Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Thursday, 21 March 2013

Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine: Joint Sub-Committee on Fisheries

Aquaculture and Tourism: Discussion (Resumed)

9:30 am

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Denis Maher of the fisheries and corporate services division of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources; Dr. Ciarán Byrne, CEO, and Ms Suzanne Campion from Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI; Dr. Ciarán O'Keeffe, principal officer and chief scientific officer of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht; and Dr. Eamonn Kelly, wildlife inspector with the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I thank them all for coming. The joint sub-committee was established to focus on communities and the socioeconomics and promotion of sustainable industries. The main industries identified by the sub-committee are aquaculture, island and coastal fisheries, inshore fisheries, with a particular emphasis on sea angling, and tourism. We are here to hear the views of the witnesses' Departments or agencies.

Before we begin, I note to witnesses that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this joint sub-committee. If they are directed by the sub-committee to cease giving evidence with regard to a particular matter but continue to so do, they will be entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise nor make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I understand that Mr. Denis Maher will make an opening statement and Dr. Ciarán Byrne will make a presentation on sea angling in Ireland.

Photo of Michael McNamaraMichael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Inland Fisheries Ireland going to attend with Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, at a later date or is this its only appearance before the sub-committee?

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If necessary, but it has not been scheduled.

Photo of Michael McNamaraMichael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just wanted to clarify that.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The two Departments were asked, so that is it.

Mr. Denis Maher:

Before I make the opening statement, I note that Ms Suzanne Campion will make a PowerPoint presentation. We are grateful to have the opportunity to address the sub-committee on the important topic of angling tourism with particular reference to sea angling.

Sea angling is a component of the mix of economic pursuits that make up inshore water-based activities. The mix in the inshore area requires State, commercial and recreational users to contribute to a delicate balance between sometimes complementary but often competing interests. The angling sector is estimated to contribute in excess of €500 million annually to the national economy and to underpin employment and income earning for around 10,000 people, mostly in peripheral and rural communities and particularly along the western seaboard. Sea angling, which is the particular focus of the sub-committee, attracts almost 100,000 participants and generates income of approximately €100 million which is spent almost entirely in the communities in which the activity is based. We make our presentation to assist the sub-committee in its consideration of the tourism angling sector and to show where sea angling fits into that area. It is timely to address the sub-committee as Inland Fisheries Ireland is about to publish a comprehensive study of the national angling product and of the requirements and expectations of the customer, both domestic and overseas. The study is currently being finalised.

The study asked anglers, both domestic and international, what their expectations were and its results will offer a strategic guide to build on development plans for the sector to underpin employment and income in the angling sector and in the related hospitality and transport areas. I stress again that the income generated from angling is spent almost entirely within local communities, which concentration on local earning and spending is almost unique in the inshore sector. Our presentations will outline some of the most revealing results of the study and provide the sub-committee with a sense of the value and development potential of the sector while emphasising the importance of recreational sea angling to continued viable income generation in coastal communities.

Inland Fisheries Ireland, a statutory, independent agency under the aegis of the Department of Communications Energy and Natural Resources, is responsible for the conservation, protection and development of the inland fisheries resource and recreational sea angling. It has also a remit to promote the inland fisheries and sea angling resource. IFI has national responsibilities under the EU habitats directive, the water framework directive and eel regulations. IFI is mindful that the inshore area is vital to coastal communities, and exploitation of this sensitive resource requires a balance among sustainable developments across all sectors, underpinned by a cohesive approach among stakeholders. It also requires a balance with the State's international obligations on the environment, conservation, biodiversity and natural resource management. IFI is active in offering inputs to support and advise on development proposals which might impact areas in which we have expertise. The key objective is to facilitate sectors to develop in a manner that protects as far as possible finite resources and ensures that developments benefit to the greatest extent possible the local communities in which they are based.

IFI's development strategy for angling and sea angling in particular is based around keeping visitors returning to Ireland because the quality of the fishing and the support services are second to none. We must continually reinforce the message that Ireland is an angling paradise, that the infrastructure and information are available to provide for a wonderful angling holiday experience and that there is a real welcome for anglers and the euro they bring. IFI has an agreed angling marketing strategy with Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland. It also works on an all-island basis with Northern Ireland's Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Loughs Agency to market Irish angling internationally. IFI supports its industry and trade partners to produce information, attend trade shows, market directly to customers and develop the angling product. IFI's business development section is resourced to deliver on IFI's aim to increase the number of anglers and increase the return from angling and inland fisheries to Ireland.

Stable development and balanced exploitation is the cornerstone of IFI's resource management strategy. The ongoing collaboration between IFI and its partners can ensure Ireland develops sustainably as a top-class angling destination. The development of sea angling and angling tourism in general requires a modern legislative base. The Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd, who has responsibility for the inland fisheries resource, has advanced a project to modernise and simplify the entire inland fisheries legislative code. This project will serve the sector well into the future. The review of legislation will go to public consultation in the near future. A key overriding objective of the legislative project is to put in place a statutory basis for IFI to develop the potential of the sector by increasing the number of anglers utilising the resource, empowering stakeholders to take an active role in its development and to maximise the returns from inland fisheries to local communities and the State.

Ms Suzanne Campion:

Inland Fisheries Ireland is the body charged with the conservation, protection, development, management and promotion of the inland fisheries resource and sea angling. As such, we do a great deal of work to promote all angling activities in Ireland, including the sea angling product. Shore angling is perhaps the most popular form of sea angling in Ireland and attracts many participants who fish estuaries and from piers, rocks and beaches all around the coast. Shore angling can take place during 12 months of the year. Small boat angling is carried out by anglers from locally owned small boats at small ports nationally. Small boats go out about 5 km and the activity is weather dependent.

For the most part, small boat angling takes place from spring to autumn. There are approximately 80 chartered skippers nationally who run small businesses based in local communities. Up to 12 people can go out on a boat hired from a chartered skipper for the day. They go up to 30 km out to sea. The species targeted by anglers include bass, shark, ling, cod, pollock and, the one everyone thinks of, mackerel. There are 33 species which are regularly the subject of a normal small boats competition in the south east or south west.

Sea angling is an important part of the overall Irish angling product. The latest comprehensive study which is about to be finalised indicates that angling is worth more than €500 million to the economy and is estimated to support 10,000 jobs in rural and peripheral communities. I cannot stress enough that recent studies from NUIG demonstrate that all of the income generated by small, community-based, marine businesses stays in the local area. It has been estimated that there is a multiplier effect of 0.48 with such income. If €1 million is spent, there is €1.5 million worth of an economic impact in local and peripheral communities. The statistics which our survey is generating show that there are 250,000 Irish anglers who are currently active. Approximately 250,000 further anglers have fished in the past and would like to go fishing again. We have identified 40,600 anglers coming from Northern Ireland while the latest figures from Tourism Ireland show that in 2011, 113,000 came from European and other destinations. Participants in sea angling number 97,000. While that suggests that 25% of all anglers are sea anglers, it is a complex area. Most anglers target a number of species. One could have a salmon angler who is also a bass angler and a trout angler or a sea angler who also fishes for pike or other coarse species.

