Pádraic Fogarty: U-turn shows Government is unwilling to protect Ireland's sea creatures
Spain is hardly a great champion for marine protection, it is currently in court for allowing bottom trawling in its MPAs and has virtually nowhere that is 'strictly protected', that is, off limits to all kinds of fishing or extractive activities. Nevertheless, it can credibly say that it is on track to achieve protection of 30% of its waters by 2030, an international benchmark that many countries, including Ireland, have signed up to.
Taoiseach Micheál Martin was also in Nice for the summit but, unlike the Spanish, announced no initiatives on MPAs. In a speech he said that 'Ireland understands the need to protect our marine environment', which may be true, but this is scarcely reflected in the apathy and inaction from him and his government on this topic.
Unlike nearly every other European country, Ireland lacks even the basic legislation for the creation of MPAs, something that we agreed to pass back in 2008 with the adoption of the EU's Marine Strategy Framework Directive. It took 13 years before a Fine Gael-led government commissioned an expert report on the issue, which appeared in 2021.
In 2022 there was a public consultation which, in the government's own words, demonstrated 'strong support' for MPAs and which received an impressive 2,311 submissions, mostly from ordinary people. A draft bill was published at the end of that year while the Joint Oireachtas Committee published its report on this early in 2023.
Last year the bill came within a hair's breadth of being approved by the government but was pulled at the last minute for reasons that have not been explained publicly. As recently as the run-up to the last election, Micheál Martin wrote to the campaign group Fair Seas assuring them that upon a return to office the MPA bill would be passed 'as soon as possible.'
However, last weekend it was reported that the Taoiseach is doing a full U-turn on this policy. A report in the Sunday Business Post said that the bill would now be dropped, and that they were looking at ways to shoehorn MPAs into existing legislation.
Padraic Fogarty: 'There is huge popular support for taking action. People love the sea.'
There are those who will say that it makes little difference whether the provision for MPAs lies within standalone legislation or not. Theoretically they might be correct, but the reality of what has happened points to something far more worrying.
Creating the foundations for an MPA network that will actually deliver the recovery of marine life requires a substantial level of detail to be nailed down in law. There is work by scientists to identify where the best places for MPAs should be but drawing the lines on maps is the easy part.
How will they be monitored? Who will enforce the rules? Where will strictly protected areas be located? Of critical importance are the details on how they will be managed on a day-to-day basis; where will responsibility lie and how will local communities be able to participate?
We know these questions are important because the existing network of protected conservation areas, which were designated as part of the EU's Habitats and Birds directives, has failed miserably in achieving its aims and has only served to anger local people and distance them from our most precious nature sites.
It is an approach that has landed us, repeatedly, in the European Court of Justice and is a leading reason why the scale of the biodiversity crisis in Ireland is much greater than it might have otherwise been. Micheál Martin's backflip on the MPA bill signals that they don't have the willingness to go through with this.
Much easier is adding a few clauses to an existing bill to allow for the nominal designation of MPAs and the creation of more 'paper parks', something that will allow the government to claim that it has met international commitments, but which delivers nothing in the water for biodiversity.
Fishing industry
This is not only about recovering the rich marine life that is currently a shadow of its former self due to decades of fishing activity, pollution and, more recently, warming waters. The fishing communities that rely on healthy seas have dwindled away also.
The situation has become so dire that whatever fish are left are far out to sea being hoovered up by industrial factory boats leaving lobsters as the only reliable catch for the guys in small boats. On the other hand, the director of the National Inshore Fisheries Forum told a conference in Cork in 2022 that 'MPAs could be the saviour of the inshore industry'.
It is not just the MPAs that highlights the Taoiseach's inaction. His government has also failed to legislate for the exclusion of large trawlers from coastal waters, something that was promised a decade ago.
Lack of food has seen the large whales abandon the south coast, something which this year prompted long-time boatman Colin Barnes to close up his whale watching business in Union Hall.
In 2022, when the EU asked member states to stop bottom trawling in existing protected areas, the Irish government just shrugged its shoulders and carried on. It is perfectly allowable for someone to drag a dredger, a long iron bar with outward teeth that dig into the seafloor, through one of these so-called 'special areas of conservation'.
