruments, they would compete directly with industrial policy, innovation, security and broader competitiveness priorities. The clean energy transition sub-programme would be primarily redirected towards the European competitiveness fund. In this context, actions focused on capacity building, consumer engagement and local energy initiatives would compete with large-scale industrial decarbonisation and market-driven energy investments.

The Commission has indicated that environmental and climate objectives would be preserved through horizontal spending targets and intervention fields. However, the removal of a dedicated programme raises a number of practical considerations that are relevant from an implementation perspective. These include the absence of a ring-fenced budget for environment and biodiversity, reduced visibility of outcomes, fragmentation of actions across multiple instruments and potential access barriers for smaller public and civil society stakeholders that currently rely on direct calls. These considerations are reflected in joint technical positions from national contact points across 19 member states and associated countries. These positions draw on programme evaluations and implementation experience rather than institutional preference.

The LIFE programme has proven itself as a targeted, effective instrument for delivering EU environmental and climate objectives, with Ireland’s successes offering clear proof of its practical benefits, from large-scale strategic initiatives to innovative local pilots that shape national policy. As the EU budget negotiations progress, we must insist on preserving LIFE’s dedicated structure or, at the very least, ensuring strong safeguards within the new framework to maintain momentum on our shared commitments. Without this, we risk diluting critical environmental progress at a time when decisive action is non-negotiable. The operational evidence from LIFE can inform the committee’s deliberations on how best to support the delivery of EU and national environmental commitments. I welcome the opportunity to address the committee’s questions.

Gabhaim buíochas le baill an choiste. Táimid fíorbhuíoch as ucht an chuiridh teacht anseo chun labhairt leis an gcoiste agus clár LIFE a phlé libh. We are delighted to be here today to discuss this very important funding programme. I thank the committee for the invitation and for its interest in this subject.

As my colleagues said, the NPWS has a long history of leading successful LIFE projects, starting in 1992. We are currently on our 13th LIFE project. Over the years, these projects supported the implementation of the EU birds and habitats directives and, in particular, the development and management of the Natura 2000 network in which there are over 600 sites. Since 1992, we have received a considerable amount of funding from the EU and LIFE projects. At a time when there was not available Exchequer resources, LIFE funding was a lifeline for our response to the nature challenges posed by the Natura 2000 network and the EU birds and habitats directive. It was a pathfinder for how the protection and conservation of nature was to be invested in.

Currently, the NPWS is leading 4 LIFE projects, namely, the Wild Atlantic Nature project, LIFE on Machair, Corncrake LIFE, and LIFE SnaP Ireland, and I know the committee will be talking to the directors of those programmes next week. Combined, these projects will receive approximately €42 million in EU funding over their lifetime, to which, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, through the Exchequer, is adding a further €20 million. That will give the committee a sense of the scale of investment involved just in the four projects that are currently running.

With LIFE projects, partnerships and collaboration are an essential component and we collaborate with a variety of stakeholders, for example, educational bodies, the NGO sector and other Departments, including the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Atlantic Technological University, Fota Wildlife Park and Údarás na Gaeltachta. This collaboration brings benefits to those involved and allows us to learn from, and educate each other, in the right approaches to nature protection and conservation.

As I said, next week, you will hear from the project managers of Corncrake LIFE and Wild Atlantic Nature, who will cover the successes of these projects in detail. However, by way of example of the importance of LIFE projects, this year, the NPWS corncrake survey recorded corncrakes in record numbers. In some locations, they were recorded for the first time in many years. We are hearing the tangible success of that particular project. This is a testament to the work and dedicated funding this project has received through the EU LIFE programme, and what we have been able to add by way of complementary funding. Sometimes, it can be easy to forget that positive things are happening when it comes to biodiversity. LIFE projects are demonstrating that specific actions can bring about improvements in the conservation status of habitats and species. These are improvements that are both visible and audible, particularly in the context of the corncrake, as some of the members can attest.

I would like to take a few minutes to mention some things that make our LIFE projects so significant. LIFE projects try to solve complex problems by using bespoke solutions and piloting new approaches. They are pathfinder projects. They find innovative ways to protect nature, usually by working together with local communities and some unexpected positive things can happen outside of the core deliverables of the LIFE projects. When a community is brought together with different partnerships to achieve a goal for nature, sometimes those goals can go beyond the nature goals in fostering community endeavour. We have several examples of that, with the groups, for instance, involved in both the Machair project and Wild Atlantic Nature.

LIFE projects, by their nature, are time-limited. They are pilot programmes, and staff are hired specifically to work on those projects. The staff form a core LIFE team whose focus is solely on delivering the project goals.

This contrasts with core NPWS staff, who are usually working on a wide variety of projects, have conflicting and complementary priorities and are possibly dealing with urgent issues that arise, for example tackling wildlife crimes. The core LIFE teams can dedicate themselves to one project, meaning it has a very strong chance of success. The reporting obligations of these projects to the EU are stringent, as they should be, and the agreed project goals must be delivered if funding is to be received. This adds to the momentum and focus of the projects.

Linked to this, getting the support and buy-in of local landowners is key to the success of all the projects. Members will hear of this, particularly from the Wild Atlantic Nature next week. Some LIFE nature protection measures can also be onerous and time-consuming for owners. As well as this, applying for any payment involves paperwork, which is necessary but can be difficult. The dedicated LIFE teams are there to provide community service, outreach and engagement with stakeholders. This can take time, and these staff are able to give it the time it needs.

Another benefit of LIFE projects is that they have the flexibility to quickly link up with other projects and explore potential synergies between their project goals, for instance Corncrake LIFE, LIFE on Machair and the Breeding Waders EIP. The committee will hear of the last named project next week from its director, Owen Murphy. It is a fantastic project concentrating on the midlands. Those three projects have recently worked together to ensure predation is minimised on a range of vulnerable ground-nesting bird species. This has maximised efficiencies and these projects have been able to learn from each other.

