Professor Tasman Crowe:

I thank the Chair for the introduction. As mentioned, I have a particular interest the Bill because I was chair of the advisory group of 20 experts who prepared the 2020 report on expanding Ireland’s marine protected areas, MPA, network. We engaged with more than 100 key stakeholders in doing so. We all worked hard to ensure the report could provide the best advice based on international best practice and Ireland’s unique context and considerations. I am delighted to see many of its key recommendations reflected directly in the Bill.

In this opening statement, I will outline my views on the importance of and rationale for some of the core elements of the Bill. The first of these is to give clarity in law on what an MPA is. It is important for everyone to appreciate that designating an MPA does not entail putting a fence up around the area and preventing anything from happening in it. In some cases, there may be grounds for this, and indeed the EU biodiversity strategy seeks ‘strict protection’ for 10% of our maritime area, but that is not explicitly reflected in the Bill. However, in most cases, for each MPA there will be stated objectives that relate to the specified species, habitats or other features an MPA is designated to protect. Conservation measures, which are regulations, restrictions or actions, will be tailored to those objectives, such that an activity that does not conflict with them would not be restricted.

In other cases, activities may be able to proceed in modified form. For example, if there were protection for a seagrass bed on the sea floor, leisure boats would perhaps be allowed to pass over it but not to anchor in it.

A key provision of the Bill - perhaps the single most important one, even if it is not as prominent as I think it should be - is for stakeholder consultation and participation throughout the process of identifying and managing MPAs. That kind of co-creation and co-management is becoming a key principle in MPAs around the world. The aim is to foster a sense of ownership and stewardship. It is important to give real opportunity for discussion of management measures that will impact people's lives, both positively and negatively. That will help to engender understanding of, and voluntary support for, the rules, but it is also important that final responsibility for enforcement lies with the State and that mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance.

Another key point is that MPAs would not be designated on just an ad hocbasis. The first step is to establish an ocean environmental policy statement. Decisions can then be made by reference to it in a strategic approach to meet agreed objectives and targets in the context of national priorities and international policy instruments, such as the EU's marine strategy framework directive and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.

In fact, there is an indication of provision for two broad approaches to selecting MPAs within that policy environment. The first is a systematic approach considering the set or network of MPAs and what we want that network to achieve under the ocean environment policy statement. The second is for MPAs to be proposed by individuals or groups in society and reviewed against a set of criteria such that they also contribute to overarching goals. Either way, a rigorous, evidence-based approach is important, using best available evidence and applying the precautionary principle.

As such, there is provision in the Bill for an independent expert body and other sources of advice to inform the Minister's decisions. That is also important, partly because trust, impartiality and objectivity are key and also because this approach draws on recognised expertise from the full range of disciplinary perspectives needed to co-create an effective and efficient network of MPAs.

A key part of the rationale for the Bill is the scope to designate for a range of features that cannot be explicitly protected under the EU birds and habitats directives, to designate for protection against specific pressures and to adapt in the face of climate change and changing priorities and through periodic reviews on a cycle of six years or less. As well as threatened and declining species and habitats, ecologically important species and habitats can be conserved, respecting their roles in providing essential habitat for many other species and focusing on essential ecosystem services such as productivity and carbon sequestration for the mitigation of climate change. There is also a provision for temporary emergency protection in some instances. This kind of flexibility and the cycle of reviews give Ireland the scope to ensure that its network of MPAs reflects and contributes to evolving international best practice, is improved through our own experience and meets our full range of needs as a nation.

Having said that, there is also explicit mention of transboundary considerations. That is also important because marine life does not respect international boundaries and it is essential that there is some joined up thinking with our neighbours.

All in all, I think legislation based on this Bill would represent a significant step change in our relationship with the marine environment and present a huge opportunity to better manage our interactions with it, not only for the health and sustainability of the ecosystems themselves but also for the well-being and prosperity of current and future generations. That aspiration was shared by the stakeholders with whom we engaged in preparing the report that substantially underpins it and was reflected in the extensive public consultation that followed. Notably, many of the principles enshrined in the Bill also form the basis for recommendations emerging from the Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss.