Ms Lorraine O'Donoghue:

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for inviting us to present on a body of work that has been ongoing in the Department for some time. In July, the Government approved the heads of the maritime area and foreshore (amendment) Bill, which were recently published. Drafting of the Bill will get under way shortly. The Bill has three main aims: to align the foreshore consent system with the planning system; to provide for a single environmental impact assessment for projects; and to provide a coherent mechanism to facilitate and manage development in the exclusive economic zone, EEZ, and on the continental shelf, such as oil and gas projects and offshore renewable energy.

It is proposed to define in law an Irish maritime area, which would encompass the foreshore, the EEZ and the continental shelf. It is intended that the maritime area will be established for assessment, licensing and forward planning purposes. As I understand there was some discussion of it earlier, I wish to confirm that there is no intention to redefine the foreshore as it stands at the moment.

Within that maritime area, in broad terms, it is intended to provide for a streamlined development consent process to include both the onshore and offshore elements of strategic infrastructure projects. An Bord Pleanála will be the consent authority. This change will reduce duplication in the consent process and involve a single environmental impact assessment, EIA, thereby reducing the cost for applicants.

It is proposed to newly define the nearshore area as the area between the high and low water marks, which is sometimes referred to as the intertidal zone. Responsibility for consenting to development in the nearshore area will be assigned to coastal local authorities, apart from developments requiring either an EIA or appropriate assessment, which will remain under the direct competency of An Bord Pleanála.

It is proposed to include provisions in the Bill to enable project proponents to seek a maritime option at an early stage, subject to certain qualifying criteria, depending on the nature and location of the proposal. Obtaining such an option will in effect allow project proponents to reserve a portion of the maritime area for a limited period while they apply for the necessary development consents. The legislation will be framed in such a way as to ensure no additional rights, such as property rights or other rights, for example to the seabed, are conveyed on holders of options. This provision is important to give certainty to project promoters that if they secure the necessary financial backing and development consents, they will be able to proceed with their projects.

Currently, the State does not have a statutory basis to regulate stand-alone offshore gas storage activities, irrespective of whether such activities are located at depleted gas wells or offshore geological features. The legislative proposals will provide a licensing regime to remedy this which will be administered by the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.

It is also proposed to bring forward several amendments to the Dumping at Sea Acts to provide for a more efficient permit system under the Environmental Protection Agency. Most of the proposed amendments are administrative and technical in nature. What is more significant is that the proposed changes will remove the duplication that exists in the licensing of dredging and dumping operations. Maintenance dredging, required to maintain navigation channels, will be exempted from the requirement to secure a foreshore licence. This means only a single consent from the EPA, the dumping at sea permit, will be required. This change, while sensible from an administrative point of view in terms of efficiencies, will be of particular benefit to the national ports.

That is an overview of the proposals. We will be happy to take questions, but before I move on I wish to address some of the issues discussed earlier today and last week.

A number of calls have been made for a plan-led approach to consenting in the maritime area. It is difficult to disagree with these calls, and the desirability of such an approach is something of which the Department is acutely aware. In parallel to the work taking place on the legislation under discussion, the issue of marine spatial planning from a national perspective has been under active consideration by a task force chaired by the Marine Institute, under the auspices of the marine co-ordination group, which, in turn, is chaired by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The report of the task force will be presented to Government for consideration in the short term but the reality is that the development of a marine spatial planning, MSP, framework in Ireland will take some time.

The Department is also mindful of developments at European level. A draft directive on maritime spatial planning and coastal zone management was published earlier this year and has been under discussion among EU member states ever since. As things stand, the draft directive takes the form of a framework directive and, therefore, is not overly prescriptive on how maritime spatial planning should be undertaken, save to say that it should be undertaken. The intention is to future-proof the legislation in order that it will recognise future MSP and in order that the consent system should have regard to any plan when it is put in place. Several elements of an MSP framework are in place. The national ports policy and the draft offshore renewable energy development plan are two such elements.

Some of the witnesses who have appeared before the committee in recent times have noted that the mainstay of the foreshore consent process dates from 1933. I emphasise that the process has been updated and revised several times, mainly to take account of developments in European environmental legislation. The consent process requires modernisation in the short term to boost activity in the marine economy.

While I do not accept that the foreshore process is an insurmountable barrier to projects, it is often regarded as a barrier and it can be a lengthy process for certain projects. In this regard I wish to highlight the prioritisation system that is operated in the Department. Essentially, applications for strategic infrastructure and projects with potential to create employment are prioritised within the system, as are time-bound applications, for example, in circumstances where a lease or licence is needed to avail of funding. Smaller-scale developments such as those involving slipway construction or storm water pipes are second tier priorities. Second and lower tier priorities can take longer to deal with and, regrettably, delays in the process can occur. The issuing of leases and licences for the types of activities and developments undertaken is a serious matter. Let us remember that the foreshore as currently defined is a valuable State resource that requires careful management and is worth, on average, €2 million to the Exchequer annually.

As part of the process of developing the general scheme of the Bill, my colleagues and I have consulted a wide range of interested parties. At the moment, we are in the middle of a series of engagements with coastal local authorities. We are carrying out these on a regional basis and discussing with them how the new system will operate in practice. We are also in regular contact with other Departments which have a particular interest in this legislation. As the detailed drafting of the Bill proceeds, I expect that the proposals will be finessed. We will be happy to take any comments or questions the committee may have.