Frustration with Government inaction
Why is the government seemingly so incapable of taking any action? How is it willing to stand like a frightened bunny and watch ecosystems and fishing communities collapse and do nothing about it?
Ireland is a dynamic place. We had a successful Citizens' Assembly on Biodiversity Loss which clearly outlined the action that needs to be taken. There is no shortage of community groups, businesses, NGOs and fishermen who are willing, eager even, to roll up their sleeves and start the task of restoration.
There is huge popular support for taking action. People love the sea.
Yet the lack of action, the reneging of promises, the endless, meaningless speeches are sapping motivation. This was demonstrated in a recent Climate Conversations survey which showed that public anxiety on environmental issues is rising due to government inaction.
'Frustration was the main feeling reported,' according to pollsters.
Our politicians are the only ones who can pass laws, without which change where it matters cannot happen. I have seen this first hand in my work as an advocate for nature for over 20 years.
The government should not be allowed backslide on its duty to pass a standalone law for MPAs, like it promised, like the people of this country want.
Read More
Anja Murray: Radical changes required to let the oceans recover
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
3 hours ago
- Irish Times
‘Don't call us, Mick Wallace, we'll call you': The presidential contest fails to ignite
It was starting to look like we might have no candidates for the presidency at all. The list of the eminences who have ruled themselves out is now considerably longer than those who haven't; hats are disappearing from the ring at an alarming rate. Presumably somebody will eventually agree to do the job. Latest to skedaddle this week was Seán Kelly , the Fine Gael MEP for Ireland South, only days after Joe Duffy announced he wouldn't be walking the walk. Kelly had toyed with the idea for months and had been expected to contest the Fine Gael nomination with Mairead McGuinness . Announcing on Morning Ireland that he would not seek the nomination, Kelly quoted John B Keane that a day spent out of Kerry is a day wasted – which may well be true but hardly holds water if you already spend half the week in Brussels or Strasbourg. Kelly would have been a formidable candidate. A fortnight ago in Dungarvan a man in a restaurant told me Kelly was 'loved from Mizen Head to Malin Head'; whatever about that, he is a former president of the GAA and a prolific and repeated vote getter. Party chiefs might well have preferred a competition for the nomination, not just to introduce the eventual candidate to the public, but to test them a little too. McGuinness – now likely to be the only Fine Gael candidate when nominations close next week – will have her own issues in the campaign. The story that she – quite legally – claimed some €800,000 in office expenses while an MEP for a premises she and her husband own might take some explaining. And she might find her closeness to Ursula von der Leyen is not an unqualified political advantage. She can expect a tough campaign. READ MORE [ Has the public had enough of presidents like Michael D Higgins? Opens in new window ] But at least Fine Gael has a name for the ballot paper. None of the other big parties does at this stage. This week Sinn Féin floated the intriguing possibility that Mary Lou McDonald would be its candidate – a prospect that, unlike previously, she declined to dismiss out of hand. Pearse Doherty noted that some people would find the prospect 'exciting'; David Cullinane thought she would have an 'opportunity to win'. Running McDonald would give Sinn Féin a shot at winning – a long shot, to be sure (surveys show there are a lot of voters that say they will never vote for Sinn Féin), but a shot all the same. She is almost certainly the party's strongest possible candidate. But it would also signal a huge move from Sinn Féin: that her term as party leader is over; that Sinn Féin's 'collective leadership' – as the party describes it – has decided that she will not win the next general election and that it stands a better chance at leading a government with someone else at the helm. Who is that? Doherty is the most obvious successor. Does he stand a better chance of winning over middle ground southern votes than McDonald? I don't know about that. But if the party is going to replace McDonald with Pearse, I think it would mean that the party wants to fight the next election from the left, with a harder populist edge. There is still talk of a left unity candidate. But