Everyone is very welcome to this meeting. Before we begin, I want to bring to the attention of witnesses the note on privilege. We have many witnesses present. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. I believe all witnesses are on site. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at the committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at my direction as Chair. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by the witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from proceedings.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. If a member is joining us via Microsoft Teams, I ask that prior to making their contribution they confirm to me that they are on the grounds of Leinster House. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, I will direct them to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

The item on the agenda is the marine protected areas, MAPs. This is the second meeting we have had on this topic. We will hear from several witnesses. Representing the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment are Mr. Rory O'Leary, principal officer, Dr. Oliver Ó Cadhla, senior adviser, Mr. Conall O'Connor, assistant principal officer, and Ms Joanne Kenny, executive officer. From the Seafood Ireland Alliance, we have Mr. John Lynch, chief executive of the Irish South and East Fish Producers Organisation, and Mr. Patrick Murphy from the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation. Representing Fair Seas are Dr. Dónal Griffin, campaign co-ordinator, Ms Grace Carr, marine policy and advocacy officer of the Irish Wildlife Trust, and Ms Emma Armshaw, marine and costal policy officer of the Sustainable Water Network.

Joining us also from Fair Seas, we have Ms Iseult Cambay in the Visitors Gallery. She is very welcome. Representing Coalition 2030, we are joined by Ms Karen Ciesielski, co-ordinator of the Environmental Pillar, and Ms Oonagh Duggan, head of policy and advocacy with BirdWatch Ireland. Ms Rochelle Streker from BirdWatch Ireland also joins us in the Public Gallery.

We have quite a number of members here and we have a lot of witnesses, more than we have had at a meeting of this committee to date, I think. The opening statements of the various witness groups have been circulated to members in advance, so I ask that each group of witnesses gives a two-minute summary of their opening statement. There are clocks around the room - red digital clocks with countdown timers. I ask witnesses to keep an eye on them. When we go to the questions and answers immediately after the opening statements, I will ask members to indicate. I will call them one by one. Each member will be allocated ten minutes in which they get to put their questions and receive answers. I say that to remind members who might have forgotten over the Christmas break that it is ten minutes, and that has to include both questions and time for witnesses to answer. To make things move more fluidly and to aid us in progressing this meeting, I ask members when they are directing a question to say to whom they are directing it, either the individual or the witness group.

I will go to the witnesses in the order I read out. I ask the Department officials to give a two-minute summary. Then I will go to the other witness groups.

I thank the committee for the invitation to participate at today's meeting. I am principal officer for marine strategic policy in the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. I am joined my colleagues Dr. Oliver Ó Cadhla, senior adviser in the Department's marine, environment and planning section, Mr. Conall O'Connor, assistant principal officer, and Ms Joanne Kenny, executive officer, the latter two from the marine strategic policy section. To summarise the opening statement, I would like to emphasise some key points.

Marine protected areas are key area-based measures that can contribute significantly to ensuring that we have a healthy, biologically diverse, productive and sustainably used marine environment. They are important tools to help Ireland to achieve EU and international obligations and to designating a minimum of 30% of our maritime area by 2030. The area of Ireland's seas and ocean that is currently under area-based protection amounts to approximately 10%, so we acknowledge we have a distance to go.

The work to deliver a legislative basis for the designation and management of MPAs through a stand-alone marine protected areas Bill had been under way since 2022 and 2023. Following the transfer of responsibility for marine environment functions, including marine protected areas, to the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment, a review of options for delivering the legislative basis for MPAs was carried out. This review looked at two main options: first, continuing with the MPA Bill and, second, incorporating the MPA designation process into the existing designated maritime area plan, DMAP, process under the Maritime Area Planning Act 2021, also known as the MAP Act.

This work concluded that the latter option was the preferred option for the following reasons. A stand-alone Bill would establish a third system of making spatial designations in Irish waters, thereby adding another layer of complexity to marine governance. An analysis of DMAP provisions against the strategic objectives of the draft MPA Bill concluded that MPAs could be delivered more coherently and quickly by way of amendment to the MAP Act rather than through that Bill. In particular, the DMAP process, like the draft marine protected areas Bill 2024, makes provision for extensive public participation, significant stakeholder engagement and appropriate oversight as well as very clear policy certainty and governance for the designated area. This represents a more integrated and aligned approach through the use of existing procedures. MPAs can fit well into DMAP structures, and their inclusion in the MAP Act further embeds environmental matters in planning legislation, emphasising the interconnection of planning and the environment in which human activity occurs. This integrates the ecosystem-based approach to management, which underpins the implementation of the marine strategy framework directive and maritime spatial planning across the EU.

I will give a short synopsis of the opening statement we submitted.

The Seafood Ireland Alliance, SIA, recognises the need for conservation and restoration of sensitive marine habitats and ecosystems. This is important not only for addressing the biodiversity crisis but also for supporting sustainable fisheries, which are critical for food security. As outlined in the EU Action Plan: Protecting and Restoring Marine Ecosystems for Sustainable and Resilient Fisheries:

Sustainably managed and caught fish is a source of high quality and affordable protein with a relatively low carbon footprint. It is essential to food security for many people and to maintaining the economic basis of fishing communities. Ensuring sustainable fishing and sustainably managed fish stocks is also key to protecting ocean biodiversity and fighting against climate change.

The development of marine protected areas, MPAs, offers one approach towards protecting marine habitats and sensitive species. However, to be effective and successful, their development, design and designation need to be informed by robust, transparent science and supported by the participation and engagement of all relevant stakeholders.

The SIA recommends that we adopt principles for co-creation, co-design and co-management, with the fishing industry playing a central role in the process. In designing MPAs, the SIA highlights the need to adhere to the following basic principles. Selection should be based principally on scientific evidence and involve meaningful stakeholder engagement processes. The key objective should be to safeguard natural features based on the principle of sustainable use. Management should be on a site-by-site basis, rather than on simplistic general principles. There should be a presumption of use within MPA if conservation objectives can be met, accepting that some activities may need to be restricted. Possible management measures should be explored with stakeholders.

I represent the Fair Seas coalition, comprising seven leading environmental NGOs and networks in Ireland. Our goal is to ensure that at least 30% of Ireland's ocean is protected by 2030 through an ecologically coherent and well-managed MPA network. This is in line with Ireland's international and national commitments.

Our ocean territory is more than seven times the size of our land mass and supports livelihoods, food security, climate regulation and a unique natural heritage, yet less than 10% of Ireland's marine area is currently designated as an MPA through our special areas of conservation, SAC, and special protection area, SPA, network. However, the scientific evidence is clear: Ireland's marine ecosystems face increasing pressures from things such as climate change, overfishing, habitat loss and pollution. Our latest marine strategy framework directive report shows that the descriptor "biological diversity" has failed to achieve good environmental status. This also mirrors broader trends. In 2023, the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic report stated that biological diversity is continuing to decline across much of the region.

MPAs are an essential conservation tool used by countries across the globe. When well designed and effectively managed, incorporating robust stakeholder engagement and participation, MPAs can deliver a wide range of benefits, including driving biodiversity recovery, increasing the abundance of fish and other marine species, enhancing climate resilience and supporting positive social, economic, community and public health outcomes.

As set out in Ireland's programme for Government, and reiterated on numerous occasions by various Ministers and the Taoiseach, Ireland has committed to bringing forward new national legislation to enable the designation and management of nationally derived MPAs, which will allow us to meet our 30 by 30 commitment. Despite repeated expressions of intent by the Government, however, progress on the legislation has stalled. As of January 2026, the legislation is, in a public-facing manner, demonstrably no further advanced than it was three years ago. The continued delay of this critically important legislation cannot continue. MPA legislation and the effective protection of Ireland's marine environment are not optional or aspirational measures. They are essential for the proper functioning of marine ecosystems and the delivery of ecosystem services, as well as being the foundation of a resilient blue economy and key to the many societal and economic benefits that healthy seas provide.

Fair Seas has done some work in this regard and developed ten key asks. I will not go through those now, but I have sent them to the committee, along with this written statement. They are based around strong and ambitious legislation with targets, a robust management framework and principled stakeholder engagement. To achieve that ecologically coherent network of successful MPAs, we also need to manage better our current SACs and SPAs. Unfortunately, successive Governments have failed over many years to adequately resource, implement and enforce effective management on these sites. That underscores the need to get right the new national legislation for MPAs.

Fair Seas is ready to work constructively with the committee, the Government and all stakeholders to ensure that this happens, and that our MPA network is effective, fair and fit for the future.

Coalition 2030 is an alliance of more than 70 civil society organisations and trade unions working together to hold Ireland accountable for its commitment to achieving the UN sustainable development goals by 2030. The SDGs present an interconnected social and environmental policy roadmap that sets out guiding principles which, if enacted, would ensure we stay on course towards a sustainable future. Goal 14 calls for the conservation and sustainable use of our oceans. We urge the Government to prioritise SDG 14 within national policies, and to commit to protecting our marine environment for current and future generations, specifically through robust marine protected areas legislation.

