Dr. Donal Griffin:

A lot of the issues raised in the written submission have been covered. I want to raise one final issue that is worth stating now because it may avoid conflict down the line when it comes to designating MPAs. The Bill really needs to include and clearly define the hierarchy or the varying levels of MPA management that our new MPAs will receive. This hierarchy of different MPA management levels and strategies will be needed to achieve the ecologically coherent network of MPAs that we have talked about. That will range from lightly protected or multi-use sites that we predominantly have at the minute with Natura 2000 but also include that suite - the 10% - of strictly protected sites that we talked about earlier. Again, to avoid confusion and conflict in the future, the Bill must provide the obligation and the framework for these different levels of MPA protection and have that stated within the conservation objective of the site as a mandatory aspect.

That would be really helpful. If that were addressed early, it would not be surprising anyone with the strict level of protection if everyone was clear that that was a possibility from the start. I thank the committee for inviting us here today. It has been very useful for me.