Professor Tasman Crowe:

I am not sure. I guess it depends a little bit on the machinations behind the scene subsequent to the Act being put together.

Technically, it is captured by the mention of "ecosystem services", and particularly the kind of regulating services. It does get us there under that umbrella but I believe there is an argument for making it explicit that one of the purposes of the protected area network should be to help us to grapple with climate change. Carbon sequestration is one way in which it does that, which is part of mitigation, but there is also the sense in which habitats provide us with some adaptation. They help to protect our coastlines and those kinds of salt marsh habitats and seagrass habitats that are very good for carbon sequestration. They also reduce the impact of storms and storm surges on the coastal environment.

One could envisage a stronger statement about the interconnection between protected areas and climate change. There are some statements about the need to adapt the protected area network in the face of climate change, which I believe is important as well. It is increasingly recognised that although one would designate an area in one place now, climate change is such that the environment there is shifting and the species are moving elsewhere. The provision for a review to be able to revisit and change the designations is important.

I do not know enough about the political process to know how to answer the Deputy's question directly other than to say that even though it is technically covered under "ecosystem services", it could be more explicitly specified. People would see value in having marine protected areas connected to climate change, which they very much are.