Birdwatch Ireland is a charity whose mission is the conservation of wild birds and other biodiversity in Ireland. We have 15,000 members and local branches nationwide that host approximately 400 events annually for the public. We are also a founding partner of the Fair Seas coalition. We have been involved in marine matters for many decades and have successfully restored populations of seabird species in Ireland over that time. Ireland is one of the most important countries in the EU for seabirds, not only because of the sheer numbers of breeding pairs and their diversity, but because our territorial waters are globally important for species that pass through them or feed during the winter. People enjoy nature and flock to see seabirds, especially the puffin in places like the Great Saltee Island in Wexford and Sceilg Mhichíl in Kerry, and in sites in Cork, Clare, Donegal and Dublin, including Ireland's Eye. Accessible breeding seabird colonies are an important for of eco-tourism and generate income for local people, often in remote areas of the coast, from where visitors take ferries, have lunch or stay over on their visit. Done properly and with wardening to prevent disturbance to the birds at their vulnerable breeding time, seabird watching is an important income-generating endeavour that supports local communities.

In Ireland, 23 of Ireland's 24 breeding seabirds are red- or amber-listed birds of conservation concern. The kittiwake and puffin are also globally vulnerable. There is a range of pressures and threats to them, including overfishing, disturbance of breeding colonies, climate change, avian flu and more. Seabirds are also the species group most threatened by offshore renewables. We need offshore renewables, but they must be carefully planned. Bird wind sensitivity mapping is of huge assistance in this regard and national plans for offshore wind should be informed by this sensitivity mapping. One area where we had a gap in our knowledge was where we did not know exactly what parts of Irish territorial waters were important for seabirds. In 2023, we started a project to identify those important areas. We collated all available survey and tracking data and in 2025 we published a map and a report on 49 colony important bird areas and 24 areas in the marine. We call for these marine protected areas to be designated as SPAs. If they were they would bring Ireland an additional 7% closer to reaching the 30 by 2030 target.

I thank everyone for attending and for their presentations. It will be a quick-fire round because there are a lot of witnesses. My questions are primarily to the Department. When they talk about 10% of our marine as protected, what does that mean tangibly? Are those boundaries outlined on maritime maps?

That 10% refers to designations under the Natura birds and habitats directives, which also form part of the contribution towards the 30%.

How does that protect anything within the marine?

Because they are existing marine designations, such as SACs and SPAs, that are protected under the Natura directives.

What activities are impacted by those designations? If we say that we already have 10%, what does that mean from a protection perspective, particularly as our biodiversity is continually dropping?

It is important to say that the competent authority for the current designated sites is the National Parks and Wildlife Service in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The 10% we are referring to contain the existing sites for which statutory instruments are already in place and also proposed and candidate sites. It is not just those in respect of which there are statutory instruments; it is wider than that. On the level of protection, once the conservation objectives relating to a site are published, any activity that is proposed and that may impact on those objectives has to be assessed and screened in the context of appropriate investment. Essentially, any development, including fishing, for example, is subject to assessment to ensure that the conservation objectives relating to the sites are met.

Has that happened? This is not Dr. Ó Cadhla's area.

I have a bit of experience in this space, but, as I said, we are not the competent authority, so that question would probably be better addressed to the National Parks and Wildlife Service. My understanding is that, for example, fisheries assessments and the risk to these sites from fisheries have been done. I am not sure how recently. Appropriate assessments are, as a rule, done for development applications. That is the best I can give the Deputy.

Are they mapped on maritime maps? Do fishers know when they have crossed into areas in respect of which this applies?

We are not the competent authority. In my experience, however, when a proposal for a site is taken forward, the Minister responsible publishes the map as part of the process. Those maps would be on public record. They would be published in the newspapers along the way. There would be a map for each of the locations we are talking about.

They are not listed on the maps that the boats use, however. I will raise that with the National Parks and Wildlife Service at a later stage. The Minister has decided to move from a stand-alone Bill to a DMAP process. I have concerns about that but I understand the rationale relating to the need for a speedy process. If there is already a Bill that has been three years in the making, I am not sure it will be quicker to come up with a new process.

I thank the witnesses for the document. I attended the BirdWatch Ireland briefing on the important bird and biodiversity areas, IBAs, previously. We need to know that the DMAP process is really robust if we are going to build on it and use it as the model for the MPAs. I am surprised at the difference between the DMAPs that the Department produces for locations and what was produced using the sensitivity mapping from BirdWatch Ireland. Can the witnesses explain the differences in the geographic areas involved? I imagine that the closer you go to shore, the more sensitivity there is for birds. DMAP A appears to be quite close to the shore. What bird data was used in the development of that?

There were a couple of parts to that question. The latter part relates to the process around the south coast DMAP, which I can speak to. The intent behind the new legislative approach is to build on the existing DMAP process that was established under the Maritime Area Planning Act, and to use and adapt that to deliver marine protection through the designated maritime area planning process. To be clear, although it is a proposed amendment to the existing legislation, it is a substantial amendment. It is not tweaks around the edges. It is quite detailed. It is important to reassure members that there will not be any diminution of the importance applied to the marine protected area process as a result of that amending legislation. It is simply to use the vehicle that is already there and to maximise the architecture that is already in place for marine governance, rather than introducing a third layer of complexity. While we are drafting that legislation, we are absolutely committed to making sure that it is participatory and inclusive, as the DMAP process already is.

The south coast DMAP is the only one that lives and breathes at the moment, although another one is in gestation. That south coast DMAP was for the specific purpose of offshore renewable energy, ORE, development. It is important to state that a DMAP proposal for a marine protected area will be specifically to deliver an MPA in accordance with that particular proposal. It will be a separate process to deliver MPAs using the designated maritime area plan architecture. It is not the case that there will be an overlap or combined processes to deliver ORE and MPAs together. There will be separate proposals, separate stakeholder engagements and separate processes for delivery. It is important to state that they will be quite distinct processes.

I apologise; I am looking at the clock ticking down. We have heard from the fishers that they are worried about the process for DMAPs. They feel it does not represent a co-designed system. Looking at this map, the entirety of the area seems to be deemed as sensitive by the scientific modelling and the evidence that has been collected and yet there are four DMAPs or areas. How can both of those be true? How can there be four areas stated to be okay for wind farms when there is scientific evidence stating these areas are very sensitive for bird populations' foraging and so on?

I believe the question the Deputy is asking is about the specific process undertaken to develop the south coast DMAP. This was undertaken in accordance with a very detailed consultation, stakeholder engagement, appropriate assessment and strategic environmental assessments. The best available data was used. It went through that process. The integrity of that south coast DMAP is built on the participatory nature of the process. A proposal was set out and published. This was accompanied by a public participation statement, which set out how stakeholder engagement would be taken into account, along with the data around that. All that was worked through in a statutory way, which included appropriate assessment and strategic environmental assessment.

I thank Mr. O'Leary for that answer. I want to bring in BirdWatch Ireland. I am trying to figure out how two maps of the same area are showing different things. Did the Department use the same data as BirdWatch Ireland? Was data shared?

With regard to strategic planning for offshore wind, it is a really good idea to undertake a national DMAP process. We fully support it. As I have said, we support the deployment of offshore renewables because seabirds are also threatened. On the Deputy's question about the south coast DMAP, we have concerns as to how seabird data was or was not taken into account as part of the assessments underpinning the south coast DMAP and the Natura impact statements for it. I am not sure how it all worked out but it appears that different data sets were used. We are concerned as to whether all available data was trawled through, found or collated. We have significant concerns in relation to that because it appears that Tonn Nua, area A, has no seabird data underpinning it. That is a big concern for us. That planning process will happen going forward. We really hope that the national DMAP will make sure that seabirds are taken into account in the proper way and that all available data, including sensitivity mapping, will be used to ensure the best possible outcome for seabirds. BirdWatch Ireland's only goal is to support the really good deployment of offshore renewables in the right places to do the best for the birds.

Ms Duggan does not believe bird data was used for area A.

Data was used but, from the reports we were presented with and have gone through, we could not see any seabird data underpinning area A.

I am sorry. I am going to go to the next Deputy.

Before we move on, can I just raise this issue in relation to the representation of the different groups? It is important.

The Deputy has 30 seconds because we are under pressure.

I have a question for Mr. Murphy. I understand that he represents the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation. I am trying to get some clarity on something. When he is on Facebook and his Facebook profile, is that a personal Facebook page or is he representing the organisation on that? This question might seem a bit strange and out of context, but I am asking this because before Christmas Mr. Murphy came onto my Facebook page and said I was anti-democratic and our process for selecting a presidential candidate was anti-democratic. I then went on and had a look at his page. Mr. Murphy claims my party is anti-Irish, and I think pro-refugee was what he said. I then had a look at the organisational page where he claimed that I was lying-----

We are up on time now, Deputy Whitmore.

No, I think this is really important. We have someone in who is representing a number of fishers in a particular area and I am just trying to get some understanding of-----

Okay, the question has been put. I will give 30 seconds for a response.

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Then I suggest it is no longer the business of this committee.

I thank the Chair. I value the question. If the Deputy wants to take this off air-----

No.

I have asked you-----

No. Mr. Murphy did it in a public forum when he raised this with me, so I am happy to deal with it. I do also think it is really important that the people-----

Deputy, I am giving a lot of leeway here.

-----Mr. Murphy represents are aware that he is dealing-----

Deputy, I am going to ask you to stop now.

----- with a committee member in this manner.

Deputy, you are out of order.

I really do not think Mr. Murphy is doing them any favours. I really do not.

Deputy Whitmore, please. Can we switch off the mic? We are just going to move on. I gave you leeway and latitude-----

That is fine. Thank you.

-----and you took advantage of it, so please do not do that again. I call Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

I do want my 30 seconds.

No, we are moving on. I apologise. We are moving on.

I have been attacked personally here, and my professional-----

We are moving on.

-----job now has been called into question by the Deputy.

I have asked Mr. Murphy to clarify.

You can bring it up after the meeting. By all means, you can bring it up. I will be available.

Absolutely, and I just want to make that point.

Mr. Murphy is out of order as well.

I have reached out to that Deputy to talk about these issues. She has refused to meet us or our organisation to bring it up. Facebook is the only place to bring it up.

This committee has important business. Turn off his mic as well, please.

No. Unfortunately, I would say there is a point of order here.

I have told both of you that you are out of order. We are leaving it at that and we are moving on. I call Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. As people know, a previous Oireachtas committee dealt with the previous legislation. That was the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The committee made a range of recommendations on the heads of Bill at that time. Obviously, I assume the Department has factored a lot of that into its consideration. Recommendation 25, however, states:

The Committee recommends that the MPA designation process should be based on the principle of co-creation whereby all relevant stakeholders are involved in the designation process from the earliest possible stage to ensure that all sectors concerned are considered during designation.

That recommendation was in support of submissions made from the fishing organisations at that time in particular. We have had really bad practice in Ireland of marine planning when it came to offshore renewable energy on the east coast. That led to all sorts of judicial challenges and environmental concerns. In my view, that is how not to do business. The DMAP process is one that I think has been a big step in the right direction. It is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.

Connected to all that DMAP process, I want to highlight the establishment in May 2022 of the seafood offshore renewable energy working group, chaired by Captain Robert McCabe. I want to get the Department's views on the work of that group. Does it hold that as a model that should be continued now when we look at marine protected areas? For me, there is immense potential in our marine resource, but it is a shared resource and we have many of the stakeholders here today who are very concerned about it for one reason or another. I believe we can achieve our objectives from the perspectives of the environment, creating wealth and creating energy, but we need to do it with everybody at the table. The thing that infuriates me is when an area is designated but without consultation. It is just said that is where it is going to be and then views are asked for. That is how you lose the room. I want to get a sense of the Department's aim.

Is it the Department's objective from the get-go to have that type of model, with co-creation continuing? I also want to get the views of the fishing organisations and environmental organisations. Do they support the principle of co-creation as recommended by the previous committee?

I thank the Deputy for that question. Before I answer, I did not come back to Deputy Whitmore previously. I am happy to provide a more detailed explanation of the process around the south coast DMAP if that would be helpful. There is quite a lot that we could get into in that regard. I will provide that afterwards.

To Deputy Mac Lochlainn, from a policy perspective, the Department fully supports the principle of co-creation for marine protected areas. If we take a step back from the legislation, which I can speak to in a minute, we want this to work really well. The only way it can work well is by including everybody in the development, design, creation and management of marine protected areas. That is really clear. It is a fundamental principle underpinning how we are approaching this. Inclusivity is really important.

There are a number of steps to the DMAP process that allow for this. It is important to set these out. First, there is a proposal, which sets out what we are trying to achieve and what we are trying to protect and how we will protect it. That proposal can really speak to the principles of co-creation and co-management of an MPA. The framework is there in the DMAP process. We might have to strengthen it a little for the MPA process. Those are the fundamental principles of it. In addition to the proposal, there is a statutory document that needs to be created called a public participation statement. This is really important because it sets out how we will consult through the development and creation of that marine protected area, who we will consult with and what format that might take. That can be as prescriptive as it needs be, but it does not have to be from the top down. It could be bespoke for the type of marine protected area we are looking at.

The Deputy referred to a very useful model in the seafood-ORE working group which I am happy to speak to. What we would like to see is that depending on the designation and design of a particular MPA, and the approach taken to it, there might be slightly different tools needed. The public participation statement and proposal allow that flexibility. It is not necessarily a one-size-fits-all thing. The framework allows adaptability for marine protected area to be created in the best possible way. The only way it can be created in the best possible way is by including everybody in the discussion. That principle is absolutely embedded in what we are doing. I would like to reassure the Deputy and his colleagues that it is there. It is in the legislation already for the DMAP process. How we deploy that and use it effectively is in our gift, and to do that collectively. The principles around that are fundamental to how we want to develop marine protection. That is why we are adapting the DMAP process, which is plan-led but hugely inclusive and allows scope and flexibility for public participation. It is s bottom-up rather than a top-down approach. The tools are there for that. We would put that architecture in place through the legislation. Implementation will follow through the various processes. I hope that answers that part of the question.

To turn to the model of the seafood ORE group----

Just to be clear, I asked for Mr. O'Leary's comments on the model of the ORE seafood group; I did not ask that it be exactly the model that would be used for MPAs. As a model, the Department clearly broadly supports the principle behind it.

As a model, it has worked very effectively for the seafood industry and has evolved over time. I am not saying that an absolute replication of that is the appropriate model for the development of MPAs. Parts of it may be, but there may be other more suitable engagement forums. The Department is very open to the right model that works. I am coming back to the point that we want this to work well. We are inclusive in that regard. We are certainly open to the best models and to taking an agile approach to deliver it.

I appreciate that substantive response, thank you. If I could just get feedback from the other participants, I know the fishing organisation will absolutely support co-creation. Maybe the environmental organisations could come in first and then the fishing organisation.

I am really glad to hear what Mr. O'Leary just said there. I completely agree.

One of our key asks in the forthcoming legislation, as I mentioned already, is high-quality stakeholder engagement and participation. That is the basis of co-creation and co-management as well. It needs to be principled; to be of a high quality; to be based on the principles we suggest, which are transparency, inclusiveness and fairness; and to be early and ongoing. The early part is really important. The engagement of stakeholders should be supported by the delivery milestones, timelines and certainty, as you might expect. I met with some of the POs in Killybegs earlier this year and this is something we agree on. There are examples all around the world of successful MPAs. One of the things they all have in common is stakeholder engagement, co-creation and the support of the coastal communities, industries, businesses and local people. That is what makes a successful MPA, or at least it is an important aspect of a successful MPA.

To the Deputy's initial point, our experience when we are out and about in coastal communities is that we get a lot of feedback about the lack of stakeholder engagement when it comes to Natura 2000 sites. It breeds frustration and a disillusionment or disenfranchisement with the SACs and SPAs and their objective, which is ultimately to protect nature. These same people and communities fully support that, but the lack of consultation has severely limited the potential on those sites. I am not sure if my colleagues have anything to add to that.

It is exactly as Dr. Griffin has said. A lot of trust has been broken in how previous Natura sites have been designated. They are not being effectively managed. We are not seeing the benefits to nature or fisheries. People are getting caught under layers of bureaucracy as well. They are having difficulty with doing small works to small piers and things like that. I can understand the mistrust in communities around this because they have not been listened to and they are not seeing benefits. We would fully support the bottom-up approach, whereby the coastal communities and the people using the areas are brought in from the very beginning and are part of the ongoing management. Otherwise the area is not going to work. There are good examples around the world where this bottom-up approach has really worked.

One of the key reasons there have been concerns about the designations, especially in relation to the Natura sites, is because they have not been implemented properly and have not been funded properly. That bottom-up approach is absolutely possible within the directives. It is all about management and allowing the Government to fund the implementation on the ground. That is a key message going forward. If the Government is not funding the Natura 2000 network properly, how is it going to commit to funding MPAs? They are the jewels in the crown. Fishers and farmers who are involved in Natura sites and have the responsibility to take care and mind these habitats and species as guardians have not been given the resources they should be given to undertake that management. This is across agriculture as well. There is a huge opportunity to fund this properly. When we get onto the nature restoration law, if we do, in relation to this, we have a massive opportunity for farmers and fishers to be involved and to be funded to do this. I think it is an implementation problem in relation to the Natura sites.

I just-----

There will be an opportunity to come back in later, Deputy.

I want to make a brief summary. I promise it is a brief summary.

We are already a minute and 30 seconds behind.

I will be 20 seconds.

The Deputy might be 20 seconds, but will the response be 20 seconds?

I lost my 20 seconds. By arguing with the Chair we lost 20 seconds.

