Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate -
Tuesday, 30 Nov 2021

Marine Protected Areas: Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage

Chairman

Good afternoon. We are meeting today to consider the matter of marine protected areas. We are joined today by Mr. Richard Cronin, principal adviser, and Dr. Oliver Ó Cadhla, scientific policy adviser, both from the marine environment section of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I thank them for their attendance today in assisting the joint committee in its work and interest in marine protected areas.

I must read a note on privilege first. Members are reminded of the constitutional requirements that they should be physically present within the confines of the place which the Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. For members attending remotely, from within the Leinster House complex, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect to their contributions to today’s meeting. That means they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. For witnesses attending remotely, there are some limitations to parliamentary privilege and as such they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a person does who is physically present. Both members and witnesses are expected not to abuse the privileges they enjoy and it is my duty as Chairman to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction. Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the Houses or an official either by name, or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. The opening statements submitted to the committee will be published on the committee website after this meeting.

I now invite Mr. Cronin to make his opening statement, please, and he is very welcome here today.

Mr. Richard Cronin

I thank the Chairman and good afternoon Deputies and Senators. I will make a short statement here which I believe has been circulated to the committee but I will read it in any event.

I am the principal adviser for the marine environment in the water division of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. I am joined today by my colleague Dr. Oliver Ó Cadhla who is a scientific policy adviser in the Department. The marine environment section has, among other things, responsibility for Ireland’s implementation of the 2008 EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, or the MSFD, and the 1992 OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. I am also the current chairman of the OSPAR Commission.

I will now provide the committee with a synopsis of the process so far and the next steps to expand Ireland’s network of marine protected areas, MPAs for short. However please note that I cannot provide an update on national processes or actions under the birds and habitats directives or the Wildlife Acts, which come under the responsibility of the Department’s heritage division.

The background to the marine protected areas in Ireland is as follows. In one line, our national mission is to ensure that Ireland has clean, healthy, biologically diverse, productive and sustainably used seas that are resilient to the effects of climate change within our broader Atlantic Ocean environment. This is not just for now but also for future generations. The marine environment supports our climate, our economy, our coastal communities, our cultural traditions and heritage, our health and our wellbeing.

From a legal standpoint, Ireland’s drive to establish marine protected areas comes from the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which sets out to achieve and maintain good environmental status, GES, in the EU’s marine area by 2020.

In 2016 Ireland’s MSFD programme of measures included a measure to develop a national strategy to create and manage Ireland's network of MPAs. This was part of a broad suite of measures aimed at achieving or maintaining good environmental status. Both the MSFD and OSPAR adopt an ecosystem-based approach with the aim of ensuring that the combined effect of all human activities and the health of the marine environment are kept in balance. GES is assessed and updated every six years by the member states across the EU using a broad swathe of measurable parameters, ranging from the health of species and habitats to the levels of pollution in the sea including marine litter and noise, for example.

However, with the exception of protected sites designated under the EU birds and habitats directives and the Wildlife Acts, Ireland has not had a legal tool with which to define, identify, designate and manage MPAs. As a result, many species, habitats and processes occurring in our extensive maritime area have fallen outside the scope of area-based conservation, with consequent risks to marine biodiversity and ecosystem services that are of benefit to people and nature.

The MPA process to date is as follows. Shortly after the establishment of the marine environment section in 2019, we initiated a process aimed at expanding Ireland’s network of MPAs. This work was further underpinned in the programme for Government in June 2020, which contains commitments to realise our outstanding target of 10% MPA coverage in Irish waters as soon as is practicable, aiming for 30% coverage by 2030, and to develop comprehensive legislation for the identification, designation and management of MPAs.

The first step in this process was to convene an advisory group to provide independent expert advice and recommendations on the processes required and the challenges to be addressed in expanding Ireland’s MPA network. This group was chaired by Professor Tasman Crowe, director of the UCD Earth Institute. It had its first meeting on 18 December 2019 and it subsequently met on a monthly basis, including remotely during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, the same one we still have.

As an important part of its research and deliberations, the advisory group gathered the views of more than 100 key societal, community, business and sectoral stakeholders. The information gathered by the advisory group in August to September 2020 fed into its final report. On 22 October 2020 the group submitted its report to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, and the Minister of State for heritage and electoral reform, Deputy Malcolm Noonan. The full report was subsequently translated and then published by the Department on 26 January of this year.

The report provides a wealth of material and includes a proposed MPA definition; an overview of existing protected sites in Ireland’s maritime area; plus analyses and recommendations on what should be protected, why it should be protected and how Ireland should go about doing so.

In general terms, the expert group found that marine protected areas, MPAs, can be considered to be geographically defined maritime areas that provide levels of protection to achieve a set of conservation objectives. While actively supporting long-term conservation, MPAs can also support economic activity. Protection can go well together with human activities, provided those activities go together with the conservation objectives. This can be through conserving areas of particular importance to marine ecosystems and ensuring human activity is kept at a level that will protect and conserve biological diversity and natural productivity as well as protecting human health. MPAs can also help reduce the effect of climate change and ocean acidification by ensuring marine ecosystems are healthy and resilient and can capture and sequester carbon naturally. There also exists a set of long-term conservation measures known as other effective area-based conservation measures, OECMs, that the report concluded could also contribute to overarching conservation goals.

A public consultation phase centred on the report and the wider MPA process began in mid-February 2021 and ran until the end of July. This consultation and associated communications by the Department encouraged all stakeholders and the wider public to get involved by sharing their views on the process by which Ireland’s network of MPAs will be expanded into the future. In total the Department received approximately 2,400 individual submissions from members of the public and other stakeholders. An independent review and analysis of all responses to the public consultation is being carried out at the moment. The findings and conclusions from this analysis will be published in the form of a detailed report. We anticipate this report will be completed and published in early 2022.

We have now commenced work on developing a general scheme for new MPA legislation. The development of this legislation is expected to continue into 2022. Its formulation, structure and legal provisions will be informed among other things by the requirements of Article 13(4) of the marine strategy framework directive, MSFD, the OSPAR Convention, other international agreements, European Community level policies and principles, and supporting strategies such as the European Green Deal and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030.

While we cannot say precisely where the new MPAs will be placed, we have good information about the potential features that may need area-based conservation beyond that afforded by the birds and habitats directives and the wildlife Acts. These include species and habitats listed as threatened and declining by OSPAR; the protection of features and ecosystem components that play a role in climate processes; the need for the network to be representative, coherent and connected; and the overarching advice and recommendations of the MPA advisory group and stakeholders that have participated in the MPA process so far. It is important to note we also have extensive monitoring programmes in place to provide high-quality and up to date information on these features.

From our work on the MPA process so far, it is heartening to see the keen interest from society and stakeholders in Ireland’s achievement of its national targets and overarching conservation goals. This ongoing involvement and engagement will be central to the process in 2022 and thereafter.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Cronin. To echo his last point, there is a keen interest in the entire area, not just the marine protected areas but also the protection, preservation and restoration of Ireland's maritime area. As he may be aware, the committee has spent the past two months on the Maritime Area Planning Bill, and the marine protected areas obviously came up in the context of that development and conservation protection. When the committee produced our pre-legislative scrutiny report on what was originally known as the marine planning and development management Bill, one of our recommendations was that such a Bill would include scope for designation of marine protected areas or that we would legislate separately for maritime protected areas. I am, therefore, glad to see that legislation is progressing, because that was a recommendation of the committee. There was great interest from the committee on that, so I thank Mr. Cronin and Dr. Ó Cadhla for their attendance here today. I now move to the members for a question and answer session.

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

I thank Mr. Cronin and Dr. Ó Cadhla for meeting with us today. This is an important piece of work they are undertaking on the designation of geographical areas within the marine and maritime area not just for protection and conservation but also for promotion in the future. I thank them and their colleagues for the work they are doing in this space. As the Chair said, as a committee we recommended, as part of our pre-legislative scrutiny report, that there would be legislation brought forward. It is encouraging to hear there are heads being prepared.

The programme for Government has set out an ambition to have 30% of the marine area designated by 2030. I am mindful the Department was only set up in 2019 and it has been working through a pandemic. I congratulate the staff on the progress made to date. It would be helpful for us to understand the pathway the Department sees to achieving that 30% target by 2030 if the witnesses could talk a little bit about that. They mentioned that, in the interim, the Department is undertaking extensive monitoring programmes. Will the witnesses share with us some of the specifics of the extent of the monitoring programmes that are being operated in the meantime? If that information is not readily available, it may be something they could circulate after the meeting.

