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

I have very mixed feelings about this motion. I am not from the south-coast area so I lack the sort of specific knowledge or guidance that would allow me to make a properly informed decision as to what I think about this motion.

We all know we need to develop renewable energy and that offshore renewable energy will be an important part of that. We should also know, however, that the development of offshore renewable energy should not come at the expense of the destruction of the marine environment or the displacement of other livelihoods. In fact, EU directives require that there is proper assessment of the impact on biodiversity, habitats and the maritime environment, and require that there should be no displacement of existing livelihoods. It is not allowed. I do not know what the fishers in that area are saying on this because I am not in conversation with them. If they are listening to this debate and want to message me, I would be interested to hear what they have to say about this.

I assume some of these areas, at least, are some of the relevant projects. I do not know if the officials or the Minister of State are willing to give us a nod as to whether they are or are not the relevant projects. Is that what they are called? They are not. Okay. Have they been assessed as to whether they should be marine protected areas? That is what I want to know, because we have campaigned for a proper planned approach to the development of our maritime area. The Government has done it the other way around in letting the developers decide which sites they want and then the State retrospectively rubber-stamps them by designating the areas the developers have already selected, in the absence of any prior consultation with stakeholders or proper assessment of whether those areas should be marine protected. Are they suitable? The developers have chosen a lot of these sites.

One person who sent me some notes said area A - there are areas A, B, C and D, if I understand this DMAP correctly - is known as the EirGrid area. I do not know if that is true. It is just from notes I have been sent, but it is concerning to me. Are the developers dictating the location of these sites and the designation of these areas as suitable? Have they been assessed for whether they should be marine protected areas? Has there been a proper consultation? I see reference to non-statutory consultations in the notes I got. What does a non-statutory consultation mean? Is it a consultation as required by Aarhus? Is it compliant with all the EU directives in terms of protecting our maritime environment, not displacing existing livelihoods and not destroying biodiversity in the name of addressing climate change?

A point I have made many times is that the biodiversity crisis is every bit as important as and imminent - arguably more imminent - than the climate crisis in terms of the potential for whole ecosystems to collapse. Notes sent to me suggest that area A in particular is an extremely sensitive spawning ground for fish. Has there been an assessment as to what the possible damage might be if we develop that particular site? I know the Kish Bank and the Codling Bank are areas that should not be developed because they are sensitive, or at least need to be fully assessed for the potential impact on marine life, on spawning grounds and on the displacement of existing livelihoods. I have deep concerns this is developer led rather than being based on the best principles of sustainable development. If we want to save our planet, we have to save biodiversity as well as taking urgent action, as we must, to develop renewable energy to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

See this speech in context