Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate

General Scheme of the Marine Protected Areas Bill 2023: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

This morning we will resume our pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the marine protected areas Bill 2023. We are joined by Mr. Niall Goodwin, head of policy, Mr. Denis Devane, senior policy analyst, and Ms Patricia Comiskey, member of the offshore consenting committee, Wind Energy Ireland. We are also joined by Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin, environmental law officer, Irish Environmental Network; Dr. Donal Griffin, Fair Seas Ireland; Mr. Padraic Fogarty, Irish Wildlife Trust, IWT; and Ms Sinéad Loughran, BirdWatch Ireland. We are joined online by Mr. Patrick Lyne, Irish Whale and Dolphin Group.

Copies of the witnesses' opening statements and submissions were circulated to members in advance of the meeting. I must read a quick note on privilege before we start. I wish to remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place where the Parliament has chosen to sit, namely Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. Those attending in the committee room are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their contributions to today's meeting. This means that they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. Witnesses attending remotely do not have the same privilege. Both members and witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege they enjoy and it is my duty as Chairman to ensure that this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to 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 the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Our witnesses are very welcome this morning. We will begin with the opening statements from Wind Energy Ireland and the Irish Environmental Network on behalf of the various groups represented today. Then we will have questions from members in seven-minute slots. The seven-minute slot is for asking questions and receiving answers as well so it is important that members leave enough time for witnesses to answer their questions.

This is our third pre-legislative scrutiny meeting on the Bill. We met representatives of the Department last week and we met Professor Tasman Crowe on Tuesday. We are delighted to be joined by experts from the Irish Environmental Network and Wind Energy Ireland. I now invite Mr. Goodwin from Wind Energy Ireland to make an opening statement.

Mr. Niall Goodwin

On behalf of Wind Energy Ireland, WEI, I thank the committee for the invitation to appear today. As mentioned by the Chair, I am joined by my colleagues, Mr. Denis Devane, senior policy analyst, and Ms Patricia Comiskey, consenting and government relations manager at Simply Blue Group and member of our offshore consenting committee. I strongly welcome the publication of the general scheme as a significant step towards achieving a shared commitment to reach our target of protecting 30% of Ireland’s maritime area by 2030. We live not only in a climate emergency, to which offshore wind farms are part of the solution, but also in a global biodiversity crisis where marine protected areas, MPAs, have a critical role to play. We emphasise our commitment to the idea of co-location of offshore wind farms with MPAs. Offshore wind projects can be suitably located with MPAs, particularly where there is a requirement to rejuvenate areas of seabed or reef. There are real and tangible examples in the North Sea, where offshore wind installations have resulted in ecosystem benefits within the footprint of the project. For example, there has been ongoing monitoring at a Belgian offshore wind farm since 2005, which shows growth in reefs post-wind farm construction. MaREI, the Science Foundation Ireland research centre for energy, climate and marine, recently published a review on the ecosystem benefits of offshore wind projects, which we recommend to this committee, along with a recent presentation at WEI’s offshore conference on nature enhancement and offshore wind. We also acknowledge that there will be MPAs designated where offshore wind energy development would be completely unsuitable. Offshore wind farms and MPAs can not only co-exist, but together can be vital to ensuring the maintenance of Ireland’s marine biodiversity.

I will now make some comments on the general scheme of the Bill in the hope that it will improve the final legislation, taking head 3 first. We would like to raise a query regarding some of the definitions and applications set out under this head. Section 3(1)(c) suggests that the Act will apply to the airspace above the areas identified in sections 1(a) and 1(b). The explanatory note states that this definition is drawn from the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021. As members will be aware, the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021 makes no reference to airspace. Members will also recall late last year that a proposal from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to amend the definition of the foreshore in law by extending it to the airspace was withdrawn. We ask members to consider raising this issue with the Department in its report to seek clarification as to the reason airspace will be included in definitions for MPAs but is not included in the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021, nor in the definition of "foreshore", as recently amended.

Regarding head 6, ocean environment policy statement, section 6(6) states that the period for public consultation on the draft ocean environment policy statement should be four weeks. We strongly support comments made by Senator Boyhan that this period is insufficient. We, for example, would struggle to respond comprehensively in that timeframe and it would be even more challenging for members of the public or organisations with limited resources. Considering that once the statement is finalised it will not be reviewed again for six years, it makes sense to make this consultation as accessible as possible. We ask the committee to consider extending the consultation period to at least eight weeks. In addition, under section 6(3), we propose the inclusion of the EU renewable energy directive, Directive (EU) 2018/2001, and European Climate Law, Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, which are key drivers of national emission reductions and the policy statement should consider them closely. They enshrine in legislation the obligation to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and a 55% reduction by 2030. Finally, the habitats directive and birds directive should be added to the list, given that the Bill states it "shall not consider proposals relating to the protection and conservation of species or habitats protected under the Natura 2000 Network unless such proposals provide additional protection".

Under head 7 - identification of potential marine protected areas, there are a number of terms that are not, to our knowledge, defined in legislation and about which there might be different interpretations. Section 5 refers, for example, to "ecosystem services" and an "ecosystem-based approach". It also requires the Minister to "consider sustainable development". We are not objecting to the inclusion of these terms but suggest it is important that they be clearly and specifically defined in legislation so there is a common understanding as to what is proposed.

There is no reference in head 10, consultation, to the need for consultation with the holders of maritime area consents, MACs. As members will be aware, the first of these consents was awarded shortly before Christmas and it is likely that the second set, for what will be known as phase 2 projects, will be granted before the end of the year. It seems appropriate, especially in a context where the holders of fossil fuel licences are to be consulted, that the same opportunity would be afforded to holders of MACs. We ask the committee to consider recommending that in its final report. Section 7 under this head sets out the Minister’s power to “accept, reject or amend” any proposal to designate part of our marine space as an MPA. It would be helpful, in the interests of transparency, for the Minister to be required to set out in writing the grounds for any such decision and for this to be made public and put before the Oireachtas. On head 16, composition and appointment of the scientific and technical and socioeconomic body, we welcome the proposal for an expert body to be established to support the Minister and the designation of MPAs. We suggest that, as well as possessing the expertise set out under this head, the Minister would be required to ensure that the expert body includes representation from environmental NGOs, the fishing and aquaculture community and the offshore renewable energy industry. We also suggest that the committee consider, as well as providing for a secretariat, that funding be set aside to support representatives on that expert body to fully participate in the process. We are conscious from our engagement with environmental organisations and seafood industry representatives that their capacity to contribute to the extent they would like in many areas of marine planning is restricted by their resources and consideration should be given to assisting them.

In closing, I would like to briefly expand on the point regarding resources. Designation of an MPA should be based on robust evidence and data. This means funding must be allocated to support baseline data acquisition and ongoing monitoring mechanisms. These programmes must be flexible enough to allow for the management of MPAs to adapt as new evidence comes to light where, for example, boundaries may need to shift to account for particularly mobile species. Consideration should also be given to the level of support required for enforcement. In addition, significant consideration will be required for systems to store and manage data gathered in the marine environment. Engagement with the environmental NGOs is crucial to ensure robust planning and development of this resource. We advocate increases in government support to underpin marine environmental NGO activities in Ireland. I reiterate the point I made at the start that we believe the co-existence of offshore renewable energy and MPAs is important and that there is a need for clarity on the definitions and legal certainty in the head of the Bill. I thank the Chair and members of the committee. I look forward to the discussion.

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

I am joined by my colleagues Dr. Donal Griffin, marine policy officer for Fair Seas Ireland, Mr. Pádraic Fogarty, campaigns officer for the Irish Wildlife Trust, Ms Sinéad Loughran, marine policy and advocacy officer for BirdWatch Ireland, and online by Mr. Patrick Lyne, officer for the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group. We wish to express our sincere appreciation for the invitation to engage with the committee in this hearing for the pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the Bill. This invitation is a welcome acknowledgement that the Irish Environmental Network, IEN, the coalition of national e-NGOs in Ireland, represents a key constituency of stakeholders with interest, experience and expertise on these matters. We welcome the publication of this long-awaited general scheme. Ireland is already approximately nine years late delivering on the obligation to provide for MPAs under the EU marine strategy framework directive, MSFD. This delay further compromises Ireland’s implementation of the maritime spatial planning directive, including Ireland’s maritime spatial plan, the national marine planning framework, NMPF, and the certainty maritime developments and activities need to advance under the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021 and other legislation, knowing where they can and cannot hope to operate. The importance of new national legislation allowing for the identification, designation and management of new protected areas cannot be overstated. In addition to the above, some further benefits and relevant considerations are outlined. We would be happy to elaborate on them today if it is useful for the committee. Further information is included in our detailed submissions.

Marine protected areas are an essential conservation tool employed by countries across the world to deliver a healthy planet through healthy seas, reversing biodiversity loss and decline and, among other things, by helping to mitigate the impacts of climate change and in the maintenance of the atmosphere essential to all life on earth.

As this committee will well understand, Ireland is among one of the EU’s largest countries when our marine territory is also considered. Therefore, we have a huge moral responsibility for the stewardship of this area not just in the context of the European Union, but in a planetary context. I welcomed the Department's remarks in its opening statement in that regard.