NPWS-led LIFE projects have delivered positive, tangible, measurable results for nature, including 281 corncrake territories recorded in 2025, almost 2,500 ha of midlands bog restored through the Living Bog programme and the Natura award-winning Wild Atlantic Nature project, which is now an exemplar in Europe. At the same time, these LIFE projects have brought benefits to local and rural communities and engaged those communities in the enterprise of protecting and conserving nature. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.

I am double-jobbing between committees so may have to dip out again. I thank the witnesses. This is an important session, given the importance of the LIFE programme. I had considerable experience witnessing the incredible outcomes on the ground of the LIFE projects through NPWS during my time in the Department. My colleague Senator Duffy lives in a county where three of them intersect. It may not be "Mayo for Sam" but it is certainly "Mayo for LIFE".

More to come.

There is real concern among all the partners and all of us here about the loss of the dedicated, ring-fenced fund. It was borne out in Ms Reilly's evidence that, on the nature and biodiversity subprogrammes, the Natura sites could end up competing with many other interests. We have to do everything we can to maintain them.

I have seen it, but will Mr. Ó Donnchú expand on the wider impact of the LIFE projects in rural communities? He outlined the impact on biodiversity outcomes of all the projects, particularly the corncrake project. They have a broader influence in rural communities. This funding is finding its way to rural Ireland, into local contractors, etc., and having a positive impact, particularly among marginal farmers and landowners.

I thank the Senator. I acknowledge his contribution as Minister of State to the NPWS, nature, the LIFE projects and the policy, as it has become, for the NPWS of LIFE for life. When these pilot projects end, if they are working and delivering results, they are mainstreamed in the NPWS programme and brought aboard. That is happening right now with the Corncrake LIFE project. The corncrake was virtually extinct. The numbers we are seeing are incredible. They are really satisfying and a huge credit to the team on the ground.

To come back to the Senator's question, I will look at Wild Atlantic Nature. My colleague Ms Cuddy will come in to help with some of this. The project concentrates on blanket bogs along the west of Ireland. The total funding for the project is €20.6 million over nine years, of which €12 million is the European contribution. Associated beneficiaries also contribute, outside of the Department and EU, an extra €1.6 million. It is a nine-year, LIFE-integrated project aimed at the conservation and restoration of blanket bogs, primarily. The core project relates to delivery of actions by NPWS and nine associated beneficiaries. A key remit of Wild Atlantic Nature is the mobilisation of complementary funding for associated activities to restore and conserve peatland activity across 20 additional projects, for example Natura communities, the shared island initiative, peatland projects, WaterLANDS and FarmBioNet. In 2024, one received an EU Natura 2000 award for demonstration and delivery of a pilot results-based payment system. This has become the standard for the rest of Europe. It was completed between 2021 and 2023, with 823 participating farmers across 63,000 ha.

When Wild Atlantic Nature, Derek McLoughlin and his team have issued the calls for town hall meetings, they have been packing town halls across the west of Ireland to hear what Wild Atlantic Nature is about. The emphasis is always on the positive. It is about what can be done to conserve nature, as opposed to maybe a past approach about what not to do. If you bring a positive message to a setting like that and engage with landowners positively about what can be done, you get a far better response, and 823 participating farmers across 63,000 ha is a positive response.

Corncrake LIFE, or Traonach LIFE, is a five-year project from 2021 to 2026. The operational budget is nearly €6 million, of which 73% is EU funding, emphasising the importance of that dedicated, ring-fenced line of funding. We have a six-month extension to June 2026, covering the next summer season, if you like. This highly successful project has increased the national population of corncrake by 50%. More important, it has developed lasting and positive relationships with local communities and landowners, including land we have acquired for it, and changed the methodology and approach of farmers to crop harvesting and to how and when they do it.

LIFE on Machair is a six-year project. Total funding is €7.4 million. The EU contribution is 75% and the rest comprises €1.15 million from the Exchequer and €700,000 from associated beneficiaries. That habitat is unique to Ireland and Scotland. That is why LIFE is so important to us. We are sitting on so many unique habitats and species, a proportion far outweighing our geography, if you like, in the context of protected birds, animals and habitats in the EU, which is why so much emphasis is placed on what we do with our raised and blanket bogs. Machair is unique to Ireland and Scotland, so now it has got one place within the EU, which is a sobering thought. It is a stronghold for breeding waders. There are nine project areas in Donegal, Mayo and Connemara, including 65 land parcels and 250 landowners involved in it. Restoration actions undertaken to date show promising preliminary results in terms of the number of breeding waders and habitat condition. That is mainly around the grazing approach. That is a positive engagement with over 250 landowners. Several times per year, the project team holds a workshop for these farmers on conservation. Credit resides with the team and the 250 farmers taking part.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe as a bheith linn agus as an obair atá déanta acu. I thank the witnesses for being with us and for their opening statements.

Mr. Ó Donnchú said 75% of funding for some projects around protection of habitat is dependent on LIFE. If LIFE funding is dissolved into the European competitiveness fund, what risks are there for these habitats and the ongoing projects?

I thank Deputy Ó Cearúil for his question. In a nutshell, there are grave risks. I have shared the figures, and we can see that somewhere between 60% and 75% of the funding for the current crop of LIFE projects is EU funding. Loss of ring-fenced funding is a grave risk, although not to these projects per se. If they are successful, we look to mainstream them in the NPWS core funding, and they are being successful. We will do this for Corncrake LIFE. We do not get to go back and repeat an application for LIFE. That is why I referred earlier to LIFE being about pathfinder projects.