Mr. Richard Cronin

I thank the Senator. There are two questions, the first is our view on the pathway to achieving the 30% by 2030 and then details on our monitoring programmes. In regard to the first question, in Ireland at the moment we have about 2.4% designated as protected sites. They are not legally defined as marine protected areas but they carry out the same effect. These are under the birds and habitats directives and the wildlife Acts. It is a long distance from 2.4% to 30%. To go into that in more detail, it is noticeable that the coastal zone in Ireland, that first mile and out to six miles, has quite a number of designated spaces at the moment. More than 50% or 60% of that space has already been designated. This tells us already what we need to know, which is that to reach the 30% target, we are going to have to look at much larger marine protected areas. They are probably going to have to be offshore as well. When we look at the definitions we hope to develop for marine protected areas, there are some protection measures that already exist that may qualify and that would allow us to achieve some rapid progress, for example, on reaching this 30% figure. What I am speaking about specifically is that there are already long-term fisheries control measures, for example, for deep water habitats. These may also, depending on how we develop our legislation, provide the basis for marine protected areas. We should be able to make progress.

The question I have been asked before is, will we hit the 30%? I believe it is possible, from the position I sit in. We will need this legislation in place. With the legislation in place and with the contribution and partnership of the stakeholders and those who have a relationship either through their history or their economic practices, we certainly can meet that target. Large MPAs will be required and they will need to be offshore. We have a good deal of information already about those.

The second question was on details about the monitoring programme. Under the marine strategy framework directive, we have a comprehensive monitoring programme we update every six years. It measures all of the pollution pressures and other pressures such as marine litter and human-produced noise. It also measures the effect of other human activities such as commercial fishing. It also measures all of the biodiversity components, so it measures the condition of the sea floor and the health of non-commercial stocks - not just mammals we would be aware of but also such things as deep water sharks and non-commercial species. We are also hoping to develop monitoring that will help us to understand the effects of climate change on the ocean.

That would be important for the future to provide resilience for future marine protected areas. We have that overarching monitoring programme. We then have specific focused monitoring programmes, and while they do not fall directly to me, we participate in them. These include the ObSERVE programme, which is a partnership between a number of Departments where there is monitoring over a number of seasons and years of large mammals and seabirds from an aerial point of view and from ship sightings.

We have a number of these programmes. There are other programmes in place with regard to commercial fisheries, such as a data collection framework. Those programmes are under way all the time. When we look at the sea floor, on which we have done significant work in Government to understand, we have a long-term programme run by the Marine Institute to map the sea floor. This provides us with much of the information we need to make decisions about where we believe the MPAs are most likely to be and where the unique things that need protection are likely to exist. Does that answer the question?

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

It does.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I thank Mr. Cronin for the presentation. We have been waiting some time for this. Obviously, we have been dealing with the Maritime Area Planning Bill 2021 for some time. As Mr. Cronin knows, international best practice strongly advocates that if one is introducing the kind of planning regime we have just introduced for the maritime area, especially given the scale of offshore renewable wind energy we need, it would be better if offshore planning and wind provision were done in parallel with marine protected areas.

We will have a significant time lag and I was hoping Mr. Cronin could be more specific in terms of the timeframes for the legislation. Some of it is beyond his control and is covered by the Business Committee. However, when does he think the general scheme will be published and when does he hope to have the legislation introduced and passed through the Oireachtas?

My understanding from talking to experts in the field is it can sometimes take up to two years from the legislation to the point at which one really gets into large-scale designation. That raises a serious concern about the legacy wind farm projects that we will progress prior to the establishment of the maritime area regulatory authority, MARA, with the Minister providing the maritime consents. That raises the question of mitigation measures. Some people have argued for a situation in which large areas are designated on a precautionary basis as protected areas and certain areas then opt out. It seems the Department is not considering that approach. If not, has the Department considered it and why is it not adopting or advocating this approach?

What mitigation measures is the Department advocating, especially in the east coast and those areas that are the sites of the current seven legacy projects? While obviously wind energy and biodiversity protection can co-exist, in the absence of designations and adequate data, it is not clear how that can be done in the most appropriate way. Mr. Cronin is right in that a significant amount of the area one mile offshore is currently protected. However, in very large areas, there is virtually no enforcement of that and the protections have very little value. Will Mr. Cronin tell us what additional measures will be put in place to ensure designation is not just theoretical but is backed up by real enforcement and restoration where required?

Mr. Richard Cronin

I thank the Deputy for those questions. I will see if I captured all of them here. I have made some notes. I will try to take them from the top, and if I miss any of them, I ask the Deputy to highlight it to me and I will try to pick them up again. If there is anything on which I cannot be completely specific with the Deputy, I can pick it up again in a written submission, if necessary.

The Deputy's first question was on the timing. Our timeframe for the general scheme is the third quarter of 2022. We have identified and have the additional resources on my team to start working on this at the start of the year. We are talking to our legal team in the Department about setting up the project plan for that, but we have done considerable thinking about this, as the Deputy can well understand, and we have a clear idea of what we need. We can get a general scheme together and published by quarter 3 of 2022.

We foresee a significant involvement needed from those not inside in the Department, both from the stakeholders who have shown a keen interest in being involved and other Departments that have a role in marine governance. However, we can do that. Everybody is well aware of where we are at this time.

We can have legislation in place in 2023. We would not be starting from a blank sheet. There are good models and examples of best practice both in our north Atlantic and European regions and further afield in countries with a similar profile to us and a similar marine governance arrangement. We have been studying the background of this. We had colleagues on the expert advisory group from Marine Scotland and from the Northern Ireland Administration who supported us in the drafting of that report. We can make significant progress on that. That is the timing issue.

The other question was whether there was a potential for time lag. The subject of much conversation has been whether the time lag is real. The first question is whether there is a real time lag and the second is whether there is a spatial overlap. While we are working on the MPA legislation, other work will also be taking place on designations under the birds and habitats directives. I do not have information about when those designations are likely to occur, but there is a clear sense of urgency about the completion of those designations.

In terms of the current locations and potential identified locations for the offshore renewables sector and where large offshore marine protected areas are likely to occur, the spatial overlap does not appear to be material, from my study of the situation. If one was 100 km off the west coast of Ireland and 1 km down on a reef system, there would be no opportunity for wind farms to have an effect there. The key point is whether there is a time lag and a spatial overlap-----

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Obviously the legacy projects are east coast, not west coast. Is it Mr. Cronin's view, from the information he has, that none of the areas being considered for those legacy projects are likely to be designated as marine protected areas?

Mr. Richard Cronin

No, there was another point I was going to get to. I had not finished the answer. There are a couple of other points. Notwithstanding all of that, the Deputy raised the point of us having an overall, global designation of some sort and then have these exception points within it. This comes down to how we manage the marine space. Do we go for 100% well-managed, where we have a good environmental status to meet, or do we only apply that in exceptions?

The way we implement the marine strategy framework directive is that everywhere, all the time, must achieve good environmental status. That is the legal commitment. Good environmental status has numerical values attached to it, known as threshold values, which are one of the components of good environmental status. These values are based on how much pollution there is, what level of fishing is allowed or how much litter is allowed on the beach, if any. These targets are then set up and they become part of our journey towards making sure everything we do contributes to the protection of biodiversity. This is overarching above and beyond the laws that protect the individual species and habitats.

No matter what activity Ireland decides to use its marine space for, those activities, when considered in aggregation with all the other activities we decide to use it for, it must be demonstrated they are meeting good environmental status. If they do not meet good environmental status, we have to have an adaptation to how we carry out our activity. We have to adjust our activity through a programme of measures.

I do not see that biodiversity is likely to be explicitly harmed. I made the point in my opening statement that it is not a binary choice between unfettered human activity or extreme protection. There is the possibility of both co-existing. A process has to be undergone and there are several legislative measures with which every activity must comply, whether the environmental impact assessment directive, the birds and habitats directives or any other directives. The national marine planning framework sets it out as a legal requirement that all activities that form part of our marine spatial plan will meet that environmental standard. If we decide to do something with a particular sector, whichever sector it is, it is not necessarily the case that we will automatically default to environmental degradation. That is what I would say in regard to the time lag and the question of whether we should have widespread protection and then have exclusions. The whole maritime space is already subject to a high environmental standard.

The question of whether biodiversity and activity can co-exist is an important issue for people to consider. It was a key issue we discussed in our wider engagement with different sectors. If we create a marine protected area that has a specific conservation objective, where, for example, there is something on the sea floor we want to protect, we need to think about what activities, such as tourism or some level of fishing, can co-exist with that conservation objective. It depends on what the scientific advice tells us about the thing we are trying to protect and the status to which we want to get it. It is about the current state and the desired state. It is not necessarily a binary choice between having no human activity or full human activity with no protection. Within that spectrum, of course, we can have marine reserves and make those choices. It is important to say that the legislation will be shaped strongly by members, which is something to consider as we bring forward the general scheme.