I am sorry. We have to be consistent. We have a full house. I call Deputy Ward.

This question is for the Seafood Ireland Alliance. Can it describe its members' awareness of the existing protected area network? How has fishing been impacted by MPAs so far?

I thank the Deputy. Our members would be reasonably aware of the SPAs and SACs that exist. In some instances, they are impacted. There are certain restrictions on different types of fisheries, particularly in the inshore areas, such as off County Wexford and in Tralee Bay where there are restrictions on different types of fisheries.

They are very aware of those types of things. They do not want to see a top-down approach, which I hope I heard in this room we are trying to avoid. They want full stakeholder involvement and participation in the co-design and co-creation of these marine protected areas. The one thing we do not want to see as a fishing industry is a whole raft of marine protected areas that have a high potential to make things worse. That is where we do not want to be. When we are selecting a marine protected area, we need to use a fairly well-established, best-practice, multi-criteria analytical process where each layer is measured on its own merits. For instance, if we see an area where there are high levels of fishing and ask why that is, it is because fish congregate in that area. That is not to say there is not fish in other areas, but if we move the concentration of fishing to another area, we may extend and increase the effort that is on the ground rather than trying to minimise it while catching the allowable catch. That is what we do not want to see and we want to be fully involved in the new MPA LIFE process and we will be. We want to be kept involved. The preceding development of a lot of the SPAs and SACs, and even the south coast D map, was not done in a fully transparent manner. We would like to see full transparency and to have a full input into the design and establishment of these marine protected areas, which we will fully support if they are done in the right manner.

My family and I have been involved in fishing for generations. We operate in an SAC producing aquaculture mussels. My sons are also involved now. I have been doing it for 40 years. We work with the Department and everything else. Our problem is that there are not enough resources, not just for us but also for the Department. In 40 years, I have had two ten-year licences for that area. My son has been waiting five years for his licence and for an environmental assessment to be conducted so that he can continue to work in this area. He has been waiting five years for the licence to be issued.

As Mr. Lynch said, generations of us have been working in the marine environment for hundreds of years. It is part of our job. We are there and we are proud of what we do inside these areas. We take huge offence at now being told that because of our activities it is assumed that we are destroying the environment in which we work. It is a real slight. I would like people to consider this. A lot of fishermen have been lost. We have lost two boats in the past two weeks. Those affected families are listening to these debates and they do not appreciate being told that their loved ones were destroying the environment. That is one of the messages that I was asked to give here today.

Would the witnesses support the introduction of localised no-take zones to protect, for example, spawning grounds?

Not only do we say that we support them, but we actually do so. We have a protected area, the Porcupine Bank, that we had to fight the Russians out of to make sure it was protected from military exercises. We impose a self-regulated closure system from May until October.

In the Porcupine Bank, the Irish fishing industry self-regulates a de facto closure during the spawning period for the nephrops. Unfortunately, other countries do not participate. In response to the Deputy's questions on spawning areas and MPAs, the fishing industry has been proactive in the past. For instance, it protected spawning areas for cod in the Irish Sea and the Celtic Sea. Cod has other issues, but the spawning areas for the species were protected by a full closure at the correct time of the year. In other words, MPAs can be both spatial and temporal. That is the point.

There are regions of Ireland's exclusive economic zone that are mostly exploited by foreign vessels rather than the Irish fleet. What would be the likely impact of placing MPAs in these regions?

We keep pointing out that Irish fishermen take 15% of the fish from their own waters. As Mr. Lynch has just pointed out, while we have implemented a measure to protect that very valuable stock in the Porcupine Bank, it is still open to vessels from other countries. We try to work our colleagues in other countries. It is closed for one month.

To answer the question, fishermen are putting in technical measures. We met the Taoiseach in Castletownbere. We had a member there. When the Taoiseach asked him what his job was, he said that his job was to design fishing nets to avoid catching fish. That is how much we are trying to do to make sure there is a future. This is a matter for ourselves. It is in our best interests to protect the marine environment, the areas in which we work and the spawning grounds. The Deputy has raised an issue of real complexity. We are doing our best, but it is not seen as that for the Irish fisherman. We are in serious trouble with the cuts that are there. I keep stressing that we get 7% of the fishing quota under the Hague preferences. We have an issue with sole in fishing areas 7f and 7g. A total of 450 tonnes are allocated to one country, whereas our fisherman are given 28 tonnes. When you put in a technical measure to reduce the Irish catching sector, unless it is applied to the other countries, which may have ten or 20 times the amount of fish that we have, you do not get the benefits. We appreciate all the help that is there. In the time I and my predecessors have been involved, fishermen have always tried to modify and make the gear better to ensure they catch the fish to which they are legally entitled. It is difficult when you are the smallest player on the field.

The following is for the representatives of Fair Seas and Coalition 2030. I would like to know their opinion of the MPA stakeholders consultation so far. Why do they think the process for the MPA legislation has stalled? That question is open to any of the witnesses.

I thank the Deputy. I will have a go at answering and will then pass to my colleagues. The full process of establishing new MPAs under the new national legislation has not begun. Unfortunately, we have not yet got that far. We are still waiting for the general scheme of the proposed legislation. There has not been a process there, or at least certainly not a public process. Fair Seas engaged with the Department. It has a good relationship with the Department and engages on these issues. The stakeholder engagement we mentioned earlier as so important has not begun. That is a frustration we hear in communities. There has been a lot of talk about the MPA legislation and the need for new MPAs. A lot of that talk has, admittedly, come from us over the past four or five years. That is our role. There has, however, been no progress on a legislative basis. There is nothing for communities, people or groups to engage with. There is, as we talked about in the context of Natura 2000 sites, an absence of engagement about specific sites. Because we are waiting on the legislation, there is an absence of being able to engage on MPAs under the new national legislation. I have forgotten the second aspect of the Deputy's question.

I asked where we are.

The Deputy asked why the legislation has stalled. Is that right?

Yes, the question was about progress. The legislation has stalled.

I said in my opening statement that I feel like it has stalled. We were in here almost exactly three years ago. We spoke to the Oireachtas joint committee at that time, as was mentioned earlier, about the general scheme of the stand-alone legislation. We are now at the stage where we are waiting for the general scheme of the new legislation to be published. I acknowledge that we know a significant amount of work has been done in the background by the Department, including the people sitting behind me. They have been very engaged and have worked on this for a number of years. They have been working on this for longer than we have. However, in a publicly facing manner and for the important part of the legislative process, we are no further forwards. That is a disappointment.

In terms of meeting our 30 by 2030 targets, I am on record in presentations I have given at various conference as saying I am optimistic about us being able to meet our 30 by 2030 targets. However, if we do not have progress on this legislation soon, that optimism will slowly slip away and we will be in real danger of missing our targets.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements.

Will the Department outline whether a marine protected area supported by the necessary ecological evidence could independently provide a lawful basis for restricting or stopping commercial fishing by large vessels within the 6 nautical mile zone, for example in the Shannon Estuary, should the policy directive banning such activity be successfully challenged in the courts?

I thank the Deputy for the question. The principal objective of marine protected areas is to benefit and enhance marine biodiversity and the marine environment to the benefit of all. That is the objective we are working towards. In respect of fishing as part of that, we spoke earlier about the design and creation of these MPAs being done based on consultation for the betterment and benefit of all. They are the kind of principles we are working towards. Fisheries policy is not a specific competency of our Department or a policy area for it. All of the legislation we will create and draft will align with the existing fisheries legislation. We have to show faith in the marine protection we are developing through our legislation. It must be aligned with existing fisheries policy. We do not have ownership of fisheries policy within the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. We are focusing on implementing a procedure and developing an MPA network that will benefit all, with those benefits deriving from everybody's participation in the process.

I can offer a comment on that as well, if that is okay. I believe the Deputy is asking whether there could be restrictions on larger vessels entering into a special protection area or SAC.

That is correct, yes.

If fishing activities were subject to an appropriate assessment, then the answer is "Yes". It would depend on the actual outcome of the assessment and the impact on qualifying interests. The Shannon Estuary is very important for dolphins. There is therefore potential for such restrictions if that activity was assessed.

There would actually be a concern.

When you do an appropriate assessment, you look at all of the activity, the volume of fish being taken out and the impacts on the species in question, knowing the ecology of that species and how it depends on, for example, a biomass of fish in that area. If that process is in place, it is a tool that could be used.

I thank Ms Duggan. I have a question for Seafood Ireland Alliance. From a conservation perspective, does the alliance believe the different levels of protection within the EPA framework can be applied in a phased or adaptive way to support the recovery of marine ecosystems while also enabling a substantial inshore small-boat fisheries sector over time? Could an approach that begins with higher protection, allowing very limited fishing or none at all, and that gradually adjusts protection levels in response to demonstrable improvements in conservation conditions be considered compatible with best practice conservation principles? What are the witnesses' views?

