Yes. I thank the Chair. I apologise, again, for having to leave as we have a clash with the Minister, Deputy Darragh O’Brien, in the Chamber, which is unfortunate. I am going to go back over some of my questions. If our witnesses have dealt with them in my absence, please do not repeat the replies. Let me know, and I will read these replies in the transcripts because I do not want to be wasting their time.
I have a follow-up question on the expert body. At this stage, has the Department decided what the process for appointment will be? Will it be direct appointment by the Minister or the Public Appointments Service, or will there be some other mechanism to appoint? Do the officials envisage the legislation being quite explicit in respect of the kinds of expertise which will be required so that it is fully constituted in that regard?
On the question of designation, which may already have been answered, what is the timeline for designation? Assuming that the legislation is passed within an appropriate time here, and commenced, when does the Department hope to begin to start making designations and what is the kind of notional timeline for that?
I want to return to head 14(5)(a). I do not remember the exact phrase used by Mr. Cronin but he talked about how we are fortunate in having a very large marine area and said that there is enough space for everybody, in a manner of speaking. Clearly, head 14(5)(a) is designed for a set of circumstances in which there is a conflict and some kind of activity which has been previously granted may not comply with conservation objectives. How will a decision be made to allow an activity which does not comply to continue? Will such a decision be open to review, to third-party intervention, etc.?
I am sure other colleagues have already raised the question of enforcement. A key aspect of all these things is not just having a very good system for designation, which we all want, and meeting the 30% as quickly as possible, but also ensuring that there is proper enforcement. We have some designations currently, as mentioned by our guest speakers. There will be a view out there in many communities and organisations that our enforcement of the existing designations in certain locations can be very poor.
Then there is the question I have asked about the environmental capacity of the Naval Service. Is some kind of co-operation, particularly between the Marine Institute and the navy in respect of enforcement, required?
If our guests have dealt with monitoring, I ask them to refer me to the transcripts. I am particularly interested in what is going to be monitored. Is the network going to be monitored? Will that happen every six years? What about the requirement, for example, to monitor the MPAs individually every seven years, as is required? Who will do that and how will it be resourced?
I have two supplementary questions. If our guest speakers have dealt with restoration, I ask them to summarise what they have said already because it is a very important issue, particularly in those areas which have been previously designated but not necessarily properly maintained. Much of this comes down to the size of the data. We all know that our database is pretty weak. That is no criticism of anybody from the Department, but relates to the full extent of what we are trying to designate and protect. Is it our guests’ understanding that additional resources will be going into the constant need to improve and expand the scientific knowledge and database for the designations and, as mentioned by Mr. Cronin, the potential shifting of those designations?
The last point is that we will listen to other bodies. Some of those bodies are well resourced and professional. Others, particularly inshore fishermen, who have had a hard time over recent decades, have always told us when we talk to them that they struggle to engage with some of these processes because they are technical and complex, and these people are busy catching fish to keep their families fed with roofs over their heads. Those interests are vital to public participation and, in many ways, are aligned with the need to protect biodiversity, because if it is done right, there is a mutual benefit for our ecosystems and for coastal communities and their economic livelihoods. How do we make sure that those constituent parts are involved and brought to the centre of the process? We know that engaging with some of those groups is a challenge in itself, through no fault of their own, because of their capacity. I am particularly interested in hearing about the witnesses' engagement with smaller inshore fishing communities that could be negatively impacted by many of the changes we may see in the marine in the future years. Most of us on the committee would like to avoid that.