We are always open, as is the Commission, to new ways of addressing nature challenges in a science-led way. There are always new interventions that can be made and new ways of doing things. Sometimes, there are probably riskier ways of doing things. This is where LIFE really provided a test bed for different approaches. It provided a bulwark to take a different approach. The loss of this opportunity for pathfinder projects, pathfinder funding, EU endorsement of the approach and recognition by the Commission of our endeavours are serious risks. There is no doubt about that.

Has the Department conducted any type of analysis on existing programmes or potential programmes in respect of which it could provide Exchequer funding and that could replicate some of the work that has come out of LIFE?

For sure, and I will give an example. In the pathfinder for raised bogs, we have 50 designated SACs to protect raised bogs. The Living Bog was a LIFE-funded programme to invest in restoration works on these bogs. That became the pathfinder for a broader programme of restoration across the 50 designated SACs, and we have a significant programme of works ongoing with partners, including the landowners, in relation to these. That is very important.

In the past, LIFE projects concentrated on what we needed to do in relation to specific bird habitats and SACs. We now have a conservation investment directorate in the NPWS, which was established in 2022. Its sole job is to concentrate on nature restoration measures across the Natura sites, of which there are more than 600. These investment measures are informed by the success or otherwise of projects that have been funded under LIFE.

The corncrake project will come to an end in June. We have already taken a decision based on its success. The success of the project is inspiring, to be honest. That is down to the farmers, the team on the ground and all of the stakeholders who supported the project. It is being mainstreamed in the NPWS, and we have assigned a team to continue engagement to ensure we retain the stakeholder base.

We are in the lucky position that our annual operating and capital budget for the NPWS increased from €85 million in 2025 to €107 million in 2026. It is the first time the aggregate budget has exceeded €100 million. It is a 27% increase, the bulk of which is in capital. Nature restoration and protection measures are funded from the capital budget, so we are-----

I am conscious of time, and I have one-----

Can I get the officials from the Department to comment on Deputy Ó Cearúil's question, particularly as it is the lead Department?

To add to the question, I want to ask about the staff who have been employed. Experts in their fields have been employed by means of this funding. What are the risks in the context of either a lack of funding or the competition for funding?

If we look at the Lough Carra project, for example, an additional team of ten experts was put into Mayo County Council. This knowledge should be retained there, but we need other programmes going forward. We see a lot in other member states, such as Italy and Spain, which are very successful at LIFE funding, that they retain staff because they constantly apply. That is something the Department was hoping to tackle with our new Ireland for LIFE project. The latter is a capacity-building project whereby we get experts to help to train local authority staff in order to help them apply not only for LIFE funding but also for other EU and national funding. That will be at risk if these new MFF conditions come in.

I thank the witnesses very much for their statements and for attending. In the middle of last year, at a meeting I had with local farmers in Kerry, I asked the farmers what would be the one thing they would ask for prior to the budget. They said there should be a proper environmental fund to help them to transition and to cut emissions. What has been said today in the opening statements is very strong and clear. I thank the witnesses for all of the programmes they have been operating and I thank the teams involved. The only time I ever heard a corncrake was when I was visiting Tory Island, where my grandfather spent some of his childhood. I know the numbers have expanded since then. Very effective work is being done on the ground, which is being targeted directly, and local farmers and landowners are benefiting from it.

It is salutary to listen to what Mr. McCabe has been saying about serious concerns and about the fact that there must be protection and that decisive action is non-negotiable. We do not always get such clear, concise and powerful language here. Looking at the various programmes on nature and diversity and the biodiversity circular economy, the fact the funding is not ring fenced leaves it wide open to increasing pressures from the new agenda Ursula von der Leyen is promoting. For example, a 340% increase is proposed for militarisation and the space programme. With the low-level anxiety that is being promulgated by the leader, these are the funds and the people who are going to be affected most clearly.

I have a few questions. One of them may have been touched on already. Has the Department requested an impact assessment of COM (2025) 555, particularly in the context of the effect it will have on the unique habitats we have been discussing? Has the Department completed risk analysis on losing these LIFE programmes? The projects are clearly going to be in jeopardy, if not completely eliminated. What about our European-led legal obligations on nature restoration? If the funding is not there, how will they be affected?

I thank Deputy Daly for his question. We have not committed to a dedicated risk analysis yet but it is on the agenda. We have been engaging in respect of the MFF talks, but we are waiting on confirmation from the EU on how the funds in our share will be implemented. Under the legal obligations one of the things that has been proposed, which eases this is slightly, is that the funding and the new LIFE actions will come under the nature restoration regulation and they will be coupled with it. We have an opportunity to input and decide what sort of nature and biodiversity actions we consider to be the most important. If we manage to get them into the nature restoration regulation the funds should be linked to it. Unfortunately, as I said, we have no confirmation yet that this will be the case going forward but these are the proposals we have been given. They have not been finalised.

There is a lot of uncertainty.

Yes.

Is that frustrating for the Department?

What conversations has the Department been having with the Government about how this is going to proceed?

It absolutely makes it difficult for us to do our job considering these are coming in 2028. We are talking to a lot of potential applicants but when we first engage with a potential applicant to when they actually apply or get funding, it is usually two to three years by the time we tease out what they want, organise the co-funding rate and get an application in. They may also have to reapply. We are up against it. They basically can only apply this year and next under the current funding mechanism and we do not know what is coming afterwards. There is a big push at the moment to anyone who contacts us in our role as national contact point to give them as much help as we can to get an application in either this year or next. That is not ideal and not how we would normally work.

I thank the Deputy for his ongoing interest in the nature area. He is absolutely right. The legal obligations subsist. Those obligations under the habitats directives, etc., continue to subsist. Colleagues have introduced the nature restoration law and nature restoration plan to it. We were certainly disappointed that this was not accompanied by a funding instrument. We have made that point repeatedly in any European fora that we have been represented in. That nature restoration plan is currently being drawn up and the obligations will be significantly more stringent and challenging I think than the obligations that exist under the birds and habitats directive.