Our study comprised a household survey carried out in two tranches at two different times of the year, a survey of recreational anglers carried out at 50 locations nationally and a survey of stakeholders including trade and industry interests. Sea anglers take 773,500 trips per year and 72% of them are under 55 years of age. Almost 25% of anglers are in the 18 to 34 years age bracket, which is a slightly different profile to the perception of anglers which exists. Anglers are generally seen as grey-haired men older than 55 years. We have a young cohort who are eager to develop. Sea anglers are estimated to spend €1,300 annually on their sport while bass anglers in particular spend approximately €2,600 each annually. It is impressive that people are willing to spend these sums on their pastime.

When IFI goes to markets abroad, we generally accompany Tourism Ireland and Fáilte Ireland, though sometimes we go on our own. We market Ireland as Angling in Ireland, Angel en Irlandor Peche en Irlande. People abroad would not understand a reference to Killybegs or Ballycotton but they will understand Ireland and the Irish product. The product is sold as an experience of good fishing, good craic, beautiful scenery and an unspoilt environment. That combination is what tourists tell us they want. Promotional activities include shows, brochures, articles, filming and information on specimen fish and predator hunting. The expertise within IFI means we can carry out these activities ourselves except any printing required. We have expertise that can provide information on angling, produce brochures and accompany journalists on visits. It is fundamental to anglers that they benefit from expert marketing. It is not enough for an ordinary Joe Soap to tell them about angling as they will be caught out.

We provide information on the angling product daily through social media, websites and blogs and by way of weekly e-zines. Information is going out all year. We gather information all the time through our marine tagging programme, which is voluntary, and our chartered skippers' voluntary logbook programme. We are currently facilitating the Donegal angling pilot programme which involves chartered skippers and game anglers coming together to market an overall product. Most of our angling stakeholders are very innovative and see that one cannot send anglers to the pub for the day. They are examining alternatives. If an angler cannot go sea fishing one day, he or she can go game or coarse angling. The Cork sea angling hub is another great example of the work being done by agencies and stakeholders. There are approximately nine chartered skippers between Ballycotton and Kinsale and accommodation, restaurants and boat hire are all tied up together in a hub to offer a complete package to anglers. Competitions are run which attract many international visitors. When anglers come they stay longer than typical travellers and spend all their time on the west, south-west and north-west coasts and in the Shannon region. They only spend 7% of their time in Dublin. They are travelling to the peripheral and isolated communities where the money is kept by small and local businesses.

Bass fishing is most interesting in terms of developing trends. It is the only fishery that is managed as a recreational marine species. The proliferation of bass angling guides, accommodation providers and the comments of anglers lead us to believe there is a developing business in this area. Figures in our study will show that. Kayak angling is a niche angling activity which attracts younger people. It is not too popular in Ireland yet, but it is somewhere between small boats and shore angling. It provides anglers with a bit more mobility and excitement and represents the type of adventure-style holiday that people are seeking now. Light rock fishing is something we see on the horizon. It is a change of use of tackle and involves going to heavier tackle rather than lines to lighter tackle which can target more species. This is the up and coming thing in the tackle industry which we can see developing throughout the world. It will come to Ireland.

There are many perceptions and concerns which we came across in the study. Illegal fishing and netting continue to be a concern of stakeholders. Fewer anglers, depleted fish stocks, regulations which are not obeyed and policed and higher fuel costs for small boat owners and chartered skippers are also concerns. Last year was a concern for most people as fewer anglers came due to the bad weather. While we saw fewer anglers, it was because weather conditions did not suit them. We are happy to discuss the concerns set out in more detail if members wish.

The study is comprehensive and will be published shortly. This is a huge sector with very significant potential. It brings €500 million into the economy and supports 10,000 jobs. There is potential to grow the number of anglers domestically and internationally. Given that 250,000 people want to go angling but have not done so in the last year and the market abroad is huge, there is massive potential. We need a cohesive approach by all stakeholders which ensures the sustainability of the resource and increases the return to Ireland.

9:40 am

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is unusual to get such a positive presentation.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses to the sub-committee. I am delighted that they are here today. Within their sector, there is huge potential for development.

If we were to consider rural recreation in its widest form, from walking to angling on lakes and rivers, from cliff climbing to surfboarding and every recreational activity on sea and land, it would be possible to create 6,000 jobs, spread around the coast, which would be totally sustainable. That is a conservative estimate when everything is taken into account.

Inland Fisheries Ireland is talking about one element. We need an overall picture of what we could do with our land and marine resources to exploit them in a positive and totally sustainable way to bring people to Ireland for activities, particularly the areas best suited to this which do not have many industries and tend to be remote. I commend Inland Fisheries Ireland's approach. Work was done on the issue of rural recreation, particularly walking. We were expanding to include everything from hang-gliding to whatever people wanted to do, whether it be angling on inland waterways, walking along canals or sea angling. Inland Fisheries Ireland's figures are very impressive, but we are only scratching the surface. When people talk about areas in Britain for walking and I see what we have and our small population, I think we are sitting on a goldmine that we have not yet exploited. We underestimate how urbanised Europe has become; even Ireland is becoming urbanised and because of this people want to get out into nature again. I am delighted that representatives of Inland Fisheries Ireland are present.

Another positive aspect of the industry is that it is locally-owned. There are small owners with multiple participants between providers of tackle, services, accommodation and so on. That is why it is very sustainable. This has to form a key part of any effort to help coastal and island communities. The integrated product presents the challenge. If we want to bring people in, we have to have the accommodation, back-up services, boats and so on that they need. If one goes to a ski resort in Austria or Switzerland, there is a very comprehensive package, even though they are all private operators; everything is laid on, including equipment rental and so on, making it possible to do it whatever way one wants. We have not reached that level of integration; for example, our range of accommodation does not always match what is possible. Some people want high quality hostel accommodation, not the sort found in the 1960s but more suited to 2013. Others want to stay in hotels, guesthouses and so on. We have a lot to do in providing these choices.

The debate started because the Aranmore fishermen wanted to fish wild salmon. I have a certain sympathy for them and notice that wild salmon angling was not included in the presentation. If we are serious about alternative activities for islanders and the more remote coastal communities, this should be considered in a structured way. We set up Comhairle na Tuaithe and brought all the players around the table, including Waterways Ireland, to discuss walking and associated activities such as mountain biking. For a long time there was an argument about who might be responsible for marine leisure activities. There was an intention to set up what I would call Comhairle na Mara to do what Comhairle na Tuaithe was doing but in a water-based context; it would not confine itself to the sea but would include estuaries and inland fisheries. It would seek to bring together Waterways Ireland, Inland Fisheries Ireland and other interests to try to develop an integrated product and encourage people to get involved in this industry. Is there any talk between Departments of setting up an umbrella organisation of that type to bring all the players together to iron out difficulties because there are always some and to consider the matter in a positive way?

If one is setting up a business, one needs grant aid. There is plenty of grant aid available under the Leader programme which has funded angling boats. That was in response to individual applications, but it was not part of a master plan in which all of the elements were seen and the jigsaw was put together until the picture was complete. Has there been development in trying to get all of the players around the table, including the Leader companies, to develop a co-ordinated approach in order that there will be a drive to provide top quality services? One can market all one wants, but one can only market what one has available. It is fine to have fish in a beautiful sea, but if the backup services are not available, people will gravitate towards places where it is easy to access services and get the product, all done to a high standard and which is marketable. We have a wide variety of products, but what is being done to develop them? What could this committee do to make a detailed recommendation to the Government on how to expand on Inland Fisheries Ireland's work to reach its potential and bring all of the players together? For example, would it be a good idea for us to recommend for sea-based activities a body such as Comhairle na Mara to bring everyone together to draw up plans and mediate where conflicts or other problems arise?

