Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 18, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:

" "Marine Strategy Framework Directive” means Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive);".

I do not see any reason the Minister of State could not accept amendment No. 4. It is a technical amendment to provide that when referencing the marine strategy framework directive we would be clear about what directive is being referenced. We have done this in regard to other directives. The amendment is seeking consistency in terms of including a definition and a specific reference. This is important because this is the directive which provides for the designation of 30% of marine areas as protected by 2030. It is a crucial directive in this context.

I hate to press on it, but it is a real concern that we do not have the marine protected areas in place. The Minister of State will be aware that I am also concerned that other amendments that have been ruled out of order sought that we, at least, put in place interim protections. This is a crucial period. In setting out a marine planning framework, which I am aware will be reviewed in two years, we are planning on a framework for the long-term but there is a particular sensitive period, which is the period in which marine protected areas are not yet designated.That is why, although it is ruled out on grounds of cost, there is a requirement or a need for interim protective measures in order to ensure that we do not lose ground, albeit ground beneath the sea. We know that, especially with biodiversity, sometimes when something is lost, it is lost. Sometimes it can be recovered but at others it cannot.

We can look to things like migration patterns and so forth. I am aware the marine planning framework is being reviewed but there were not some of the substantial kinds of scrutiny needed within it. That is a little wider than the point. The main point is that amendment No. 4 is it is quite technical. It is specifically about naming that directive by its EU name in order that it will be clear that we are not talking about some different marine planning framework. I know that is not the intention; it is just a technical clarification.

Amendment No. 16 provides that when preparing, amending or revoking guidelines under section 7, the Minister's actions should be consistent with Article 1 of the maritime spatial planning directive, the objectives of the birds directive, the objectives of Article 2 of the habitats directive and the methodologies and the overall requirements of the maritime spatial planning directive, which we have just discussed. That again is an opportunity because amendment No. 16 gives the Minister scope to be anticipating that there will be 30% marine protected areas. In that sense it would be very useful to the Minister in his or her preparation of guidelines. The amendment also covers any programme of measures for the State specified under maritime spatial planning directive. It also provides that when preparing and developing such guidelines, the Minister shall have regard to the national marine planning framework. Again, in the development of such guidelines, the Minister can be anticipating aspects that may need to be further reviewed and identifying gaps or issues that brings to light.

Amendment No. 16 further provides that the Minister consult with "the Minister with any delegated responsibility for natural heritage". In this instance, that is the Minister of State. He will be aware that in either the spring or the autumn of last year, we had a very lengthy discussion about this matter. An unusual thing has happened whereby as part of our planning infrastructure previously, the Minister with responsibility for housing and planning had particular constraints on him or her. Those constraints also involved both Ministers to engage with a Minister with responsibility for heritage. It was a kind of belt-and-braces or checks-and-balances mechanism internal to the Cabinet to ensure that the Minister with responsibility for planning would bring his or her perspective into play, but would also consult the Minister with responsibility for heritage in order to get his or her perspective.

We now have same Minister with responsibility for both areas. That is why I am suggesting the Minister with responsibility for planning and development would consult with the Minister of State in his or her Department. That is currently the Minister of State present, who has delegated responsibility for natural heritage. This comes down to ensuring that even if a checks-and-balances mechanism between Departments is not there, it is still there within a single Department, given the different mandates Minister and Minister of State might have and, indeed, the different perspectives and expertise each might bring.

This also relates to the Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. The amendment also refers to the input and consideration that should be given in the development of guidelines to input from consultation with the public and with public bodies that have been consulted under the guidelines, to include any proposed revocations of those guidelines.

Amendment No. 35 would insert Directive 2008/56/EC on the framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy into the Bill. This is really appropriate and, again, in spirit with what the Minister of State said regarding the importance of engagement. This directive might not seem to be a direct part of this. However, it relates to community action in marine environmental policy and is one of the things that the actions of the competent authority should be consistent with. I am hopeful the Minister of State will actually be able to accept amendment No. 35 because it is very simple and constructive.

Amendment No. 36 would insert into the Bill the requirement in the maritime spatial planning directive to address marine spatial planning while ensuring good environmental status.It would make the directive something that the actions of the competent authority should be consistent with. This is also very much consistent with the just transition and climate justice principles and the international conversations that are happening in the context of the sustainable development goals regarding life under water and ensuring that we do not simply have discussions about the regulation of industry and what industry may wish to do with maritime areas. Rather, we must see the engagement of community and society in respect of marine and environmental matters and recognise that the relationships in this regard are important. Let us not, for example, focus solely on the economic relationship that certain actors may have with maritime areas because community engagement is also important. The Minister of State will be aware that this is part of the international conversation in terms of marine planning and marine protection. It would be a positive signal for Ireland to place the directive within the scope of the matters for consideration.

Amendment No. 42 is similarly based on the framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy. This is the kind of measure that we know provides ownership, connection and meaning. It creates a dynamic whereby, in advance, this would be complementary to effective and successful maritime planning, but it is also going to be important down the line for marine protection and for this to be a positive framework that works. I hope the Minister of State might look to the opportunity presented by the directive and include it in the sections as proposed in amendments Nos. 35, 36, 40 and 42.