while it looks like Catherine Connolly will be in the running, a consensus candidate with the backing of Labour and Sinn Féin seems a dim prospect. I suppose you never know. A meeting of the leaders of the left-wing parties at Leinster House on the subject on Wednesday was – would you believe? – inconclusive. Sinn Féin wouldn't say what it was going to do. Labour and the Greens are unenthusiastic about the prospect of Galway independent Catherine Connolly – who will launch her campaign next week – as a candidate, though she is favoured by the Social Democrats and People Before Profit. If not her the former TD and MEP Mick Wallace indicated this week he may be willing to serve. I fear this may be a case of don't call us, Mick, we'll call you. No sign of any action in Fianna Fáil. For the second time in recent weeks, twice former candidate Seán Gallagher was knocking around Leinster House, discussing legislative matters, he says. Pressed on presidential ambitions, he concedes there is lots of talk around, but reckons that 'the landscape will remain unclear for another six or seven weeks'. Gnomic. Gallagher was a sort of proxy Fianna Fáil candidate in 2011. Could he fill that role again? A senior party figure responds emphatically: he could not. It's the prospect of the campaign, and the rigorous interrogation by the media that accompanies it, that seems to be scaring most of them off. David Norris in 2011 is the example most often cited of someone who was almost destroyed by the campaign – but there are many others who have had cause to wonder about the wisdom of entering the contest. Norris is a man who has done his country great service. But if the campaign showed us anything it was that he had flaws that would have surfaced as president. Nobody is perfect for the job. The function of the campaign is to find out more about the imperfections of the candidates so voters can make up their minds. The Constitution provides that if the president dies, loses grip on reality, spends too long at the sherry or is otherwise incapacitated, his or her functions can be discharged by a presidential commission consisting of the chief justice, the ceann comhairle of the Dáil and the cathaoirleach of the Seanad. The way things are going, it might be time to start thinking along those lines on a permanent basis.
Irish Independent
3 hours ago
- Irish Independent
‘SPF is not a luxury item like lipstick, it saves lives' – TanOrganic founder Noelle O'Connor hits out at Vat on sunscreen
This week, Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe said it was not possible to remove sunscreen from the highest Vat rate. Responding to a parliamentary question from Social Democrats TD Aidan Farrelly, Mr Donohoe said there was 'no discretion' under the EU Vat directive for Ireland to apply a reduced rate to SPF products. 'Sunscreens and sun-protection factor are not included in the categories of goods and services to which the EU Vat directive allows a lower rate to be applied,' he said. But Ms O'Connor said these sunscreen products are 'lifesaving' and should be designated in the same category as medication. That would allow a zero Vat rate to be applied to them. Ms O'Connor is calling for urgent EU action to have this change implemented. 'It should be similar to Nurofen, in that it can be bought over-the-counter and without a prescription,' she said. 'SPF is not a luxury cosmetic. It's not the same as a lipstick. It is an essential item and needs to be re-classified as such.' With temperatures soaring close to 30C this weekend, Ireland is in for some Mediterranean-style weather over the coming days. There are more than 11,000 people diagnosed with skin cancer in Ireland annually, and this figure is expected to double by 2040. The most common form of cancer in the country, about 270 skin cancer-related deaths are recorded annually. Ms O'Connor, the founder of TanOrganic, launched her campaign to have SPF products deemed essential items in May. The Dragons Den star has joined forces with the Mater Hospital's skin cancer clinical nurse specialist Kelsey O'Donnell and melanoma specialist Shirley Potter. Ms O'Connor said both medics have witnessed the 'devastating impact' of skin cancer on families across the country. She has gathered over 2,500 signatures on an Uplift campaign as part of this initiative. 'I've got a load of doctors behind me. I'm really passionate about this. We've worked with dermatologists and worked with the Mater Hospital. They all feel it's an essential product,' she said.
Irish Examiner
8 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Mick Clifford: Why are we allowing hate speech thrive?