This industry is particularly suited to the mind-set of people in these communities. Many rural people like to be involved in small operations. They like to be self-starters because they are used to having their own boats which they might have used for salmon fishing, the starting point for this debate. They do not particularly want to become employees. They like the concept of local control and working for themselves. This work is particularly suited to the psychology of these communities.

Would it be possible to explain the remit of Inland Fisheries Ireland? I know it deals with inland fishing, for example, on Lough Corrib and Lough Mask. However, does it have responsibility for sea angling, no matter how deep the sea or the species involved? I know it has responsibility for salmon fishing and understand this extends to wherever salmon are found within our waters.

Ms Campion spoke about perceptions and concerns.

What is the perception of intensive fish farming? I understand there is a plan to put approximately 100,000 tonnes of farmed salmon around the coast on a phased basis. I am not talking about any particular application because that is under consideration but about the larger issue of major aquaculture. If we are to follow the example of Norway in aquaculture, would that affect the perception and the quality of the product? Does it matter to people that there are major aquaculture fin-fish farms? Do they want to go to those places or not? Ms Campion said that sea-anglers fish for mackerel. An inshore fisherman in Connemara told me that where there are fish farms the mackerel are scavengers and tend to be bloated and not the kind of fish that one would want to eat because they eat the residue of the fish in the farm. I do not know whether this is true. If it is, are there other species of fish in that category? Is that a concern?

How much of a threat does illegal fishing and netting pose? There is good sense in the adage about poacher turned gamekeeper. I am not justifying illegal fishing or netting but many people feel that their livelihood was taken away and they are damned if Europe or the State or anybody is going to take away something their forefathers did. The only way to deal with that is to provide alternative activities. They could have a stake in the preservation of the fish. I recall when oysters were being taken illegally from Bertraghboy Bay. I was on the board of Gael Linn at the time and it decided to sell it to the local co-operative. Once the co-operative owned the oysters the poaching dropped dramatically because it was in the interest of the local people to ensure that seasons were observed and people did not damage the oyster fishery. How much could one reduce the incidence of illegal fishing? It will never be policed. If the whole country decided to break any law it would not be possible to police it. Most laws are policed by those who agree with the law and adhere to it of their own volition. If this industry could be developed and made profitable and the benefit lay in protecting the species, would that be a way of reducing the threat of illegal fishing and netting? I believe that when people own a resource they tend to respect it and want to preserve it, whether or not the State is watching them. The State cannot watch everything at once. This is exciting.

Finally, to the National Parks and Wildlife Services, I was reading its Natura 2000 document. We face a challenge in the way this has happened, and I have been involved with it. Except when it suits them, most people in rural Ireland see Natura 2000 as an imposition from above with no benefit and a lot of rules. It seems to say "No" to everything. If all of this protection is so important to Europe there must be some way to exploit it commercially. If people want bog cotton or salmon we must find ways with the local community of exploiting it in a positive way. Why preserve it unless somebody is interested in it? If there are hundreds of thousands of Europeans interested in this conservation, if it is so beautiful and wonderful why are they not coming to look at it? Why are we not organising for them to crawl across the bogs if that is what they want to do or to go around the coast looking at all the wonders we are preserving for them, whether they be bottle-nosed dolphins, seals or whatever? The agencies in the Gaeltacht which are linked to the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht should try to draw up a plan for a sustainable way to attract people to look at these wonders on which we spend millions of euro and for the sake of which we impose restrictions on people. There should be some new economic gain from the conservation so that the local communities can see conservation as a positive contribution to society rather than the set of "no-nos" that it seems to be.

There is a significant fear factor. When one reads the small print one is told on the notifiable actions-----

10:00 am

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will be coming back to that issue. Dr. O'Keeffe and Dr. Kelly have yet to make their presentation.

Photo of Martin FerrisMartin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Campion for her presentation. I live in a coastal community where sea-angling and angling from the shore contribute significantly to the local economy. I fully understand and appreciate the presentation on the benefits of this and the knock-on effect especially when tournaments are run. That brings people into Fenit, and Banna Beach and gives a great boost to the local economy. The figures show the value of this, for example, the participation of 97,000 people in the sea-angling and almost 750,000 trips a year. This is very significant. Sea anglers are estimated to spend €1,300 annually on their sport while bass anglers in particular spend approximately €2,600 each annually. It is one of the few things contributing positively and significantly to local economies.

Ms Campion mentioned the depleted fish stocks. Does that refer to bass?

Ms Suzanne Campion:

Our stakeholders are concerned about all fish stocks.

Photo of Martin FerrisMartin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is illegal to fish bass commercially yet EU trawlers are allowed to catch bass off our coast. It is a point of contention with commercial Irish fishermen that people from other EU countries are allowed to take bass from Irish waters but our fishing fleet is not allowed to do that.

Deputy Ó Cuív mentioned the issue of support for people going into the industry, particularly those upgrading their boats for sea-angling trips and so on. Does BIM support that activity?

Do local authorities in counties that have a large coastline make any input to the marketing or provide a support base or promote the sector? In many areas the local authorities own piers and harbours where much of the sea-angling happens. There is an opportunity for them to play a role in supporting and promoting that activity.

It offers a great deal of potential in coastal and rural communities, never more so than now, when there is so little money coming into the local economy. It could mean that some young people would find employment. Ms Campion says that 10,000 are employed as a result of the development of the sector.

Is there a strategy to develop and market angling more? We have a fantastic coastline which has great variety of fish species. Not much can better being on a boat three or four miles off the coast with a nice bobble. It does not matter whether one is fishing for pollack, mackerel or whatever because one gets a great sense of freedom from sea angling. There is a lot of potential for sea angling and I would appreciate hearing the views of the delegation on same.

It was said that all species are under threat. Is that due to the depletion in stocks? Nearly all species are under threat. Is that the result of over fishing at a commercial level? Are other factors involved?

10:10 am

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I shall call two more Deputies before returning to the witnesses. I call Deputy Pringle.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegation for an interesting presentation. There is potential to develop the industry, particularly sea angling. We must assist traditional fishermen to avail of new opportunities in the angling sector.

The committee started its hearing with submissions from the Aranmore islanders on the loss of wild salmon fisheries due to a ban on drift nets. The islanders sought to retain the salmon fisheries rather than diversify because they view themselves as traditional fisherman. That is what they want to be. We must find a way to allow traditional fishermen to continue yet examine other opportunities for them.

It was mentioned in the presentation that the industry supports 10,000 rural jobs. I presume that includes all angling, including river angling. How many jobs does sea angling provide? Can the delegation outline its projections for growth? What supports are needed to allow growth to take place? How much does it cost a boat or sea angling provider to enter the sector if they decide to diversify? I presume that a traditional fishing boat would not be incompatible with an angling vessel. Therefore, diversification would require a new or second vessel. Has the delegation researched how it could work with traditional fishermen to combine an angling product with traditional fishing? Can traditional fishermen do both for a period while he or she develops his or her business?

