Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on the debate. This is a welcome Bill that is necessary to ensure the maritime area will see some sort of control over the development of its resources as well as preservation of environmentally vital areas, which is probably a more important element at this stage.

Our record of protecting the environment has been pretty poor. The marine area has really only been recognised in Ireland recently. Those of us who have lived in maritime areas have known of its importance to our communities. In the past, there has been a them or us attitude to preservation of the marine environment, but that is changing. Vitally, we know the whole environment is interlinked.

I would be concerned as to how the planning of the marine environment will progress even with this Bill. Marine protected areas, MPAs, are geographically defined parts of the marine environment where a limit has been placed on offshore industry and other human activity to protect marine habitats. Only a small percentage of our marine environment is protected currently. I believe it works out at approximately 2.13%. This will have to increase significantly in the next few years. It is not something our fishing communities and island communities should be afraid of, but given how the Bill might develop, they may well be.

MPAs are a key tool in ensuring the conservation of marine ecosystems. Legislation on expanding the MPA network will follow the Bill, but why must it follow? They could have been managed together. The network legislation is large and complicated, but this so-called complicated Bill has been put back a couple of years already. I am afraid that damaging human activities, pollution, biodiversity loss and climate change will be left until the end after a great deal more damage has been done.

Developers will be granted marine area consents, MACs, in ecologically important areas. There is no way around that, which I understand. According to Dr. Tasman Crowe of the Earth Institute in his contribution during the committee's consideration of this Bill, the MPAs will require "implementation as part of the national marine planning framework" and "co-ordination among relevant Departments and wide and sustained consultation". Therein lies a major part of the problem, as it seems everything falls down in this country when we need to have Departments work together to achieve a goal. How will the Minister of State ensure Departments will work together? Which Department will take the lead? Will his Department even be interested in seeing how this develops? These are important questions and their answers will have an impact on how the Bill progresses and whether it is successful.

The Bill does not include all of the marine environment. It amazes me that this can be the case. Fishery harbours are not included and fish farming has been kept out of the Bill. How could a Bill that is supposed to deal with the marine environment leave out fishing ports and fish farming? While there appears to be some mapping of consent for fish farms in the Bill and through the environmental process, how much does it integrate fish farming into the overall marine environment protection? This is a vital issue.

The Bill's main purpose seems to be the development of offshore energy projects, particularly wind, although there is tidal and wave power as well. There is no doubt it needs to be managed in a way that allows schemes that have already gone some way down the development road to go ahead. I presume they will still need to have regard to environmental needs. Even though all of the MPAs have not been designated, it will still be known where they are likely to be. This needs to be taken into account.

I note that marine planning is developer-led and the intention is to move to a plan-led system. This is a laudable aspiration and is where we should be heading, but we do not have a good record of it in Ireland. That problem will arise in future. Will marine developers supply environmental impact statements for their developments? An offshore environmental impact statement, EIS, will be the same as an onshore EIS in that it will not say a development should not go ahead. A system should be developed like the one that obtains in respect of Natura bays and fish farming, in which regard we did something well, albeit only because we were forced kicking and screaming by Europe into doing it. Working through it was slow, but it has done a proper job. Under it, it is the Department and the Marine Institute that carry out the assessments and tell the developers what the latter have to take cognisance of in the licensing regimes. That is where we should be going with all developments. The State or its planning authorities should conduct the assessments, not the developers. He who pays the piper calls the tune. That is the reality of the situation. As I have stated numerous times, I have yet to see an EIS that says a development is too detrimental to the environment to go ahead. The person paying for the assessment will get the answer he or she wants. We could face this problem in future.

There is an opportunity to do this right. Let us take the time and put a genuine plan-led development system in place. The plan-led aspect is vital. I would love to see it working out that developments take place in this way. Unfortunately, only time will tell whether that is what we achieve through this process. If we need to change and adjust to protect the environment, I hope we will not be too late in doing so. We must get this right. Maybe I am being too negative. I am not wildly confident we will have such a system, but I hope we do. If we do, we will have something to point to as a model for the way ahead. Maybe we will be able to move the offshore development system onshore so that we can have proper developments onshore as well. Time will tell.

See this speech in context