Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 105:

In page 32, to delete lines 28 and 29 and substitute the following: “(h) the existing DMAPs, the existing maritime usages and activities,

(i) the existing DMAPs and the existing maritime usages and activities proposed to be taken into consideration during the preparation of the DMAP, and to highlight any changes in relation to the existing situation,

(j) the basis for the identification of the existing uses and activities,

(k) the nature and extent of ecological surveys conducted for the area of the DMAP, including in the skies above the area of the proposed DMAP, as well as in the sea and on the seafloor, and when the surveys were conducted and over what period,

(l) details on what major ecological data deficiencies and gaps have been identified and how these are proposed to be filled and by when and by who and how including in respect of the associated costs,

(m) details of inadequacies in the NMPF in respect of the DMAP area, and implications of issues arising given how the NMPF was developed what it does and does not specify relative to the requirements of the MSP Directive,

(n) the purpose and objective behind the creation of the DMAP,

(o) the proximity of the DMAP to other DMAPs or proposed DMAPs and the nature and objectives of those DMAPs or proposed DMAPs,

(p) details of any known environmental sensitivities, including if the area is significant for characteristics such as being quiet area or a dark area or other characteristics which might make it suitable as for consideration as a Marine Protected Area,

(q) details of any representations made to the competent authority (D) in respect of the pursuit of a proposed DMAP, including in the 3 years prior to enactment,”.

The amendment will expand the list of issues to be considered by a competent authority when forming a designated maritime area plan, DMAP. It includes matters such as the nature and extent of ecological surveys conducted for the area of the DMAP, including the skies above the area of the proposed DMAP, as well as in the sea and on the sea floor. The skies above are included because marine activity can have an impact on birds and other wildlife, so there need to be ecological surveys of activity that would happen in a DMAP area that could impact on birds. The list includes also requirements for when the surveys would be conducted and over what period, as well as details on what major ecological data deficiencies and gaps have been identified and how, when and by whom these are proposed to be dealt with. Further requirements relate to information such as associated costs and issues such as the proximity of the proposed DMAP to other DMAPs, an issue we touched on previously, and its nature and objective.

Amendment No. 106 will expand the consultation requirements for proposed DMAPs to include prescribed bodies, the Minister with responsibility for natural heritage and the public. I think this is quite a good amendment and I hope the Minister of State will not have any issues with it.

The Bill, at section 21(5), requires the competent authority only to publish its proposal on its website. Amendment No. 107 will require the publication of the decision by the Minister to allow the draft DMAP to be prepared on the basis of the proposal. This is important for transparency. Without the amendment, the initial steps in the DMAP process could be advanced with little public awareness. The amendment is important, therefore, to ensure public awareness of the initial process regarding DMAPs.