Dr. ?ine Ryall:

The citizens' assembly made the stark finding that: "The State has comprehensively failed to adequately fund, implement and enforce existing national legislation, national policies, EU biodiversity-related laws and directives related to biodiversity." That key finding made clear that a fundamental change in approach is needed right across all levels of environmental governance if we are going to reverse the decline in biodiversity and move towards restoration. My brief statement will focus on two elements. First, implementation and enforcement of environmental law and, second, environmental rights.

On implementation and enforcement, I start by emphasising that we already have an extensive range of environmental laws in place, and many of which are specifically designed to protect nature and biodiversity. Implementation and enforcement of this existing body of law must be a priority. The assembly makes this crystal clear in recommendation 2 and again in recommendation 8. It is essential that this fundamental point about prioritisation, implementation and enforcement of our existing nature laws must come through clearly in this committee's recommendations and report to the Government. The assembly also recommended changes to our existing court structures to provide what it described as an environmental court at the District Court and Circuit Court levels. Specialist environmental courts are well established in a number of other jurisdictions. There is no doubt that specialisation can bring significant benefits. That much is clear. However, this is only if the design and implementation of any new model is properly worked out and fits well within existing structures. There are complex issues here that need to be teased out. I am happy to further discuss those issues with the committee, if that would be helpful.

Interestingly, the assembly took the view that all citizens - this is the expression used in its report - should be empowered with legal standing to protect nature and biodiversity in the courts. As many committee members will be aware, standing is one of a number of elements governing access to justice in environmental matters. Beyond that question there are other important elements. Access to the courts must be affordable. It is well known that legal costs can be prohibitive in practice, at least in some cases. The remedies available, including injunctive relief - a court order preventing environmental damage and harm from arising in the first place - must be available and effective.

All of those elements are essential if individuals, NGOs and others are to be empowered to enforce the law with a view to protecting nature and biodiversity.

To be clear, there is a very important public interest dimension to all this. In my view, that is another essential point that should come across powerfully in this committee's report to the Government. The public plays a very important role in enforcement of environmental law, including our nature protection laws.

Turning to environmental rights, it is well known at this stage and was mentioned by the first witness that the assembly recommended that a referendum be held on an amendment to the Constitution to protect biodiversity and that that proposed amendment should include both what are called the substantive human right to a healthy environment and the procedural environmental rights. The procedural environmental rights, in order that everyone is clear, include the right to information on the environment, the right to participate in environmental decision-making and, probably most important of all, the right to access to justice in environmental matters, which I have mentioned previously. The substantive right and the procedural rights go hand in hand. Both fit together, and that is the approach that has to be taken.

What I will say at a more general level, which may be of assistance to the committee, is that there is a growing consensus internationally and at European level of recognising the right to a healthy environment. That reflects the challenges we face as a society and as a global community. The strongest and possibly most important example of that is that, in July 2022, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution recognising "the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment" as a human right. That is a very significant development because it confirms that emergence of a high level of consensus internationally among states, and that is something this committee really cannot afford to ignore. The assembly's recommendations around the right to a healthy environment as regards the substantive and procedural rights are very much in line with what is happening internationally and could in no way be regarded as being in any way radical, if that is of assistance to the committee.

I will conclude this brief opening statement with some general observations. It is clear that other witnesses will address the issue of the rights of nature, so I will not mention that in this opening statement. It is difficult to overstate the importance of a coherent, overarching policy on nature protection and restoration. It should be remembered that restoration is a fundamental element to this. It is not just about protecting nature; we are now in the territory of really having to move forward on restoration. That coherent, overarching policy would then underpin the transformational change that is needed here. The biodiversity crisis must be addressed systematically. I am sure the committee has heard that before. That systematic approach involves this co-ordinated whole-of-government approach with, of course, the necessary funding made available to support public authorities. We will also need a wide range of legal tools to be deployed to ensure accountability, the importance of which I emphasise again.

The assembly's report and detailed recommendations provide enhanced visibility, which is so important. It makes this issue, this challenge, around biodiversity more visible to the public and demonstrates how it can be addressed, that there is hope and time to act but that urgent action is required. It is important to remind the committee that we see a growing awareness among the public, including children and young people, of the interlinked climate and biodiversity crisis and the need for urgent action. This committee now has the opportunity to build on the assembly's powerful recommendations to shape the future direction of environmental law and governance and to bring about that transformation in the State's response to the protection of nature and biodiversity. It is important this opportunity, which does not come around very often, is seized and that a balanced set of evidence-based recommendations with strong cross-party support emerges from the committee's deliberations. There is no doubt in my mind that there is significant momentum now and very significant political consensus for action.

It falls to this committee to deliver the necessary roadmap to move things forward with purpose and urgency. I am happy to assist the committee with any questions its members may have.