The Deputy also referred to management plans. In the work we have done so far, we have been very conscious of what management plans might look like in order to achieve a conservation objective, how they might be developed and who might have to implement them. We see them as being central to how we bring forward the designation of marine protected areas. These actions start on paper but it is the choices that are made after the work begins on paper that really makes a difference. When we look towards the creation of a plan, which involves the gathering of the evidence to decide where the designations go and the processes that will underpin them, whether scientific or participation processes, it will ultimately be about the management activities. Those activities can take a number of forms, including everything from interventions in a human activity to education, the marking on navigation charts and so on. There are many different aspects that can take the form of management plans. Without them, it is difficult for us to be able to demonstrate that designations are doing what they set out to do, which is to protect the marine environment.

Chairman

There will be time on subsequent rounds if Deputy Ó Broin wants to come back in and expand on any of the points raised.

The legislative timeline Mr. Cronin indicated seems positive and it is one to which I would like to adhere. He will find the committee co-operative in undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme. He mentioned that we need to look at good models already established in other jurisdictions that might be similar in terms of the needs of the Irish coast and maritime area. Will he give some examples of countries that are leading in marine area protection or have designated any significant types of marine protected areas other than under the birds or habitats directives?

Mr. Richard Cronin

Within the wider north-east Atlantic environment, Ireland sits in an area with another 14 countries and the European Union. In that area of 13.5 million sq. km, there are 555 marine protected areas, which is not an insubstantial number. Those marine areas are protected at both a national level, having perhaps been established under the implementation of European legislation, and on a wider level. We also have 11 marine protected areas in the high seas, all of which were established under the OSPAR Convention. Last October, we designated a 600,000 sq. km marine protected area for seabirds. The north-east Atlantic is the best example we have of the scientific, participation and designations processes. It is a great template and we are very lucky to be in that position.

When we get down to looking at particular administrations and how they manage this issue, there are different things we can learn from what is being done in different places. We have a certain legal code in Ireland and we can look to our neighbours on the island of Britain, the different administrations there and how they have created marine protected areas. We have some very good examples from our colleagues in Scotland in terms of the processes they underwent, the legislation they have and how it works. We have a good working relationship with the officials in the Scottish Administration and they certainly will be contacted by us as we commence this work. There are other member states in Europe that face similar challenges to those we face, particularly in regard to the types of activities we have in our marine space at the moment, the activities we hope to have and the participation and stakeholder processes. We have good examples from northern Spain and France, for instance, as to how we might create a model of marine protected areas that has strong involvement in coastal areas. We are very lucky to be able to rely on those examples.

Regarding the long-term protection measures I mentioned earlier, known as other effective conservation measures, we have done a lot of work with other countries in the north-east Atlantic, including both EU and non-EU countries. Again, we can borrow some of those experiences to ensure, most importantly, that the designations are underpinned by the right amount of science and that they have a strong mandate because they are well supported. Those are the kinds of key issues we have found from our consultations processes so far, namely, the importance of the involvement of stakeholders and ensuring decisions are made with the right amount of information.

Chairman

In the committee's engagement with the Irish Environmental Network, IEN, it was noted that there is a lack of scientific data on our maritime area. Any development that takes place in the maritime area is going to be subjected to an environmental impact assessment, which will generate data. Does Mr. Cronin see that data-gathering aspect as part of development feeding into our science base and assisting us in designating marine protected areas?

Mr. Richard Cronin

I certainly see data produced to the right standard, subject to all the normal scientific processes and no matter what source they come from, playing a key role in providing information for us.

We already have a really good example of that in the first cycle of the ObSERVE programme, which received funding from the private sector. In addressing questions under the second cycle of the ObSERVE programme, we see that, again, we are working to provide certainty not only to decision-makers for the marine environment and biodiversity but also to the decision-makers who have to consider things like consent and the size and scale of various activities. We have information needs. We have published knowledge gaps, that is, things we know we do not know, for example in our marine strategy framework directive report of 2020. We actively seek information on those gaps through these monitoring programmes. We have in place arrangements with other Government bodies and we are very open to the concept of agreeing with others to provide us with that information if they can provide it at an appropriate scale and at an appropriate time in order that we may make these decisions. We also have access to funding through various European funding streams that helps us to gather this information. We participate actively in those funding streams and they provide us with information that allows us to make better decisions.

I think Deputy Ó Broin asked how much information or certainty we have. I think we will always in the marine environment end up having to rely to some extent on the precautionary principle. The issue is the scale at which we will end up relying on it. Having to hand all the information we need at the right time and at the right scale will be always a great challenge, given Ireland's vast marine region and its depths, which measure more than 4 km. That is one of the reasons we will need marine protected areas. When there are things we do not fully understand, we must provide protection in order that we may more fully understand them.

Chairman

Mr. Cronin mentioned Scotland and the UK as having good systems in place. They are also quite advanced in their offshore renewable energy development and, of course, have a history of oil development. Are there are marine protected areas that have turbines or oil rigs in them?

Mr. Richard Cronin

I will be honest with you, Chair, and say I do not have a specific answer to that question. I can find out for you. What I can say, going back to one of my earlier comments in my opening statement, is that, depending on the conservation objective of a marine protected area, a human activity may take place within it. Again, however, there is a level of subtlety to that. I can find out that information for the committee and confirm that in writing.

Chairman

I would appreciate that, Mr. Cronin. Thank you.

My time is up so I will move on. I apologise, Senator Cummins. I think you are present but I missed you on the screen. Do you wish to come in now? Senator Cummins might be having connection difficulties. I will move on to Senator Moynihan.

Senator Rebecca Moynihan

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I am not overly familiar with this area and am learning as I go along. I will ask a couple of questions but I ask the witnesses to reply to me in such a way that takes into account the fact that I am a girl from the inner city, not from any of the coastal or fishing communities. I therefore ask, as a preface to my contribution, that the witnesses explain to me in plain English rather than technical language.

How will the marine protected areas be monitored? How does the Department ensure this is not merely a paper designation? What kind of infrastructure and operations will be put in place to monitor these marine protected areas? We are jumping quite significantly from 2.5% to 10% to 30%. What area does that take in? What infrastructure is being put in place such that if 30% of our waters are designated as marine protected areas, it is not like a national development plan in that we put this down on paper and say these are the policies underpinning it but nothing actually happens to make sure this is not simply a paper designation? What impact will marine protected areas and their designation have on fishing rights for coastal communities? Have any conversations or negotiations taken place with our European partners about fishing rights and overfishing within our waters? Is that considered to be commercial activity? Could the witnesses answer the question about overfishing of some of our protected areas?

I will say it again: I ask the witnesses to explain this to me in plain English rather than technical terms.

Mr. Richard Cronin

I will do my very best. The Senator asked a couple of questions. One was about the monitoring programmes. I think she also raised a point about the paper parks. If I could say one thing about marine protected areas, it would be that this will be a process and an ongoing journey. It will not involve the drawing of a curtain, a map being produced and someone saying, "Here you are. The lines are on the map. Everybody can go home now." There has to be a monitoring process that underpins this, as the Senator rightly points out, that involves going out there and measuring what is happening. It was one way at the start. We put in place some control measures. It is now in a different state. We hope it has got better. There has to be an adaptive process that underpins this once we set conservation measures. We may want to protect it, we may want it to be this much better, we may want twice as many whales or we may want to protect the kelp forests or something like that. We will need to go out there, so there will have to be a process. Then we will have to decide whether the actions we are taking are good enough. If they are not, we must take more action. One of the key points from our engagement with stakeholders and on our own journey on this has been to understand that we will not say of this, "Here you go. There are your MPAs. Everybody can go home now." That is a challenge when you think about the sectors that need to operate because they have to get used to this new part of our set-up - this overdue part, I would hasten to add. There will be monitoring. There will have to be a level of adaption if we are not meeting our conservation objectives.

The Senator asked whether this will have an impact on fishing rights and the potential for overfishing. Whenever we are sent to committees to give evidence, we are always told not to say it is not our responsibility to answer a certain question. What I will say about fisheries is that in our conversations with the stakeholders and the fishermen and fisherwomen, we have found them to be one of the strongest groups who want marine protected areas for their stocks and for the future of their communities. All the fishermen we have met in our processes, both for the expert group and in our public consultation, want a future that has more protection. They have a strong voice in that they have rights and entitlements to fish. We have to make sure that as we create marine protected areas, their needs and the needs of nature are all included.