I have questions on the support given to fishermen who want to take up angling. The European fisheries fund provided funding for diversification and for fishermen displaced due to restrictions imposed by the Common Fisheries Policy. Has the delegation ever targeted that funding to develop an angling product? We know that Ireland has never targeted any funding from the fund. When compared with countries like Spain we have neglected to apply for potential funding. A vital part of a proposed development is funding. It is all right having a report that proves that people want a product but if we cannot put the infrastructure in place then it will be impossible to capitalise on the initiative. The cost of entry into the sector is significant enough to make it difficult for small fishermen to join.

I presume that the committee will address the salmon issue at a later date. Salmon fishing might be another day's work. Angling shows potential and I am interested to hear how the delegation views its development.

Photo of Michael McNamaraMichael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the guests to the committee and I have a number of specific questions.

My first question is on the development of sea angling. Obviously the infrastructure of small piers are essential for people to access the sea. I am not referring to the larger piers at Rossaveal or Killybegs. The piers in much smaller communities are inadequate. One example is Dunbeg, County Clare but there are other examples in the county. Dunbeg has a lot of tourism footfall, the area also has a well known golf course which attracts a lot of tourists and it has become a wedding venue. Dunbeg has a small pier which is inadequate because it is tidal and people can only access the pier at certain tides. The community is very active and hosts a well known drama festival which also attracts tourists. The community is doing everything possible to develop tourism. Dunbeg is on the coast so sea angling would be a normal extension of its tourism product. However, the pier is inadequate and tidal. There is money available from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to develop piers but only when the project has passed the stages of planning and environmental impact statements. Both those stages must be undertaken by Clare County Council but it does not have the money to progress the project. The community has been left with no option and cannot develop the infrastructure, a potential source of extra tourism that could also retain tourists that visit Dunbeg. Can the delegation do anything for piers in places like Dunbeg? There are small piers dotted along the coast ranging from Donegal, to west Cork and around the east coast. Is there a proposal to build piers? Is there a proposal to get piers to a stage where they can be built and then apply for funding from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine?

I have a few questions on sea lice. Is sea lice an increasing problem? Does it impact on sea angling? What measures can be taken to mitigate the problem?

Is IFI, a Government agency, happy with the general degree of co-operation by BIM? Obviously IFI and BIM are Government agencies with different remits but they both work in the same waters. How has BIM treated submissions by Inland Fisheries Ireland? I do not know whether the submissions can be discussed but I do expect an answer on the general co-operation between IFI and BIM.

On 6 March the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine stated that Food Harvest 2020 constituted a Government strategic plan. Does Inland Fisheries Ireland think that the agriculture component of the plan should be submitted for an environmental impact statement? I ask the question in view of the potential impact by Food Harvest 2020 on sea angling and the development of tourism off our coasts.

I know that weir fisheries are not within our remit. However, I commend the work done by Inland Fisheries Ireland and the ESB on eel fisheries, particularly at Parteen weir.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a question for Mr. Maher on legislative review. Perhaps it still must go on display. Can he explain the intention behind the legislation?

Mr. Denis Maher:

I shall lead the responses but I shall defer questions on the activities of IFI to its chief executive, Dr. Ciarán Byrne.

The Deputies have made pertinent points. I was keen to emphasise in our opening statement that we strongly believe in a cohesive approach among stakeholders and that includes agencies and Departments. I was also keen to emphasise that we are one component of an overall inshore basket of activities.

I shall now respond to the specific questions. Deputy Ó Cuív asked whether there was talk of an umbrella group or co-operation among State agencies and everything else. I shall defer that question to Dr. Byrne.

10:20 am

Dr. Ciarán Byrne:

I thank Deputy Ó Cuív, who has a keen understanding of what we do. In a previous Administration, I had meetings with all State agencies responsible for State lands. The State is the biggest landowner in the country. The idea was to utilise State lands to the greatest extent. To that extent, the IFI is working very closely with our colleagues in the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. We have been activating rural recreation officers to get them involved in angling and we also worked on the national trails development programme. We are not there yet and there is a huge job of work to be done. The survey shows we are scratching the surface in terms of what we can do. In this context, I am concerned about angling but when one comes off the canal, one should be able to go fishing or on a Coillte mountain bike trail or a walk. It involves linking those activities.

In terms of the angling product, we are working with Fáilte Ireland. We have a strategy entitled "Travel, Stay, Fish & Play". We are responsible for the fish portion of that but, as others have pointed out, if the travel, stay and play elements are not sorted out, it does not matter how good the fishing is. If one cannot get in or cannot satisfy the kids or the wife, it does not come together. The initiatives Ms Campion talked about, such as with Donegal angling, show the suppliers realising that sometimes it gets windy and wet in Donegal and one may not be able to go sea fishing so an alternative is provided. Equally, if one cannot go lake fishing, one should give sea fishing a go. People are linking accommodation providers and chartered providers. Fáilte Ireland is helpful because it gives us a certain classification and people can get an angler's welcome. When people see the angler's welcome ticket, they know there may be somewhere to store the tackle, some freezer capacity for fish, somewhere to store bait or the ability to have lunches made when they are going fishing. These small things can make a difference between someone coming to Ireland and going elsewhere. We are working closely on that.

We have had many questions about the survey. The survey is the first part of our strategy, which we have not yet developed. The IFI is under three years old and this is the first time we have sat down to consider angling in Ireland in a comprehensive way. We are starting to get results that will form the foundation of the sectoral plan. We have huge figures but we must think about how to grow them further and where are the best places to grow them. In order to develop a strategy for angling, we must consider what we have currently. Where is there really good quality and where is there poor quality? Deputy McNamara asked about our infrastructure. It may be that we have a major deficit in piers but an oversupply of angling stands in lakes.

Deputy Ó Cuív asked about illegal fishing. Long before us, currently, and long after us there will be people willing to partake in illegal fishing. Perception is very important because it acts like a magnifying glass. With the advent of social media, blogs and Twitter, someone sees an illegal fishing net and can get onto Facebook. It can go viral. The perception of what is going on is worse than what is going on. Illegal fishing is taking place but we are working very hard to contain it. It is not as significant a problem as some make it out to be. The tourist will have a particular perception if they see someone with an illegal net, and that is what we are trying to avoid. Things move through social media very quickly and so what gets out on viral media is not the reality on the ground. People have posted comments on the IFI Facebook page and then genuine anglers on that river or lake have also commented that they did not see what was reported or that the matter was blown out of all proportion. Illegal sea netting for salmon and bass is a problem and we are working very closely with stakeholders. Deputy Ó Cuív pointed out that when people have shared ownership, instantly they have responsibility. Irrespective of what the State says or does, they take a greater interest. That is why we are pushing forward with the value of angling locally and people are starting to grab hold of the idea.

Deputy Ferris asked about depleted bass stocks. The bass stock is very much depleted. The estimate is that there is a recovery in the stock but only to 5% or 10% of its historic level. Bass is a commercial fish species managed for recreational angling. It is a long living species and it is not particularly suitable for commercial fishing. If the stock is fished hard for whatever reason, it takes a long time to recover. Much of the bass angling practised at the moment is on a catch and release basis. The reason the bass angling product is developing well in Ireland is because England, France and Spain have commercial bass fisheries but no bass angling. Ireland is the last remaining Mecca for bass angling. It should be maintained as a recreation angling species given the status of the stock and the biology of the species.

Mr. Denis Maher:

Deputy Ferris makes the point well that bass fishing is taking place offshore in other countries. We are talking about two discrete stocks. The Irish stock of bass is very close to the coast, very vulnerable and very slow growing. Our advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, a scientific body that gives advice to every European country, is that the stock is discrete and is not the same as that fished further off the coast. The stock lives within our six mile and 12 mile limits. It is more vulnerable than the stock further out.

Dr. Ciarán Byrne:

There was a direct question for BIM on the upgrade of boats. I am not in a position to speak for BIM but I understand it ran many schemes and grants. Typically, they were aimed more at commercial inshore fisheries. We are at the start of a development in terms of survey work. We are only getting information now and the information we have provided to the committee is hot off the presses. We must sit down and chew over it, decide the best way forward, the resource and the issues involved. Only then do we bring in the stakeholders. One of the members mentioned the coastal local authorities, which have a huge remit in angling and tourism promotion. We have had some very positive interaction with Kerry County Council. Ms Campion will brief members on that. When we get a clear understanding of the figures, we will be in a position to speak to local authorities, who will be key stakeholders. Without a base of information, it is a stab in the dark.

If this is where we are now, what can we do? Mr. Maher referred to legislation and barriers to entry. Deputy Pringle asked how we can interface commercial inshore fisheries into recreational angling. That will form part of our strategy.

With regard to species under threat, a general comment is that there is pressure on many of the inshore fishing stocks. We are interested in recreational angling. To a large extent, it is a sustainable activity. When fishing with a rod and line, there is only so much angling pressure people put on a fishery. I cannot speak for my colleagues in the Marine Institute or BIM but I am sure they would concur that there is pressure on inshore stocks.

Deputy Pringle's questions also relate to the number of jobs related to sea angling. I do not subscribe to the paralysis by analysis idea but a survey such as this begets other questions, which we must answer. If we are to develop the strategy, we must have more resolution. Of the 10,000 jobs, we must decide how many to ascribe to sea angling. This involves what to do with charter skippers and what inputs we include. I concur with some of Deputy Pringle's comments on the point of entry for traditional fishermen and the kind of boats and technology they may have vis-à-vis what is needed for getting into being a charter skipper.

We have not gone into huge detail on this but from experience, there is a significant difference in the requirements, in terms of licensing, certification and health and safety, between going out potting for crabs and taking ten people out on a boat. With upgrading grants, some boats will be able to make that transition, but in other cases they will not. This raises the issue of cost, and one is then into a completely different cost category. We have to work on the issue. If this is what we will push for, we then have to make space to consider different aspects as well as how we will fund it. If the decision is to increase capacity in an area, then commensurate increases must take place in the support services, such as tackle, B&Bs and hotels. What one does not want to do is to bring people up to Arranmore Island, doing a big sell to get the local people involved in charter fishing, and then find that no visitors can get up there or that there is no accommodation for them. There is a multi-pronged strategy.

In terms of funding and supports, there will be a new version of European Fisheries Fund, EFF, called the European marine fisheries fund, and the IFI has been very active in terms of getting involved in that, because one of the pillars of that fund is diversification funds for former inshore fishermen to get into other areas. One of the areas for which we will be looking for funding is that of charter skippers. Our colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine ultimately manage that fund; however, we have been working very closely with them. I understand discussion on the fund is still at European level but we have had a number of meetings with our colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and we are making great progress in that regard.

I will now respond to Deputy McNamara's question on sea angling. He gave the good example of Doonbeg Pier. Those involved are caught between a rock and a hard place. I see our survey as being the first step in a strategy. Certain issues must be tackled and unwound. If one does it in isolation, one will end up with a lovely plan, but with a strategic plan on the shelf. Without talking to stakeholders and unwinding these specific types of instance, ultimately recreational angling is local and the money that is generated stays local. One must be able to deal with local things. To come up with a high-end product, we must deal with local issues. This applies to Doonbeg Pier in County Clare and is replicated around the country. I foresee our tackling these issues as part of the next phase of understanding the numbers and expanding the resource. The Deputy also raised specific questions on sea lice and the impact they have on sea angling. Strictly speaking, sea lice are not a significant issue for sea angling per se because most of the species one goes for in sea angling are marine fish species. Sea lice are an issue for migrating salmonids. When juvenile salmon are migrating with a heavy sea lice burden it is a significant issue, and it can be an issue for adult salmon migrating back. However, in the specific context of sea angling, sea lice are not a major issue.

On the question of the degree of co-operation with BIM, we are all aware that an application is pending and I do not wish to comment on it. We have very good levels of co-operation with BIM and the chairman of IFI. I met the chief executive and chairman of BIM two weeks ago, and we will be doing so again in the next couple of weeks. There are two processes and there are agencies with different views and concerns and we are working through them in a very collegial manner. There has always been good co-operation between us. There is an ongoing process and I do not wish to comment on it.

The aquaculture component of Harvest 2020 should be subject to an environmental impact assessment, EIS. At the moment, there is a specific aquaculture application that is open and certainly IFI has made submissions on it. We hope, and I presume, that our concerns will be adequately taken on board. It will be the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine that runs the process. We are still waiting to get the output from it.

10:30 am

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked about the wider question of fish farming for 100,000 tonnes of fin fish off the coast. Would the perception of the proposal or the proposal itself affect the sea angling product?

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is the question of drift netting.

Photo of Michael McNamaraMichael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the witnesses comment on the broad thrust of the targets set for Food Harvest 2020 and on the requirement for an environmental impact statement? I am not expecting the witnesses to comment on the specific application which is being made but on the broad thrust of the aquaculture targets contained in Food Harvest 2020, whether those targets should be subjected to an EIS and how that can be achieved in a manner that is compatible with sea angling.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious that we have more contributors. What we are trying to do is to establish how best to develop the socioeconomic model for coastal and island communities so that they can all fit together in harmony. Will sea angling vis-à-vis aquaculture form part of that consideration? In addition, Deputy Pringle raised the issue of drift netting. If these questions could be answered we would get to the nub of the issue.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need to drop a matrix so that we can consider making a choice, taking into account sustainability, local control, employment and other considerations. The major issue that would enter our minds is whether we can have a major aquaculture facility and a boom in sea angling at the same time. Does the proposal for a fish farm with 100,000 tons of fin fish affect sea angling? If it has no impact on sea angling, they are mutually exclusive and we can do both. If they do interact-----

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ó Cuív, that is the point I have just made. We have asked that question. I call Mr. Maher.

Mr. Denis Maher:

Thank you, Chairman. I will lead off but will refer to Dr. Byrne, as he is the scientist. The major issue in the debate centres around the issue of sea lice. I appreciate Deputy Ó Cuív's question on sea angling. It is the impact on angling per se and the statutory responsibility of IFI that would be of concern. It is fair to say - I am sure Deputies Ó Cuív and Ferris will know this from their own areas - that the debate on sea lice has been ongoing for more than 20 years. It is characterised among stakeholders by entrenched views, with very hard-hitting statements made by those supporting the project and equally hard views expressed by the angling community. We need to move beyond the arguments of the past 20 years. I have a background in seafood, where I worked for ten years, and I understand the arguments put by both sides. I believe we need to move it on. What we have suggested is an independent review of all the scientific data from both sets of stakeholders, which would allow for some level of accord among stakeholders. That is the key.

