Peter Burke (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Before dealing with this grouping, it might be helpful to the members to explain a little further how sections 21 - proposals for DMAPs - and section - 22 draft DMAPs, etc., - are intended to operate. I must initially advise the members of a referencing error in section 23 - public participation on DMAPs. Section 23(1) provides that the competent authority (D) shall publish its public participation statement after complying with section 22 - preparing a draft DMAP. It is intended instead that the statement is to published as soon as possible after the DMAP proposal has been approved. I apologise for any confusion this may have caused and we intend to correct the error on Report Stage.

A competent authority (D) will submit a DMAP proposal to the competent authority (M), which will review the proposal to ensure compliance with this part and the MSP directive. The proposal will also include a draft public participation statement. As soon as possible after approval, the proposal and statement are to be published. This serves as the starting point of the DMAP development process. Through the participation processes, it is anticipated that the DMAP will evolve from the proposal as new information, issues and considerations are raised. This was certainly our experience in the first national marine planning framework resulting in a far better outcome than strict adherence to early thinking.

At the proposal stage, it is very much a case of known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. If we waited until all data gaps were identified and filled, a DMAP would never progress beyond proposal stage. It is through the DMAP development process that much of the detail such as data gaps and location-specific issues will emerge and be considered to determine the appropriate outcome to be expressed in the DMAP. This is why participation has been so key to maritime spatial planning to date and will continue to be under this legislation. This will also be a new process for everyone - officials, the public, stakeholders and industry. As our collective experience in making DMAPs grows, that learning can be applied to future DMAPs though section 21(4).

I now turn to the amendments under consideration. Amendment No. 105 proposes a number of additional matters to be specified in a DMAP proposal. A number of these are already provided for generally by the initiated text or are details to be examined or emerge from the DMAP development process itself. Subsections (h) and (i) are duplicative to a certain extent. DMAPs when made will form part of the national marine planning framework and are to be considered in the preparation of the DMAP under section 22(1)(c). Subsection (i) is unclear in both language and intent. It is presumed that this is intended to detail the interaction of existing and future proposed usages. This is appropriate to examine explore during DMAP development - not the proposal, which, as mentioned, above is only the starting point. Subsection (j) is already covered broadly in the evidence base under section 21(1)(f). Subsections (k) and (l) are matters to be explored in depth during the development process. Subsection (m) is not an operable provision. It presupposes inadequacies in the national marine planning framework and deals with other subjective matters impossible for a competent authority (D) to undertake in the context of DMAP development. It also would in effect turn the oversight structures of the regime on their head. Examination of what the national marine planning framework can do better next time is a matter for the review of the framework itself. Subsection (n) is already covered under section 21(2)(a) in the objectives of the national marine planning framework that the DMAP is seeking to achieve or support. Subsection (o) is already covered as part of the DMAP development considerations under section 22(1)(c). Subsection (p) is not operable as marine protected areas do not yet have a legal existence. It should be noted that the specific environmental circumstances of a DMAP area will have to be, as a matter of necessity, considered and explored in the context of existing and proposed usages in order to specify the environmental mitigation and beneficial measures to be specified in the DMAP under section 22(2)(h).

Regarding subsection (q), the meaning of the term "pursuit" is not clear but it is presumed to mean lobbying of the kind discussed at earlier sessions. Amendment of the lobbying and access to information on the environment-freedom of information legislation is the appropriate vehicle for such changes.

One can of course see why this amendment cannot be accepted. However, it does not appear that there is too much distance between the existing text and the intention and purpose of the proposed amendment. What is mainly at issue is how explicitly these matters are stated and where in the overall process they occur. I think everyone will agree that the vital point is that these elements are undertaken, where appropriate, and not precisely where they happen. It is anticipated that DMAPs may take many forms and serve many purposes, and not only direct marine analogues of terrestrial plans or for industrial sector plans. For example, it has it has mooted that it may be possible to prepare a DMAP in respect of sea grass meadows. The possibilities for DMAPs are almost endless, as long as they serve to deliver the objectives of the national marine planning framework. The legislation was crafted with this variety in mind. Drilling too far down into specifics for the proposed requirement provisions endangers that flexibility and will present some of the best uses of what we believe is the most powerful marine spatial planning tool in this Bill.

Amendment No. 106 proposes to require consultation on a given proposal prior to finalisation. In spirt and in principle, this is right and proper and I fully agree. Recall, however, that the proposal is just the starting point for DMAP development. The consultation on the proposal and the development of the DMAP are one and the same process, given the intended participatory and evolutionary nature of the development process. It is about as comprehensive a consultation process as possible.

We are innovating here, moving away from a static set piece formal consultation process only model into a participatory emergent model where the outcomes arise from the process. This we strongly believe reflects both the fundamental spirit, wording and intent of the maritime spatial planning, MSP, directive.

Amendment No. 107 proposes a requirement to publish reasons for approval. There is only a single reason for approval that will apply to all DMAP proposals and it is set out in section 21(4)(a). That reason is that the proposal complies with all the requirements of Part 2 and the MSP directive, insofar as they relate to the proposal. A proposal either meets that standard or it does not. For the above reasons, I oppose this amendment also.