The Senator asked how much space marine protected areas will take up. If she looks at the map provided, she will see that 10% is about 49,000 sq. km and 30% is about 145,000 sq. km. I will add a small subtlety to that for everybody to think about. I do not have an answer to the following question, but this is the sort of thing I and people like me in other countries talk about when we meet. When we say 30%, of what are we saying it is 30%?

Is it 30% of everything or is it 30% of the plan, the sea floor or every species? We still have not received very strong answers to those questions. There are a couple of terms that relate to things being ecologically coherent, connected and resilient, but those terms have specific meanings that give us an answer to what 30% should look like. When we talk about, for example, connectivity in the sea, for a large whale, MPAs that are connected might be thousands of kilometres apart, depending on far it travels over its life cycle. For something living on the sea floor, connected means touching. Does that answer some of the Senator's questions?

Senator Rebecca Moynihan

It does. I may come in for another round. I am interested in the who, when, why and what of monitoring once areas are designated. One of my colleagues has to go to a meeting and wants to come in for the second round. Maybe we will come back to that issue.

Chairman

I see Senator Cummins is present but is having some difficulty connecting or getting his microphone to work. We are now into the second round. Deputy Ó Broin wanted to come back in.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

As always, if there is a third round and I can pop back in after my final meeting I will do so, just to keep Mr. Cronin and Dr. Ó Cadhla occupied since-----

Chairman

I have the Deputy penned in for the third round already.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

-----we are so keen to get them here. I have a follow-up question for Mr. Cronin on the legacy projects. If I heard what he said correctly, the aim is to have good environmental status everywhere all of the time. That is fine, but designating an MPA has a meaning above and beyond that. While I am very clear that an MPA does not automatically exclude other activities, having that designation would clearly impact on how An Bord Pleanála, for example, would assess an application for a large offshore wind project. We want as much offshore wind energy as we can get as soon as possible, but the query many of us have relates to making sure that it is not done at the expense of our marine biodiversity.

The worry is, therefore, that because it will take us until 2023, as Mr. Cronin told us, before we have the legislation, and another one to two years before we start advancing the MPAs closer to 30%, what will happen to those legacy projects that are active and live now? Those running the projects are doing some of their testing and exploration. Once this legislation is through, they will get their MACs from the Minister and will then go to planning. Is there a weakness in not having the MPA decisions as to whether any of those parts of the marine would be covered? In the absence of that decision, what mitigation measures, or additional or temporary protections, can be put in place to make sure that we have the most informed planning decisions on those legacy projects, with an eye not only to protecting existing marine biodiversity but recovering some of the biodiversity loss of recent times, in addition to ensuring we get the offshore wind we want? I am particularly keen to know about that.

I am also keen to know how much ongoing engagement happened between Mr. Cronin's team and his counterparts who have been responsible for the Maritime Area Planning Bill. Clearly, those two areas of work are integrated and it would be very important to get some reassurance that officials are not so busy dealing with their respective areas that they do not have time for exchange. Any information he can give us on that crossover will be helpful.

Mr. Cronin seems very convinced and, if I may say, optimistic about achieving that good environmental status everywhere all of the time. Members of many organisations that have talked to us during this set of discussions on the maritime area, both on the maritime area plan and the planning Bill, take a much more concerned view that there have been very significant levels of biodiversity loss and maritime degradation. They are, therefore, concerned that achieving that high level of good environmental status, even pre-marine protected areas, is a challenge. Will Mr. Cronin respond to some of those concerns?

To be clear, I had always assumed, and please correct me if I am wrong, that 30% is a spatial designation. There may be other qualifications within that, but is Mr. Cronin suggesting that it is not automatically a spatial designation or that it is but there are other factors to take into account whether those are about species and such like?

Mr. Richard Cronin

I was trying to make notes on the questions so I do not forget them. The Deputy asked three or four questions. The first related to legacy projects and timing. In a way, this is linked to how we work with others in the Government who have other responsibilities. In the absence of the MPA legislation being in place at this point, we work on legacy and future projects on an ongoing basis through a structure between both units in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, including those responsible for the development of the offshore energy sector, our colleagues in spatial planning and our colleagues who are responsible for the birds and habitats directives. We work with all of them and others in government, including officials in the Department of Transport and other Departments, on the development of a new offshore renewable energy development plan for Ireland. The target for delivery of that is the end of 2022. The work on sensitivity mapping, which includes where there is likely to be a conflict and where the easier areas to start development are likely to be, is under way and is happening at two levels. One is at a technical level among a number of experts and the other is at a senior steering level, where those timing and infrastructure risks are all being teased out to work out the real landscape.

In this Department, we are working on the development of a similar sort of timing map, across all the work and units, with our colleagues in planning and with those responsible for the birds, habitats and water framework directives. We have an overall map of all the work travelling through 2022 to 2024 and beyond in order that we remove that risk of uncertainty around there being timing mismatches. If time mismatches occur, we can then take action. We can decide if a risk is real and material and, if so, take a mitigating action to prevent it.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

In the context of the maritime area consents that the Minister is likely to be asked to grant pre the establishment of MARA, will all that information be used in the process of determining whether those consents are appropriate? Likewise, if there are subsequent planning applications to the board, again, pre-designation, is that information likely to be accessible to the board and the wider public in determining whether those applications may or may not have implications for biodiversity loss?

Mr. Richard Cronin

I can only presuppose that, as this will be a published document, the information will be available. It is being developed by our colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, but as it will be a published document my presumption is that it will be. We are compiling all the available information across all the business units-----

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Is there a target date for the publication of that document?

Mr. Richard Cronin

The target date available to me, which is in the climate action published a few weeks ago, is the end of 2022.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

With the Chairman's indulgence, what happens throughout 2022 where legacy projects are progressing? Mr. Cronin is not only telling us that there is a time lag with the designation of MPAs, but the completion of the sensitivity mapping and all those other very important pieces of work will not necessarily be available as MACs are being granted by the Minister, or planning applications are going into the board, for some of the large-scale wind projects off the east coast.

Mr. Richard Cronin

Yes, but at the same time all the information that will be compiled into the revision of the offshore renewable energy plan pre-exists. The information that has been gathered around the range of distribution of species and habitats, for example, already exists. What we will have is a consolidation of it into one location. That information is all freely available at present. The information we have on the status of the marine environment is all fully available. The key point is to ensure that it is accessible and accessed by the decision makers. None of this is information that is in the pipeline; it is actually out there. The most important thing is to create a consolidation of it so that there will be a single point of access based on the publication date in the climate action plan towards the end of 2022.

During that intervening period, the information is still available.

As regards whether we are confident about our status on good environmental status, GES, it is important to look at the Irish maritime space within a European context. In relative terms, it is in very good condition. We have achieved good environmental status for all of the pollution pressures as assessed in 2020 regarding things like nutrification, hazardous substances, contaminants in seafood and the levels of marine litter. We think we can do more, by the way, but based on the assessments carried out in 2020, we have met our GES targets. We are strongly of the opinion that we should be doing more. We are trying to achieve a moving target that needs to become more ambitious. Compared with some neighbouring member state administrations, our marine space is in good condition.

There are a number of pressures on and threats to the Irish marine environment, not least the threat to biodiversity from human activity. This activity happens both inside and outside Ireland's marine space but the effects appear inside the space, so we must take action as a nation and internationally in co-operation with others to restore that biodiversity. In pursuit of this, we have things like the European Green Deal, the biodiversity action plan and the recently published OSPAR strategy to reach 30% marine protected areas and restore species and habitats. We are working on that. We recognise what the problem is and we have a clear pathway, an ambitious target and a mandate to go forward with that.

The other emerging threat we see involves the effects of climate change and ocean acidification and what they mean for biodiversity and what the ocean does for Ireland in terms of the regulation functions we get out of it for our climate. I am confident we are aware of what the problem is and what the solution will look like, and that we know the size of the challenge and believe we can achieve it. That does not mean it will be easy. It is hard work but it is necessary work. If we are to be sincere and ambitious about all these objectives we have, for example, the deployment of offshore renewables, the protection of coastal communities or adaptation to climate, this is an essential part of the jigsaw and we must be serious and face up to it.

Senator John Cummins

I am from a coastal county - Waterford - so all elements of this are very important to me and the people I represent. Mr. Cronin said all of the information is readily available to allow decisions to be made. Will it take 13 months to compile all of that information? What is the best-case timeline regarding the completion of this body of work? Mr. Cronin referenced actions and mitigation measures that could be taken. What mitigation measures or actions can be taken?