The short answer is more or less "Yes." The principles we follow and would like to see followed here are that we should work together to identify the features so that we will know what the threats to those features are. Those features might be physical features, a fish stock or something else. The features should be identified so that we can then design the management of a marine protected area to protect that feature.

If you are trying to protect something on the bottom, it is obvious. If you are trying to protect something on the surface, like seabirds, you have a different set of solutions. When we enter this process of co-designing these MPAs, that is the space we need to get into, where we identify between us, first, what features we need to protect, and then how we protect them. After that, you are looking at areas, and when you look at areas, you need to consider the socioeconomic impact of that on existing activities within that area. In that scenario, we need to have a proper, full socioeconomic impact assessment for each of these MPAs to identify potential losses for any seafood activity that is going on there, and how we replace those losses to that sector while still establishing our MPAs and protecting our features. That is the task at hand. How do we ensure that the established income of these operators within an area is either allowed to continue or is replaced to allow a full and proper co-existence to occur between marine protected areas and existing activities in those areas?

To broaden the Deputy's question, for me, first of all, you have to identify the impacts of the fishing activities in an area. The Deputy mentioned big boats versus small boats. You have to evaluate the difference between a big boat and small boat, because without that knowledge or data, you cannot act. If one boat is using a smaller net but more regularly, and is taking the same amount of fish, then the impact is the same. That answers one aspect of the Deputy's question.

The other aspect of his question is to ask our views in the industry on this. When this first came about, the Irish South and West Fish Producers Organisation was the only producer organisation to come up with a paper. We wanted to sit down with all the people around us here to form a management plan, because if you do not form a management plan, then you are saying there should be no fishing, which is a different conversation, as Mr. Lynch just said. These people, like me, have fished for generations, and we have continued to.

Every time a law or new regulation comes in, if we do not comply, we are put in jail. We want to work, as Mr. Lynch said, with the development of many management strategies that will allow us to continue to do what our ancestors and family members have done before us. We do not see that what we are doing is bad. Of course, we adapt and change over the years to what is going on around us. Fishermen use different types of net, go to different-sized areas and use different boats because they have to access different fish and different opportunities. If fish are in an area, and are only available in that area, it is fair enough to say that a small boat can go there, but if you say that the small boat can go there because it will do less damage than the bigger boat, then you will have to show that. What you are doing is denying the bigger boat from going somewhere where it has been going for 40 or 50 years just because it seems to be bigger and can be seen more easily from the shore than the smaller vessel. That is the issue that we have.

We want managed fisheries and to be able to continue to manage fisheries. We have been frustrated by the changes that have come from the cuts to our fish stocks in Irish waters, where we were not part of the consultation with the European Commission on new changes to fishing gear and methods. We would have improved and increased them because we do not think they are adequate. We want them to be applied not just to our fleet, as we have pointed out, but to other fleets in other jurisdictions. We will do the work and others will benefit, because we have 15% and they have 85%. If we recover the stocks, they get 85%, so we believe they should share the burden. Does that answer the Deputy's question?

That answers the question. I thank the witnesses.

Fair Seas wanted to respond to that question too.

We have also called for the legislation to define the different protected area categories, because there is a difference between a fully no-take zone and those areas that allow varying levels of extractive activities. We would agree with what Mr. Lynch said about ensuring that each site has its own individual, specific, detailed management plan, taking those decisions on a case-by-case basis, considering which activities impact the environmental objectives for certain sites, and taking an ecosystem-based approach that looks at the full ecosystem, whereas the SPAs and SACs that exist now are feature-based. They just look at those specific features, whereas we would call for a full look at the entire ecosystem of specific sites.

Again, those specific, detailed management plans are very important in determining the different levels of protection within each area.

Will the Department officials respond to the allegation or charge that the existing protection areas are not being effectively managed? I am not sure whether the charge is such that we feel the conservation objectives are not being met. What is their sense of that?

Is the Deputy referring to the existing network and designation?

Yes, the existing protection areas. The sense from the witnesses is that these are not being managed effectively. I am not sure whether they are saying that the conservation objectives are not being met. I am just looking for a response in that regard.

From our perspective, as we set out, the competent authority for those designations is the National Parks and Wildlife Service. It is not something we are responsible for from a line Department perspective. Like everything, the maritime environment is complex. There are always processes and things we can do better. It is probably down to a collective approach to achieving that. We would have to go into the specifics of each site. There may be many sites where conservation objectives are being met and there may be others that do not have the status that people might desire them to have. There could be many factors involved, so I would be reluctant to give a categorical response on one side or the other. This demonstrates the complexity of the environment we are operating in and the complexity of the maritime governance and designation process in that regard. I hope that addresses the matter in as honest a way as possible.

That is a fair response.

It is important to clarify the vibe that there is an issue with the Natura sites. BirdWatch Ireland believes that Natura sites are critical and essential to the conservation of wild birds and, under the habitats directive, other species and habitats. It is the case that a fitness check was done of the birds and habitats directive in 2017, when it was seen that these laws were fit for purpose but there was an issue with implementation and the funding of their implementation. What that means, if Mr. Murphy says his son is trying to get a licence and an ecological assessment is needed, is that we need staff in Departments and the competent authorities to be there to carry out those assessments in order to make sure that things are done properly. We also need management plans to be put in place. We need the conservation objectives to have measures that are implementable. These are all things that Ireland, as a country and from a Government perspective, has been very poor at doing for decades.

The marine SPAs, for example, should have been put in place since 1998. It is a real failing that we have not done this yet. We only have two candidate marine SPAs for seabirds now and they are not even full SPAs yet. It is about implementation, putting the resources behind it and making those processes that trickle down to people on the ground, who have might have an issue locally or want to do something the right way but do not know how. It is all about staffing, resourcing and the proper plans being put in place to make sure that things are done well. That is also incentivising people in their actions. There is huge scope for this to be done properly but we need the Government to act on that.

I will come in quickly with a remark. I agree with everything Ms Duggan said about implementation and the money to do this. It is not just a feeling we have that these areas have not been managed correctly. The latest Article 17 report relating to the habitats directive was made publicly available just before Christmas. There are many marine habitats within that, but only two achieved good environmental status. All the rest had unfavourable or bad status, and are continuing to decline. The latter is proof that what we have done so far is not working and that we need to look at alternatives.

Two more witnesses are looking to contribute.

It is for the Deputy to determine what questions he wants to put and from whom he wants responses. He is in charge of his block of ten minutes.

I will read two very paragraphs short because they were in my fuller opening statement and are directly relevant to the Deputy's question. In June 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Ireland breached its obligations under the EU habitats directive identifying failures by Ireland to designate special areas of conservation, set site-specific conservation objectives and establish necessary conservation measures. This underlines the urgency of not only managing our existing MPAs effectively, which we are not necessarily doing at the minute - the court ruled on that - but also ensuring that the new legislation is ambitious, resourced and implemented effectively as my colleagues said.

I want to clarify something in case I gave the wrong impression. We have been active for the past 40 years and have changed our practices to be more kind to the environment. We have not changed the actual structures we have. We have made them bigger. The way we operate is the same as when I started 40 years ago on long lines growing mussels. We test our waters every week, make sure there are no minerals in them and protect the environment around us. We are so good at it that we are proud to say that with the help of BIM, we have received Marine Stewardship Council certification and organic certification so that is where we moved to. The frustration identified by some speakers is caused by the resources around it. We have done nothing wrong. We have changed nothing in the bay. It is just the processing of the information that needs to be fast-forwarded because it has a direct impact on us accessing funding or developing or growing our industry in the bay to which I have been committed for the past ten years. I am not saying that what we are doing in the bay is harming the bay; it is the opposite. We are making sure water is pristine. We have class A waters, which we must protect for our market so we have to do the right things in the bay. We were there years ago. I will tell the committee how scary this can be for a fisherman. We started talking about this when I was 21 - the same age as my young fellow now - when the NPWS came down to us when we had just started our business and were just getting off the ground. We heard some of the language we hear today. I asked the person from the NPWS a very simple question. I asked them whether the NPWS was saying that the seagull was now more important than I was and had more rights than I did in the bay and they said, "Yes". That is a scary thing for fishermen. We are willing to work. Mr. Lynch outlined quite clearly how much we are willing to sit down with these good people alongside us, as has been proven with the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, but it depends on what is given priority in the assessment. If we are not given priority, we are not going to get the same protections as other priorities.

Our oceans are taking up an awful lot of the carbon emissions we are emitting across the globe. Our oceans do so much for us in regulating weather and providing food, including fish. It is very unfortunate that somebody said that the gull is more important than a person. This is where proper implementation works things out, plans can be put in place, measures can be resourced and people can be incentivised if there is extra training needed. There is potential for so much hope when things are done well but we have never protected nature well in Ireland - not on land or sea. We have never done it properly. We have never resourced it. We have never had proper budgeting for the NPWS and other competent authorities like the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine because it is the competent authority in some areas, including the marine and fisheries. Resourcing is required to make it easier and to work these problems out.

