Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I am speaking to amendments Nos. 22 and 24, since the Senator withdrew No. 23. I thank her for making those significant points about nature. I appreciate that.

Amendment No. 22 proposes to cherry pick elements of Article 5(2) of the MSP directive. This is contrary to the directive. Article 3 of the MSP directive defines maritime spatial planning as “a process by which the relevant Member State’s authorities analyse and organise human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives”. The Senator referred to that. Article 5 requires member states to consider economic, social and environmental aspects to support sustainable development and growth in the maritime sector. The preservation, protection and improvement of the marine environment, although hugely significant, is not the only objective to be pursued. The Bill has been crafted to ensure that it transposes the directive consistently recognising the need to achieve ecological, economic and social priorities. I would invite the Senator to read through the NMPF and she will see that the first section is dedicated to ocean health. The first 21 marine planning policies of the 80 odd policies instruct decision makers to have regard to ocean health.If we do not have a healthy marine environment everyone suffers, including those making a living from the sea. The points were well made by the Senator in relation to COP25 and while there were significant disappointments with regard to COP26, there were also significant gains, particularly with regard to the marine area. The Irish Government participated virtually in COP15 on biodiversity in Kunming in China. We will be participating again next year with a suite of policies and our objectives around the marine area and marine protection will ensure that we have the high-level ambition that we consistently speak about. The complementarity to which the Senator refers will be embedded in all of the work we do and within that, the adherence to the sustainable development goals is something of which we are critically aware. In particular, we are focused on sustainable development goal No.17 which refers to the partnerships for the goals, which is what we have achieved in our discussions and deliberations here this afternoon. We are very clear that this is a partnership approach, with Government leading on policy but also working with the State and semi-State sector, industry and NGOs to ensure that we have a thriving blue economy and thriving nature and biodiversity protection in our marine space. This is something of which we are consistently mindful in this legislation and in the work we are doing on marine protection. I am really delighted that the Senator has raised it here this afternoon.

Specifically with regard to amendment No. 24, I am confident that the wording of Article 16(5) adequately addressed the requirements of the directive. I remind the Members that the directive states that while it is appropriate for the European Union to provide a framework for maritime spatial planning, member states remain responsible and competent for designing and determining the format and content of such plans. Any marine spatial plans or designated maritime area plans must meet the requirements of the national marine planning framework and in so doing the requirements of the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive. While I appreciate the spirit of these amendments, I am confident that all of these aspects have already been covered in the Bill and, therefore, I am opposing these two amendments.