Mr. Richard Cronin

We have a lot of information to hand, including the information I access in the decision-making we do. The other branches of Government, which have different responsibilities, also gather a lot of information. This information is shared very openly. In the environmental assessments we do, we rely on information provided by others. Will it take 13 months? I cannot honestly answer that question. I do not control the programme to develop a new approach to offshore renewables. If it can be done faster, I am sure it will be done faster, but I cannot honestly say to the Senator whether it will take the full 13 months. I can only go on the information available to me.

The Senator mentioned actions and mitigation measures. Part of the cycle of managing the marine environment is an assessment phase where we carry out scientific assessments involving whether it is good or bad and whether we are satisfied with it. We set targets based on what a better situation should look like and we have monitoring programmes. As part of the phase we are starting in 2022 under the marine strategy framework directive, we will develop measures to manage human activity. It is under those measures that we can ensure any of the sectors we are considering carries out its activities and protects the marine environment at the same time. That is the key instrument we use not just in Ireland but across all the other member states of the EU to gather all the measures. From the work we have done on that, every single human activity in the marine environment is well regulated. Nobody is doing things outside of a regulatory framework. The effectiveness of that regulation is something for me constantly to consider. We think there is space for improvement, which is why we want to have marine protected areas in place. We think it is a piece of the jigsaw that is missing.

Senator John Cummins

How many members of staff are working on this? How does that compare in terms of resourcing? Mr. Cronin mentioned the UK. Anyone in answer to a question like this would say, of course, we could do with more resources, but I am trying to ascertain current resources in respect of a comparable nation such as the UK, even on a pro rata basis.

Mr. Richard Cronin

The Senator took the answer away from me, which was that we will always take more resources. I have a core team of about nine people. Like Dr. Ó Cadhla, many are marine science specialists who do scientific assessments, draft legislation and carry out negotiations for us. We also have people on our administrative side as well. That is just the core inside my team. We also have access to the National Parks and Wildlife Service team and its experts. They form part of our team. We have access to people in the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications, the Marine Institute and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. When we do our work at a European level and what we call the OSPAR level, which concerns the north-east Atlantic encompassing Iceland, Norway and the UK, we incorporate about 30 people into our team, so it is a team made up of those under my direct responsibility and the wider team as well.

How does this compare with comparable nations? The UK is probably not a very good comparison because it has overseas administrations, three or four different administrations in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and a very large population. If I look at similar administrations in the EU, we have a comparable sized team. I am thinking of countries like Portugal and Denmark. This does not mean that I or my colleagues in those countries think we have enough but we have similar sized teams, networks and arrangements.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I thank Mr. Cronin and Dr. Ó Cadhla for a very informative contribution. I must preface my questions by saying I am from the most inland county in the Dáil - Longford. I would also add that in the 1980s, we sent six councillors from Longford to a conference on coastal erosion so we are very enthused about the coastline, and this is an important Bill.

I have a few questions. Offshore wind energy is a huge aspiration of ours in relation to the carbon plan and greater and more efficient energy production. Through the Department's work and research, does Mr. Cronin envisage a point at which that development will need to be capped, where ultimately it is going to start causing issues on our coastline? Is there a red line beyond which offshore wind energy must not pass?

Mr. Cronin mentioned that we are performing very well vis-à-vis some of our counterparts. In a like-for-like comparison with our closest neighbour, the UK, where are we in the journey that we are going on in terms of maritime issues? Where do we compare with the UK in relation to that?

I have two more questions. Obviously, we are an island nation. Most people will associate the coast with the west coast of Ireland. Are there distinct issues in relation to the west coast and the east coast, given the fact that there are two very different bodies of water on each side? We have an ocean on one side and a sea on the other. Obviously, we are heavily industrialised along the eastern seaboard. Do those two sets of circumstances present different issues and challenges for maritime matters?

Mr. Richard Cronin

I thank the Deputy. Before I say anything else, the Deputy is right to state that we are an island nation. I am from County Cork. It does not matter where you are from on this island. We are living on an island and we should not forget that. I thank the Deputy for raising that point. The Deputy asked three questions, the first of which was on offshore wind and whether it can, or should, be capped. At the moment, when I speak to the experts in the offshore wind field, what they tell me is that the technology is the key constraint currently to where it can go. There are also issues around the economics of generating the energy. Currently, we have an ambition to install 5 GW of offshore wind by the end of the decade. That will take up a footprint of around 3% of our space. There is further ambition to install 30 GW by mid-century. I do not think that is necessarily six times extrapolation on the 3%, because we can do things like retrofitting the turbines. At the moment, water depth and wave height are two of the key issues. Of course, the further offshore you go with wind energy, the more getting out to it to service the turbines becomes an issue. Looking at the expansion in the southern North Sea in places like Denmark, where the water is quite shallow, offshore islands have been constructed to get access further out. Otherwise, there would be problems. Platforms would have to be built for people to live out there. The technology constraints are the key issue at the moment. That is outside of all other considerations. That is the main cap we have at the moment. It is about getting the technology to catch up. That is for the current offshore renewables that we see, which are either fixed-bottom or floating wind turbines. There are other types as well. There are also environmental constraints, but the interface between the sea floor and wind turbines is well understood. We see it in parts of the North Sea. We understand the impact of turbines when they are anchored and floated. We also understand the interaction with the blades and the interaction they may have with marine animals.

The Deputy asked a question on where we are in comparison with our colleagues in the UK and the UK administrations. If I am honest, I would say that we are around six or seven years behind them. I may have said it in some of the evidence I gave earlier, but we should be able to learn from the progress they made and the processes they had. We should be able to foreshorten that time period and catch up much more quickly. For example, from the establishment of the Scottish act in 2010, we saw the delivery of its MPAs in the middle to the end of the last decade. That is where we are. We are behind and there is no point in hiding from that, but we know where we need to go.

The Deputy's final question was on the issue of west coast versus east coast. There are a few points I wish to make on that. The first, which is pretty obvious to anybody who has travelled, concerns the difference in the environment. One coast is open and facing the Atlantic and the water gets quite deep in a relatively short period of time and drops off into very deep abyssal water. There are also Atlantic Ocean frontal systems that push up against the west coast. The most obvious one of those is the weather for us living on land. That is one of the key issues. The west coast part of Ireland forms corridors for biodiversity, in respect of both the upswelling of nutrients and the movement of stocks, including commercial species and mammals that are sea birds that are using that space because of all the biodiversity there. The east coast, on the other hand, is relatively shallow compared to the west coast. The energy levels from the sea are, in relative terms, much lower. They are still pretty high and there are wave heights of 2 m to 2.5 m. The main difference is in the energy level. There are different biodiversity components on the east cost. Much of that is due to the water depth and the flow of the currents. Many of the oceanographic characteristics are different. However, in general terms, the whole of the Irish marine space fits into an area known as the Celtic Seas, which is part of our waters, France's waters and the UK's waters. It is one ecosystem and we assess it as one ecosystem, but we are aware of, for example, the distribution of where different things live and where different habitats are. We are conscious of that. From a human activity perspective, the difference is in the amount of energy there is out there, and waves and storms.

Chairman

I know that Deputy Ó Broin wanted to ask more questions, but he has had to go to another meeting. He is due back in. I might ask Mr. Cronin a question. He said that in comparison, our marine environment is in fairly good condition. Does he take that as meaning that the entire marine area of 500,000 sq. km that is set out under the Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2021 is in good condition, overall? Some witnesses appeared before the committee previously. I cannot remember which group they were from. Perhaps it was the Irish Environmental Network. They said that parts of the Irish Sea are very badly damaged, barren and in a poor environmental condition. Does the research support that assertion?

Mr. Richard Cronin

In relation to the condition of the marine environment in Ireland, we base our decision on the assessments we carry out. Within that, we know that there are a few areas on which we do not have enough information. Therefore, when we say that the marine environment is in a good condition, that is for a distinct set of descriptors, such as pollution and other human pressures. We think it is not possible to assess some things at the moment, because we do not have enough information on them. We believe there are some disturbed habitats. We think there may be some habitat loss in relation to the sea floor. We think more work needs to be carried out in that area. In fact, members of my team are at an EU meeting today on the sea floor. In general terms, the Irish marine environment is in a relatively good condition, but as I said in response to another question, it does not mean for a moment that we will be complacent about it. We believe that we need to maintain the good status where we have it. When we do not have it, and we do not have it in all components and for everything, we need to take further action to achieve it.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Cronin. I read some other research on the issue which suggests that the installation of a number of turbine arrays can actually benefit biodiversity. Other research has shown that the installation of turbine arrays on that scale has resulted in reef growth or habitat protection.