The obligations will be more challenging.

The obligations will be more challenging-----

But the risk of funding is uncertain.

Exactly. It is a point that we continue to make to the European Commission in relation to the nature restoration law and the associated plans that are being drawn up.

Are we opening ourselves up to more fines?

I guess that is the potential. The Commission is very active in terms of our compliance obligations under the birds and habitats directives. We have only a small number of non-compliance challenges at the moment, but this would certainly ramp it up. The first review, for instance, of the nature restoration plan is in 2032. We have to have a nature restoration plan submitted to the European Commission by next July or August. When you think about it, it is a very short timeline with six years to the point of first review and there will be a significant investment requirement around it. There are no two ways to put it. It is subject to consultation at the moment and we have a trove of committees, stakeholder engagements and an independent advisory committee and all of that, but there is no denying that it will be challenging. It will require resourcing. It did not come with a financing instrument, and a ring-fenced instrument like LIFE would be really important in the context of the set of new challenges that will face us.

There is still some road to run on the multi-annual financial framework, MFF, negotiations. The current position is what we are outlining at the moment. Both Departments share a frustration that there is not a ring-fenced LIFE programme, but it is probably important to understand the broader context of simplification at Commission and Council level. It is going from about 52 different programmes down to 16 and the LIFE programme is almost a victim of that simplification process, but Ireland has the incoming Presidency of the EU. The MFF will be negotiated over the next 12 months. There is still some road to run on this but that does create uncertainty. The uncertainty will be until the end of this year and we will know for sure then. It is important to make that point.

I thank Mr. McCabe for his contribution and the Chair for the extra time.

I thank all of the witnesses for coming in. We definitely hear them in terms of their concerns about losing this ring-fenced funding. A lot of us lament the simplification agenda in the EU. It does appear to be a byword for just a deprioritisation of a lot of climate and environmental measures, but that is not something we can deal with today. On a practical level and from a simplification perspective, do the witnesses have any sense of what a new application process would look like under the proposed scheme and how applications will be assessed? The witnesses mentioned that they are going to be in competition with other types of applications and other types of projects. Do either of them have any sense of how it might work in practice or how the type of projects Ireland is currently undertaking might be deprioritised or adversely affected by a new process where the Departments are competing with others? Do they see themselves changing their types of priorities to fit this new application process? I am curious about that.

I thank the Deputy for his question. It is a really salient point. In six months, we will be able to come back and give a more concise response. To refer back to the previous question and response, we are in a period of uncertainty. Our preference is that this programme was working well and we would like to keep it that way - make the application process more robust, but it was heading in the right direction. We are now in a period of uncertainty. We have not given up on ring-fencing the programme as such, but we are not in a position in either Department or among us to speculate on what the application process would look like under the new system, simply because the new system has not been signed off yet. We are still waiting for the outcome of the MFF discussions.

That is understood, thanks.

My colleagues referred to this earlier, The gestation period for a LIFE project can be quite lengthy because they are complex. Any uncertainty that introduces a degree of stop-start into this is not a good thing. Clearly, we understand the current application process. We understand the competition. We know how to put these together. We have had several bites of the cherry at some projects because we have not always been successful in the first instance. I do not mind admitting that. They have made better projects because we had to go back and re-engineer them, but anything that is disruptive to that flow of projects is not necessarily a good thing. They do take time. It is a salient question.

The witnesses said that there is a degree of uncertainty and this is all still to be negotiated. Are they liaising with officials from similar bodies or Departments in other countries? It is a bit political, but are they building alliances with other countries? Can they give us a sense of where the negotiations are at?

As the national contact point for LIFE, we engage with the national contact points in the other member states. We were a signatory to the letter to the Commission with our concerns from the national contact points on the future of LIFE. We also engage in Ireland and when we are in Brussels with other organisations across Europe, such as NGOs and local governments. We have been engaging and, as I said, this is a concern in other member states, not just our own.

Are the witnesses in a position to name any of the states that are on a similar page to us and expressing their concerns?

All member states, except for three, have released an official position. They are all very concerned about the future of LIFE. They would like it to remain as it is with the caveat that if that is not possible, there should be at least some ring-fencing involved. It is being led mostly by Italy, which is spearheading the movement to stop the repeal of the regulations of LIFE.

The witnesses talked about insulating existing projects from the adverse effects of change. They also talked about mainstreaming them into core funding. Could they explain how that process might work? I appreciate that the LIFE projects are pathfinders. How do they go from being pathfinders into the mainstream?

That is a very good question. We know what kind of investment, for instance, the corncrake project would take. We know what kind of volunteer force is on the ground. We know the stakeholder farmer community that is involved with this and we know the costs associated with it but, above all, we can see its success. When we see that kind of success, we say that has to continue. We ring-fence funding within the NPWS annual budget and we assign the staff within the NPWS to continue it at that level and to grow it.

I am mindful of Deputy Daly's reference to Kerry farmers earlier. The intention is that this becomes nationwide. Clearly, with a pilot you are confined to certain areas, but the intention is that this becomes nationwide. I guess nobody tells the corncrake that it is not in the LIFE project but again, it is very important that the practices change, so that is how we do it.