In respect of aquaculture, we have consistently said - as have both Ministers - that we will give 100% support to aquaculture projects that do not have an impact on other areas. That is what I spoke about earlier with regard to a cohesive response across all stakeholders, including agencies. We have made suggestions about where the location should be but there is disagreement on the scientific elements. We have consistently said we support the development of aquaculture as long as its impact is not detrimental to any sector. I will now ask my colleague Dr. Ciarán Byrne to comment further.

Dr. Ciarán Byrne:

I talked at length about perception. On the question of whether an aquaculture facility will have an impact on sea angling, I do not believe it will have a significant negative impact. A poorly managed facility could have a significant impact on wild salmonid fisheries, as the Deputy is aware from the Corrib river. If the facility is well managed I do not believe it will have a significant impact, but it is down to perception. When one is trying to get a tourist to book a trip to Ireland and pay money online, an aquaculture facility is likely to have a somewhat negative effect on the perception of sea angling. It may have little or no impact on the actual fishing, but one is managing the perception.

Deputy Pringle raised the issue of drift netting in Arranmore Island. It is a difficult question to answer. On a biological level, it is easy; there are no rivers coming off Arranmore Island.

This means that every salmon which passes the coast is coming from and going to somewhere else. This is the classic bad example in terms of mixed stock fisheries because when one throws a net off Arranmore Island, one can catch 20 salmon that are heading for the River Moy which has a very healthy surplus or the last 20 salmon heading for the River Loire or River Rhine. The mixed stock fishery ceased for this reason. This is a difficult issue for Inland Fisheries Ireland because fishermen are not gardeners, plumbers or painters and want to fish, yet we must tell them they cannot fish for salmon. It is inherent in fishing that one will fish in mixed stock fisheries. I do not see any potential for salmon fishing until such time as the mixed stock nature of the fisheries either improves or one has some confidence that the fish being caught all come from sustainable stocks.

That said, representatives of Inland Fisheries Ireland and the Department attend the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, NASCO, every year. NASCO is a United Nations treaty organisation which encompasses all of the salmon producing countries on the entire Atlantic rim. The issue of socioeconomics is coming to the fore in this regard. One has a management, scientific and socioeconomic aspect to fishing and what we have been doing in recent years is prioritising the scientific aspect. Questions are being asked about how we incorporate socioeconomic factors into scientific and management decisions. Certain countries, Canada, Norway and Sweden for instance, have native populations - Canada has the First Nations peoples, while Norway has the Sami people - to whom they give allowances. To some extent, they have started the process of incorporating socioeconomic factors in decisions. While questions are being asked about socioeconomics at international level, unfortunately, this does not offer much solace to fishermen on Arranmore Island who want to go fishing now. We are starting to move in that direction.

10:40 am

Ms Suzanne Campion:

Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív asked questions about Leader grants, funding and using a ground up approach. Inland Fisheries Ireland has been working with Leader companies all over the country and been successful in helping small groups and businesses to secure some Leader funding. As members will be aware, the Leader window is pretty much shut as the applications in hand are being assessed. Concerns have arisen about transferring Leader funding to socioeconomic committees in county councils. Some time ago Inland Fisheries Ireland made a proposal to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government that we be permitted to be a lead promoter or project promoter. We did so because we found that smaller angling clubs, chartered skippers and so forth did not always have the wherewithal either to fund a project or put one together. Inland Fisheries Ireland cannot obtain Leader funding. While we do not want funds for the organisation, we want stakeholders to secure funding and have a policy of facilitating them in doing so. We have provided what are known as "How-To" guides for the Leader programme and assist and design projects where we have resources to do so. Unfortunately, our resources are not evenly spread around the country. However, in areas where we have resources, we are working with Leader companies at a level close to project design.

The South Kerry Development Company is working with Kerry County Council and Inland Fisheries Ireland to develop the GoKerry.com angling website which will provide a one stop shop of game fisheries, accommodation providers and so forth that will enable people to book a holiday, guide, accommodation and fishing licences. Inland Fisheries Ireland has also facilitated the development of the Donegal Angling Tourism Alliance, a group of chartered skippers and game fisheries which also hopes to establish a one stop shop website offering a combined product to make it easier for anglers to visit.

The marine and countryside guides programme is run by Fáilte Ireland with our support. Its key role is to get people involved in the marine and countryside sector to become guides and offer a tourism service to anglers or others who want to participate in marine and countryside activities. It allows people to change roles, for example, to move from commercial fishing to guiding. Local knowledge is best in fisheries. A number of providers have entered from overseas, have learned the Irish way and know where the best fishing is. They practise catch and release and bring many tourists to the country through different companies. They live in Ireland and do a fantastic job in promoting the country to our tourist friends elsewhere in Europe. They are always crying out for guides and gillies with local knowledge. Many people could do this work, but they need specific training which is the issue we are trying to address.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Campion gave us an idea of how one could assist and provide an integrated approach. To return to Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív's comments on Comhairle na Tuaithe, the sub-committee should definitely make a recommendation on this issue.

Mr. Denis Maher:

The Chairman wanted me to expand on the proposal for legislation. A memorandum on the proposal will go to the Government shortly, after which the proposal will go for public consultation. The 1959 Fisheries Act is 53 years old and of its day because it is based on legislation that predates the founding of the State. It is increasingly no longer fit for purpose. The legislation we are proposing contains a number of key elements, one of which is the decriminalisation of some of the minor offences contained in the Act. It is hoped we will introduce a system akin to the penalty points system, rather than continuing to criminalise infringements and waste court time with minor offences, some of which have been committed inadvertently. Another key area relates to invasive species which have the potential to destroy native species. As there is no legislation on invasive species, legislative provision must be made on this issue.

We spoke of perceptions in terms of protecting the fishery resource and illegal fishing. As Deputies are aware, we are in an era of tightening resources. We would like to legislate to create a fisheries reserve. Inland Fisheries Ireland staff at local level will speak about the enthusiasm of anglers and boat skippers for helping to protect our resource. Legislating to create a fisheries reserve to act alongside our inspectors would create opportunities for Inland Fisheries Ireland to deploy its resources more effectively, for example, by using surveillance technology rather than constantly patrolling rivers. These are some of the main elements of the legislation, the main purpose of which will be to modernise the existing Act which is old and increasingly unfit for purpose as it is based on legislation that dates back more than 100 years in some cases.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for attending. They are welcome to remain for the rest of our proceedings.

Mr. Denis Maher:

I would like to stay.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine. I welcome Dr. Ciarán O'Keeffe, chief scientific officer, and Dr. Eamonn Kelly from the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. I invite Dr. O'Keeffe to make his opening statement.

Dr. Ciarán O'Keeffe:

I appeared before the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine a few weeks ago when we discussed the issue of commonages. I have been working for many years with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, initially in County Donegal and more recently in Dublin. Dr. Kelly was an inshore fisheries development officer in south Kerry in a former life and is familiar with many of the issues involved. We circulated this morning a note on the current state of play in regard to statutory nature protection. It is worth reflecting on this discussion which is about identifying a valuable resource for sustainable use. We spoke a great deal this morning about the protection of this resource and how to maximise the benefits from it. Much of what we deal with in terms of nature protection is about protecting that resource. As Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív stated, issues arise about ensuring the best possible use of the resource. Reflecting on our discussion on commonages some weeks ago, I was struck that the commonage issue first arose when tourists who were walking the hills started to ask what was being done to address the overgrazing that was destroying the hills. The matter ended up in the European courts and Ireland was told to sort out the issue.