Is there evidence in the European area that has happened?

Mr. Richard Cronin

I thank the Chairman for his question. There is evidence that if one changes the pattern of human activities one can have benefits. I believe the Deputy is referring to where if we remove one activity and allow the turbine arrays, and there is no other human activity taking place, we will see biodiversity perhaps returning to either the water or to the seafloor. There is certainly evidence of that. The question then is what is the benefit of that? Does it benefit spillover from the wind array and is that benefit tangible? That goes back to a point I believe I made in the opening statements, which is that there are benefits that can be derived from certain human activities and those benefits can deliver for the environment but also for the economic interests we have in the sea.

The key takeaway I would like the committee to consider is that we should not think about these issues in a binary way, where one has either a decision to site human activity and that leads to irreversible damage or one has a marine protected area which is going to, by default, lead to a total exclusion of human activity. Neither of those may be the case. They may be possible if we do not do things properly, but they should not be where our thinking is. We should adopt a responsible approach to the siting of all human activities and the carrying out and management of that human activity, so that we deliver benefits not only for our economy but also for our environment. We should not adopt a one or the other scenario, it should be both.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Cronin. Much of the time talking about the Maritime Area Planning Bill was spent trying to compare back to terrestrial planning because we know about that, and this is somewhat new to us. If one has European designations such as special areas of conservation, SACs, or a special protection areas, SPAs, there are certain things one must do before one goes into the planning process and an appropriate assessment takes place on those areas. Is there an equivalent in Europe on planning where a marine protected area is in place. We know the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, the agency with this responsibility, will have to carry out environmental impact assessments on all of the developments and much of the activity. If it is an SAC, there are the appropriate assessments and Natura impact statements that need to be done. Is there something for marine protected areas? Is there a third space there? Is that done in Europe at the moment, which would require a more stringent environmental assessment?

Mr. Richard Cronin

I thank the Chairman again for his question. The easiest way to answer it is to say that we have not drafted the legislation yet so the opportunity does not exist to do as he suggests.

The second thing that occurs to me is to ask if this is a good thing to do. When I consider the interaction between spatial planning and marine protected areas, there is a synergy between them. If we create a marine protected area under national legislation, it would seem like a responsible thing to do to ensure that all activities that would occur inside the marine protected area, or would have an effect on it, should be considered in how they have an effect on the conservation objectives. If we have a space and we decide there is something on the seafloor that is very important and that we want to protect, we would then consider what activities are permissible in that space. Could one have navigation across the top of a marine protected area and site? Could one have recreation? Is there any level of human activity on the seafloor such as scientific research or the laying of communication or energy cables? One would have to decide if it were possible for these to co-exist. Outside of that designated space on the map, what sort of zone of influence around that would be appropriate would depend on what one is protecting?

Chairman

I thank Mr. Cronin for that answer. I have a further question on the data. We have a massive space and when one designates an SAC or SPA, it is because of a species or habitat that is present that one arrives at that point. Because of the vast area we have and the lack of science and data, or not enough data on many parts of it, will that present difficulty in our saying we think this should be a marine protected area, MPA? Would it be an MPA designation because we have indicators here that it is sensitive or that there is a certain species present? I see that as being a difficulty as we have such a huge area. When compared to other northern European countries, our maritime area, if we designate 30% of it geographically, would be larger than some of those countries. It is an immense task ahead of us and I just wonder how we will be able to gather all of that data in the same way one would need to do if one was going to designate something under the habitats or birds directive.

Mr. Richard Cronin

I thank the Chairman again. Before I answer that question there is one thing that is very important for us all to consider when we think about the marine space and that is its three-dimensional nature. When we consider how we apply land-based approaches versus how we manage the sea, there is a three-dimensional aspect. It was a part of Deputy Ó Broin’s earlier question that I failed to answer around the 30% and how the three-dimensional aspect of it is brought into play.

Turning more specifically to the Chairman’s question, in my opening comments I made reference to the fact that we already have a list of the things we believe are important to protect. We have a list of species and habitats that have been already agreed on by the scientists to be both threatened and declining, which I can provide to the committee after the meeting. We have a good indication already of where we think these are. We would be, of course, happy to have further information on this but we believe we already have a good start on that.

Another point I raised was to look at things like how the ocean acts as a natural carbon store, with the natural carbon cycle and how carbon is stored either in the coastline, in things like seagrass and kelp forests, or how it is stored in sediments. We have very good information also about where those habitats exist. Yes, it is a vast and daunting area. We are in the top six European Union marine or maritime nations based on our maritime footprint but we also benefit not only from our expertise but from the expertise of all of those scientists across the European Union and the north-east Atlantic. There is much information available to us and we have a very strong underpinning of what we need to protect already. These are on what I would call the biodiversity side.

One of the key findings of the expert advisory report is that there is the potential for other types of marine protected areas as well that have a strong focus on our culture and on either the historical or heritage aspects of our marine environment. I am speaking here predominantly, however, about the natural marine environment and the natural components of our marine space.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Cronin and I see Deputy Ó Broin wishes to come in. Does the Deputy wish to join for the third round now?

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Yes, Chairman, and I thank him very much. I thank Mr. Cronin again for his replies. There are many organisations out there, particularly organisations which track the alarming levels of biodiversity loss and damage both to our natural and marine environment who would take a much more critical view of our marine environmental standards, particularly in areas such as seismic surveys and who is responsible for monitoring and checking compliance with those. Equally, there are other things that matter, like mammal observer rots, etc. There are some very divergent views to those Mr. Cronin has expressed to the committee on some of these things. That is naturally the nature of these types of discussions. I return to the same question because I wish to press it.

When the Minister issues maritime area consents or when the board makes decisions on planning applications for very large offshore marine projects potentially later next year, is Mr. Cronin satisfied there is sufficient information in the public domain to allow the Department, which will be advising the Minister on the awarding of consents or the board on the granting of permission, to make a full assessment of the biodiversity implications of any decision? From memory, the evidence we heard at an earlier stage on the Maritime Area Planning Bill is that there was an indication, which was confirmed by Sustainable Water Network and others, that we do not have a lot of the data we need. This is one of the reasons the designation process had been so delayed. It is not just a matter of the legislation. It is also a matter of the poor data set we have. What is Mr. Cronin's view regarding concerns, particularly on the part of a lot of environmental NGOs, on the state of our marine biodiversity? How do we make sure that as we are granting consents and potentially granting permissions, they are done in a way, during this interim period before we have the designations, that fully protects marine biodiversity and does not consolidate biodiversity loss to date but allows for some of that to progress? Regarding the 30%, my understanding is that it is a spatial 30%. Is Mr. Cronin saying it is not automatically spatial or it is spatial but there are other considerations in that?

Mr. Richard Cronin

Regarding the spatial 30%, the marine environment is three-dimensional in nature. If we look at a spatial plan area, we are not really capturing everything we need. We can certainly go for 30% spatial coverage. My view is that ultimately this is the measurement by which this will be achieved at policy level but below that policy level, there needs to be a set of conversations, which I am having with my colleagues in other countries, about how effective this 30% is as a high global ambition. Thirty percent of what we want to protect - is it just a map or is it 30% of key species? Should it be more of some or less of others? Beyond the 30% and whatever it will look like on a map there is another conversation we are having and it is important for us to explain the subtlety of that so that we pay ongoing consideration to it.

Am I overly optimistic? Are others pessimistic? I cannot speak for others. We have a process of assessment in Ireland and in our broader European area that we do together and that involves scientists and members of civic society. With those assessments, we have information that tells us about the health of biodiversity. I would not for a moment suggest the status of biodiversity is satisfactory, but we have seen progress across a number of key indicators where animals are now in favourable conservation status. Our message at national and international level has been that we need to take more action, play our part, be responsible nationally and within our broader Atlantic environment and play our part to make sure biodiversity is protected and restored across our marine space and the north east Atlantic, and we have to do this with others. Because of the three-dimensional space, the lines we see on our maps are really just administrative. Where we create marine protected areas, they will have a relationship with those spaces outside Ireland's marine space, for example, in the high seas areas out to the west and to the north and south and those other countries as well.

Do I have a concern about maritime area consents coming forward before we have the marine protected areas designation piece in place? It is clear that all consents will come with conditions. How we word those conditions and the obligation to implement them will be very important. Another thing worth considering is that irrespective of whether we have a spatial designation in place for marine protected areas at the time, there is an obligation on everybody in Government and all operators to comply with the full suite of national and international legislation to which we subscribe.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Is there space within that for what are known as other affected area-based conservation measures to be used in parallel? Is there discussion around what are known as no take zones to ensure we have a belt and braces approach to the maximum protection of marine biodiversity as we are making those really important decisions about large-scale offshore wind energy?