Can I ask a straightforward question? I am familiar with the Galway Bay complex special area of conservation. Which other areas around the country are protected at the moment? Is there a map of them? Those are not the existing protection areas on that map. Where are the existing ones?

They are around the coast and offshore.

As I said, I am familiar with the Galway Bay complex SAC. Where else do we have similar protected areas?

Again, I will say we are not the competent authority for this but on the National Parks and Wildlife Service website, there is a protected sites map where one can view all the sites. They are largely coastal based. We are talking about large bays like Galway Bay.

I assume Galway Bay is one of the bigger ones, because there is a substantial area there.

That is correct.

I am saying that it is taking up a fair proportion of the 9%.

When we are measuring percentages we are looking at the whole marine strategy framework directive, MSFD, area. That is around 460,000 sq. km. Those sites might be large in a coastal sense, but when looking at the whole exclusive economic zone, EEZ, it is a small percentage. The more recent candidate sites or proposed sites have been offshore; namely two large sites for reef and two bird foraging areas are proposed in the Irish Sea and the south east, which Ms Duggan has mentioned.

I welcome our guests. I believe the publication of the long delayed marine protected areas, MPA, legislation is vital. There has already been delay after delay since the marine protected area Bill was first promised to be published in 2023 by the then Minister of State, Senator Malcolm Noonan. We are still waiting for the new MPA legislation and amendment to the Maritime Area Planning Act. The Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, has said the heads of Bill would be seen by Christmas. It is now early in the new year and it has already been pushed out to mid-2026. There is a worrying trend and sequence of delays. The legislation must be prioritised and published so that the work of engagement, research and designated marine protected areas can begin.

We all know Ireland has committed to protecting 30% of its seas by 2030 and for this to be done thoroughly, fairly and based on strong science and community co-design, it should not then be rushed. Therefore, I believe the sooner the legislation is published the better. I propose we, the committee, write to the Minister and ask him to proceed with the publishing as soon as possible. It is simply too important to allow this to be delayed any further.

I want to avail of the opportunity again to raise something I have spoken at length on, namely, the delays in the processing of aquaculture licences and the delays in the processing of the renewal of aquaculture licences. I hope we will see significant improvements in the timeframes in 2026.

I am happy to action that. It is a sensible suggestion and we can write to the Minister. Was there something in particular Deputy Cahill wanted to address to a witness or should we move on?

Perhaps somebody wants to come back on it. It is time to push on with this. It is so important.

I see some of the witnesses indicating that maybe they want to come in.

It is a different world out there at sea. It is a beautiful world. I believe we need to protect it.

We will go to Fair Seas, Coalition 2030, the fisheries organisation and then the Department, in that order. I ask witnesses to keep their comments brief.

I absolutely agree with the Deputy that we need to do this quickly. We were disappointed to hear the release of the general scheme would not happen until mid-2026 because we are getting very close to 2030 and we have our 30% marine protected area target to meet. Also, under the nature restoration laws their are restoration targets which need to also be met by 2030. We would like this to be done quickly but not at the expense of having the proper engagement with all the stakeholders, so that is going to take a lot of time, and not at the expense of the potential Bill being weaker than it should be. We would also like time factored in to ensure there is pre-legislative scrutiny done so all the stakeholders get a chance to properly look and see what there is within the Bill and get the chance to work with the Department and the Government for any changes that might be necessary.

I would like to highlight that there is a 2024 sustainable development report, which was published by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. It ranked Ireland 28th out of 166 countries in the overall progression toward the sustainable development goals. One of the SDGs that was pointed out as a specific barrier to Ireland was SDG No. 14, life below water, because of our slow progress toward proper, robust marine protected areas legislation. We have an opportunity. When we talk about 2030 deadlines, 2030 is also the deadline to achieve the SDGs. We are officially running out of time. I also note that the upcoming EU Presidency that Ireland will hold during summertime will be a good opportunity to champion the SDG implementation, which includes SDG No. 14, life below water, building on Denmark's focus in 2025 during its Presidency, which included SDG No. 14. It is an excellent opportunity for Ireland, as a marine nation, to copper-fasten what we want to protect now and for future generations in terms of our marine environment.

I think Mr. Lynch wanted to get in too, but I will give a couple of quick facts. We have 880,000 sq. km of water around our island, of which 264,000 sq. km needs to be designated. Fishing fishes everywhere, but the Marine Institute will give the Deputy these statistics. One of the statistics is that 80% of the fish that are caught are caught in 20% of the grounds. A total of 20% is caught in the 80%. This comes back to our discussion about who gets priority. We believe that you should protect the features or specifically target either a fish stock or what you are trying to protect, rather than just a broad area. If you wanted to do a broad area you could pick the least impacted, if you decide fishing is the impacted, and go to the one least used and designate that area. For us, we want to do this properly. We want to make sure that when we are protecting the marine environment, what we are protecting is identified and we actually do that. Not only that, but because of climate change, it is continuously evolving. If the fish move, if that is what we are trying to protect, or water temperatures change, the plan and the protection of those marine areas have to adapt to meet those changes.

I thank Deputy Cahill for his comments. I agree that we need to encourage the Minister to publish the legislation and start the process as soon as possible, where we design and select these areas and features to be protected. I advocate that when we start the process that we do it properly, that it is transparent and that any trade-offs are made open and we discuss them and deal with them as they arise. As I said earlier, when an area is selected, there is going to be a trade-off in socioeconomic terms for the seafood industry. That has to be taken into full consideration. Fisheries and the seafood industry have to be fully involved from the start and not left on the sideline as has happened in previous iterations. I cannot emphasise enough that the seafood industry needs to be fully involved and any trade-offs need to be identified and adjusted for.

I thank the Deputy for the question. We hear loud and clear that everybody wants to see that legislation. We are working intensively to deliver that. It is also important to point out, and as I set out in the opening statement, that, in parallel with the development of the legislation, there is considerable enabling work going on to deliver MPAs through the MPA life process and the MPA life project. It is not as if nothing is happening. That is an important point. The legislation is one too, but there is a lot of work being led by Dr. Oliver Ó Cadhla, my colleague in respect of the MPA life project. If will reference those two briefly. Specifically, two ecological sensitivity analyses have been undertaken by the Department and an MPA advisory group with the purpose of identifying suitable areas for MPAs, as well as development the methods, approaches and standards for identifying such suitable areas.

Importantly, a third such analysis of the Atlantic waters to the west and north is in the process of being established. These three analyses together, with the support of the MPA advisory group, the LIFE project and the Department, will complete an initial examination of possible suitable areas within which possible MPAs may be identifiable and brought forward. The bringing forward of those possible areas will be done through the legislative and the participatory process we have heard an awful lot about today, which is really important. A huge amount of scientific and enabling work is being carried out in parallel. The legislation is being worked through. When those two come together at the end, we are not starting from scratch. The process is well advanced. Really importantly, as we commence that process, we need to ensure that everybody and all of the key stakeholders are on board and can work with us in respect of that journey. The participatory approach through the DMAP process is really pivotal in that. It is an important context for everybody to be aware of. The legislation is one arm of it. The work that is going on in parallel is really important. Bringing those two together through the participatory process is crucial from the Department's perspective, to ensure that these things can work, and work well.

The whole thing is about co-creation, everybody living together and trying to get the best for everybody. Has the Department looked at other countries to see what they are doing and what policies they have taken up that would help us in this?

We engage with many other countries, looking at best practice. There are lots of examples out there. We can absolutely draw on that through the various processes we continually engage in, with colleagues across Europe and so on. We are also not necessarily advocating for lifting a process that works elsewhere and just dropping it into the Irish context. From the Irish perspective we need to be mindful of co-creation. We can absolutely learn lessons from what works well elsewhere and take that on board. I am very mindful that the Irish context is different and we need to devise a solution that works for all the stakeholders in the Irish context. It is probably a little bit of both, to answer the Senator's question.

There are studies the world over of how well-designed MPAs, particularly those that combine bottom-up knowledge with scientific evidence and statutory instruments, can deliver the long-term economic benefits for nature and conservation, fisheries, and the economy. Professor Mark Costello, an Irishman working out of a university in Norway, did a review in 2024 that looked at 48 examples of fishery-related economic benefits across 25 countries. Not a single example out of all of them found any evidence of net costs to fisheries because of MPAs. Rather, there were benefits to fisheries, which included increased fish stocks, increased catch volumes, and catch per unit effort. A couple of examples we would like to bring in are from the Azores in Portugal, where they recently designated the largest MPA network in the north Atlantic, covering 287,000 sq. km across the sea surrounding the Azores. A main factor in the development of that network was how collaborative and participatory the approach was. Cross-sectoral stakeholder engagement was embedded throughout the process, including fishers and scientific evidence. The Government had more than 40 meetings with that range of stakeholders. The final design ensured that there were support from everyone, from all of the users of the blue economy there. They were able to develop a joint solution that met sustainable resource use and conservation. Another key example is from Lyme Bay on the south coast of England. It took an ecosystem approach to fisheries management and again had a combination of local fisher engagement and the top-down legislative structures. It created management committees that included people from across the stakeholders. Those are two examples we would point the Senator to.