I thank the witnesses for being with us this afternoon. I am from County Mayo and, as Senator Noonan has mentioned, a lot of the LIFE projects intersect with County Mayo. We are very proud of the different projects and the work and how the county and the ecosystem and biodiversity of the county has benefited from it, across the corncrake, the wild Atlantic nature project, the LIFE on Machair project and the Lough Cara project just to name a few. Recently here and in the Seanad we have been discussing depletion of fishing stocks in the Atlantic and in rivers and waterways, like the River Moy. Recently in Ballina, there was public meetings about the reduction in fishing numbers and tags for salmon, in particular on the River Moy. This is obviously a symptom of the decline in water quality and a multitude of different factors which are hard to identify. A very good proposal was made by Councillor Neil Cruise in Foxford, which benefits very well from salmon angling. This was for the consideration of a LIFE project along the River Moy. It is one of the most abundant salmon rivers in the world. It flows through Foxford and east Mayo and into my home town of Ballina, which calls itself the salmon capital of Ireland. The reality is much different now given the reduction in numbers but it has been a renowned salmon fishing town. Jack Charlton used to spend lots of summers there after international duty fishing the salmon weir and the Ridge Pool area. I know there is a lot of uncertainty around funding and different programmes but I would welcome the witnesses' thoughts about consideration being given to using the expertise and capacity that has been developed within Mayo County Council for a LIFE project on the River Moy.

I am happy to take this question. The Senator is absolutely right about Mayo. We are well led in that region by Mr. Denis Strong, the divisional manager, and his team. He is doing great work on the Wild Nephin project as well. This is our third newest national park after a big extension a couple of years ago. We have never turned a LIFE proposition away. We would certainly be a potential partner in that project. I am not aware of where it is at. I will come back to the Senator on it but we would certainly engage with that. As I say, there are a couple of more years of this programme to run. I am aware of some work on it, but I do not have the information at hand. I do not know if Mr. Strong is active in relation to that particular project but I will give the Senator a better answer when I go back and check.

That would be great.

For the other parts like IFI and so on, our colleagues in the water division in the Department would also be involved in that, but I will come back directly through the Chair to the Senator.

That would be great. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Mr. Strong and his team because they have done some brilliant work and continue to do on the Wild Nephin National Park and across the county. I am not sure if there is a proposal live at the moment in relation to the River Moy. It might be, as Mr. Ó Donnchú said, that it takes a lot of time for these to come to the public domain. It is something that Councillor Cruise has proposed as a way of helping address and protect what is an important ecosystem and it would benefit from the expertise and the capacity that has been built up within the area. It is something that the Moy Action Group, the East Mayo Anglers Association and other organisations have asked for as well. As this would be a very suitable location and river to benefit from the expertise that is there, I would welcome consideration been given to it.

Just to add that I am unaware of the project. There is a similar one down in Shannon, however, so I am quite happy to speak about the project. As the national contact point, we do help with applications. We have a budget every year where we get consultants in to review the applications and we very happy in the Department to give any support to what sounds like a very worthwhile project.

I thank all the witnesses for joining us here today. This is certainly an important area and we should be taking any initiative that we can implement to protect our biodiversity and nature. As someone coming from a just transition county in Offaly I note that significant progress has been made, whether it be restoring bogs, rehabilitating bogs or the likes of the sphagnum initiative that is currently under way. We spoke a lot about the work being done on delivery but there is an element of trial and error with pilots. What is the failure rate of initiatives?

The Deputy is right when he says it can be trial and error and we get to try new things. Certainly on my watch as director general of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, we have not had a project failure and I say that genuinely. If we take the people who worked on the living bog project for instance in the Deputy's county, they were courageous pathfinders, assisted hugely by landowners, people with turbary rights, etc. The testimony to the success of that is that we have expanded it to the virtually the full network of raised bogs. I think a different kind of intervention would be required for blanket bogs, but some lessons were learned there. The corncrake is clearly a huge success. I believe in the way that the wild Atlantic nature project is working that it is a success. When I see those-----

I want to focus in on the projects that have not been a success.

I am not aware of any, to be honest, that have failed from a biodiversity perspective.

Are there metrics in place or a register to monitor when a project is going down the wrong road?

Yes.

What sort of measurements would be looked at?

I will bring in Ms Reilly on this.

At the moment, in the current funding projects, there is only one programme under risk. This is not in the nature and biodiversity subprogramme, rather, it is under the circular economy. In that instance, we engage with ELMEN EEIG, the technical advisers, and also the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency, CINEA, which runs the LIFE programme on behalf of the European Commission. We try to help the projects as much as we can. The failure rate in LIFE projects is very low and as I said, that is the only one during this current funding window that is under threat but it looks like-----

Sorry to interrupt but where is that project?

Because it is a commercial negotiation I would not like to say at the moment, while they try to sort financial-----

In what region of the country is it?

It is in the midlands.

I want to focus on a particular project in my own area. Over €1 million has spent, up to tenders, to develop a world-class, future-focused visitor experience and climate house located on a regenerating peatlands site in Offaly. Where is that project at today?

Is it a LIFE project?

Yes, it is the visitor experience and climate house.

Is it a LIFE project?

Very much so.

We will have to come back on that. It is a very specific question and we do not have the information to hand.

If there are any more projects that are of a similar nature that may be deemed as lagging behind or not fully successful, I think it would be good to share them, just to get a sense from a funding perspective, what we are funding and how we would manage it going forward.

As I understand it, I think we need pathfinders and pilots on LIFE projects, rather than infrastructure.

It is a pilot to transition to full-on infrastructure.

I ask the representatives of the Department to update with the information and bring it back to the committee afterwards.

I will just make the point that the application process is pretty rigorous and some of the structures have been put in place to help applicants reshape and be agile with their applications, as much as assess those applications prior to going them through the European system.

The failure rate is low, if there are any, because of that rigorous system that is in place.

Rightly so, but where there is over €1 million allocated we try to determine why or why not.

I absolutely take that point. We will respond.

I thank the witnesses for coming. The questions from all the Deputies and na Seanadóirí have been brilliant. I represent north Dublin and welcome the money that came in last year to protect wild birds. Are there any updates on the loss of the little tern colony at Dollymount beach? It is a UNESCO heritage site, as the witnesses know, and I am wondering whether the Department can identify what the main issues are with this loss, especially in relation to the disturbances that are on Dollymount beach. How will the funding that was announced be used to reintroduce the little tern colony to that heritage site?