Successful and effective marine protected areas can be a driver of good biodiversity, climate, community, social, economic and health outcomes. Therefore, creating new marine protected areas in Irish waters that effectively protect and restore Ireland’s seas is not only an investment in nature, but also in sustainable economies and societies in Ireland and a healthy future, particularly for all the communities in constituencies all around our coast.

However, Ireland has failed to meet good environmental status, GES, which is the fundamental objective of the marine strategy framework directive from which the requirements for MPAs derive, for biodiversity, commercial fish and shellfish, as well as sea-floor integrity, while the environmental status of food webs in Ireland’s marine environment is unknown. We can expand further on this and other areas of concern.

However, these categorisations hide the shocking actual figures behind them. Moreover, the National Biodiversity Data Centre has highlighted 1 million species worldwide are now in danger of extinction. In Ireland, we have 31,000 species recorded to date, of which only 10% have had their conservation status assessed and yet, there is still a fundamental lack of knowledge of what needs protecting and how to protect it. We also need to act to protect that which is unknown, rigorously apply the precautionary principle and increase our investment in independent scientific research in order that we can safely and appropriately use, conserve and restore our marine environment.

Turning then to the general scheme, the basic framework includes a number of positive ingredients essential for delivery and implementation of marine protected areas, for example: the concept of targets; highlighting key legislative tools such as strategic environmental assessment; provisions on public participation; involvement of expertise; and objectives for individual MPAs, together with considerations related to monitoring and enforcement. These are welcome in principle. However, we wish to be clear that even in respect of these basics, there is a grave concern on the overall lack of robustness, ambition and detail undermining their ultimate contribution within the legislation.

Additionally, there are serious gaps and weaknesses in other fundamental ingredients necessary for effective MPA designation and implementation. These issues are, for example, but not limited to, weaknesses in respect of designation targets; timelines and time limits within the scheme for key actions and decisions; requirements on data collation and information; inadequacies on the species and habitats and other protections considered; considerations and processes informing designations; nature of MPA designations, types and hierarchies and provision of an ecologically coherent and representative network; management; monitoring; enforcement; and resourcing. These, together with matters which seriously limit or puncture the protections to be afforded by an MPA are compounded by weak and ambiguous language overall and an extraordinary level of ministerial discretion throughout.

Evaluated as basic legislation in terms of what it can deliver as an outcome, it falls very short, leaving scope for delay, weak implementation and poor, inadequate protection. It falls far short of the expectations of our members focused on this area. In particular, of the most serious concern are issues such as the failure to permeate and link the general scheme with the wider legislative architecture necessary to clearly inform the legal purpose of this MPA legislation and which should inform key actions and decisions by various actors throughout the legislation; serious transposition issues; and a failure to address issues within other legislation, for example, aquaculture. This is compounded by two further failures. First, a failure to provide clearly for access to justice provisions, that is, the ability to hold to account before our courts in respect of public authorities, private bodies and individuals, and second, the failure to adequately address the issue when delayed MPA designations intersect with authorisations already granted.

We will be happy to expand on our concerns in respect of these and other areas of interest to the committee and our recommendations accordingly. We welcome members' questions and will do our best to answer them or revert with any further detail or clarifications required or both. I thank members for their attention.

Chairman

I will move on to members’ questions and answers. We can explore some of those concerns highlighted by both submissions. I call Senator Fitzpatrick first.

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

I thank our guests for their attendance and submissions. This is hugely important and long overdue legislation, so we want to get our work done as expeditiously as possible. Like our guests, we want to move on to having some robust and comprehensive legislation to protect Ireland’s marine areas, which are among the largest. It is not just about protecting it; as was said, it is about restoring, protecting and ensuring that it is properly and sustainably managed into the future for biodiversity issues and climate action, but also our energy security. We all get it. The guests clearly welcome the legislation. We also sense the urgency that they want us to take.

I wish to clarify one basic housekeeping matter. Is the Irish Environmental Network’s engagement with the Department just in this forum or is it outside of it as well? There is constructive criticism within its statement. Has IEN engaged outside this forum directly with the Department and how does that work? Has it made submissions to the Department?

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

I will take a preliminary shot at an answer. I will stand to be corrected by my colleagues because I am coming in a little bit late to this particular legislation in the context of the engagement of others on this. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no formal public consultation or wider engagement on these heads. There have been a number of stakeholder forums associated with different types of activities associated with the maritime spatial planning directive legislation. Specifically under the auspices of the MPAs that derive from the marine strategies framework directive, there have been consultations, as the Senator will have heard, from Professor Tasman Crowe in respect of expanding the network etc. However, on the heads of Bill that the Senator sees before her, not that I am not aware. However, I stand to be corrected on that.

Dr. Donal Griffin

I work for Fair Seas and marine protected areas are a huge focus of our campaign. We engaged the Department in submitting a paper we produced earlier this year including our asks for the legislation. We have not engaged the Department since the publishing of the general scheme.

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

That is great. On wind energy, there were some specific asks. I know time will be constrained. I will start with the first one. I refer to the ask about airspace. Can the guests elaborate on that? I understand what the ask is, but can they explain the practical implications of it? What is the benefit? I would like a response from IEN representatives on that proposal as well and how they see it, if time allows.

Mr. Niall Goodwin

I thank the Senator for her question. I can start off and I might ask my colleague, Ms Comiskey, to expand on some of the detail from a developer perspective. The ask is basically for legal certainty on where this applies. We will remember back to before Christmas when we had the proposed change to the foreshore area to extend to the airspace. That was ultimately withdrawn because there were various problems with it. In this case, we just want to make sure that we are clear on what can be done and where. That requires it to be fully and clearly defined so there is legal certainty for a project. Developers looking to carry out surveys or do the preparatory work needed to make sure their project has the absolute minimal environmental impact possible want to be able to know exactly the area they are allowed to operate in and what they can do there. I might pass to Ms Comiskey to explain the risk that a project needs to be certain of.

Ms Patricia Comiskey

I thank Senator Fitzpatrick for the question. For us, the main concern is around the parameters that might be set for that. It is a question of understanding those parameters, as Mr. Goodwin said. At present, for many of the projects that are seeking to be developed, what are known as aerial surveys are being carried out. We are flying out to the sites and taking data on the activity of birds and marine mammals there. Since the provisions are left quite open, there is no clarity on how surveys that are relatively benign and with no impact on, say, a potential marine protected area or foreshore space would be dealt with. We are really seeking clarity on the airspace aspect and what is actually meant by it.

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

I will call on colleagues to support me in answering. This is a really interesting discussion, particularly in the context of the controversy over the changes enacted just before Christmas through the Planning and Foreshore and Development (Amendment) Act. We, too, have concerns about the airspace definition and the application in head 3, for example. Head 3(1)(c) refers to "The airspace above the area of application set out in subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) of this section in respect of birds, bats and any other flying animal using that space". As my colleague Mr. Lyne will advocate clearly, whales use the airspace. It is an essential resting space when they come to the surface of the sea to breathe. It is a fundamental part of their ability to survive, so the application is inadequate from our point of view. The need to protect the airspace is particularly important.

There were some very interesting considerations in Professor Crowe's report on expanding marine networks, not just with respect to marine protected areas for habitats and species but also to certain characteristics of the marine area such as, for example, quiet spaces and dark spaces. Noise can have profound effects on biodiversity. Seismic surveying can kill krill, which members will know are the foundation stone of the whole food chain in the seas. Therefore, protecting areas from noise, be it from overflight or activity within the waters or water column, can be particularly important. It is a case of determining what needs to be protected and of appropriate incorporation. There should be flexibility to allow for that. I certainly would not be for ruling it out entirely. Mr. Lyne, in particular, might want to add to that.

Mr. Patrick Lyne

Unless aircraft are flying very low, it is not really going to be a problem for whales and dolphins. I would have thought it would be more of an issue for birds and of having sensible controls on aerial surveys where the flights are low. I do not regard airspace as the biggest issue in the Bill.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I thank everyone for their presentations. There are seven areas of the general scheme on which I am interested in getting the responses of both the IEN and Wind Energy Ireland. They are not going to get to respond to all seven in the seven minutes I have, so maybe the delegates would take note of them and correspond with the committee on them. They would be of interest to all members. I will rattle through all seven and then maybe Ms Uí Bhroin and Mr. Goodwin will respond insofar as possible.

Head 6(4) contains the phrases "10% of the maritime area as Marine Protected Areas as soon as practicable" and "up to 30%". That language seems very weak. It is certainly not consistent with our current EU obligations and potential EU legal requirements. I am interested in the representatives' views on the language.

Head 7(4) concerns the response time for organisations in regard to the designations, namely, six weeks. As with the four weeks Mr. Goodwin mentioned, it is simply too short. I am interested in hearing the representatives' views on that.

On head 13, concerning emergency measures for climate adaptation, it is welcome that there is a climate element but I am interested in hearing the delegates' specific views on whether the provision is strong enough or too restrictive.

Head 14(5) is one of the most concerning elements of the general scheme. It relates to someone who has an existing authorisation or licence and whose activity may not comply with the conservation requirements in the public interest. That activity would be allowed to continue. I am not saying there should not be a provision like this but the big question concerns who decides and against what criteria. I am interested in hearing the views of both organisations on this.

There are three general areas. The enforcement section is exceptionally unclear, particularly regarding the overlay between the navy, the Marine Institute and other organisations. Related to that is the issue of the architecture. We asked the Department to map out all the various enforcement organisations and agencies in the first session, and I was dizzy at the end of the description given. I am interested in the representatives' views on the enforcement provisions and how they might work in real time, given the complexity of the architecture.