If we look after the resource we have huge potential for using it subsequently. I do not want to take all the time of the committee by going through the note we have circulated page by page - members are probably familiar with most of it - except to say that the main drivers of our work are the EU birds and habitats directives which have been around since 1981 and 1993, respectively. They require us to designate Natura 2000, the European network of protected areas for a substantial list of habitats, including many marine habits, and also quite a few species, including the grey seal, harbour seal, harbour porpoise and bottlenose dolphin. Those directives put very strict protection on all citation species, the whales, dolphins and porpoises, regardless of whether they are inside or outside of a line drawn on a map. We have to look to that very carefully.

The EU directives set the criteria by which we had to select those sites, a process whereby that would be reviewed over a period to ensure that each member state contributed a fair amount to the overall European network and the legal means for protection within those sites.

On the marine side, Ireland has a very substantial and rich biodiversity. Therefore, there is an obligation on us to protect marine and coastal sites to a substantial extent. We went through a process some years ago where the EU Commission convened a meeting to see what we had proposed. It was not totally happy with what we had done and required us to do some more, as a result of which in recent months the Minister published a small number of additional SACs under the habitats directive. The protection of the sites is laid out in Article 6(3). While I do not want to go into the detail of it, what it sets out to do is to make sure that any proposed use or development of one of these SACs or SPAs in the case of birds is consistent with the objectives and that the use is sustainable. When this arose, other colleagues and I embarked on a series of meetings around the country explaining, particularly to fisheries and agriculture interests, what was coming in and having a discussion on its implications. What we said at the time was that existing uses appear to be consistent with having a rich nature value on the site, otherwise we would not say this was an important area. Subsequently a European Union court case, notably the Waddenzee judgment in the Netherlands, laid down that the licensing process, for example, for aquaculture had to be gone through whether or not it was traditional. In other words, it was not enough to say we have always had cockle fishing here and that we will continue with it. The judgment made clear that such activities were required to undergo a proper assessment.

This became a key issue in a case taken in the European Court of Justice against Ireland in respect of the birds directive. An issue which has occupied us greatly in recent years is putting in place a coherent system which is agreed by the EU Commission as a response to the European Court of Justice judgment whereby there is an integrated process of setting objectives for the sites and using that to assess aquaculture or fisheries licence applications within those sites. The final determination is made by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

There are many people who are trying to have a clear regulatory path in order to be able to run businesses. We have done much work in collecting the data on all the SACs and SPAs around the country in order that we can feed it into a process within the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine whereby it can issue licences and fishing can proceed. We have made substantial progress in that area and a system has been set up. It is lengthy and difficult. Given that we have been through a European Court of Justice case, inevitably we have been required to do things even better than if we had passed under the radar. We are proceeding at a good pace at this stage and providing the information as necessary to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

We have almost finished the entire process. I wish to inform the committee that there is a final formal process of legal designation by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht for the SACs and we have to go through a notification process. There is nothing new happening in this area. There is no new legal protection and no new sites. It is a final formal process that must be gone through.

In regard to the birds directive sites, the SPAs, we have not yet looked at the marine territory and the offshore areas to ascertain if there are any areas which are of such importance as to warrant designation. Therefore, some work will continue in the coming years as resources permit and as the pressure comes on from the European Union for us to finalise that process.

I did not bring any information on the economic value of these. Clearly much of the tourism, particularly in the western half of the country, goes to areas which are of high nature value and where protecting it is valuable. I agree with Deputy Ó Cuív that more could be done in terms of using what we know about these sites, particularly where we have substantial amounts of scientific information, which will be of interest to a certain category of visitor, and to point out that these are of European significance if they cannot see that for themselves. There is already substantial activity, quite apart from the land-based tourism. The committee will be well aware of the whale watching business, the dolphin watching business and the seal watching business. Where I live on the east coast, north of here, in the past couple of years, three young men got a boat. They and their fathers before them had been lobster fishing and now they are doing sea tours. It is a small but developing business and it appears sustainable. They go into the areas that are protected under the habitats directive to keep the birds and the bird colonies around Lambay Island and Skerries Island and are reaping the benefit of these areas.

10:50 am

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Deputy O'Cuív wish to contribute?

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will let it pass.

Photo of Denis LandyDenis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for missing the earlier presentation. Unfortunately we do not have bilocation powers here. Will the witness clarify the timeline for designating of a SAC and how it dovetails with the local authority input and local development plans? Obviously I am speaking about SACs which are designated. Can an area be dedesignated for some reason? I have a specific case in mind on which I seek clarity on that issue.

Dr. Ciarán O'Keeffe:

In most of these cases the work is long since done. Recently we published details of a small number of new sites in the marine areas. We have finished on the SAC front on land where there is a final formal designation process. In terms of the possibility of removing them, in theory it is possible but in practice it is exceedingly difficult to persuade the EU Commission and would have to be based on a scientific purpose. If it can be shown that since the habitats directive came into force the scientific interest, whatever it was, is being lost, the first question is how did one manage to lose it, and that creates a difficulty. If it is still there, it would not normally agree to the removal of a designation. It has not happened so far. We had a look at it in the context of some rivers with pearl mussel sites, which is a difficult species to look after, where we proposed in light of new information that there were possibly some better rivers that we might substitute. We did not succeed because the EU Commission said that these populations are very important in European terms, whether or not, there are better ones in Ireland.

Photo of Denis LandyDenis Landy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there any case history across Europe under this directive where an area was dedesignated?

Dr. Ciarán O'Keeffe:

I am not aware of any.

Photo of Michael McNamaraMichael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to raise two issues.

Off the north coast of Iceland, in particular, there were a number of towns which were completely dependent on the whaling industry and when that ceased, those towns went into decline. However, they have experienced a revival due to whale watching, which is now an important source of revenue for those towns. This is a relatively undeveloped and underdeveloped aspect of Irish tourism. An Irish whale and dolphin group was set up and it operates out of Carrigaholt. The Haughey family donated its boat, Celtic Mist , to that group. Are there any supports for that kind of endeavour? Earlier this year there was a striking photograph taken by the navy of a pod of blue whales in Irish waters. Many tourists would travel far and pay significant money to the Irish Exchequer through the tourism industry to see such a sight. Are there supports available to develop this area from the point of view of either tourism or the important research being carried out by the whale and dolphin group?

I put a question to Inland Fisheries Ireland earlier, but it might be more appropriate to direct it to Dr. O'Keeffe. European and Irish law establish regulations for where an assessment finds that a current level of licensed activity is above that which is envisaged within the site's conservation objectives. Given the objectives contained in Food Harvest 2020, which the Minister for Agriculture and Food has said is a strategic plan of the Government, do such licensed activities require an environmental impact assessment?

11:00 am

Photo of Noel HarringtonNoel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have read the document and would like to make one comment and to pose a question. Following on what Deputy Harrington has been saying, it appears to me from discussions I have had with the Marine Institute and the Department that the Commission is making an example of Ireland and making us jump through all the hoops and dot all the i's and cross all the t's. Research I have done indicates the regime is completely different in every other European country. The explanation for this seems to be that we took a court case and they did not. That seems to be the only reason we have been forced to go down this road and through this whole procedure. One reason I am disappointed is because this is a torturously long process, but I understand the data sets must be built up and the research must be done.