I apologise to the Deputy but I do not have that information to hand. I am aware of the project and of the challenges with predation and human activity. I will have to come back to him directly with an update on where it is at and what our plans are. I will do that through the Chair.

On another species disappearance, the Irish hare, which was on Dollymount beach and the North Bull Island, is locally extinct. The last confirmed sighting was in 2015. I looked at an article and in 2018 a previous Minister was saying no feasibility assessment or any type of study would be done on reintroducing the hare population. Is there any opinion in the Department on the possible reintroduction of the Irish hare and other native species to Bull Island? What would be required and do they think we could use EU LIFE funding or any other type of funding to reintroduce hares to the island?

The hare population nationally is not under threat. That said, it can fluctuate from time to time and we look carefully at the reasons for that. Some of it can be predation and some of it can be illness, etc. The Deputy will be aware of the steps we took a number of years ago to protect the hare population from RHD2. That was successful, we believe. There were serious initiatives on the capture and netting of hares and so on and so forth. I am aware that colleagues in our scientific advice directorate are looking at that particular question at the moment. Again, I have to ask the Deputy for a little time to come back to him with the answer on that particular one.

That is no problem. I really appreciate the answer and I would love it to be reiterated to my office.

Just on Dublin Bay, is tearmann é agus is éalú é an saol gnóthach atá ag na daoine i mBaile Átha Cliath. It is a sanctuary and an escape from the busy life in Dublin. I know and accept the hare population nationally is steady but this is a little escape, especially for people from north Dublin. It is about going down there and seeing wildlife. People are constantly contacting my office to say this is their nature reserve. When you enter any of the nature reserves I saw in Canada there was an indication. In Vancouver there were giant gates where you enter the beach that welcome you to a UNESCO heritage site. It changes people's mindsets when they are on the beach and I would love that to be examined. This next question is specifically for the Department. Especially with the hare and little tern, does it think merging the LIFE programme into broader European competitiveness would risk weakening dedicated support for the sensitive wildlife on the island?

Will I take this?

Sure.

I think it is aimed at the Department so maybe we will hear from Mr. McCabe first.

I refer back to our previous answers. There is a risk, and we are in an uncertain period now. It is a salient question and it is the kernel of the issue. We believe there is a risk. There is a frustration on our side with the suggestion under the multi-annual financial framework negotiations that the programme will be changed. Our preference is that it remain as it is. It works. Through the simplification process it has become part of a broader programme. This does not mean funds will not be available to us, it just makes the application more competitive from our perspective, as well as less desirable and more risk-based. That is as far as we can go at this stage with comment on it.

I appreciate that. I am just aware of the time going. I would love those two projects to be examined in particular. There are a lot of constituents contacting my office about it. Mr. Ó Donnchú may want to come back in on the hares.

I just wanted to make a small point about the signage, etc. Where we have had successful community intervention, for instance at the Magharees on the Dingle Peninsula - when they are not busy winning All-Ireland Club Championships - they are very good at engaging the community in protecting the coastal dunes and so forth. One of the things that really works there is that it is children-led, in a sense. They do these wonderful posters saying what animals live there and "This is my home". They are very effective. In terms of the kind of trampling one might get in a dune system, an amazing job has been done in Magharees in restoring that dune system through community initiative. The Deputy is absolutely right about signage and public awareness, especially signage which says "This is home". In the context of the high tourism season in the summer, for instance, we say you are a visitor and you are very welcome but this area is home to this bird, this wild animal, this invertebrate - to this toad, for instance - and it works extremely well. You find the children are the people saying to their parents that they cannot tread there because there are wild animals living there. The Deputy is absolutely right about that kind of signage.

I will come back to the committee on those two questions.

Yes, on the two specific initiatives that were mentioned. I thank Deputy Heneghan.

Our next speaker is Senator Higgins.

I thank the witnesses. It is very strong testimony. Biodiversity is, in a way, the most real thing there is. These are real places right across the country where we share space with nature. Again and again when we are discussing things like our climate targets and carbon budgets it comes together with the idea of and the need for positive measures and funding - so not just the nature restoration law, as was said, but the funds that make that possible, namely, direct funding that allows and supports the transition and that allows support for biodiversity. Biodiversity and climate are very particular, quite existential issues, and that is why there is a very real concern when you take the funding mechanisms from being rigorous - as they should be - but ring-fenced and put them into a space that is competitive, about competition and about a whole set of commercial interests.

I was struck by the piece in Mr. McCabe's opening statement about how there is non-commercial public benefit. In many cases the benefit that accrues from these schemes is not commercial. It is fair to say it is of great benefit to Ireland. It can help us avoid our fines in terms of the nature restoration law and our climate targets, if you want to look at it in that sense. As such, there is that economic piece but crucially the benefit is widespread. The benefit is not necessarily going to go to the corncrake company and is instead going to go to us achieving and maintaining biodiversity, which is part of that web we all exist in. It is part of our collective existence and also allows us to reach our targets under the nature restoration law, the climate targets and all that, so it is quite significant.

We say we do not know if we will still get the money but I want to be clear that I think if this change is made there will not be the same funding because it is being put into a frame of competitiveness and there is a choice being made specifically to put security and defence in there. I say that as I also sit on the finance committee and we had a report published just before the Christmas break that looked at the €800 billion goal for military expenditure, the €350 billion in new loans and the real danger that social cohesion funding and just transition funding would be rerouted. This is despite our knowing that they are the kind of things that are going to build peace and that they are the kind of things that are going to safeguard communities. That is why I was very interested in those ancillary benefits and would appreciate it if the officials could talk a little more about that in terms of communities coming on board with the idea of climate and biodiversity targets because they are being supported in this sense. I would be interested if we could get a copy - I do not know whether it is public - of that letter from the national contact points.

