Mr. Niall Goodwin:

On behalf of Wind Energy Ireland, WEI, I thank the committee for the invitation to appear today. As mentioned by the Chair, I am joined by my colleagues, Mr. Denis Devane, senior policy analyst, and Ms Patricia Comiskey, consenting and government relations manager at Simply Blue Group and member of our offshore consenting committee. I strongly welcome the publication of the general scheme as a significant step towards achieving a shared commitment to reach our target of protecting 30% of Ireland’s maritime area by 2030. We live not only in a climate emergency, to which offshore wind farms are part of the solution, but also in a global biodiversity crisis where marine protected areas, MPAs, have a critical role to play. We emphasise our commitment to the idea of co-location of offshore wind farms with MPAs. Offshore wind projects can be suitably located with MPAs, particularly where there is a requirement to rejuvenate areas of seabed or reef. There are real and tangible examples in the North Sea, where offshore wind installations have resulted in ecosystem benefits within the footprint of the project. For example, there has been ongoing monitoring at a Belgian offshore wind farm since 2005, which shows growth in reefs post-wind farm construction. MaREI, the Science Foundation Ireland research centre for energy, climate and marine, recently published a review on the ecosystem benefits of offshore wind projects, which we recommend to this committee, along with a recent presentation at WEI’s offshore conference on nature enhancement and offshore wind. We also acknowledge that there will be MPAs designated where offshore wind energy development would be completely unsuitable. Offshore wind farms and MPAs can not only co-exist, but together can be vital to ensuring the maintenance of Ireland’s marine biodiversity.

I will now make some comments on the general scheme of the Bill in the hope that it will improve the final legislation, taking head 3 first. We would like to raise a query regarding some of the definitions and applications set out under this head. Section 3(1)(c) suggests that the Act will apply to the airspace above the areas identified in sections 1(a) and 1(b). The explanatory note states that this definition is drawn from the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021. As members will be aware, the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021 makes no reference to airspace. Members will also recall late last year that a proposal from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage to amend the definition of the foreshore in law by extending it to the airspace was withdrawn. We ask members to consider raising this issue with the Department in its report to seek clarification as to the reason airspace will be included in definitions for MPAs but is not included in the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021, nor in the definition of "foreshore", as recently amended.

Regarding head 6, ocean environment policy statement, section 6(6) states that the period for public consultation on the draft ocean environment policy statement should be four weeks. We strongly support comments made by Senator Boyhan that this period is insufficient. We, for example, would struggle to respond comprehensively in that timeframe and it would be even more challenging for members of the public or organisations with limited resources. Considering that once the statement is finalised it will not be reviewed again for six years, it makes sense to make this consultation as accessible as possible. We ask the committee to consider extending the consultation period to at least eight weeks. In addition, under section 6(3), we propose the inclusion of the EU renewable energy directive, Directive (EU) 2018/2001, and European Climate Law, Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, which are key drivers of national emission reductions and the policy statement should consider them closely. They enshrine in legislation the obligation to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and a 55% reduction by 2030. Finally, the habitats directive and birds directive should be added to the list, given that the Bill states it "shall not consider proposals relating to the protection and conservation of species or habitats protected under the Natura 2000 Network unless such proposals provide additional protection".

Under head 7 - identification of potential marine protected areas, there are a number of terms that are not, to our knowledge, defined in legislation and about which there might be different interpretations. Section 5 refers, for example, to "ecosystem services" and an "ecosystem-based approach". It also requires the Minister to "consider sustainable development". We are not objecting to the inclusion of these terms but suggest it is important that they be clearly and specifically defined in legislation so there is a common understanding as to what is proposed.

There is no reference in head 10, consultation, to the need for consultation with the holders of maritime area consents, MACs. As members will be aware, the first of these consents was awarded shortly before Christmas and it is likely that the second set, for what will be known as phase 2 projects, will be granted before the end of the year. It seems appropriate, especially in a context where the holders of fossil fuel licences are to be consulted, that the same opportunity would be afforded to holders of MACs. We ask the committee to consider recommending that in its final report. Section 7 under this head sets out the Minister’s power to “accept, reject or amend” any proposal to designate part of our marine space as an MPA. It would be helpful, in the interests of transparency, for the Minister to be required to set out in writing the grounds for any such decision and for this to be made public and put before the Oireachtas. On head 16, composition and appointment of the scientific and technical and socioeconomic body, we welcome the proposal for an expert body to be established to support the Minister and the designation of MPAs. We suggest that, as well as possessing the expertise set out under this head, the Minister would be required to ensure that the expert body includes representation from environmental NGOs, the fishing and aquaculture community and the offshore renewable energy industry. We also suggest that the committee consider, as well as providing for a secretariat, that funding be set aside to support representatives on that expert body to fully participate in the process. We are conscious from our engagement with environmental organisations and seafood industry representatives that their capacity to contribute to the extent they would like in many areas of marine planning is restricted by their resources and consideration should be given to assisting them.

In closing, I would like to briefly expand on the point regarding resources. Designation of an MPA should be based on robust evidence and data. This means funding must be allocated to support baseline data acquisition and ongoing monitoring mechanisms. These programmes must be flexible enough to allow for the management of MPAs to adapt as new evidence comes to light where, for example, boundaries may need to shift to account for particularly mobile species. Consideration should also be given to the level of support required for enforcement. In addition, significant consideration will be required for systems to store and manage data gathered in the marine environment. Engagement with the environmental NGOs is crucial to ensure robust planning and development of this resource. We advocate increases in government support to underpin marine environmental NGO activities in Ireland. I reiterate the point I made at the start that we believe the co-existence of offshore renewable energy and MPAs is important and that there is a need for clarity on the definitions and legal certainty in the head of the Bill. I thank the Chair and members of the committee. I look forward to the discussion.