The last paragraph of the presentation mentions the issue that has arisen between sea-fishing and the Natura sites. I understand this has been an issue for well over a year at this stage, but it appears we have not got any closer to a resolution. Getting a decision requires liaison between the different Departments and the Commission but the process of getting a decision at that level is very slow. This is holding up the final stages of decisions for a number of bays on getting their conservation objectives established. Is this issue anywhere near a resolution? Will it happen anytime soon and will that decision free up the system to allow decisions be made and the process move forward?

Dr. Ciarán O'Keeffe:

I shall start off with the responses and my colleague, Dr. Eamonn Kelly, will join in as well. On the possibility of support for marine-based tourism, I believe there are many possibilities, but our Department does not work in that area. However, there has been substantial support in the past for the whale and dolphin group mentioned. We provided the group with a certain amount of seed funding some years ago and we also provided the group with contracts supporting its scientific work. The Heritage Council, which is funded by our Department, has also provided the group with substantial support over the years.

With regard to the general designations issue, it is correct to say that things did not move as fast here as they did in other countries. There are a number of reasons for that. First, we started off with very little baseline data in comparison with other European countries, which had substantial research institutions working on the basic information and they had that information to hand when the habitats directive was introduced. We did not have the same level of information. The clock was ticking in Europe and designations had to be made within a certain time, yet the collection of the basic information to determine whether the sites are worthy of protection takes significant time.

When it comes to licensing, ideally one would have all the information needed from the first day of the notification, but it was simply not possible, within the resources afforded, to get all of the information. Therefore, we have been working very hard and have been co-funding the work on the data gathering with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine so that small industries do not have to try to get that information. In many other cases where a developer wants to do a project, he must pay for EIA work. In this case, the State is doing the work in order to enable the licensing process to go ahead.

Photo of Noel HarringtonNoel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the basic information was not available in the first place, how were the Natura sites designated?

11:10 am

Dr. Ciarán O'Keeffe:

When the habitats directive was introduced, that base information was not available so it had to be collected. There are different levels of complexity in terms of the information one needs. The first step was a national survey, called BioMar, which was carried out in the 1990s and it identified those areas with the richest biodiversity which fell within the parameters of the Habitats Directive as the best sites. That study identified bays, areas of coastline and so forth. However, when it comes down to an individual wanting to set up an operation in a very specific location, the question arises as to whether we have sufficiently detailed data to make an informed decision in the context of the European Court case. That was not the case so substantial additional work had to be carried out in order to enable an informed and legally satisfactory decision on a licence application. Deputy Pringle is correct that, having been through the hoops in the European Court, the burden was onerous in terms of the quality of the work that was required, which has made life more difficult than it would have been had we passed under the radar.

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

I shall just refer back to Deputy Harrington's comments because they are particularly relevant. Approximately 13 years ago I was in the Civil Service in the United Kingdom doing very similar work. I raise this in the context of the question about how Scotland managed matters effectively while we, under the same legislation, seem to have stumbled. From first-hand experience I can say that the type of products we are generating now were being generated 13 years ago in the United Kingdom. That was after they had collected the necessary data in the middle to late 1990s. Obviously, when the European Commission came calling, the UK was in a better position to make more informed decisions and to apply the regime of appropriate assessment to the decision making process. When Brussels looked around the member states at the time, it found that Ireland was making little headway in applying the appropriate assessment provision to aquaculture licensing. One of the main reasons was that, as Dr. O'Keeffe has said, while we had some data, it was only sufficient for designation purposes and not for spatial management of activities within sites. It is one thing to be able to take a sample at sea and determine that an area is an inlet, bay or estuary or that there is a large reef in a site. That is enough to have a site designated but in order to spatially manage the complexity of activities within a site like Galway Bay, for example, one needs a much greater amount of detail, a lot more samples and a lot more analysis. That was the next step that always needed to be taken and we were somewhat slower in taking it than other member states.

Photo of Noel HarringtonNoel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the UK authorities have that data to hand before they made their designations?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

Not necessarily before they made the designations but they collected a certain amount of data as part of their designation process and then started adding value to it to ensure that it could also be utilised for spatial management purposes. That is the reality of the situation.

We have managed over the past few years to collect a massive amount of information, all of which is necessary. That will be a national asset in so far as it can be utilised beyond the fisheries and aquaculture sectors and should allow a much more efficient and proactive administrative process in terms of coastal developments. It is important to understand that there are different types of data and we did not have the type of data required. The data we collected in order to facilitate the designation process was not entirely fit for purpose in terms of facilitating spatial management. A much more robust level of data is required for that.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the position regarding the decision referred to in the last paragraph?

Dr. Eamonn Kelly:

To update the committee, the process is painfully slow. We had hoped that this would have been long since put to bed. The difficulty is that there has always been a lack of clarity at a European level as to where exactly fisheries and fisheries licensing sits within the realms of the Habitats Directive. It is not clear whether it should be dealt with under article 6.3 and appropriate assessment or under article 6.2, which is a much broader, risk-assessment approach. That is the specific issue at question with the European Commission and it is fair to say it is a challenging issue for all concerned. I am aware, from checking e-mails in the last day or two, that we hope to be able to engage the European Commission in the coming weeks. There is talk of a bilateral meeting to move things on and we hope to see progress on that in due course.

Photo of Michael McNamaraMichael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the position regarding the environmental impact of the aquaculture targets contained in Food Harvest 2020?

Dr. Ciarán O'Keeffe:

My understanding is that there is a strategic environmental assessment of Food Harvest 2020 under way that will meet the European and national requirements.

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has been almost completed and this study will form part of that assessment. It will give a designation to the NATURA and SPA sites around the coast and going beyond aquaculture or any other fisheries activity, set down what is acceptable.

Photo of Michael McNamaraMichael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry Chairman, could you repeat that please?

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This study has almost been completed, as we heard yesterday from Dr. Beamish, who dealt with aquaculture.

To summarise, we have heard today about the potential for angling and yesterday we heard about aquaculture. We are trying to establish a socioeconomic base for coastal and island communities so that they can have a viable way of life. The study that is taking place, when completed, will allow all potential activity, including wind farms, offshore oil and gas explorations as well as aquaculture, angling and so forth, to be assessed properly to determine whether it is suitable and appropriate for the location, based on scientific knowledge. The determination as to whether the activity could take place will be based on science. When the study is completed it will amount to an environmental impact assessment because it will indicate whether aquaculture of a certain scale is allowable and compatible with everything else that is happening on a site. That is the aim of this study which has been described, rightly, as a national asset. When this data is collected and finalised, we will have an invaluable asset. It should enable us to fast track some of the applications going forward. We are in catch-up mode at the moment and there is no doubt about that. Unfortunately we cannot do anything but try to catch up.

I thank Dr. O'Keeffe, Dr. Kelly and those who contributed earlier. Members have been given a flavour of what we are trying to do in this area. I think we need to make time for a submission on the island communities. We are not just interested in how this affects the coastal areas but also the island communities, who have other challenges to live with, by virtue of their isolation. Perhaps we can invite someone from the Department who deals specifically with the islands, if the committee members believe it would be helpful.

I thank everyone for their attendance.

The sub-committee will adjourn until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 28 March 2013 when we will hear from NGOs such as the Federation of Irish Fishermen, the Irish Fishermen's Organisation and Comhdháil Oileán na hÉireann and the IFA aquaculture group.

The joint sub-committee adjourned at 11.30 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Thursday, 28 March 2013.