Mr. Richard Cronin

One of the key issues coming out of the advisory report, and it is something in respect of which we have started discussions with stakeholders like members of the fishing community and our colleagues in other countries, is how we will integrate other effective area-based conservation measures into our suite of marine protected areas. This might sound semantic but it is very important to think about it. One group is calling for no take zones while another is looking for fisheries closures. We have the fishing community looking for fisheries closures and maybe the environmental pillar looking for no take zones. They both want the same thing. They both want to protect biodiversity and believe that fishing in some locations should not happen. They might have different reasons for believing and wanting it but they both want the same thing. It is very important that as we come up with these other effective conservation measures, where we are going to put them and where they need to be from a scientific point of view, that we make sure they actually deliver for us. When I explain this work to others and all the different acronyms floating around, I say that if you are living in the sea, you do not really care what the space in which you are living is called as long as your life cycle is protected. You do not care whether it is called a marine protected area, a well-managed space or another effective conservation measure. Your population and stock must have the protection they need from human activity to be able to exist now and into the future and recover if necessary.

Chairman

A few members have rejoined the meeting. Deputies Cian O'Callaghan, Gould and Boyd Barrett are offering and I plan to go in that order.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I would prefer to hear a few more contributions before I come in.

Deputy Thomas Gould

Deputy Boyd Barrett has his hand up so I am happy for him to go first.

Chairman

I was going to go to the members first but Deputy Boyd Barrett is like an honorary member at this stage.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I apologise in advance to our witnesses if I repeat questions asked earlier. I was in the Dáil. We are behind the curve on designating marine protected areas compared to many other European countries and are playing catch up. How does Mr. Cronin envisage us dealing with the legacy projects in terms of large offshore wind turbine proposals? How do we address the problem of a site that was inappropriate for such a development being designated as a marine protected area too late and the damage has been done?

Does Mr. Cronin agree that if we were approaching this correctly, we would have the marine protected areas designated first and we would have identified areas where such large industrial development is suitable, in advance of our issuing consents for development that could potentially be bad for biodiversity, marine life or for other reasons?

My office staff have been watching proceedings and one of them informs me that Mr. Cronin indicated that 60% of our coastal zone is already designated. She may have misheard but will he clarify that figure? How does the coastal zone relate to the new designations of near shore and beyond near shore? What are we talking about in that regard? A coverage of 60% seems a lot for any area unless it is a very small area.

Given that we are behind the curve, to what extent does Mr. Cronin think the precautionary principle needs to operate in terms of what we allow in advance of having the full, comprehensive designation of MPAs? I ask that he pardon me if I am being ignorant in asking how candidate areas are selected in advance of their potential designation. How is it decided which are candidate areas for protection and is there already a process in train for selecting those areas?

Mr. Richard Cronin

On the siting of wind farms and MPAs, I made the point earlier that it is not necessarily the case that we cannot have co-existence. As I said in my opening remarks, we can have that. In line with best international practice, MPAs exist in other European countries and around the world where human activities co-exist with the conservation objective. When a decision is made to create an MPA for the specific reason of conserving something in the sea, it is possible to allow human activity that does not have an effect on that conservation status. The idea of co-existence is very important for all of us to think about when we are considering what an MPA is. I always encourage people to finish the sentence when they say they want an MPA and specify why they want it. This helps us to understand whether a particular human activity interferes with that objective.

The Deputy asked whether there is likely to be something already in the legacy projects that may require protection. When a detailed site investigation takes place, a lot of scientific information is gathered in the process of creating an environmental assessment and doing the other appropriate assessments. A great deal of data are gathered in all of that process, which then feed into the decision on whether a consent can be given. It is not a case of somebody taking out a map and saying, "I would like to put it here and off you go." There is a detailed process that goes on behind all of that.

The Deputy asked whether we are putting the cart before the horse on this issue or shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. As I said in reference to some of the evidence I provided, it would be preferable to have started this work a number of years ago. We must remember, however, that Ireland has a very low level of economic activity in our marine space. Apart from transport and fisheries, there is very little other activity taking place beyond the first nautical mile. The real risk is quite low outside of those well-defined activities that are already happening.

In my earlier reference to different parts of our marine space already having a lot of designated areas, I was referring to the publication last year by the European Environment Agency highlighting the distance to 30% MPA coverage across the Union. I can provide the Chairman with the reference. The document breaks down each member state's marine space to the first nautical mile, that is, from the high water mark out to 1 nautical mile, which is the space to which I was referring. We have those designations done under the birds and habitats directive. The document also gives information on how much of the space from 1 to 12 nautical miles is designated, as well as for the area from 12 nautical miles out to the end of the exclusive economic zone. In that third space, from 12 miles out, Ireland has very low levels of designation. That was the specific reference I was making and I can provide the information to the committee.

The Deputy referenced the precautionary principle. In my comments, I mentioned the EU policies and principles, the precautionary principle being one we use all the time. We are very conscious of having enough information to make a good decision, which does not mean we should make no decision if we do not have enough information. In the exercise of the practice of this, we are very conscious, for example, of the likely risk of there being some harm caused that is irreversible or that would go against the broader conservation ambition we have around either a species or broader biodiversity concerns.

If I have missed any point, I ask the Deputy to come back to me. His final question was about candidate areas. In a previous answer, I mentioned that we already have a well-established list, which I will provide to the committee, of threatened and declining species, known as the OSPAR list, that are outside the EU directives. It is a long list of more than 50 species and habitats that occur all across the north-east Atlantic, a sub-portion of which are found in the Irish marine space. We know what we need to protect and we have information about where it is. As set out in the recently published climate action plan, we also have an awareness that the ocean plays a key role in mitigating the effects of climate change. It is our understanding that there are natural carbon habitats both on the coastline and possibly in deeper sediments that are not yet being given any protection. We know where they are from the mapping programmes we have. In our view, they could become candidates. What we do not yet have in place is a process for setting up the criteria, bringing stakeholders along with us and creating the designation process. That is the purpose of the new legislation we hope to draft and we see a key part of it as bringing in the views of all stakeholders, who are the people who will end up managing this for us. Without their willingness to manage, it will be difficult for us to do it for such a vast area. We need to bring them with us on this. That legislation, and how we design the processes provided for in it, will be key to our success.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

On the issue of carbon habitats and carbon capture, I am aware that the marine planning legislation will go through first. Let us say there is an application for permission around seaweed harvesting that could potentially have impacts on species that are at risk of declining or an impact on a habitat that is very important in terms of carbon capture. If the MPA designation is not in place before that application comes in, how will the information we currently have, which should show that this is an important area that could well end up being an MPA, kick in as part of the process? Is there a way to ensure that information is not lost and will be fully captured as part of any decision-making process?

Is there a mechanism to ensure that before we have the legislation on marine protected areas fully in place? I would be concerned about that and I have used it as an example. Mr. Cronin might address that.

Mr. Richard Cronin

I thank the Deputy for his question. If I could address it on a global level, the national marine planning framework, which was published in July of this year, is Ireland’s rule book for how we want to develop the space and for how we want to have human activity. Contained in that planning framework document are Ireland's binding commitments to our protection of the marine environment. Those include protected sites, compliance with laws such as the birds and habitats directive, the OSPAR convention, which is an international treaty that goes beyond European Union ambitions, and the environmental targets under the marine strategy framework directive. We established 25 revised targets in 2020. All those are contained in that document, and let us call it the overarching roof with which all activity and decision making must comply.