There are no timelines. I am interested in hearing a little more from both organisations, from their different perspectives, about what the timelines could or should be.

Chairman

We have been consistently addressing these subjects, including at the two previous meetings. If the representatives do not get time to address each of the points, we will address them in the second round. We can consider them then in a little more detail, so there is no need to rush.

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

I thank the Deputy very much for the question. In respect of head 6(4) and the targets, I will ask colleagues to expand on the matter. We concur on, and very much welcome the sessions to date that have highlighted the weakness of the language, particularly "up to 30%" and "aim to designate". These phrases are all very weak in the context of particular targets on which my colleagues will expand.

It is not so much a case of width or quality; it is an issue of what is actually being designated. Ten percent of the areas that do not need to be designated is of very little value, as is 45%t. The fundamental objective of the marine strategy framework directive is good environmental status. That is what we need to be delivering on to facilitate the achievement of the objective. We also need to deliver on the fundamental requirement for an ecologically coherent network that is representative, to echo not merely a target and number but also the nature of the network. That is what is significantly missing in a target-based approach and in the absence of the legal architecture of the directives underpinning these requirements. I will touch on the consultation periods. It has been recognised that there are concerns. Could the Deputy remind me which head he was concerned about in respect of consultation?

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Sure. There is a six-week requirement in head 7(4), pertaining to response times to the proposed ministerial designations.

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

I believe that is definitely an issue because there could be multiple proposals at the same time, affecting the ability not only to consider each one but also to consider their cumulative impact. Considering that it generally takes four weeks to get a response to an access-to-information request on the environment, those timelines are very inadequate. Timelines for public participation generally are of concern throughout, particularly regarding the ocean environment policy statement. Perhaps we will get a chance to revisit that, in particular, because there are many pertinent points to be made on the consultation on it.

With respect to head 14(5), the issues are very complex legally because a marine protected area can incorporate not only a marine protected area designation but also sub-designations – for example, a proposed special protection area – because we have outstanding designations. I am referring to a candidate special area of conservation, a special area of conservation and, indeed, other protections. We could have a conference on how the provision applies legally, or the jurisprudence. Therefore, there is an awful lot of teasing out to be done, particularly depending on when the provisions come forward and the status of outstanding designations in the marine environment. The Deputy's point on who is to be consulted, and the bodies involved, is key. The vagueness on consultation and associated decision-making in the head give rise to extreme concern. Very much related this is head 14(2), which I hope we will have a chance to revisit in respect of the intersection of existing authorisations.

On timelines generally, there is vagueness. There are quite prescriptive timelines in respect of participation. There are one or two timelines in respect of the ocean environment policy statement. The Minister has to bring it forward within a year of enactment.

Apart from that, once something goes back to the Minister or where he or she is required to set up expert bodies, there is a significant amount of discretion, which is compounded by 113 uses of the word "may" throughout the document.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

How many?

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

There are 113 of them. Some of them are legitimate but others are very concerning.

Regarding the timeline, let us compare it with what this committee will be looking at over the next number of weeks in the Planning and Development Act. There will be pressure for timelines for delivering development - understandably so in the context of our housing and energy crises - and pressure on decision makers to come back with decisions. They will be penalised financially if they do not do so. Those are the proposals we are seeing coming forward from the same Department. However, when it comes to delivering on obligations that are already nine years late, there are virtually no timelines in the Bill saying the Minister must do "X". I will ask other colleagues to comment on the targets.

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

I will comment on head 6.4. The programme for Government has a target of 30% by 2030. Under the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, which was agreed at COP 15, we should get to at least 30%. The targets are pretty modest. The scientific consensus is moving towards protecting 50% of the sea - obviously the right 50%. It worries me that we are not committing to meet 30% under that head.

Regarding the requirement for strict protection, which is within the biodiversity strategy, the target is 10%, which is extremely modest given the pressure the sea is under. I feel strongly that we must have a target for strict protection in the overall MPA target.

Mr. Patrick Lyne

I reiterate the point made by Mr. Fogarty that the Bill completely omits the 10% strict protection. It is not anywhere in the document and it is an EU requirement that 10% should be strictly protected. That would include things like no-take zones and no fishing, which need to be negotiated obviously. That is a very important part because it is probably what will protect biodiversity more than lines on a map.

Deputy Emer Higgins

We are an island nation so we all know the importance of seas not just in terms of access to our shores but also with regard to the preservation of nature and biodiversity and, as Ms Uí Bhroin put it so articulately, the importance of achieving a sustainable economy and future. We know that to achieve that, we must get from 8% to 30% in terms of protected areas. We know that, the EU knows that and the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, who is here with us today, knows that and I believe is 100% committed to that.

I come from the corporate world so I am all about targets and mapping out how to achieve them and by which deadline. Mr. Fogarty spoke of at least 30% and at least 10%, respectively. The legislation, as we have discussed, provides for up to 30% and up to 10%, which, as Mr. Fogarty said, is an EU requirement. Ms Uí Bhroin spoke about the Bill having scope for delays and how she thought it was weak when it comes to implementation. She suggested that the text needs to be stronger and state "the Minister shall" and remove the phrase "to the extent possible and appropriate" to ensure the Minister shall designate 10%, rather than up to 10%, of the maritime area as MPAs as soon as is practicable after commencement of the Bill, and at least 30% of the maritime area as MPAs by 2030. She is suggesting we take out some of that wiggle room where we say "to the extent possible and appropriate" and take out "up to" and make the targets rounded and fresh at 10% and 30%. Would that be much stronger and satisfy the requirements?

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

It would certainly go a long way but I would hark back to why do we need MPAs in the first place. What is the fundamental legal obligation? If this goes to the European Court of Justice, the court will look at the adequacy of what Ireland has done and the extent to which it is or is not credibly contributing to good environmental status, which is the fundamental objective. If there is an issue of interpretation, that is the purpose of approach the court will take. We need to underpin our targets with a rationale throughout the Bill in terms of its decision making, its architecture and the targets that meaningfully contribute to that and deliver an ecologically coherent representative network of MPAs. It must not be a case of designating 45% of one area "over there" because it does not get in the way of what we want to do "over here".

Deputy Emer Higgins

That makes sense. Mr. Goodwin argued that four weeks is too tight when it comes to the consultation period. Many of the witnesses who have appeared before us on this issue have made the same point. I agree with Mr. Goodwin regarding the eight-week period. That seems reasonable. I think it is ten weeks when it comes to development plans, which are also reviewed every six years, so there is probably a precedent there. It is certainly not four weeks.

Mr. Goodwin also raised the need for grounds for decisions to be laid out in writing and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. I am keen to know what the benefit of laying them before the Houses of the Oireachtas would be but I am more interested to learn about the need for the grounds to be laid out in writing. Is Mr. Goodwin saying the Bill does not currently provide for that or that it does not provide for the written determination to be published? I am keen to understand that and compare it with how we deal with our current planning system in terms of onshore. I hear what everyone is saying in terms of airspace and think that is something the Department should look at.

Mr. Niall Goodwin

We both agree that the period for consultation is too tight. My colleagues mentioned that public participation is really important in all of this and we need to make sure people have the opportunity to feed into this process and have their voices heard in terms of how we do this. Regarding eight or ten weeks, we say eight weeks would be good. There is general agreement that it needs to be more than four weeks, which is good to see.

In terms of the grounds for decisions being in writing and laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, what we are looking for here is full transparency. We need to be very clear why decisions are being made. Someone developing an offshore wind farm needs to be very clear on why this designation has been made. Equally, members of the public, affected communities and members of environmental NGOs will want to be very clear regarding why a decision has been taken. That is the only reason we are looking for that to be done. Mr. Devane, who has a bit more detail on this, might be able to expand on my point.

Mr. Denis Devane

Deputy Higgins spoke about county development plans and the need for clarity and getting everything out to as many people and stakeholders as possible to allow them to form a view on all the events happening in this legislative development.

Deputy Emer Higgins

As I have a minute, I will put a question to Fair Seas. In its written submission, it referred to the need for restoration. Could Dr. Griffin give us some examples as to what Fair Seas thinks is lacking in the Bill?

Dr. Donal Griffin

The Bill could benefit from an increased focus on restoration. It appears in the general scheme and allows for restoration activities to be included as MPA conservation measures, which is fantastic. However, the Bill must go further and include a targeted and strategic approach to active restoration of habitats, species and ecosystems within MPAs. Often 90% or 95% of management measures for MPAs are focused on the alleviation of pressure. Removing a pressure allows species and habitats to recover on their own. Nature can take care of that but in 5% to 10% of cases, we need to give nature a helping hand.

It needs to be drawn out more clearly in this within the remit and the framework of marine protected areas, MPAs, and that will be on the clarity of the mechanisms by which active restoration activities will be facilitated, delivered and resourced. It will need to relate to other national and international policy and strategies. We have the National Biodiversity Action Plan, of course, but we also have the forthcoming EU nature restoration law. It would be prudent to have a strategic focus on the active restoration element as well as everything else, that is, the protection the management that is the bread and butter of MPA implementation.

