Mr. Richard Cronin:

Two separate issues arise there. On management plans for the sites, in my opening statement I made a point about the fact that human activity can take place in marine protected sites where it is compatible with the conservation objectives. For that activity to take place, there must be some sort of management plan around the site so that when I go into the site I can say I am complying with the management plan. In other words, I can paddle my canoe across the top of a site that protects eelgrass or seagrass meadows because I am not damaging them in any way. That piece will be essential for them to be effective.

I will speak about the broader network. I believe the Chair used the term "connectivity", which means different things for different species and features. I will give the committee two examples of this. With a mussel or oyster bed, connectivity is touching or very close to touching because it is about how the sites communicate with each other for the species. With a large mammal or migratory whale, moving perhaps from the Azores to Icelandic or Arctic waters, connected sites might be hundreds of kilometres apart. There are links to the species life-cycle stages, such as calving, feeding, and following the food stocks. It would be possible and it would be one of our objectives to create a connected network, with the qualifier that connectivity means different things.

We certainly see the opportunity to collaborate with other countries in the Atlantic to create a broader network. This network of Irish sites will sit inside a north Atlantic network that is already in development. There are 1.5 million sq. km of the north Atlantic that is already protected. The work we are doing will fit inside that and will ensure that where we place sites, they will be connected, will be representative of all the things and will talk to other member states’ and countries’ sites, whether they are in the EU or outside of it. That piece will be possible. It would be a useful objective and would give an example of the sort of priority one could put into the ocean environment policy statement; where one could highlight the fact that these large mammals and their life-cycle stages would need to be protected on a trans-boundary basis.

The other point mentioned by the Chair was in respect of the movement of certain species that might change their location, through climate change or otherwise. As waters are getting warmer, cold water species are moving further north and species which we have never had before in our waters are appearing more frequently. We have thought about the idea of having an MPA with a shape which changes from time to time. We think that might be legally difficult to describe and even more difficult to enforce. I believe we have settled on the idea that we would be able to review the site designations so that if the science tells us that the thing we are protecting has moved to another location, we could consider the designation of the protection where that species now is scientifically proven to be. That will allow us to have the protection follow the thing we are trying to protect; for example, if it is moving to a more northerly location. We have seen evidence that commercial fish stocks are beginning to appear in more northerly locations. We think that other, non-commercial species may also move north to follow the colder water. Yes, I believe we can do that.