Ms Valerie Freeman:

I will discuss the policy context under three headings: the policy framework on which the Bill should be based, the policy framework on which the Bill should not be based, and I will discuss some of the recommendations that our group, Coastal Concern Alliance, considers important.

Coastal Concern Alliance believes the framework to support the new Bill should be based on a maritime spatial plan and integrated coastal zone management. All EU environmental law is based on the precautionary principle. We believe our new maritime legislation must be progressed with reference to that principle. It must also be progressed in the public interest. There was always a responsibility on whoever was granting permission for leases to do it in the public interest, and this was something that was emphasised in the consultation period on the Bill. That is a really important point.

A directive on a framework for maritime spatial planning, MSP, and integrated coastal zone management, ICZM, proposed by the European Commission in March of this year reads:

In order to ensure the appropriate apportionment of maritime space among relevant uses and the coordinated management of coastal zones, a framework should be put in place that consists at least in the establishment and implementation by member states of Maritime Spatial Plans and integrated coastal zone management.

Article 8 sets out "Conservation, restoration and management of coastal ecosystems and coastal landscapes" as a minimum requirement for integrated coastal zone management. In line with this recommendation, Coastal Concern Alliance recommends that a buffer zone of at least 12 nautical miles be adopted in this country, as has been done in other European counties, for all significant developments in our coastal zone.

In 2012, according to the European Wind Energy Association, the average distance from shore of wind farms under construction in Europe was 26 km, which contrasts with the average of 12 km in Ireland. Applications are in the pipeline for the development of turbines that are approximately 185 m tall some 5 km from the shore in two locations, Dundalk Bay and Galway Bay.

We do not believe the framework to support the Bill should be based on the draft offshore renewable energy development plan, which is a clear example of retrospective planning and should not be adopted. In 2010, after a decade of unfettered speculative activity in Irish waters, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government moved to comply with the EU strategic environmental assessment directive by producing this plan and commissioning the strategic environmental assessment of its impacts. With regard to wind, the plan served to rubber-stamp the extensive offshore development permitted and progressed with no plan, no strategic environmental assessment and no cost benefit analysis during the period from 2002 to 2009. We have provided the secretariat with copies of the submission we made on that, which will provide more detail. The strategic environmental assessment is done for this kind of plan to inform leasing decisions.

We draw attention to the inclusion in the strategic environmental assessment and environmental report of a statement by the Minister stating that the EU strategic environmental assessment directive should not influence leasing or licensing applications which were in the pipeline. This is clearly in direct contravention of the objective of the Bill and undermines the integrity of the strategic environmental assessment and the environmental report. The result of this is that developments that were in the pipeline are inexplicably classed in the environmental report as existing renewable infrastructure. I am not sure how familiar members are with the offshore renewable energy development plan but three scenarios are considered: high, medium and low development. The high development scenario refers to the development of 4,500 MW of offshore wind along Ireland's coastline. If this plan were to go ahead and form the basis for the maritime area and foreshore (amendment) Bill 2013, the outline heads of which we are discussing, it would effectively mean that 4,500 MW equates to 900 turbines of 5 MW. Under this draft offshore renewable energy development plan, 840 of those 900 turbines would be deemed to exist and would not be subject to any strategic environmental assessment. That is the extent to which this is really important.

The second statement in the EU strategic environment assessment directive to which I wish to draw attention is that member states should ensure environmental reports are of sufficient quality to meet the requirements of the directive. We do not believe the environmental report for this offshore renewable energy development plan is of a sufficient standard. The environmental report itself states that data information and knowledge gaps have been identified as a key limitation to this SEA. They can affect the level of confidence with which potential effects on the environment are identified and evaluated.

In addition, the assessment itself is based on a plan that focuses on the development of a relatively new and emerging industry where longer-term environmental effects are little understood.

I wish to quote from the submission of the Heritage Council, which is a statutory body that reports to and advises the Government. As regards this SEA, it stated:

The council believes that the SEA's findings, and as a result the conclusions of the draft plan, fall short of the required level of confidence and detail. Its conclusion as currently articulated is premature. The report and plan, as currently drafted, do not outline the potential impacts of a "do nothing" scenario, which is one of the things they are required to do under the SEA directive.

The Heritage Council expressed serious concerns about the inadequacy of the landscape and seascape assessments presented in the report. It asked whether the baseline data were credible, reliable or fit for purpose. The council said the landscape character assessments used in the SEA to provide the baseline for the seascape assessments are out of date. Therefore, the observations of the Heritage Council are in line with serious concerns expressed by our group and others. We believe they provide ample evidence against the adoption of this draft plan as any kind of framework for the new maritime legislation.

I will conclude with a few short recommendations. We believe that an investigation should be initiated into the manner in which foreshore leases for extensive offshore developments on the Codling and Arklow Banks covering 120 sq. km. of the Wicklow coastline were awarded to private developers during the Celtic tiger years, without any strategic plan, and under regulations and legislation officially acknowledged to be inadequate. None of this has been built, apart from seven turbines, so it is still not too late to do something about it.

No large-scale developments should be permitted on the foreshore until a proper system of maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal zone management based on the ecosystem approach is put in place. The draft offshore renewable energy development plan, OREDP, should not be adopted by the current Government. A full cost benefit analysis for any projects deemed to be strategic infrastructure, with landscape and wildlife impacts considered, should be carried out.

The proposed Bill should be amended to ensure proper weight is given to the protection of Ireland's coastal landscapes and seascapes, and the conservation of coastal views listed in county development plans. To this end, a 12 nautical mile buffer zone should be adopted in Ireland.