Deputy Emer Higgins

I have another committee meeting to attend so I apologise that I cannot stay. I thank the witnesses.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I welcome our guests to this really important session and thank them for their submissions. We read them in advance and they are really important. Given the time constraints, I am going to be pretty focused. It is great to see that more people are coming on board in relation to the eight-week period of consultation. That has been made very clear. There is a momentum gathering inside and outside the Oireachtas for it. There has been a huge amount of engagement and there are many positive aspects of this legislation which are welcome. I was a director of Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company for approximately ten years, so I know a lot about the challenges of a commercial port and harbour. I am a bit tired of this word "flexibility". We cannot be flexible with everybody. Some people have to be disappointed but, hopefully, it will be the people that we should be targeting collectively that will be disappointed. We say we have to be economically and environmentally sustainable, but we cannot tick all the boxes. Let us be honest, and realistic. I am very impressed by this particular block of submissions and am very supportive of it.

I am delighted the Environmental Pillar Network could come in here to discuss the issue of the Aarhus Convention, which is very significant, and the issue of the open access to data. This open access to data in compliance with the Aarhus Convention in terms of public participation and decision making is really important. Will the witnesses talk a little bit about that and about the shortcomings in terms of the heads of Bill in that regard and what more they would like to see?

I would like if some of the other groups could touch on the issue of the compatibility of this proposed legislation in terms of the OSPAR Commission and Natura 2000 and our international obligations and the broader network surrounding that. They are two very significant pieces of guidance and of legislation and this needs to be compatible with all of that. We cannot just park aspects of it.

It is important that we keep the focus here on recommendations because the witnesses will be familiar with the pre-legislative scrutiny, PLS, reports from the joint Oireachtas committee. There is a lot of debate and discussion and it is all distilled down to 20 to 40 recommendations. One of the key things I am asking of the witnesses is to crystallise some key recommendations that we should put into this report, if not today then in follow-up correspondence to this committee. That is the most effective way we can focus in this PLS report. This PLS report on this Bill is then cited in the Houses. The witnesses would be doing themselves a service and it would help us and be meaningful for the process if they could do so.

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

I thank the Senator, in particular for that last suggestion. We will certainly respond to that. Regarding public consultation, I am going to draw on my colleague, Dr. Griffin, but I would like to highlight the ocean environmental policy statement. Senator Boyhan raised concern about this in earlier sessions around the four-week consultation period on this, as did Professor Tasman Crowe. We have an even more fundamental issue with the proposal in respect to this. We find it very hard to believe that this has not been seen as a requirement that is subject to strategic environmental assessment and appropriate assessment considerations. Many here will remember when we were dealing with the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021 that there was extensive debate in select committee around ministerial guidelines, ministerial policy statements and the marine planning policy statement. Thankfully, the Department came forward with amendments which recognised in section 33 of the Act that they did need to be subject to strategic environmental assessment, SEA, along with designated maritime area plans, DMAPS, etc. It would seem to be a major omission here and that has material implication. One is then talking about an environmental assessment and appropriate assessment. The application of that directive and the consultation obligations there, if memory serves, are no less than four weeks in the regulations. There is a fundamental issue in relation to the application of the Aarhus Convention throughout, in terms of what are the timeframes which will allow for effective participation which is not consultation. Participation is a much broader concept than just consultation. Professor Crowe talked about this already, so I will not repeat the point.

The Natura 2000 point in relation to the delay is really welcome. Next week, we are expecting an advocate general's opinion in relation to the inadequacy of what we have actually designated around the management frameworks for our SACs. That is compounded by the delay in designation. I will turn to colleagues in relation to the Senator's question on OSPAR and to expand further on the public consultation point.

Dr. Donal Griffin

On the public participation, I reiterate everything Ms Uí Bhroin and others said regarding the four-week public consultation window. It is also important to highlight that public participation is so much more than the written submissions. I know Professor Crowe had mentioned that in his submission. There is a need to really focus on the quality and not just the quantity of how we engage on these issues. There can be varying levels of public participation from stakeholders from being at the table throughout and inputting views to the other end of that which is to have community proposed areas. This bottom up approach has proved to be a very successful model around the world when it comes to the implementation and compliance and the positive biodiversity outcomes that come from MPAs.

There are examples of this in north-west Spain with fishing co-operatives suggesting community proposed MPAs that have all stakeholders and communities on board. There is a similar example in the Isle of Arran in Lamlash Bay in Scotland, which I had the pleasure of visiting a number of years ago. They have a community proposed area that has had really successful biodiversity outcomes ever since.

Professor Crowe and the independent advisory group carried out very good stakeholder engagement work a couple of years ago. I attended many of the engagements. Site selection for MPAs will be different. It will have a hugely local focus. We are talking about the designation of bays, little areas which people are completely invested in. That is different. Despite the overwhelming eagerness to engage by stakeholders in Professor Crowe's and the group's report, there will be an overwhelming interest at a really local level to engage in a different way with this that is local and not national. This is about actual designation of sites, so that needs to be incorporated and possibly stated in the Bill as well, that is, to reflect the need for national, regional, and local-scale engagement around the table, online, as diverse, as open and as transparent and as early as possible.

Mr. Patrick Lyne

On the Aarhus Convention, it would be very useful if the facility was there to notify people who are interested in things like foreshore licences that it has come up for public consultation. At the moment, we have some 30 foreshore licences in the status of "applied" and they are not there for consultation. Then one has 28 days, for example, with a foreshore licence to submit one's consultation, wording or whatever. It would be very useful if one did not have to go in and check every day or whatever. I think many people are missed from the consultation process because they are not aware a licence has come up for consultation.

I will pick up on the previous point, and we can go to some examples. I agree with Mr. Fogarty's point that ultimately this needs to be really clear, and clearly defined. We totally accept that there will be areas identified, which will not be suitable for offshore wind development. We can all agree on that. That sort of clarity and legal certainty is crucial. It needs to be based on a really robust framework, based on data, scientific evidence and experience. There need to be clearly defined boundaries and objectives within the MPA. The Bill seeks to achieve a lot of that but as we all agree here some of the definitions need to tightened up. I do not think we are in disagreement that there will be areas that come under that bracket.

The Chair is correct that there is often a preconception that marine activities, including offshore wind, automatically have an adverse effect on conservation objectives. There is evidence across Europe suggesting that they can coexist. We see examples around Europe of wind farms being developed in tandem with marine protected areas. My colleague, Ms Comiskey,has referred to one specific example of which members might be aware. At the moment the biggest wind farm in the UK, or maybe in Scotland, is the Seagreen Offshore Wind Farm recently completed by SSE. There was an overlap there with the Firth of Forth banks complex nature conservation MPA, which is a bit of a tongue twister. That was a designated MPA with shelf banks and mounds, and offshore subtidal sands and gravels supporting a species called ocean quahog aggregations.

This is a good example of how this can be done properly. We are happy to get some more detail on this for members after the meeting if that is useful. It involved early engagement between the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in Scotland, Marine Scotland and the SSE Seagreen project on potential designations and management measures supported by environmental assessments and consideration of impacts. Subsequently, an assessment was carried out of whether the offshore wind farm would be capable of affecting the protected features of the MPA. It was concluded in that case that there was no significant risk of Seagreen hindering the achievement of the conservation objectives of the MPA provided that relevant conditions were complied with. That is important. As long as the Seagreen wind farm was able to comply with what was set out in that assessment, it could be deemed not to have that adverse effect. Those conditions were repeated in the grid connection application and licence and the planning consent of the wind farm to make sure it was compliant all along the way. There are examples across Europe, particularly in the North Sea, where offshore wind has been developed over a long number of years and is quite a mature industry, unlike where we are now. We can draw on experience from there and learn from what was done well and what was done badly. That is our opportunity in starting our offshore journey.

I will pass on to my colleague, Ms Comiskey, who has another example that is quite interesting and who can give more information to members. We are happy to follow up with more detail after the meeting if that is useful.

Ms Patricia Comiskey

If members thought Firth of Forth was a tongue twister, I am actually not going to pronounce the names of the MPAs I am referring to. There is a project based in Belgium. A colleague of mine is on an EU project called European Scalable Offshore Renewable Energy Source, EU-SCORES, which is studying opportunities for co-location. We were recently at a session exploring opportunities for co-location throughout Europe. In Belgium, as part of their marine spatial plan, they are considering integrating offshore wind farms on a currently designated MPA area. I will supply the name afterwards; I am just not going to pronounce it. It is in Belgium. In the Netherlands, there are currently deployed wind farms where they are considering actively co-locating MPAs, so they are looking at the reverse. They are examining areas where they could passively fish or put in place nature conservation measures to encourage the development of an MPA. There are definitely opportunities and examples in other jurisdictions where this is being actively looking at.

Chairman

Ms Loughran indicated on the last question so I would like to bring her in now.

Ms Sinéad Loughran

In terms of the statement made by the IEN, we absolutely would not think that it is overly critical. We would 100% agree with the statement made. There are a number of weaknesses in areas of the Bill that are of serious concern to us. The Bill is not actually focused on conservation. There are a number of areas in which the absolute minimum could be done and the conservation objectives of the marine protected areas could be at risk. Some of those weaknesses, which we have already touched on, are in the weak language in terms of percentage coverage by 2030, with the words "up to" rather than "at least" used in terms of the strictly protected coverage. If we are looking at marine protected areas, the ocean and all the species within it as our greatest ally to mitigate climate change, then 10% is the absolute minimum for strictly protected areas. The features that can deliver those climate benefits absolutely need strict protection and there is no way around that.

