Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank both witnesses for attending. Most of my questions or comments are for Professor Buckley. Much of my motivation in trying to get on this committee arose from my interest in biodiversity and how climate change is having an effect on biodiversity and wildlife and threatening species. Nature can be part of the solution so having the witnesses before us is very important for the committee.

I agree with most of the recommendations and with two in particular. There must be a definition of biodiversity and nature-based solutions in the Bill. Are there any other sections in the proposed Bill where references to biodiversity and nature-based solutions may be appropriate? Head 3 has 25 or so items that the Minister should have regard to, along with the advisory council, in compiling reports and recommendations. Should biodiversity be in there? It was interesting as there was a comment yesterday that there were too many items to have regard to but what is the opinion of the witnesses?

Is there a place in the Bill to address the idea that some alternative technologies for renewable energy may not be consistent with the protection of biodiversity? The same could be said for some adaptation technologies. For example, local authorities or Departments produce adaptation plans that may prevent future flooding, for example, but they may not be consistent with the protection of biodiversity. Is this the Bill to address such matters? For example, if there is overuse of concrete, nature-based solutions may provide an alternative. Offshore wind energy may also have an impact on marine biodiversity. It will be an incredibly important source of energy in future but should the Bill address such matters? That is pretty much it.

All of my questions are for Professor Buckley.