Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will address a couple of the other amendments so.

In terms of the amendment which the Minister of State has replied to, there is one aspect which I neglected to mention and which it would be useful to get a response to. There has been a concern about whether there was adequate and robust sensitivity mapping in the development of the current NMPF. If I was satisfied that that had been adequate these concerns would not arise but the opportunity was missed in that development for doing more sensitivity mapping.

One area that I specifically wanted to highlight is the issue of the migratory and foraging pathways in terms of marine biodiversity. I am always concerned. The studies of cetacean sonar, for example, has been an area of real importance. The Minister of State will be aware of the research on that matter.

The migratory patterns are very significant and we know that there has not been adequate consideration. In a separate debate, which we do not have to have, we have seen the issues arising at Annacotty Weir in terms of the migratory patterns of marine life. I will not make the Minister of State answer on the Annacotty Weir right now but it relates to that same issue of the migratory patterns. Is the Minister of State satisfied that those matters are properly being captured in the framework as it is? Amendment No. 29 proposes that the review under the NMPF be carried out in accordance with section 17(3), which provides for the review of the MSP six years after it is published. It is basically trying to ensure that the review of the NMPF be carried out in accordance with the same criteria as set out in section 17(3) for the review of an MSP.