In terms of the legislative priority and conservation being at the core, we spoke about appropriate development and existing licensed activities being allowed to continue after an MPA has been designated. The wording within the legislation is very unclear as to what exactly would constitute this but also in terms of how those existing licences would go about this. If it is not in line with the conservation objectives of the MPA, there should be a phasing out of those activities and a just transition approach applied where appropriate.

In terms of other effective area-based conservation measures, OECMs, and offshore renewable energy, we obviously would not see offshore renewable energy as being part of an MPA. BirdWatch Ireland is part of BirdLife Europe and Central Asia. Even offshore renewable energy would not be a feature within OECMs. An incredibly high standard of conservation must be delivered in order for measures to be considered OECMs. That is not reflected in the Bill either. There is no definition of the kinds of activities that can be allowed within an OECM. That is a real concern. It is assumed that offshore renewable energy can fit within OECMs and therefore contribute to 30 by 30. BirdWatch Ireland would not even see OECMs being part of 30 by 30. They are an additional tool that can deliver conservation benefits. Some of those really stringent criteria relating to OECMs mean that if they are to be included, they really need to provide very high standards in terms of ecological representation and conservation benefits that are similar and equivalent to those that an actual MPA would deliver. The nature of offshore renewable energy and many OECMs is that they simply cannot do that because they are introducing new or alternative habitat. They do not benefit the entire ecosystem. They might benefit one or two species perhaps but it is not an ecological representation.

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

It is very important to have these elements within the legislation, but that is not sufficient. We also need to have access to justice provisions effectively to be able to hold public authorities to account when they fail to follow through on monitoring obligations or in respect of the enforcement end of the equation. The committee will be particularly familiar with section 160 of the Planning and Development Act, which provides for third party enforcement rights, because it has always been an issue, certainly in the field of planning. There is the issue of resources within local authorities for enforcement.

There is nothing to provide clarity on how, although this would obviously not apply to the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, a future Minister would be held to account for not doing something or for doing something that is in breach of this Act. The lack of provision in the legislation to provide clarity on what can be done is a glaring omission. The equivalent of third party enforcement for both private and public authorities is a critical omission. Those things are required to give strength and robustness. If public authorities know that they will be held to account, that is an incentive to improve the quality of decision-making. It is a fundamental element of our rule of law. I know many Deputies and Senators on this committee have a keen understanding of that. Monitoring, enforcement, targets and so on need that backbone. This is a serious omission.

I will say one thing to support Mr. Lyne and go back to my point about relying on monitoring within the marine strategy framework directive. Mr. Lyne alluded to a population-significant event. It was significant with regard to the loss of a particular species. To the best of my recollection, over that period, the noise indicators and monitoring for Ireland indicated that everything was tickety-boo and that there were no problems. We did not know. We did not have the data or capacity to be able to understand what was happening in our water. I was appalled when Mr. Lyne explained this to me. That is the sort of gap where we need to be careful that we do not rely on the marine strategy framework directive where it is weak. We need to be able to address that. The allusion to this being a naval exercise event is not mere speculation. In the last number of months, the navy involved has effectively publicly confirmed its manoeuvres in the area. We are speaking with some authority and a basis with regard to these concerns. I see Mr. Lyne nodding.

When we talk about whales and acoustic noise, it is not just that species which is affected, which requires the strictest protection under EU law. It attaches to each individual species. It does not matter where it is. It is Martini protection, "anytime, anyplace, anywhere". It also applies to breeding and resting places. That resting place is the surface of the sea. Experts in the International Monetary Fund, IMF, conservatively estimated the ecosystem services of a great whale as being worth over €2 million. That is some time ago. That does not just relate to carbon sequestration but to other ecosystem services. It basically brings nutrients from the bottom of the sea right to the surface of the sea when it defecates. That spawns phytoplankton bloom and basically keeps the seas alive. Whales are a keystone species. There are multiple reasons we need to address this, and acoustic monitoring in particular, not to mention the tourism volume for coastal communities associated with ecotourism. I have done it in Ireland and paid for it in Ireland. Before I booked my holidays, I made sure that I had booked my whale-watching when I went to New Zealand many years ago. I do not fly because of climate generally.

Chairman

That example of the ecosystem services benefit or benefit to humanity and climate that whales provide is fascinating. Many of us do not understand or know about that. Most of us look out to sea and just see the sea. We are not aware of the intricacy and complexity of what goes on at sea, but how it benefits us-----

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Ms Loughran put it beautifully when she said that the seas are our best ally in climate change. We absolutely support offshore renewable energy and have been advocating for decarbonisation of our energy systems, but we need to be careful that, in our haste to decarbonise, we do not damage the natural climate management potential of the seas. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, has told us that it is an interdependent climate and biodiversity crisis. It is not one crisis here and another elsewhere, which we can address one at a time, getting to the next one afterwards.

Mr. Patrick Lyne

c) review and monitor and report on such plans to the Minister ...". There are other things in it as well but there is no word in it about what the frequency of reporting should be or exactly what we should be reporting on, especially around ecology.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea's definition of "pollution" basically encompasses energy, and noise is energy. No more than species do not respect boundaries, noise certainly does not either. We are designating the MPAs on a line-on-a-map basis of specific points and co-ordinates but noise will go through that, and sonar and seismic can travel vast distances. Noise and acoustic monitoring are really important, especially when it comes to highly mobile species that need to potentially migrate from the other end of the planet to come up to our waters. We need to know their pathways, what is happening in those pathways and how they may be deterred from enjoying the benefits of our MPA networks or getting to and from them. I am very much expressing a personal opinion based on my understanding, but noise and acoustic monitoring may have a particular significance in the context of specific MPAs designated for particular noise-sensitive species. Furthermore, within the context of our legal obligation to provide for an ecologically-coherent network, we need to understand what is happening in the noise surrounding that.

Noise can have incredibly damaging effects, as I alluded to in respect of seismic killing krill. If we are looking at restoring a site and are expecting something to happen and it is not, even though we are doing all the right things, what is going wrong might be the noise. Noise is a particularly special case in terms of a wider and specific obligation around the collation of data and going to Mr. Lyne's point around capturing some of the unknowns, we really need to take a precautionary approach. There are huge gaps, as we alluded to in our opening statement, in what we know about the species we have. If we apply a precautionary approach to the designation we may in time, given we will know more, be able to say based on that we can allow more and we can allow more flexibility and adapt the network to allow more uses and activities on a very controlled basis.

We held off on covering enforcement until Deputy Ó Broin returned. I know it was a subject he covered earlier. We will also cover data collection.

I have a final question on acoustic monitoring. It is more out of interest than trying to get it in the legislation. Is the acoustic monitoring constant 24-7? Is it sampling? Is it mobile or fixed?

Mr. Patrick Lyne

All of them. It depends on what we are chasing. We certainly want some static acoustic monitoring at fixed stations. There are also towed arrays and floating arrays. Each tool has its own specific purpose. It would be all of them, basically. Principally for MPAs, static acoustic monitoring would probably be the first port of call and it would be constant 24-7. The US has satellite connections to acoustic buoys so that if they get an acoustic event of particular interest, it is sent by satellite, but it becomes more expensive.

Chairman

I presume acoustic monitoring is a standard condition for any consent for wind farms. I know we have not done any here, but for abroad.

Ms Patricia Comiskey

It tends to be part of the monitoring programme. It is dependent on the location and whether there is a particular concern. It is likely to become part of the ongoing monitoring and the licence conditions.

I agree with Mr. Lyne that acoustic monitoring is extremely important and should form part of a State system to collect data and understand the marine environment better. We need to be pragmatic about it. It generates a significant volume data. We worked on projects with the Marine Institute on the Galway Bay test site where the continuous acoustic monitoring generates terabytes of data. We need to be pragmatic about what we want to develop and roll out.

Chairman

I thank Ms Comiskey for that clarification.

I invite Deputy Ó Broin for his second round. We want to cover endorsement and data. He might want to include that in his questions.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I have a few questions and I might take a third bite if the Chair does not mind.

Chairman

Yes, absolutely.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I apologise for having to step out; I was launching some legislation. Whatever I might have missed, I will catch in the transcript. I have some follow-up questions for Ms Uí Bhroin and her colleagues, and then some questions for Mr. Goodwin.

On head 14(2), we had a significant exchange with departmental officials on the legacy projects or the first series of offshore wind applications and the MACs that are in the process of being issued. Head 14(2) states that the designation of the MPAs shall be without prejudice to existing rights. How wide is that to be interpreted? Does that mean MPAs could have no bearing on those existing consents? The departmental officials gave us the impression that work was under way. Professor Tasman Crowe talked about the sensitivity mapping, etc. Is Ms Uí Bhroin concerned if that section of the Bill ends up being too vague or too broad?

Head 13 deals with climate adaptation. It is important that the climate-related elements of the Bill, particularly when it comes to protecting and restoring marine diversity are as strong as possible. I ask Ms Uí Bhroin for her observations on that.

I can cluster enforcement and architecture together. There is the legislative architecture and also the institutional architecture of how this process with its monitoring enforcement fits in with everything else that is happening offshore. I would like to hear the thoughts on that.