I thank Ms Armshaw. I might go to Mr. Lynch and Mr. Murphy. Their opening statement says that the public consultation process of the SFP-DMAP was little more than a box-ticking exercise with no meaningful engagement.

We are all here to engage and to try to move matters forward.

That was the first DMAP process we entered into. We felt the public consultation and stakeholder involvement were not sufficient. However, after the selection of the sites, we had further engagement which proved to be more sensible.

We need to use the south coast DMAP as a learning exercise in the context of what we are about to undertake. The one picture we got from the south coast DMAP was that a lot of fisheries data was not, in our interpretation, used in the assessment. In other words, if you take the layers of the south coast DMAP and the hard constraints and other constraints, put them all together and leave fisheries out, you can identify the four sites very clearly on the map. That led us to believe that fisheries were not given due consideration. We also felt the spawning areas identified by the Marine Institute were not given the consideration they should have been given. Other types of fisheries were only considered at a very high level rather than at the more granular level at which they need to be considered in order to identify the different nuances and fisheries that exist in the relevant areas. They are there and we need to account for them.

What compensation or transition support does the alliance advocate for small fishermen under the new MPA?

This is where the science, the data and the evaluation of what people are doing come into it. In any other walk of life, if you are going to be discommoded, even if someone puts a roadway through your garden, you are compensated. Unfortunately, fishermen are not deemed as the owners of the ground on which we work. We are only visitors and, as such, very few rights are afforded to us, despite the fact we have to have a legal entitlement to go out there. We have to have our licences and authorisations and our boats have to be up to scratch. Not only that, but our crews also have to be qualified, enabled and certified to be able to do the job.

All we want to do is to fish. I just want to put forward some figures that I always bring to this discussion on record. When I started fishing, there were 37 boats fishing out of Baltimore. There are three or four now. We are seeing this replicated around the coastline, not just for the bigger boats but also for the smaller boats. We are hearing from our smaller colleagues that with the big boats gone, they are going to be impacted because the fish they were catching as a byproduct and that were going to them to allow them to catch their species as bait are disappearing as well.

If what is proposed had been starting 20 years ago, we would have been way happier because the sacrifice we have made in the meantime is that our numbers have gone down by 63%. We are already leaving the field, particularly if we are deemed as being the ones that are doing damage. No other industry has made the sacrifices or the changes that we have made. Some 63% of our vessels have gone in the past 21 years.

We are talking about protecting other species and things, and quite rightly so. We absolutely believe in that. Fishermen need to be included in the conversation, however, because, otherwise, before you know it, we will be gone. This is something that we should be protecting. It is not just the animals, birds, etc.; it is also our heritage, the people who there, the historic nature of it and the families that have risked everything, that have paid the ultimate price in some tragic cases where they lost family members and that still go out to sea. A very prominent man in the industry, namely John Nolan from Castletownbere, has stated that the worst thing he has had to do is go up to a house and knock on the door to tell a family the news - before they got it some other way- that one of their loved ones had been lost at sea. He said that what was remarkable was that once the funeral was over, the family member he spoke to went to sea the following day to bring in more fish. Who would do it?

I just want people to be conscious of the fact that when we are talking about this, we have to realise that it really has an impact on fishermen, families and people around our coastline who are struggling. They are willing to sit down, as Mr. O'Leary said, with the groups we have put together. We would like to see them being more involved. As Mr. Lynch said, it depends on what you prioritise. That is what you are trying to protect.

We felt in that comment that at the start, our activities - what we were catching outside - were not put up high enough to determine what areas you would pick, but Mr. Lynch did, and I will let him in. He is trying to come in to address that.

I was not trying to cut Mr. Murphy off. The important thing is that fisheries, fishermen and the whole seafood industry need to not be seen as a problem or as something that needs to be told it needs to move here or there. We have enough regulations in the fishing industry as it is. The seafood industry needs to be seen as part, or all, of the solution. When you speak about mitigation or compensation for inshore fisheries, one of the other people mentioned that small-scale and even larger scale fishermen could be part of the ongoing monitoring of these MPAs and resources. They can be part of the process as opposed to something outside that has to be managed. That is where the solution is and that is where we need to find these mitigations and other forms of replacing the income that may be displaced when we select these areas.

Senator Noonan has ten minutes to put his questions and leave time for responses and to direct his questions to the witness he wants to hear from. If he feels somebody is going on too long and eating into the remainder of his time, he can interject.

I thank the committee for allowing me in. I am not a member of this committee. I also thank the witnesses. I am reassured by Mr. O'Leary's comments about the co-design. I know that when we ran aground with the stand-alone Bill, we had been clear in trying to design that public participation and co-design element from the outset. We met up in the car park in Killybegs during Covid when we had those early public engagements, and this was coming up loud and clear through Professor Crowe's report and through the public engagement we did. I had concerns that not running with the stand-alone legislation would, first, cause delays and, second, that it would be more typical to get that public participation. They are strong comments, and I welcome the fact they will appear in this legislation. All of the members have spoken to that co-creation as hugely important.

I have a number of questions for Dr. Ó Cadhla about the MPA LIFE project. Could that lead out on other elements such as establishing those local coastal committees that could be involved in this iterative process of the design and management of those MPAs in localities?

Absolutely. MPA LIFE is a nine-year project worth €25 million, €10 million of which is coming from Government. A key work package of the LIFE project is local implementation. There is provision for us to mobilise staff on the ground at local level from the get-go. That is absolutely part of our vision. We want to have all sorts of MPAs, of varying degrees of protection and action but co-created, co-designed and co-managed from the bottom up as appropriate to the things we are trying to protect. Community and fisheries organisations could be involved. It depends on the features we are trying to protect, what targets we are setting and how we are going to protect those things.

I think it was mentioned that on top of the network of biodiversity officers we have, there could be coastal or marine biodiversity in all of the coastal counties. Is that something some thought could be given to?

We are open to the long-term enduring nature of marine protected areas and the opportunities and benefits they provide.

All of those enduring measures are things we would be happy to consider. Those are things that we would be open to as this process evolves. The generational and enduring nature of marine protection is something that is really important. We want to ensure that we leave that legacy. Part of that legacy is the supporting infrastructure that will allow those MPAs to endure into the future. That is a key part to how we would like to establish that. We need to tap into all of the things that would support that, particularly in local areas' coastal communities and their local government structures. They are things the Department would be happy to explore and to advance further.

We have talked about features and species and the mapping out of areas, but there is a big piece of work around bringing people with us. The whole cultural, social and heritage aspects really need to be brought into this as well. That is what will keep people with us. My other question, which is something that has come up at the climate committee quite a bit, relates to blue carbon, particularly sea grass restoration and the potential for carbon sequestration. Are we missing something by not including sea grasses in our carbon budgets? Again, these are features that you would anticipate would be protected under MPA legislation.

Blue carbon is very much part of the landscape we have been looking at so far, at least in the preliminary sensitivity analysis work we have been doing. Sea grass, in particular, and salt marsh have been part of it. Sea grass is listed under the nature restoration regulation. So far, we have taken a feature-based approach to these two sensitivity analysis projects in the Celtic Sea and the western Irish Sea. As we develop the sensitivity analysis for the Atlantic Ocean as well, we will be looking again at the features we have already looked at. An important point to make is that, on this occasion, we are also talking about Natura 2000 and the birds and habitats directives. We are taking a more holistic approach in this third sensitivity analysis project. However, I reiterate a point that was made by the chair of the advisory group on both occasions previously that this is not the MPA process proper because we do not have the legislation in place. This is preliminary work we can do to try to balance all of these things and look at what features need to be protected and where might be suitable for protection in the future so that we have a pipeline of suitable areas with potential MPAs within them that we can bring forward. We have taken the message on engagement through from the Irish Sea and Celtic Sea studies so far. We are absolutely committed to conducting proper engagement early on, and that means in the coming weeks and onwards with this next phase.

That point was made by Mr. Murphy and Mr. Lynch. I also think Ms Duggan made a point on the role that fishers could have in this. In the same way as we have farm plan schemes on land, could we have a sea plan scheme for fishers? It would not just be involving them but also that they could receive a payment and support from being involved in monitoring or protecting certain features. I really think that could be seen as a positive. In the same way as we cannot restore nature on land without farmers, we cannot restore nature without fishers either. Is this something we could consider?

The Senator and I have met before. I asked him, if you were looking for information on the sea, who the first people were you would go to, and he said fishermen, and he was absolutely correct. Nobody knows their environment better than the people who have to survive on it, and that would be fishermen. We also spoke too about the amount of carbon we in the aquaculture sector sequester just in our daily operation, starting from a speck you cannot even see unless it is under a microscope that grows to thousands of tonnes and the carbon that shells sequester. Of course, the Senator is correct. It is the same with the fishermen who want to protect their area. We see French fishermen who fish off the Bay of Biscay are being paid to leave the area to protect the cetaceans.

