Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for missing the first presentations. With regard to the Natura 2000 sites around our coast, when this committee was dealing with its work in this area, these sites featured hugely, no matter where one went along the coast. In the aquaculture area for example, in the period since 1993, when the Natura 2000 sites designations were made, aquaculture developed in Scotland at ten times the rate it did here although Scotland had to observe the same habitats directive as we did and had to designate sites. I do not know where it designated its sites, whether they were inland or offshore, or how it managed to do it and still develop its aquaculture, but it was working under the same European legislation as us. The perception exists here that much of the licensing restriction that has inhibited an aquaculture industry in this country is because of the Natura sites in the bays and harbours around our coast.

Another issue is that because of the lack of scientific information when these sites were designated, if a licence came in for a new activity - whether based on tourism, the marine or aquaculture - there was no way of assessing the impact of that proposed activity. In the presentation made to the committee yesterday, we were told the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine had to start from scratch to develop a data model to assemble the information to assess the impact such a licence would have on a Natura site. We have gone about this backwards. We have a Department that is trying to develop an aquaculture industry to fit the targets of Food Harvest 2020, but to do that it had to start from scratch to get the scientific data. It worked in conjunction with the National Parks and Wildlife Service and others to get a base model. Obviously there was some scientific information available, but it was not sufficient to allow an educated or informed decision on licensing. The Department has informed us that it can now use its model not just for aquaculture but for anything. This effort has been going on from 1993 up to the past year or so. Therefore, why is it that in the context of the economic and social impact of the designation of Natura sites, for example, the information does not add up?

We have seen countries which have been working under the same legislation outstrip us by a factor of ten. The perception that exists must be dealt with. Whether wrongly or rightly, communities here feel very hard done by, not by the designation of the Natura sites, but by the inability to move ahead and deal with applications. That is the problem. We have fallen 20 years behind in this regard. If that perception is wrong, we should deal with that. How we can move ahead is something with which this committee must deal. If we are going to come up with a report, we must show how we can move forward in these areas. If we want to introduce tourism infrastructure, aquaculture or marine leisure or sea fishery projects in these areas, we must be able to assess their impact on these areas. If we can deal with this, we should, but if the requirement for an impact assessment is going to continue to inhibit progress this should be a fundamental part of our report. We need to be able to tell people whether they can or cannot progress a development in these areas.