I have much sympathy for some of the key recommendations the IEN. Regarding head 16, expert groups and the involvement of sectors, it made a very generous case that it would not just be its sector but also others. I am not sure that is the correct approach and I would be interested to hear the rationale. I like the idea of an expert group being made up of people who are fully independent of any of the activities happening in the marine and which is without prejudice to the benefits of that activity. It should be purely data-driven and science-driven. On housing, we often have major political rows about data when the people who are also involved in implementing the policy whether on the public or private side are involved in the management and production of the expert science underpinning it. I am not sure about that, especially if we adopt the kind of co-creation approach that Professor Crowe mentioned and picking up on the argument that was made earlier about the localised nature of the designation. If there is adequate co-creation from the start where all the players are not just involved after a map line is drawn but actually involved from the start as was identified in Spain and other jurisdictions, that would be a better way to get all the potential actors involved and keep the science and data free of any conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest. I am keen to get the witnesses’ thoughts on that.

I have a question for those in the industry. One consent has been issued and other consents are coming. We all wanted this legislation and the designation process to happen in parallel, which has not happened but that is not the fault of anybody in this room. What challenges will that present for industry, particularly as the science develops? We might start to realise that economic activity in X area off the east coast might not make any sense in terms of our conservation objectives and our requirements under the various directives and national laws.

Ms Uí Bhroin might answer first and then Mr. Goodwin.

Chairman

We have plenty of time because others have had to leave.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Perfect.

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

The Deputy had quite a lot of questions. I hope we will be able to answer them all. I ask him to prompt us if we are missing anything.

Head 14(2) states that the designation of MPAs shall be without prejudice to existing rights - basically existing authorisations. I think this is a problem for everyone. It is a major concern for industry and all sorts of actors in the marine environment who have gone to the bother going through the process of making applications, seeking investment and creating expectations within their organisations their shareholders, etc. One can understand their need and desire for legal certainty.

Notwithstanding that, as we said in our opening remarks, unfortunately, the MPA designation is late in Ireland. It is more than nine years late and everybody in this room realistically knows that by the time this legislation is enacted given that various different consultations, etc., need to happen, it will be some time before we have designations on the ground.

What are the implications from a legal perspective? What are the concerns over how head 14(2) is framed? The has been clear from back when the birds directive’s designations were late, not just here in Ireland but also in other member states, that a member state cannot benefit from the delay in fulfilling its obligations. In the European Court of Justice judgment C-374/98 in the case of Basses Corbières, the French state, paragraph 51 states a member state cannot benefit from the delay in delivering on its obligations.

To use the Deputy’s words from one of the earlier sessions, we are where we are. It is an unfortunate reality that we have that intersection where the science is telling us that an area should have been designated as MPA being potentially incompatible with something that has been given permission. A range of issues will arise from this. It is extremely frustrating that a more proactive approach was not taken to the delivery of the spatial plan and in mapping out areas to manage the expectations for the location of offshore renewable energy on a precautionary basis given the gaps in our information.

We argued very heavily for that at the time. The simple fact of the matter is that many different issues could arise depending on the various scenarios, one of which would be State liability. If a wind energy company has developed and invested, it may seek to sue the State for its loss of expectation because EU law will require us to remedy the breach of EU law. We cannot walk away and just say, "Whoops, sorry, we missed it." Duties are very clearly articulated, especially so in the context of Ireland. Some of the most authoritative and comprehensive judgments of the European Court of Justice in rehearsing and clarifying these points relate to the likes of Derrybrien wind farm in C-215/06 and C-261/18. It makes it very clear. I might add that it is not limited to those cases that one has to remedy a breach. It is not just a case of "Whoops, apocalypse". There are consequences and that must be addressed.

The economic operators may seek to pursue State liability. We can imagine the number of zeros that could be involved in that. That is already an issue in respect of a range of other matters in the terrestrial environment where there have been problems. It is the taxpayers of this country that end up footing the bill for that.

The European Court of Justice has also been clear that State liability is not an automatic presumption for economic actors unless they can demonstrate they had a reasonable understanding that their consents were lawful and that everything was in order. I do not see that as being credible in the context of the airing of issues that there is around the inadequacies of designations in Ireland. I think we are going to end up with a very serious mess. That is why it is all the more important, in particular at this critical time, given that on 23 December we saw the granting of maritime area consents under the Maritime Area Planning Act, and we are expecting to see development consent applications go to An Bord Pleanála, or an coimisiún pleanála as it may be called soon.

It is incumbent on us to address this because this is a car crash. This is going to delay and create confusion and uncertainty about industry's expectations of what it can do in terms of our successful migration to decarbonisation. We must be realistic about saying that we cannot just leave MPAs to paddy last. We have seen the Government move at breathtaking, shocking, and scary speed to enact legislation, guillotine it, and force it through when it needs to. Why do MPAs need to be left so long? Why are they being so deprioritised? We must ensure they are expedited. I am sorry that is a long answer, but it is a critical point.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

It was helpful.

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

In relation to the architecture, I can expand-----

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Could Ms Uí Bhroin deal with head 13 first, the climate stuff, because I do not want that to pass?

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Sure. I will hand over to my colleagues. Ms Loughran addressed some of that earlier. Dr. Griffin might also add something.

Ms Sinéad Loughran

In terms of the climate aspect of the Bill, it definitely needs to be a lot stronger. I am not sure if Deputy Ó Broin was present when Deputy O'Callaghan raised earlier a question about whether we need to call out specifically certain components such as carbon-rich habitats in the legislation. We are in a climate emergency, so by all means we must be specifying those things that we know can deliver real climate solutions for us. It is not just the carbon-rich habitats, it is all the species within the marine environment as well that can deliver on that. Those species have an inherent right to exist and to thrive within the marine environment as it is, but they can deliver real climate benefits. If the committee is happy, we can send on more information on those kinds of items as well. Carbon-rich habitats and all of those things we know can deliver real climate benefits need to be called out. It is not even in question considering the emergency we are in.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I thank Ms Loughran for that response.

Dr. Donal Griffin

It is a good head, and it is needed - "urgent area proposals to facilitate climate adaptation" - as long as the focus is on identifying areas that are not suitable for offshore renewable energy and not identifying areas for marine protected area designation. That is key. They should not be conflated. In previous session, we have discussed the importance of public participation and engagement as being critical to the success of MPAs. Although there are urgent powers in the head for other reasons, public engagement should not be short-circuited, even for climate reasons, in terms of fast-forwarding offshore renewable energy, ORE, or even necessarily for the nature aspect of climate adaptation. It is just about ensuring that within this head public participation is still involved in the MPA designation process.

I wish to make a wider point to pick up on what Ms Loughran says. I mentioned earlier to Deputy O'Callaghan about the importance of including carbon sequestration and storage in the provisions for the criteria for which MPAs would be designated features, but also to think more widely about the benefits, and the mitigation and adaptation that healthy seas deliver by being able to provide protection from coastal erosion and storm surges. We need to take a wider lens. It is not just about carbon, although that is a large part of it, but we must use a wider lens to address the already built-in impacts we will see down the line in terms of sea level rises and all that that brings as well.

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

I want to make a comment about monitoring and enforcement. Deputy Ó Broin made the point in both previous hearings about who we call. That is an existing problem in Ireland because nobody knows who to call half of the time. It is worse at sea.

When it comes to monitoring and enforcement, it is worth thinking about it in two different ways because we have offshore areas where the only real activity that is going on is fishing. It is usually big boats and industrial fishing that is going on in offshore areas. If we create an MPA in one of those areas, basically, there is no fishing. It is quite easy to monitor because there are already applications online to tell us where boats are and what they are doing. We can quite easily determine whether the boats are in these areas or what they are doing, whether they are just passing through or whether they are fishing. That bit should be quite easy, notwithstanding that people will be discommoded by it, but when we come inshore it is obviously much more complicated because there are multiple uses. We are likely to have marine protected areas that will have some fishing in them, but the fishing will have to be tightly controlled and monitored. At the moment, we do not know who is going to be in charge of that or how that is going to happen. With regard to the Bill and what we would like to see in it, I do not see where responsibility is laid. Who is in charge of the MPA? Who is going to be looking after it? Even on land at the moment, for SACs, we are not sure half the time whose job it is to do what. There is an opportunity here to clarify that for us, and in terms of monitoring.

If I could just make one other quick point that I meant to-----

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Before Mr. Fogarty does that, I just want to ask him to make a supplementary comment. If we look at terrestrial planning enforcement, we do know who to call. As many of the witnesses have long experience, knowing who to call in and of itself does not fix the problem. I could point to any number of long-standing, egregious planning breaches in my constituency, and I am sure Deputy O'Callaghan could as well. I welcome Mr. Fogarty's comments in regard to who to call, but does he have anything to say about how, even when we do have somebody to call, we ensure the monitoring and enforcement take place? On the terrestrial side, we have a whole other set of problems that we have learned from, through bitter experience, and it would be good for everybody if we did not repeat those mistakes and we must have a conversation in 20 years' time about how we fix that bit of the enforcement.

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Perhaps that is a resourcing issue. A lot of the time, if we are out and about and we see damage in an SAC or someone sees a digger working in an SAC and we wonder if that should be going on or not, we can call the local wildlife ranger, who might be able to say whether it should be happening.

It may be harder for them to tell us whether we can do something about it. However, in some parts of the country we do not have wildlife rangers. That is a resourcing issue and not necessarily a legislative one.