The Deputy asked if there is a risk things might go wrong or we might make decisions we live to regret. We have that strong framework, which was an excellent item of work published earlier this year. Therefore, we have that in place. We then get into some of the more specific issues on the decisions on specific sites. Clearly, if we have a site, species or habitat that is unique and does not exist anywhere else, we have to consider whether any human activity could take place in that area. Human activity is allowed, and we should not be shy about saying that. Human activity should be done sustainably. “Sustainably” means that we do not cause damage from which we cannot recover. We should be conscious of that. We should also make sure that if we make decisions about human activity, it is done in such a way that the overall health of the species as a population is maintained and if we need to increase the health of that population that we do that also. We would set a conservation objective, for example, that we want things to stay as they are, we want them to get twice as good as they are or we want them to improve by a certain date. Whatever that is, we can make choices about human activity based on that. Among the decision makers, specialists and experts who advise us on this work, the knowledge about those parts of the eco-system that are fragile and sensitive, for example, very deep water, cold water coral reefs which can withstand very little interaction from human activity, are well understood. We might not have a full map of exactly where they all are but we know what to look for. If we are going to make decisions around consenting, scientific information will have to be provided around supporting the consent application or whatever it is. Therefore, we would know what to look for. The framework would be in place. The implementation of that framework through the subsequent consent process would be the challenge. After we do MPA work, we should focus on that, which would be interesting for us to consider.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I have a concern about that. We do not have enough independent data. We know what we are looking for. We are talking about MPAs, not the consent process around planning. If a planning application is submitted, scientific data must be provided as part of that process and those data would not necessarily come from an independent source. Presumably they would come from consultants on behalf of a developer. I am not saying anything about the maritime area, but we certainly know from land planning applications that data and the information that is submitted by consultants working on behalf of applicants are not always as independent or robust as we might want them to be, to put it mildly. The concern is that we would not have enough of own independent data and mapping in place with respect to designations and we would be reliant on information that could be partial or somewhat skewed from applicants and, consequently, there would be an inability to assess that against other independent data. That is the concern I have. I would be interested to hear Mr. Cronin address that aspect.

Mr. Richard Cronin

It is a concern I would generally share. It comes down to the quality of the data we get. I would not have any question about people’s scientific integrity. Regarding the quality of the data, the anxiety I have relates to the level of the decision we have to make versus the amount of data we have, in other words, what is the gap between the two. That is the real challenge. As I said in response to an earlier question, we are willing to co-operate with the private sector in the provision of information for us to make decisions at a national level. We have a track record of co-operating with industry, essentially, the private sector, all the time. What is important with respect to the quality of the data is for us to describe clearly what we want measured, the method in which we want it measured and the way in which we can have some assurance or guarantee around that. Those are the key factors. We have programmes in place. I mentioned that at the start of my evidence. We have specific programmes and national monitoring programmes in place. We are also considering, for example, citizen science whereby we can get information from citizens on the state of the marine environment. The key challenge we have in all those programmes is to have the right standard. The right standards will get us good quality information.

The Deputy also asked about the decision-making process. I am not involved in the planning decision-making process but, clearly, whatever information is provided in a decision-making process, the important element is the level of assessment and rigour the decision maker makes in respect of it. I would have certain views on whether we should be comparing the marine space to the land space because one is pretty much two dimensional, it is pretty much flat and goes up 10 m whereas the ocean is three dimensional. Regardless of whether we want to compare the two, we can still condition consents when we decide to do things at sea. We can have a set of performance standards. This relates to the precautionary principle we discussed earlier. If we have a set of concerns that an activity might have a risk associated with it, we can create a set of performance controls on it. We see this all the time. If one is carrying out some sort of seismic survey, one must have certain noise parameters and certain checks and balances in place. We condition activities all the time. Therefore, we have ways of dealing with that as well.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Cronin for his response. Deputy O'Callaghan raised a good point. When we carry out environmental impact assessments on land, we check certain things. There are clear guidelines on what is to be contained in an environmental impact assessment. Is there something we should also consider including in the marine space to stipulate what we want measured and the degree to which we want it measured as part of the environmental impact assessment carried out by the applicant?

Mr. Richard Cronin

I would seek to ensure we carry out an appropriately rigorous environmental assessment. Regardless of whether we do that under the environmental impact assessment directive or under any other decision-making process, the right thing to do would be to ensure we have the right amount of information. If we do not have the right amount of information to hand at that time, we must ensure we rely on the principles that underpin our decision-making, for example, the precautionary principle, the prevention of pollution at source principle or the polluter pays principle. We should also use the best available technology. We should adopt all those approaches to ensure we provide the maximum mitigation to protect the marine environment.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Cronin for that response. That is a belief to which we would all subscribe, namely, providing the maximum protection for our marine environment. I do not see any further hands up from the members in attendance.

Mr. Cronin has undertaken to provide the committee with two items, one of which is the report on the distance to 30% for each country. Was that a European publication?

Mr. Richard Cronin

Yes. The second item is the list of threatened and declining species and habitats, published by the OSPAR Commission. We can provide links for those two items if that is okay with the Chairman?

Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Richard Cronin

Rather than recite a list of animals and special habitats such as carbonate mounds, angel sharks and so on, I can provide the list to the committee.

Chairman

The national marine planning framework is a really comprehensive document. It provides a lot of information for anybody looking for information on the marine space. At the time we were discussing the framework I made the point that it is the document to which I would direct people who want to find out about Ireland's marine area.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I thank our guests for their responses. I am sure Mr. Cronin has already answered this question, but where is the Department at in terms of the development of the legislation? Are there drafts available of the work thus far? What type of criteria will form the basis for assessing areas to be designated? How far along the road is the Department in terms of a draft framework? What can we see at this point?

Chairman

It is a good question. I had intended to invite Mr. Cronin to give us a synopsis on that so I will invite him to do so now.

Mr. Richard Cronin

I thank the Chairman and the Deputy. I get a sense we are coming close to the end of this meeting, so before I go any further I would like to thank my colleague, Dr. Ó Cadhla, who is the brains in this operation. While he has not spoken today, he is the person who provides me with most of the useful points that come out of my mouth; the rest of it is all my own fault.

On the particular issue, in my opening comments I described where we are. We have started the development of the general scheme on the new legislation. There is a list of things that we are going to link that to, including requirements of certain European directives, the EU green deal and, most important for us, the findings of the expert advisory report and the views of the stakeholders. We are at that stage. We hope to have that delivered by quarter 3, 2022 and we think that with the help of everybody who is going to support the process we can get the legislation together by 2023. There are other legislative models similar to our legal code that help us to understand what needs to go into the legislation. We have an understanding of the different processes such as the identification of the things that need protection, the criteria for qualification as highlighted by Deputy Boyd Barrett, the consultation and, most important, the participation process. I would be strongly in favour of a stewardship model as opposed to a box ticking consultation. I think that is the next stage in our development of engagement. That piece is a big challenge, but it is important to face up to it. That has to be designed.

On the creation of the designation, the management plan piece has to be put in place, which is the relationship with other legal requirements and obligations and how all of that is represented. In other words, where does it go to and do we just see it on a map? How we understand it is the communication and education piece. When we get to the end of that journey for a marine protected area, there is the journey back to the start to check that everything is working, which is the monitoring programme, to adapt, update, improve and change if necessary. I made the point in one of my earlier comments that once we set up the legislation, we will have a process that will go on and on. We are looking now at 30% coverage. We will be, I believe, looking at a different number at some point after the end of this decade. We are looking at a part of governance reform here that is including protection as part of the overall plan to develop our marine environment and giving it a solid, independent footing such that we are confident we are making good decisions, so that we can provide assurance that the environment is improving and that it is protected, where necessary, and that when we carry out human activities we can say with confidence they are sustainable as opposed to just putting the word "sustainable" in front of everything we do. We must have meat on that frame.

That is where we are at. That is our journey over the next year to year and a half. As I said earlier, we have committed to creating a parallel set of timelines across all of the different processes, including the environment processes, the birds habitats directive and the spatial planning processes and, hopefully, incorporating other processes such as offshore renewable development plans and so on. We want to create an overall set of timelines such that we can then understand whether the risk around the potential mismatch in the delivery of different things is real or not, whether the spatial impact - where we want to put activities - is real and, where we propose to put the marine protected areas, which will be where we think the habitats and species are. We can have that mapped out. From that mapping exercise, we can then make decisions about how real the risk is and what actions need to be taken to mitigate that risk. There is a precautionary approach, as we discussed in the evidence and in the questions and answers today.

That is the plan. The next step is to take off the suit and start doing it. While we may be the responsible people to do this, this is something that will happen for all of society. For all the marine stakeholders, the people, Deputies and Senators, we will be the ones stewarding this, but it is really important that we all do this together. That is clear from the feedback we have had. To summarise the 2,400 public consultation responses we received, everybody wants them and they all want to be involved.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Cronin. I thank Dr. Ó Cadhla for his attendance, which has been very helpful for the committee. As I stated at the commencement of this meeting, the committee expressed a genuine keen interest in marine protected areas, the importance of designation and why we have to do it. The commitment in the programme for Government and the actions taken by the Department over the past 18 to 24 months are positive steps. I have no doubt the committee will be in full attendance when we carry out our pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme, when published. We look forward to doing that. It is quite possible we will see Mr. Cronin and Dr. Ó Cadhla again at that stage. I again thank them for their attendance. It has been very helpful. I also thank members.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.08 p.m. until 11.00 a.m. on Thursday, 2 December 2021.