There is a real moment now for us as a committee to push back and say the climate and environment cannot be disappeared from or diluted in the agenda, because they are factors that simply will not wait. You cannot pick the ball up again in five or ten years' time on some of these.

We focused on biodiversity but the witnesses might give me a sense of how it helps the climate and getting people on board with the idea of the climate and biodiversity transition. What is the witnesses' experience in terms of community engagement and what that has done?

I thank the Senator for her question. Obviously, the NPWS is here and has done amazing work in the nature and biodiversity programme. Talking about communities and that effect on the ground as regards climate, the clean energy transition was the most successful subprogramme in the LIFE programme for Irish applicants. It really benefits those small communities and has a 95% funding rate, so it is very attractive to the likes of the Tipperary Energy Agency.

We have also had successful projects across Ireland where nature and biodiversity tend to be a bit more focused. It is huge for the likes of that, and as for going to compete with far larger projects, it is very difficult to see how they could. A small community group with maybe only part-time employees-----

Up against drones.

Yes.

I thank the Senator for her question. In respect of examples of community engagement, one of the complementary projects of Wild Atlantic Nature is Natura communities. At present, some 40 rural full-time jobs have been created. It is local development companies that are currently restoring habitats in the north west of Ireland and there are plans to expand the groups further. That is just an example of the wider benefits.

I am not sure if Mr. Ó Donnchú mentioned in the opening statement about the quilts made by local quilting groups as part of the LIFE on Machair project. That was just something that happened rather than a deliverable of the project. Belmullet is one of the places where the quilt is on display. The community there has really engaged with the Machair project.

I have a very small brief point. Again, perhaps we might have a chance to come back to the non-commercial piece later. The witnesses mentioned Ireland has a proportionally high success rate within the LIFE programme because we have a lot of biodiversity and projects. That was something that came up again in the finance committee report, that the rerouting is also likely to lead to much more money going to the bigger countries that have large-scale manufacturing, for example, in the military space, rather than that being spread across Europe to local level communities we might have expected.

Perhaps Mr. McCabe might comment on the non-commercial piece, if he had anything on that, that benefit is not always commercial, and the question of whether has Ireland has done well in the LIFE programme compared with other countries in Europe.

I thank the Senator. I will keep my comments broad because I am also conscious of time. What we would have seen from this point would have been an acceleration into more community-led projects via local authorities. We were at an inflection point anyway. There has been success in recent years and Ireland is seen as a success with LIFE, but we could be better. It can always be better. Maybe better lies at that intersection between local authorities leading at some point in the future because they are closer to the communities.

The Senator is right and I agree that if the State does not intervene on these non-commercial projects, there is often no intervention. I cannot really point to examples where there is not intervention without the State getting involved. I am not quite sure how much more to add to that.

That is fine.

That is okay. It is in broad terms.

I thank the witnesses for coming in today. I must say I get really excited when I see these projects and what the witnesses are trying to achieve with them. I commend them because I know they have undertaken quite a lot of these projects, successful ones at that, and I would obviously love to see more of them happening.

I have a couple of questions. I am concerned, as other members are, that there has not been ring-fencing or that there is potential for there not to be ring-fencing for this. As a State, we also have our own finances. There was €3.5 billion set aside and it was a huge missed opportunity that the previous Government did not ring-fence any money for biodiversity projects as part of that €3.5 billion. Have the witnesses had any contact or, from the Department's perspective, are there any plans for funding to be allocated for biodiversity projects out of that €3.5 billion climate and nature fund?

There is very little I can say about that. I am not aware of plans nor am I aware that there are not plans, but I am happy to come back on that point. However, I will have to discuss it with those who are responsible for that fund.

Does Mr. Ó Donnchú wish to respond?

We certainly have our eye on that as a climate and nature fund. As an agency, we have plans to apply for funding from that programme in the context of annual Estimates campaigns and so on and so forth.

I am not sure if the Deputy was here when I discussed this, and I thank her for her ongoing interest in the nature and biodiversity environment, but the funding for NPWS next year will be above €100 million for the first time in its history. It is at €108 million, up from €85 million, which is a 27% increase. Certainly, there will be a requirement to uplift that resource in the context of the nature restoration plan and we will certainly be looking to that fund in the context of the annual Estimates campaign, to fuel some of the resources needed to address those challenges.

Absolutely, and look-----

Mr. McCabe might organise within the Department, with whoever has the information, to feed back to us on that national funding.

Yes, that would be very welcome. Biodiversity and nature have always played second fiddle, even within the environmental sphere, to climate issues. Most of the time, climate action has a tendency to focus on the engineering solutions as opposed to looking at how you can use nature to address and mitigate climate change or to adapt. It is very important there is that focus. I am glad to hear NPWS is keen and pushing to get some of that money. I really wish there had been a ring-fencing of it. It is quite vulnerable when it is not ring-fenced, as we can see now with the LIFE funding, and it is certainly important we move on that.

As regards the specific LIFE projects, as was said, these are just pilot projects that work in very specific areas on specific issues. I have two questions on this. With some of them, for example, the Kerry LIFE programme, some aspects of it were very successful. In the agricultural component, the landowners worked really closely together and it worked very well. From the forestry perspective, it was not as successful. Do the witnesses find that when they have a project like this, and NPWS has the remit, that they ensure other agencies engage in a positive manner and do what they can on it? That is one thing.

How do we move from these successful LIFE projects to national policy? That is really where we need to be going with it. Those are my two big questions.