Should we be free to say whatever we want, to voice our deepest fears or resentments? Should we have the right to cause offence if we believe such offence is entirely warranted? Right now, the Government, and much of the body politic, appear to be going along with the notion that there should be precious little restrictions on the right to abuse or denigrate minorities. Most of them are not doing so out of conviction, but out of fear. At issue is a matter than any thoughtful politician knows has an impact on society, but in the prevailing atmosphere is considered more trouble than it is worth. And if such cowardice impacts negatively on individuals, well, that's really awful but the attitude appears to be that those individuals will just have to suck it up. Ireland has been threatened with legal action by the EU for failing to implement proper hate speech laws. The current law in this country, the Incitement To Hatred Act, dates back to 1989. It was enacted before the internet became central to life, at a time when the country was fairy banjaxed, before it took off and attracted people from all around the world to service the economy. There have been seven successful prosecutions under the act in the last 35 years. This suggests either we are living in a Utopia of peace, love and understanding or else the law is an ass New legislation was drafted and last year and began its passage through the Oireachtas. It was flawed in a few respects. One section in particular would have made it a crime to be in possession of material that could, if disseminated, lead to incitement to hatred. That was by any standards overkill and attracted criticism from both left and right. The other issue that arose was the protected categories of people against whom it would be illegal to incite hatred. One of these involved gender. The whole area of gender dysphoria is contested and has been at the centre of the culture wars both here and abroad in recent years. Again, there would have been a way to frame that with a little political will. All such political will disappeared in the wake of the defeat of the women in the home and care referendums in March 2024. Accurately or otherwise, the result was at least partly interpreted as a visceral reaction to so-called 'woke' culture which is associated with the rise of identity politics in the late decade or so. Thereafter, with the body politic shook at the reaction to referendums that nearly all parties had supported, the reaction was to run away from anything else that might be interpreted as 'woke'. Such an attitude, while politically understandable, is a complete derogation of the most fundamental duties in a liberal democracy. Hate speech laws are necessary, as recognised by most developed countries Nefarious elements thrive on spreading hate about minorities. Some elements make money out of this, particularly online. Meanwhile, the spreading of hatred can result in fractures in society, violence, and even impinge on basis elements of a democracy. At the level of individuals, it means that people can be abused or denigrated based on their ethnic make-up. Interestingly, the kind of people who shout loudly that we should not have laws to prevent this are the first to reach for a lawyer if they perceive that even the most innocuous slight on them personally amounts to a grievous character assassination. Prior to the opening up of the country to foreign workers, the spreading of hatred was customarily done by those who felt entitled to abuse Travellers collectively. These days, it is directed at asylum seekers and generally people from diverse ethnic backgrounds and members of the LGBT community, particularly those who class themselves as transgender. Donald Trump and other authoritarian figures have shown that there is political capital and money to be made from allowing hate speech to thrive. He has won votes on the back of denigrating minorities and from the tech bros who own the online space who resist any restrictions on speech that might in any way prevent them from inflating their billions. On this side of the Atlantic, there is generally some regard for society as a whole and less for putting the interests of billionaires and their cronies about all other considerations. Despite all that, our Government is intent on sitting on its hands. The justice minister Jim O'Callaghan has informed the EU that we're perfectly happy with our ancient peace and love, and we understand law in this country and we won't be changing. This was confirmed by Taoiseach Micheál Martin during the week in a doorstep interview outside government buildings. He said the way the entire debate around hate speech has been conducted 'left a lot to be desired,' which is certainly the case. He went on. 'There is too much incitement to hate going on in this country which can lead to bad behaviour and to violence because of their sexual orientation or their race and we have all witnessed it on social media'. So the Taoiseach openly accepts that hate speech is a major problem in society but insists that we can tackle it through the peace, love and understanding law that is about as useful as tits on a bull The reality is that the Government parties — and Sinn Féin in particular on the opposition benches — are scared witless of the intolerant right that would portray them as 'woke' if they were to pursue enacting a law to prevent minorities being targeted by hate. Prior to the 2024 referendums, the main parties were scared of the other extreme, the authoritarian strain of the left that focused on identity politics. If any politician said anything interpreted as straying from the strict ideology of this intolerance, particularly in areas like gender dysphoria, they were abused and labelled as transphobic, racist or whatever. That intolerance in turn got the backs up of some people who expressed their frustration or opposition to it by voting against the referendums. Then, in the customary Irish way, one extreme was swapped for another. The intolerant right had the upper hand in the public square and replaced the authoritarian left as the bogeymen for mainstream politicians. Where once the body politic was afraid of those purveying identity politics, now they fear most anything that might result in being lumbered with the label 'woke'. In such a milieu the easiest solution to any problems around hate speech legislation is viewed as dumping the whole thing. It's no way to run a grown-up country. The result is that hate will be allowed to fester online and in person. The message being conveyed from the very top of government is that doing anything about it is more trouble than it's worth. Read More Jennifer Horgan: We need to find room in our hearts for the people of Sudan
