Raggytash. My problem is the statement "farmers will have to do environmentally friendly things". If the phrase was qualified with "more", then I would have no issue. Farmers already are required to be environmentally friendly, and that requirement goes back many years. The REPS system in Ireland and the GLAS payments are but 2 examples. Similar schemes have been introduced in the UK.
Additionally Natura 2000 is a European network of important ecological sites. The EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) placed an obligation on Member States of the EU to establish the Natura 2000 network. The network is made up of Special Protection Areas (SPAs), established under the EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), and SACs. Most of these areas are in private ownership.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/sites/index_en.htm
Any farmer that owns land designated above no longer has freedom to farm as he might wish. What he can do is governed by diktat from on high. For example stocking numbers, upland management schemes, planning permission required for fencing, the list goes on.

My take is that upland farmers will be paid for custodianship of the landscape, that with the possible exception of a few isolated, limited areas, is largely a wholly artificial construction. (e.g.Killarney Lakes woodland, Wistmans Wood)
If one wishes to make the argument more should be done in the way of greening then again I would have no argument, although some of the absurdities of the present system should be ironed out. I find it ridiculous that one hill can be labelled SAC and the adjacent one blathered with wind turbines. I also find it strange that a boundary for a Special Conservation Area coincides with county boundaries. Isn't that just sooo convenient and scientific!