The Deputy is absolutely right. Where agencies reinforce and bulwark each other's efforts, you have a better outcome for nature. It is fair to say we were not always in that space. There were sometimes divergent objectives between agencies and that is just a fact. I am not trying to sugarcoat it and I am certainly not saying it was right, but that is how it was.

We are in a very different space now. In my opening statement, I spoke about the kind of partnerships we now have across the spectrum of Government Departments and agencies mutually reinforcing each other. We see it, for instance, in EIPs, which are hugely important and a first cousin, if you like, of the LIFE projects.

There is a greater awareness of nature. Senator Higgins asked earlier about non-commercial aspects and what the value of clean water and clean air is. It is Columbus in the New World and no one asked him what his internal rate of return was. That is our view, so we find across the spectrum that there is greater engagement with nature by all agencies and we certainly find much more support across that spectrum.

Specifically on the pearl mussel project, my understanding is that the forestry aspect did not work out and, unfortunately, we are still seeing a path to extinction for that species. Is there a way to revisit that project and perhaps get agencies that were not 100% on board when the project was conducted but might now be prepared?

The Deputy hit the nail on the head with that. Maybe I was being overly diplomatic about it in my earlier reply. We are in a very different space with forestry colleagues. We now have a memorandum of understanding with Coillte, for instance, which is proving hugely important in the context of the hen harrier threat response plan. It is a key partner in that and across nature, even in the clear felling and restoration of peatlands and so on. There are a few important pioneer projects that Coillte is developing with us. The Deputy is right that it is time to revisit that and, not to speak for Coillte, but I think we will encounter a very different partner in that respect.

Okay, perfect. An important question is how we move from these LIFE projects to national policy.

Again, can I take the nature projects? I do not mean to dominate my colleagues at all. I referenced this earlier. Success is key. If the projects are working, there is a compelling argument to mainstream the approach. I gave the example earlier of the living bog project. That was our pathfinder on raised bog restoration, and the experience of that project has been extended into our nature conservation directorate in the NPWS to address all the restoration across the 50 designated raised bogs. An Traonach, the corncrake project, has also been mainstreamed. It will end in 2026 and we have assigned the staff and resources in the NPWS to continue it. I will leave it at those two examples. Senator Noonan will be aware of the internal discussion on his watch as Minister of State about taking the wild Atlantic nature project nationwide. The success we are seeing there is incredible on the engagement alone. We have the farming community engaging with us on nature conservation because the construct is very different. It is positive. It is about what can be done and alternative ways of people continuing to do what they do, that is, ways of people doing what they do that are good for nature. That approach is paying off.

A pretty good case was made in the submissions and in what we have heard. Italy was mentioned. It seems to be leading on an approach of trying to push this back. What is it about Italy that is bringing this about?

Italy is highly successful at these LIFE projects across all subprogrammes. It is also better resourced. The projects have far more staff than we have in Ireland and they are primarily focused on the LIFE projects. Italy's applications run into the hundreds, compared with 20 to 30 per year by Ireland. It is probably because the teams are better resourced and they do not tend to be civil servants so they are protecting their jobs and livelihoods and those of their colleagues.

It is just playing a bigger game, effectively.

Yes, and that is right across the board; it is not just on LIFE funding. The Italians are very good at applying for and receiving funding across all aspects of government, regardless of whether it is the Connecting Europe Facility, CEF, funding, the Innovation Fund, LIFE projects or anything else. They are just very good. They provide a good model for us, but they are well resourced.

Okay. It would be useful for the committee to see the letter of the national contact point to the Commission, so if the witnesses could share it with us, we would appreciate it. Will they also share a one-page fact sheet? The projects are compelling, but we have a job of work to do. I think the view of the committee will be pretty clear, but if the witnesses could share that information with us, that would be good.

As it happens, we have an agenda item later in the private session that relates to the agenda for the EU Presidency. This strikes me as a topic that Ireland should be looking at, but we can discuss that, perhaps, in the private session.

I will give members 90 seconds, if anyone wants to come back in. We have heard a lot of information. There is not a need, necessarily, but if anyone would like 90 seconds to ask a follow-up question, please do. Does Senator Noonan have a question?

Yes. It goes back to the point Ms Reilly, Mr. McCabe and the Cathaoirleach made about Italy. The other thing Italy has successfully is stronger local and regional government and the capacity to deliver projects. We do not have EU units in our local authorities. Each local authority should have an EU unit established. It is something the Department is trying to set up. There is a big gap there and we are missing out. We are talking about LIFE projects today, but we are missing out on huge tranches of EU funding, including URBACT urban agenda funding and lots of other funding streams, be they co-operation projects or pathfinders, as Mr. Ó Donnchú spoke about. I would welcome any comments on that.

Last year, the national contact point in the Department was successful in applying for LIFE funding for capacity building. That will focus on local authorities. We recognise we are an outlier. Italy and Spain are the best examples of how to apply and keep that knowledge. Starting this year, we will be providing additional training and support to local authorities to apply for LIFE funding across all subprogrammes, but with a specific focus on nature and biodiversity to help them with their local climate action plans.

If programmes like LEADER funding are going to be cut, we will be undermining all the capacity and our ability to deliver projects. There is a much bigger knock-on from what we spoke about this afternoon. I would be deeply concerned that, if LEADER funding is cut as well, the capacity to deliver these projects and of local communities to lead on LIFE projects, as has been said, will be completely undermined.

Yes, LEADER funding was often used to help a project to find out whether it was eligible or had the capacity to run. The Lough Carra LIFE project started with LEADER funding to get it off the ground. It is vital for those kinds of smaller, community-based programmes and it will be missed. It worked as a feeder into the LIFE programme.

On behalf of the committee, I thank all the witnesses for taking part in the meeting today on this important matter. We will publish all the opening statements on the committee website. I presume that is okay. I thank the witnesses. We will now go into private session.