Head 17 it talks about how MPAs are to be identified. It says they will be identified using the best available scientific information. That is great, it is what we want and need. However it also says they will seek to minimise the negative economic impacts and maximise the positive economic impacts. To me, that is not only contrary to deciding where these are in regard to best scientific information but it is also inappropriate for a Bill that is about the conservation of nature. There is already a provision elsewhere about overriding reasons of public interest if there is an absolute need to do something. In EU law under the habitats directive there is a mechanism that is not just a willy-nilly get-out clause. It is quite a serious trigger. Putting in something that says we have to maximise the economic impacts and minimise the costs is not appropriate.

Chairman

Will someone clarify for me, how much protected area have we at the moment? We are aiming for 30%. Where are we at the moment?

Mr. Denis Devane

I believe we are just above 8%.

Chairman

We are at 8%. We were at 2.3% until quite recently, we were at 8% now and we are heading for 10%. That is not marine protected areas as such because we do not have marine protected areas. It is in process at the moment.

That is a concern. I agree with Ms Uí Bhroin's point that it would have been much better had this been done before. We all agree on that. The maritime area consents give the opportunity and the possibility for a developer to be able to conduct all the relevant surveys and activities needed to make sure the project is feasible and to progress with the planning application. Included in that with the MAC, which has been done up to now, even after they have been given licences to do so, are two years minimum of seaward surveys, a minimum of two years maritime mammal and reptile surveys, and many other surveys that need to be done. This is a very comprehensive and extensive process that needs to be done which will feed into a planning application which will then be adjudicated upon with all the relevant environmental impact assessments done. We would consider that what is being done in the maritime area consent areas for the phase 1 projects is making sure no stones are left unturned and every single possible mitigation and assessment is being put in place. We believe that is the cover there and that the planning system will grant it if all of that has been done properly and appropriately.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I have no doubt that Ms Loughran will want to come in around the completeness of the list here. Apart from the "may", "shall", or "seek" phraseology, there is the wider issue of the binding architecture around this that is missing throughout the Bill. What fundamentally needs to inform it is delivering good environmental status and an ecologically coherent representative network. That should be guiding everything in terms of all the proposals and all of the decisions. The reflections of the expert body is missing throughout. This is why the architecture point in relation to the legal architecture informing the Bill, setting out the relevance of this piece of legislation to the marine strategy framework directive and the spatial planning directive, is absolutely key, in addition to other pieces of legislation such as the Espoo Convention. We need to be conscious not just of our obligations to notify things we are doing but for us to be much more proactive in relation to activities happening in the marine environment that have the potential to damage our networks of MPAs. Those types of things should additionally be reflected in it.

In the context of the Deputy's concerns, I would also highlight that head 7(2) explicitly says "The Minister may request advice from the Expert Body or other specialist body or other person or body as referred to in section 5(1) and section 5(2) in relation to individual proposals for potential Marine Protected Area designations." There has been a lot of talk about the expert body and very welcome consideration in relation to its appropriate composition. The Minister does not necessarily have to ask advice. He or she can decide who to talk to or who not to talk to. There is a huge issue of concern around all of that hierarchy of things, and what expert bodies would actually consider. I will ask Ms Loughran to elaborate.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Before Ms Loughran comes in, I have a question, which Ms Loughran may also respond to. From what the witnesses are saying in general, am I correct that some of the difficulties of the Bill are that it is not clear and while it lists a lot of different things, it is not clear that they must be done; that the Bill should be framed in a clear way that creating marine protected areas is about conservation and an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas delivering good environmental status; and that this should be absolutely clear in driving the Bill throughout? Instead, while the Bill is about marine protected areas, it is not clear that it is actually about that. In a best-case scenario with this Bill, if everything goes right, it is well resourced, we have good Ministers and everybody is interested, it may work well. It may not, however, and it may just be legislation where areas are getting designated as MPAs but that will not ensure we are designating the right areas or that we are doing the conservation.

In other words, what we need to achieve with this legislation may not be done if it passes in its current format. Is that a fair summary?

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

It is a very fair summary. To go back to the point made by Senator Boyhan on how hard it is going to be to please everybody all of the time, where there are conflicting interests, one has to ask why we are doing this in the first instance and to be able to go back to that fundamental question and purpose behind it. We need to be able to draw that line and say “Here, we need to do this because of this, although it may be a bit painful and we need to manage just transition”, or “Here, we can make accommodation because we feel more comfortable in the overall context”.

The other critical aspect of that, and we touched on it just after the Deputy left, is access to justice. It is not just clarity in regard to what is prescribed within the Bill; it is also the ability to be able to hold authorities to account for what they do or do not do under that Bill. It is also a critical element of enforcement in regard to the equivalent of section 160, where private individuals can take action and pursue enforcement action.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Before I finish, on a question to Ms Loughran, it seems to me that the Bill has the appearance of acknowledging that we have to have MPAs because it is in the programme for Government and in our international obligations, so here then is a Bill that does that, as opposed to asking why we want to have MPAs, what we want to achieve with them and that being central to the Bill. I would welcome Ms Loughran’s comments.

Ms Sinéad Loughran

That is certainly something that we would agree is missing in terms of that overarching vision of what we want from this Bill. Certainly, the ocean environment policy statement has the potential to almost make convoluted our existing obligations and commitments by setting priorities under which the Bill would be implemented or how we would actually use the Bill. That definitely makes things more difficult. We have already got these lists of obligations and commitments under various other agreements and we are then making another policy statement on top of that.

In terms of head 7(5), there is the caveat that “the Minister shall, to the extent possible”, and there are items that are absolutely necessary there, like the precautionary principle and that the ecosystem-based approach to marine protected areas should be a given, not something that “may” be applied. To look specifically at seabird species, IUCN lists and OSPAR lists are mentioned as items that would be considered for identifying potential marine protected areas. OSPAR only lists three of Ireland's seabirds and the IUCN list has around five species. When we put that in the context of the EU birds directive, it has many more on its annex 1 list of species and in terms of the seabirds in Ireland that are listed as either red or amber status species, there are 23 of our breeding seabirds. It definitely does not go far enough if we are just looking at the OSPAR or IUCN threatened categories because there are many seabirds in Ireland that are categorised as “least concern” or “near threatened” in the IUCN list that are actually very important seabird species in Ireland. That is just to give a bit more detail on the specifics.

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

I would go back to the Deputy’s summary, which was quite good. I appreciate that people see NGOs as being the doom-mongers all of the time but our experience and, basically, the job of many of us is holding the Government to account for implementing the promises it has made. We know about all of the wriggle room and the get-out clauses and how the system moves along without actually fulfilling the promises on these kinds of things. We have to put ourselves in a kind of overly-pessimistic position and say “Let us say this is passed and we are five years down the line, how are we going to use this to hold the Government and the agents of the State to account for what they say?” If we were to go on the current wording in the heads of the Bill, we would not have a lot to hang onto because, basically, we would not necessarily have to get to the 30% and although we could monitor, we do not have to monitor anything in particular and there is no particular person responsible for enforcing it. In the disaster scenario which we have been used to for 30 years of environmental law, we could end up passing this law and not get a lot out of it in ten years' time.

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

To add to that, and Mr. Fogarty has articulated the dilemma, we want this to work and it is in everybody's interest for it to work. It is going to help us and it is our best ally, as Ms Loughran said earlier, with regard to climate. We want certainty with regard to offshore renewable energy, not just because of the decarbonisation but because of the potential economic benefits to the State. We do not live in la-la land and we understand the economic imperatives, the energy security imperatives and all of these different types of things that are realities, including the challenge for people in regard to charges for their energy and all of these different types of considerations.

The fundamental of being able to hold people to account is not just the legislative framework and backbone and the issue of providing for access to justice; it is a lack of clarity in regard to the multiple policy architecture that is now emerging, even exploding, in the marine environment. We were all mesmerised when we were going through the Maritime Area Planning Act, with its marine planning policy statements, ministerial guidelines and ministerial directions. However, how does this relate to marine strategy arising under the MSFD, separately? There needs to be some sort of coherent visual graphic so we can understand this hierarchy and how these fit together, quite apart from all of the different bodies. It is a nightmare when it comes to enforcement, as has been well acknowledged, but, particularly where there is a terrestrial component, who are we going to call? It is certainly not as clear as “Ghostbusters”. Who do we hold to account? Do the authorities even understand this clearly from this legislation? Even the intent of the architecture that this is trying to deliver is not clear. I find it very concerning that the heads of Bill are not clear about the fundamental shape of what we are trying to deliver at a policy level, at a legal level and in terms of the bodies involved in it, and how it relates not just to other marine legislation but also to things like the aquaculture legislation.

We have huge issues in aquaculture. We have effectively an unregulated environment in aquaculture at the moment. If someone applies for a licence under section 19A of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997, he or she can continue to operate until the Minister grants or does not grant the renewal. That application can sit around not just for a couple of months but for years, and we have seen applications that have been effectively sitting on a Minister’s desk for seven, eight or nine years. Even in the context of bay assessments and the integration of this legislation with other legislation, there are huge gaps - I know I may be getting into a lot of detail. There is also the issue of how consents work in other sectors and how they need to be reflected in terms of the considerations that now need to be visited in terms of MPA obligations.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I have a question for Mr. Griffin, who earlier made a very strong case about the importance of effective participation, not just consultation. That point was also well made by Professor Tasman Crowe earlier in the week, and he spoke about how well it has worked in other countries where communities propose areas and there is a bottom-up approach. Am I missing something? Is there anything in this Bill that indicates we are going in that direction? If there is, I think I am missing it.

