Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 29, to delete lines 20 to 28 and substitute the following: "(2) Not later than 1 month following enactment (of this legislation), the Minister shall commence and carry out a review of the existing NMPF to—

(a) review its compliance with the MSP Directive,

(b) provide for interim protections for the marine environment, and

(c) in respect of the inclusion of relevant projects in the existing NMPF—

(i) to specifically review the compatibility of the inclusion of the relevant projects in the existing NMPF with the requirements of the MSP Directive, and

(ii) to address consequences arising from the delayed implementation of marine protected areas and adequate designation of sites under the Birds Directive and Habitats Directive.

(3) Notwithstanding anything elsewhere in this Act no Maritime Area Consent, or Development Consent can be granted pending the conclusion of the review under subsection (2).

(4) The Minister shall conduct a public consultation as part of the review and shall also 2 consult with at least with the following organisations:

(a) The Marine Institute;

(b) The Environmental Protection Agency;

(c) The Heritage Council;

(d) Fáilte Ireland;

(e) An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland;

(f) Sustainable Water Network Ireland.

(5) The Minister shall assess the compliance of the existing NMPF including in particular how the existing NMPF complies with the following articles of the MSP Directive:

(a) Article 1;

(b) Article 4(4);

(c) Article 4(5);

(d) Article 5(1);

(e) Article 5(2);

(f) Article 6;

(g) Article 8(1);

(h) Article 8(2);

(i) Article 10;

(j) Article 11;

(k) the requirements of recital 2 relating to the overarching constraint that development and decision making in marine environment has to be done whilst achieving good environmental status as set out in Directive 2008/56/EC.

(6) The Minister shall consider the implications of at least the following assessments in reviewing the adequacy and compliance of the existing NMPF and the need to provide for interim protection areas, pending the designation of further sites as marine protected areas under Article 13(4) of Directive 2008/56/EC:

(a) Art 17, 10 and 11 of the Maritime Strategy Framework Directive;

(b) Article 16 and 17 of the Habitats Directive;

(c) Article 10 of the Birds Directive;

(d) any data gaps and deficiencies in the assessments highlighted in the consultation responses to paragraphs (a) to (c) above;

(e) the latest Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) report, and its relevance and conclusions for marine biodiversity and relevant avian species including native and migratory bird species relevant for the area of the MSP;

(f) migratory and foraging pathways for marine biodiversity and relevant avian species including native and migratory bird species, to and from, and through the MSP;

(g) outstanding and or inadequate designations in the marine environment or in coastal sites under both the Birds and Habitats Directive;

(h) the requirements for the strict protection of species and habitats listed under Annex IV of the Habitats Directive;

(i) take account of the effect of climate change on patterns of migration; and

(j) take a precautionary approach to data gaps and deficiencies in respect of ecological surveys in respect of the MSP.

(7) The Minister shall detail his detailed reasons and rationale for amending or not amending the existing NMPF including in light of the criteria and considerations above.".

What we are trying to do with this amendment is to say that we need an urgent review of the national marine planning framework and that the review needs to ensure compliance with the maritime spatial planning directive to provide for interim protections for the marine environment and, essentially, to check compliance between the national marine planning framework and all the key EU directives relating to maritime spatial planning and the protection of the environment, the habitats directive and the birds directive. We should also ensure we have consultation with organisations that have expertise in and knowledge of the marine environment such as the Heritage Council, Fáilte Ireland, An Taisce, the Sustainable Water Network, the Marine Institute and so on.

Other Deputies will elaborate further on this point because the amendment is tabled in my name as well as the names of Deputies Cian O'Callaghan and Eoin Ó Broin. To summarise, our concern, a concern that was corroborated by the officials dealing with marine protected areas, whom we met yesterday, is that in an ideal world we would be doing things the other way around as to how we will manage our maritime area of 220 million acres, an enormous area multiples the size of the land area of this country. It is a hugely important resource for biodiversity and in its role as a carbon sink. In an ideal world we would have had our designated marine protected areas before talking about giving consent for human activity and major development, particularly major industrial development, in the maritime area when that human activity and industrial development could potentially do damage to our marine resources, to biodiversity and to the capacity of the marine as a key environmental protection for humanity in its capacity to absorb carbon. The officials acknowledged that we would have done that first. Ireland is at the bottom of the league table when it comes to the designation of marine protected areas, with only a little more than 2% of our huge marine area, one of the biggest marine areas of any country in Europe, protected, as against France, at over 40%, and other countries at 50% to 60%. We are behind the curve. The officials acknowledged that.

We are concerned because the legacy projects that get special status in the national marine planning framework, which were sites developed for industrial offshore renewable infrastructure, were selected by the developers and the developers have said very explicitly they want "a developer-led approach" to developing offshore wind. We do not believe it is in line with sustainable planning and development or with the spirit or the word or letter of environmental protections in EU directives that we would have a developer-led approach. However, the companies that have those specially designated legacy projects have selected their own sites. We do not know whether those sites are incredibly sensitive and important to the protection of marine biodiversity and our marine environment. That is a problem and, therefore, we want the maximum protection put in place and we want the national marine planning framework to be reviewed in that context in order that we do not have inappropriate, potentially damaging development taking place before we have a plan-led approach that is fully in compliance with all the key environmental directives of the European Union to protect our precious marine resources and environment.

See this speech in context