Fishermen are absolutely all for that, but people have to understand that it is a business. According to BIM, fishermen lost 82% of their profitability. That is the industry we are in.

Nobody believes it. Go down to the piers and talk to the fishermen. They will say themselves we are under serious pressure from the loss of opportunities. Of course we are willing to talk to anybody who could diversify us, like all of the other industries that have been spoken about, to give us an opportunity to benefit the environment. I keep saying to people, and they do not get it until they hear it, that a fish does not produce one offspring, it produces thousands. If we give the environment a chance to recover, it will pay us back a thousandfold but we need to look after our environment. We would definitely be active participants in this if we were given the opportunity.

I agree completely with compensation being needed for the marine as well as on land. This could come from the nature restoration law. We have not been given confirmation of how the nature restoration law will be funded. Much of the conversation is focused on land-based aspects of it but we need to remember there is also a marine aspect. There needs to be money for marine restoration, the ongoing management of the protected areas and to support any people who might have to change their activities because of it. Fishermen should not have to shoulder a disproportionate burden in protecting the marine environment. A big issue we need to speak about is funding for the marine restoration law.

We need to look at the connectivity of our MPAs with the North Sea and where we are talking about migratory species.

The issue of resourcing was raised. We have put additional resources into the National Parks and Wildlife Service. We have heard about ORE and we are hearing it here again today. The resources of the NPWS need to be doubled again. It really does not have the resources to deliver on a nature restoration plan and on the requirements for the MPAs. It is an issue for the Government and a very significant one because we hear about it time and again.

I had a number of questions but most of them have already been asked and answered. I thank the witnesses for coming today and sharing their views with us. We are all interested in the common good and it is vital that we protect the resources we have. It is also important that we create wealth and we can do so. I come from a rural part of Ireland, as do many of the witnesses. At one time we could create a lot more wealth from the sea then we can now. It has been pointed out by one of the witnesses that securing the environment is in the interests of their organisations because it is of no interest to those in aquaculture not to have clear waters. Having said this, which brings me to aquaculture, when applications are submitted to the Department for aquaculture licences, do some, all or none of the organisations represented here make submissions?

With regard to offshore wind, the witnesses will be aware the Government's targets are to have 5 GW by 2030, 20 GW by 2040 and to be climate neutral by 2050, whoever will be around to witness it. I am sure there will be some around to witness it. When applications are to be submitted to An Coimisiún Pleanála, is there an obligation on the commission to inform bodies, as there is an obligation on local authorities to inform certain bodies when applications are submitted? Perhaps I should know the answer to this but I am sure somebody will know it. Is An Coimisiún Pleanála obliged to inform bodies when applications are submitted?

I will answer from the Department's perspective. With regard to An Coimisiún Pleanála, there are statutory consultees as part of the process. This is all stitched into the planning framework and the Planning and Development Act.

That list of who is notified and at what point through the planning process is available.

On the Deputy's first question in respect of aquaculture, that is not a policy area of the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment. It is for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Currently, the Department of Climate, Energy and the Environment is not a statutory consultee in respect of applications for aquaculture.

Regarding aquaculture, BirdWatch Ireland has submitted a handful of responses in the last ten years to aquaculture licence applications and the concern has mainly related to the supporting documentation, on wild birds for example. We had questions about that, how it was done and the conclusions drawn. We send in submissions because our mission is for the conservation of wild bird species. Some 63% of wild bird species in Ireland are red or amber listed as birds of conservation concern, meaning they are in trouble. It is again going back to process and making sure methodologies are done properly. Competent people are there to do the processes and provide the ornithological expertise as well.

To speak to aquaculture, the Sustainable Water Network does not do site-specific responses to the applications but we did recently publish a national level policy briefing on aquaculture, particularly on how it relates to the marine strategy framework directive and water framework directive objectives. Coming back to the case-by-case management, sweeping rules are not going to work. There is an increasing overlap between marine aquaculture production areas and the Natura 2000 network sites. As Mr. Murphy said in regard to mussel farming, there are forms of aquaculture that can very much contribute to the environmental objectives and provide ecosystem services. For instance, oysters can filter up to 140 litres of seawater a day, really benefiting the marine environment, as do reefs acting as carbons sinks and nurseries for other fish species. When forms of aquaculture are done in a regenerative and restorative way, they can be very beneficial to the environmental objectives of the MPAs. However, there are other forms of aquaculture, for instance open-net salmon farming, that probably would not be very conducive to the environmental goals. It is really down to the case-by-case management.

On the aspect of offshore renewable energy, Fair Seas has an MPA and offshore renewable energy policy position, which I can send on to the committee if that would be useful. Regarding MPAs specifically, I have stood outside the gates of Leinster House with the head of policy from Wind Energy Ireland. We have a good working relationship. We issued a joint statement at the beginning of the Dáil summer recess last year where Fair Seas, and also the wind industry represented by Justin Moran in Wind Energy Ireland at that time, called on the Government to go ahead and publish the MPA legislation as soon as possible. Regarding ORE and the industry, it wants that certainty that comes from knowing what the legislation will say and what the industry's responsibilities will be when sites are designated. That certainty is key. We are hearing from the fishing industry as well as from ourselves and the offshore renewable energy industry that this legislation really needs to go ahead. We need to be involved. I think we are all in the same place on those issues.

Okay. We will move on. Two members had indicated that they wished to come back in. As we have ten minutes left, I propose to give Deputies Mac Lochlainn and Whitmore five minutes each. Again, the questions and the responses need to be within that five minutes.

I wanted earlier to acknowledge the helpful statements from the environmental organisations around the failure of policy and the failure to consult in terms of the existing protected areas. There can often be distrust between environmental organisations and fishing organisations. Much of it is because fishing communities are struggling. We have had terrible news in recent times. The industry and the community are under tremendous pressure, so the statements from the organisations acknowledging the lack of consultation are really helpful and I welcome them.

Ms Carr spoke about international best practice and models. I invite her to send the committee examples of that. They would be very helpful in our deliberations as we engage with the legislation.

The delays with this legislation have been deeply frustrating. We can see today from the evidence of the witnesses and the views of the members that we urgently need to sort this out. The difficulty is that the longer we delay the legislation, the less time we have to make sure the practices are good in terms of co-creation, research and everything else that needs to be done for us to meet our targets. I ask that the committee write to the Minister after today's meeting to urge the drafting of this legislation. The current timeframe is mid-2026, but we all know what happens. Senator Noonan knows how the last legislation got caught up. If the Cathaoirleach does not mind me suggesting it, we should write to the Minister to urge that this be done as soon as possible. The types of practices we want to see can only be done if this legislation is brought through at the earliest possible opportunity this year.

I agree with the Deputy's proposal. I take it that it is agreed by all members that we will do that. Not only will we ask the Minister to do this urgently, but we will ask for a clear timeline as well.

I agree with what my colleague has said. Today was a really useful exercise. What I find most interesting is that both the fishing industry and the environmental organisations are pretty much saying the same thing. They want consultation and proper management. That is a really strong starting point for the Department. We need to make sure that whatever the process is - it will be the DMAP process - it is as strong as possible. This is a really welcome starting point for the witnesses. The onus is now on them to develop that process.

The DMAP process in the previous Dáil was with a different Department and a different committee. If the premise of the new MPAs is to be based on the DMAP process, it would be really useful for this committee - we are looking at our work programme at the moment - to look at the DMAP process and see where the gaps are, for example with regard to consultation. What happened at the start? What changed then where Mr. Lynch thought it got better as it went through? We need to start the second round at that better place.

Similarly for the environmental groups, what data has been used? How do we make these as strong as possible? Can we make them dynamic? It would be really worthwhile if there was a review in this committee, perhaps bringing in the Department and different groups again to look at the first DMAP process, how it was worked through, where the gaps were - it was the first time this was done, so it was not going to be perfect - and how we can build on that. That would be really useful.

We are very short on time. I know Fair Seas has a list of recommendations as well. I would be interested to know what the Department's view on those ten points is. If we could get that in written form, it would be very useful.

We are looking at our work programme. We will arrive at a decision at our next private meeting. I encourage the witnesses to send ideas to the clerk and me.

We will make sure it is included and it will be discussed for decision at our next meeting.

I thank all members and witnesses for participating. It is not so often that we have a full house, be it members or witnesses, notwithstanding the very important items we discuss here. We managed to get through our business fairly well. My takeaway, having listened to the questions, answers and responses, is the amount of agreement between all the various organisations represented here. That is really welcome. Long may it continue and long may we listen to one another and take on board each other's views. The actions suggested are that we use this committee to light a bit of a fire under the Minister to publish that legislation to try to expedite this process and also ensure it is done in a way that dialogue is central to it. If those two action points come out of this meeting, it will certainly have been worthwhile. Once again, thank you very much. As there is no further business, the meeting stands adjourned.