Professor Tasman Crowe:

Those are very good questions. I will start with the transboundary considerations. I do not have a specific example in mind. In the work we are doing, we are giving some consideration to the Irish Sea, for example. If the concern is to conserve a particular species or habitat and it is either already very well provided for in the western Irish Sea or currently not at all well provided for in the western Irish Sea, that should influence our thinking about what we do in our jurisdiction. In many cases in those habitats or species directly straddle the political border but are biologically distinct. We cannot think that is all taken care of now simply because there is a marine conservation zone on the other side of the border. It still comes down to exactly what measures are being taken within that protected area on the other side of the border.

Again, it is not a quick process. It is a process of a discussion and dialogue that is important, and I think that is evident.

The other way in which we need to think in terms of trans-boundary considerations is that we are part of OSPAR and we are part of Europe. Our SACs and SPAs are intended to contribute to the Natura 2000 network, which is supposed to have network properties as a whole. The OSPAR example is perhaps a better one because clearly the intention is to protect the species, some of which have been identified, across their whole range. If mobile species have been well protected in one place, that is not going to help at all if they are not being well protected when they move into another jurisdiction. What we do is not enough sometimes. We have had the strictest protections in our jurisdiction but they swim out of our territory and they are being clobbered next door. There needs to be strategic thinking about how you conserve species and habitats across their range. Those are the two senses in which we need to think about that.

On the Citizens' Assembly, I was involved with its expert advisory group so I was involved in all of the sessions. I gave some talks and was involved in panel discussions. To me, that is one of the areas in which Ireland is a world leader, which is inspiring and encouraging. It worked extremely well through very effective facilitators. It also underlined for me again the value of stakeholder participation and engagement. A lot of ideas and perspectives are shared. People come away happy, and sometimes unhappy, but there is a general sense that it is worthwhile to talk things through. I think a lot of great thoughts and ideas flowed from the assembly, which is an effective approach.

On the Bill and the noticeable gaps regarding the recommendations of the advisory group, I thought it was just the stakeholder engagement side that did not come out loud and clear. My sense is that ad hoc groups are provided for. There is one place in which it is specified of which I made a note. There is an explanatory note in head 16, which indicates that "the ad-hoc working groups will enable the participation of different stakeholders". The ad hocgroups are mentioned much earlier under heads 5, 3 and 8(4). They relate to different steps in the process. They are all places where I would think it is very important to get that stakeholder view but it is not explicitly stated. If I were a stakeholder reading this general scheme, I would not have seen my name mentioned so there needs to be some wording that says, for example, "including ad-hoc groups" or "including stakeholders."