Mr. Jeremy Gault:

My name is Jeremy Gault and I am the director of the Coastal and Marine Research Centre, which is a part of Beaufort Research at University College Cork. I am joined by my colleague, Dr. Anne Marie O'Hagan, who is also from UCC and a member of the Hydraulics and Maritime Research Centre, HMRC, of the Beaufort Research community. We thank the committee for inviting us to participate in this hearing.

In terms of our backgrounds, my principal training was in mining petroleum engineering. I have postgraduate qualifications in researching marine resource management and coastal geomorphology, that is, erosion and accretion, if members wish to be specific. Dr. O'Hagan has worked extensively in foreshore licensing and coastal management and provides a unique background in an Irish context, as she has qualifications in environmental science, planning and coastal governance. She has topped these with a fourth and, she claims, final degree in law.

We have approximately 90 members of the coastal and marine research centre covering a range of disciplines from computer science to engineering to zoology. Our work is funded through a combination of competitively won funding from national, European and international programmes, industry-sponsored projects and direct industry contracts. We conduct fundamental so-called blue skies research and applied industry-relevant research and work with virtually every marine research centre across the EU as well as other international centres.

As part of our research, we work in partnership with Departments and agencies, regional and local authorities and key sectors, including fisheries, aquaculture, oil and gas, marine renewable energy, tourism and leisure, and conservation. We have examined spatial issues with industry and other stakeholders, including environmental NGOs and the public, and cross-cutting issues such as adaptation to climate change, pollution, security and provision and use of data and information. Given our background, we hope we can present an objective view of the definite need for revision and some of the potential difficulties posed by the draft legislation.

It is generally recognised that the 1933 Act is outdated and unsuited to modern maritime usage. Therefore, we warmly welcome the decision to review the Foreshore Acts and associated legislation but caution that this initiative could be interpreted as an attempt to streamline the process for large-scale development only. We are not adverse to streamlining the process, but it cannot be for large-scale development alone. The new Bill is essential if we are to meet the Government's ambitious national targets as defined under Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth and at EU level through the integrated maritime policy and blue growth agenda while maintaining our environmental integrity.

At European level, integrated coastal management, ICM, and maritime spatial planning, MSP, are being advocated as the preferred approaches to maritime governance. This is evidenced by the publication of a proposal for a framework directive on MSP and ICM in March of this year. While this is still subject to debate, the directive would make MSP and ICM mandatory if adopted in its present form. As such, member states would be obliged to produce and implement the MSP plans and ICM strategies. Until such time as this directive is adopted, Ireland will be under no obligation to develop a national maritime spatial plan. A national plan should be put in place, because otherwise, activities will be regulated only through the consenting processes, the procedural aspects of which are contained in this Bill. This would result in efforts being focused on consenting rather than on improving management and reducing conflict or potential conflict. In our experience, effective integrated management requires a strategy that includes all maritime and coastal activity, coupled with effective consenting legislation, if it is to succeed.

Any consenting legislation must cover all sectors. Therefore, we are discouraged by the omission of sea fisheries and aquaculture from the Bill. This will only cause problems and reinforce existing divisions instead of encouraging co-operation between sectors. This appears short-sighted when a more integrated decision-making is being recognised and advocated nationally and internationally through policies.

To reduce pressure and maximise the use of our maritime resources, we should consider the co-location of activities, for example, aquaculture and tidal energy. This would require one multifunction licence for one site instead of a series of licences associated with each location.

While the Bill is a good start, and without wishing to slow the current process, key aspects need further refinement if it is to be implemented effectively. To demonstrate this, we have selected some issues as examples, grouped under jurisdiction, responsibilities and mapping-charting, as per our submission. Regarding the issue of responsibility, which relates to heads 3 and 20, we know An Bord Pleanála has been tasked with consenting responsibility for certain classes of proposed development, with responsibility for certain other proposed activities given to local authorities. For both sets of entities, there is a capacity implication, as their experience and expertise have historically focused on terrestrial planning and development. It is debatable whether this deficit can be closed from the existing terrestrial planning community. Therefore, the capacity gap may need to be closed by employing external consultants. Different approaches could be adopted at county level, leading to confusion among stakeholders. Given the board's extended role, it is unclear what the future is, if any, for the Marine Licence Vetting Committee, which has traditionally provided cross-disciplinary scientific and technical input into decisions on foreshore licences and leases.

In terms of jurisdictions, a new marine area comprising the territorial seas and the exclusive economic zone, EEZ, is consistent with key EU legislation on the environment, specifically relating to birds, habitats, Natura 2000 and the marine strategy framework directive. It should be noted that there is a lack of agreed delimitation with the UK and France on fisheries, the EEZ and territorial sea limits. This could create operational issues for enforcement agencies, such as the Irish Naval Service. In addition, there are no international maritime boundaries in the Border bays, those being, Foyle and Carlingford. Although the Good Friday Agreement gave the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, through the Loughs Agency, certain competencies in these areas, its powers do not extend to cover all activities.

The legislation will result in changes to boundaries, a matter inherently linked to mapping and charting. Currently, the legal high water mark is taken from large-scale Ordnance Survey Ireland, OSi, maps, namely, the six-inch maps that date from the 1800s and 1900s. There have been a number of delays and, more seriously, court cases relating to jurisdiction and functional authority as a result of the boundaries as marked on those maps.

We have cited Lisfannon marina in County Donegal as an example. There are also implications in key Government functions, such as calculation of rates, land valuation and effective assessment and management of coastal change, such as erosion or accretion. Technically, there is a disparity between admiralty charts and ordnance survey maps, which can be difficult to align because they have different functions, with differences in key attributes such as coastline and high water mark between the two sources. Admiralty charts are produced on historical surveys, some of which date back to the early 1800s and 1900s.

These are some examples of key considerations but there are other aspects of the Bill which require further thought. These include: head 7, dealing with the content of the development plan; head 11, dealing with the disapplication of compensation provisions; head 13, the partial disapplication of development levies provisions; head 20, dealing with local authority regulation of certain activities in the nearshore area and on the foreshore; and head 24, dealing with the designation of shellfish waters. We welcome the idea of a revision nonetheless, and it should not be an obstruction to development. Development should be done in a sustainable manner, as that is what integrated coastal management is about. If the members wish to discuss any submission points or what I have raised this afternoon, Dr. O'Hagan and I would be happy to oblige.