Dr. Donal Griffin

I think it is provided for in one of the heads that community groups or other organisations or individuals can make proposals. I am not sure which head that is but it is in there somewhere. Like a lot of the things that are just lightly mentioned, it is not very clearly or strategically put.

This point speaks to a lot of what Deputies O'Callaghan and Ó Broin have raised about the lack of clear MPA governance in the Bill. We have heads for management, enforcement, monitoring and lots of bits and pieces all over, but there is no real way of tying all of those together. It is feasible that we could have very good monitoring but with the lack of other important aspects of MPA implementation, that does not account for all that much.

We could be monitoring the decline of species very well, but we want to feed back that information and make adaptive change and management resulting in better biodiversity outcomes.

Ms Uí Bhroin spoke about architecture. I used the words MPA governance in terms of who is responsible for what, when and where. That is not entirely clear. The Bill would benefit from clarity. To speak to the point made by Deputy Ó Broin on expert groups, there is scope and a need for an expert group very similar to Professor Crowe's group which is more confined. It is not a case of either or; we need both.

We also need a wider stakeholder group involving everyone in the room. There may also be a third point to think about, namely, governance groups in terms of who the actual authorities are and the people and organisations involved at a State level or whatever that are going to organise the who, what, when, where and why aspects of MPAs to make sure they are effective. As I said, lots of elements are mentioned in the Bill, some of which we would like more detail on. We need to tie those together, which goes back to the point made about things needing to be tied together strategically. Things may now fall between a number of stools, as Mr. Fogarty mentioned. We may miss the mark with the legislation and that is what want to avoid.

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

There is also potential for torpedoes. We can have the best will in the world, really good consultation, engagement and advice from the expert advisory group and a coherent governance framework, but something like head 10 effectively allows for a behind closed doors intervention and appeal on an MPA designation with no other parties involved. It is entirely non-transparent. It is an extremely concerning provision that effectively means certain interested parties have access, within quite an extended window, to engage and materially set the whole thing off on a different track.

In terms of coherence, we need to examine not just the who, what, where, when and how. I completely agree with Dr. Griffin on that, in terms of the bodies involved. Going back to my point on policy and legislation, we also need to code for what can derail this process.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

On head 10, is it the lack of transparency, the limited number of bodies it applies to or the entire head that is the issue? Is the idea behind this head fine provided things are done in a transparent way?

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

The notion of an appeal is something to which I would have no objection. The issue is how public that is in terms of notification, how transparent the decision-making process is and who is formally notified. Senator Boyhan spoke about the notion of prescribed bodies generally in the Bill. It is a fairly significant omission.

Yes, absolutely. It is something that we have been calling for for quite a while. The NPWS and An Bord Pleanála in particular, along with other bodies that I will not list now, need to be better funded. If anything could be done in that regard, it would be very welcome from an industry perspective.

Chairman

I think that is in train at the moment. There was a €55 million increase in investment in the NPWS. Obviously the service has to build around the funding that goes to it as well. Otherwise, it is destined to fail, even if it has the money. I agree with Mr. Goodwin that An Bord Pleanála and other agencies need further investment. They have been neglected for many years and we are seeing the result of that now.

I will allow Deputy Ó Broin to come back in with a couple of brief points. Then I want to offer the opportunity to each of the organisations to make a two-minute contribution to wind up the meeting.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I have a couple of very brief observations which the witnesses are free to comment on in their concluding remarks. We have had lots of conversations about data and taking a data-led approach. The big question, of course, is what we do when there is no data. Do we apply the precautionary principle or do we make sure the absence of data does not get in the way of activity X, Y or Z? That is one of the big challenges in the legislation.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

On that point and by way of a guiding note, rather than giving us additional arguments in support of X, Y or Z, what we would really like to see are suggestions around very specific amendments or additions to the general scheme. That is what we would really like to see, rather than a secondary submission that has lots of words. We are more interested in what needs to change.

Chairman

Yes. Generally, what we do with these reports is produce a recommendations section at the back with 15, 20 or 40 recommendations, depending on the issue. The witnesses will see from previous reports the format that we use. If they want to use that kind of format, it would be helpful to us. Senator Boyhan made a similar point. Just out of interest, if Mr. Goodwin could forward the MaREI report to which he referred, that would be helpful in terms of background information.

We will start the wind-up with Dr. Griffin. I invite him to give us his overarching view.

Dr. Donal Griffin

A lot of the issues raised in the written submission have been covered. I want to raise one final issue that is worth stating now because it may avoid conflict down the line when it comes to designating MPAs. The Bill really needs to include and clearly define the hierarchy or the varying levels of MPA management that our new MPAs will receive. This hierarchy of different MPA management levels and strategies will be needed to achieve the ecologically coherent network of MPAs that we have talked about. That will range from lightly protected or multi-use sites that we predominantly have at the minute with Natura 2000 but also include that suite - the 10% - of strictly protected sites that we talked about earlier. Again, to avoid confusion and conflict in the future, the Bill must provide the obligation and the framework for these different levels of MPA protection and have that stated within the conservation objective of the site as a mandatory aspect.

That would be really helpful. If that were addressed early, it would not be surprising anyone with the strict level of protection if everyone was clear that that was a possibility from the start. I thank the committee for inviting us here today. It has been very useful for me.

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

I thank the Chair and the committee. It has been a useful session. I will finish on two points. One is that the designation of 30% by 2030 is quite modest. It should be quite easy. It is not an overwhelming challenge. It still leaves 70% of the ocean that is not in a marine protected area. We have a challenge to sustainably do the things we are doing in the other 70%. The 30% should be easy. I would not want to overly complicate it.

I would also pick up on something that was said at an earlier session about Ireland potentially being a global leader. We can go from a laggard to a leader. We could be helping the European Union meet its global targets because of the marine area and amazing biodiversity we have. I hope we get this Bill right and that we can become that leader and maybe address some of the concerns raised today. Thank you again.

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

I echo my colleagues' thanks to the committee for its engagement, not just this morning but in the other sessions, which were clearly very constructive and powerful. I also thank the Department and Professor Tasman Crowe for his engagement in this process. It has hopefully facilitated the airing of a lot of matters that would be of use to the Department and the Minister, who has shown such interest in this matter and in bringing forward a more robust piece of legislation. I also thank my colleagues for their support and Wind Energy Ireland for its constructive engagement. It was great to see commonality of interest, particularly on areas like the NPWS. It serves none of our interests if it comes to the table late. It is particularly frustrating for industry.

I suppose in generality, this is the most common type of issue or complaint, in terms of easy enforcement; the more complex ones are obviously more complex. The architecture in terms of the plans, policies and guidelines, EU directives and our national legislation governing the whole sea area is very complex. That is why we appreciate so much our guests coming in to assist us with this. We are trying to get the legislation right. For far too long we have overlooked our environment, climate and biodiversity and the ecological damage that we have done for many years. I am delighted that we are in a position to introduce this legislation and thank our guests for helping us to get it right. We hope to publish our pre-legislative scrutiny report by the middle of February and will send a copy to all of our guests. Ms Uí Bhroin wants the last word but will it be brief?

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

My apologies but I forgot to acknowledge and thank the secretariat for their courtesy and their work on the organisation and logistics. I also thank you, Chairman, for your very generous invitation to participate.

Chairman

Thank you and you are welcome. I have no doubt we will be seeing you again at some stage in the coming months to discuss other legislation that we are working on.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.41 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 7 February 2023.

Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate - Thursday, 2 Feb 2023

General Scheme of the Marine Protected Areas Bill 2023: Discussion (Resumed)

Mr. Niall Goodwin

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Dr. Donal Griffin

Mr. Niall Goodwin

Ms Patricia Comiskey

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Mr. Patrick Lyne

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Mr. Patrick Lyne

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Mr. Niall Goodwin

Mr. Denis Devane

Dr. Donal Griffin

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Dr. Donal Griffin

Mr. Patrick Lyne

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Mr. Niall Goodwin

Ms Patricia Comiskey

Ms Sinéad Loughran

Ms Sinéad Loughran

Ms Sinéad Loughran

Ms Sinéad Loughran

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Mr. Patrick Lyne

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Mr. Patrick Lyne

Mr. Niall Goodwin

Dr. Donal Griffin

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Mr. Patrick Lyne

Mr. Patrick Lyne

Mr. Patrick Lyne

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Ms Patricia Comiskey

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Mr. Patrick Lyne

Mr. Patrick Lyne

Ms Patricia Comiskey

Mr. Patrick Lyne

Ms Patricia Comiskey

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Ms Sinéad Loughran

Dr. Donal Griffin

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Mr. Denis Devane

Mr. Niall Goodwin

Mr. Niall Goodwin

Mr. Niall Goodwin

Mr. Niall Goodwin

Mr. Denis Devane

Mr. Denis Devane

Ms Patricia Comiskey

Ms Patricia Comiskey

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Ms Sinéad Loughran

Mr. Pádraic Fogarty

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Dr. Donal Griffin

Ms Attracta Uí Bhroin

Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage debate -
Thursday, 2 Feb 2023