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

I welcome all the witnesses and thank them for taking the time to come and present to the committee. At today's meeting we will hear presentations from the Marine Institute, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, Údarás na Gaeltachta and Bord Iascaigh Mhara. From the Marine Institute we have Dr. Paul Connolly; from Bord Iascaigh Mhara we have Mr. Jason Whooley, chief executive, Mr. Michael Keatinge, fisheries development manager and Mr. Donal Maguire, aquaculture development manager; from the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority we have Mr. Micheál O'Mahony, Mr. Andrew Kinneen and Ms Susan Steele; and from Údarás na Gaeltachta we have Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin, chief executive, and Mr. Séamus Mac Eochaidh, enterprise and employment manager. I thank them all for travelling here. We look forward to hearing their views on the development of coastal and island communities.

The sub-committee was established to focus on the socioeconomic situation of these communities and on promoting sustainable industries. The main industries identified by the sub-committee are aquaculture, island and coastal fisheries, inshore fisheries, especially sea angling, and tourism. We have departed from the norm. Since the sub-committee tends to be a smaller group, we can fit all the witnesses across the front and this seems to be more conducive to better dialogue.

Before we continue I draw the attention of the witnesses to the matter of privilege. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are 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 or 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 or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We have no preference for who speaks first but we will proceed in the order that the witnesses are seated, if it is agreeable to everyone. I call on Dr. Connolly from the Marine Institute to make his opening statement.

Dr. Paul Connolly:

I thank the committee for inviting me today. I have prepared some slides to go with my opening statement from the Marine Institute. The ocean economy is very important to island communities and it is broad and diverse. I will focus on the work we do at the Marine Institute to provide scientific advice on the sustainable exploitation of the marine fisheries resource.

The seafood sector in Europe is big business. It employes 141,000 people and has a fleet of 85,000 vessels. The catch sector is worth approximately €7.7 billion. One important point about this industry is that it is centred on the coastal communities of Europe. We can get a picture of the importance of the industry if we consider its value. It is up there between Coca-Cola and Google. More important, it is focused on coastal communities.

The science that supports this industry is important as well. We have data collection in Europe that is worth €57 million annually, and approximately €190 million is spent annually on fisheries research throughout Europe. There is a large research vessel fleet, and many scientists and laboratories work on the bedrock of the seafood industry, the fisheries resource. Another important point about the seafood industry and the fisheries resource is the vast demand for seafood, and that demand is growing.

The waters around Ireland are some of the most productive fishing grounds in the world. Fleets from Ireland, France, Spain and the UK are fishing in the waters around Ireland. The diagram shows the various fleets operating in the waters around Ireland. I draw the committee's attention to the Irish Sea and the concentration of green spots near Dundalk Bay, the nephrops fishing grounds. They are really important fishing grounds for the Irish fleet operating out of Howth, Skerries and right up to Clogherhead. An analysis of the data from the vessels gives an indication of where the important fishing grounds are located. It is important to manage these fishing grounds and to get a handle on the size of the stock and to give advice on what can be taken out of that stock if we are to exploit our stocks sustainably.

In terms of giving scientific advice on our resource, the Marine Institute produces two annual publications. The first is the stock book, an annual review of fish stocks, which gives scientific advice on the resources taken from the waters around Ireland. It is an international fishery and 1 million tonnes of fish are taken annually from that area, worth about €1 billion. Of that, Ireland takes about 246,000 tonnes worth €209 million. This is a very important part of the economies of coastal communities in Ireland.

The main species are the mackerel, worth €72 million, horse mackerel, worth €33 million, and prawns, worth €33 million. With our colleagues in BIM we also produce shellfish stocks and fisheries review which looks at more inshore stocks that are not party to the Common Fisheries Policy. These are important resources. Crab is worth €12.8 million, scallop is worth €11.6 million, and lobster is worth €6.6 million. Producing scientific advice on all these stocks is important to ensure their sustainable exploitation. The policy landscape in which fisheries operate is very important. Increasingly, the policy landscape is changing. There is the EU maritime policy, the Atlantic strategy, Marine Knowledge 2020, Horizon 2020, the European Marine and Fisheries Fund, and Natura 2000. There is no more environmental legislation that has impacted fisheries, particularly inshore fisheries, than Natura 2000. Given the sensitive habitats around our coasts, it is important to protect them and develop fisheries management plans that recognise these sensitive areas. Working with industry is important in developing these plans.

The marine strategy framework directive is new environmental legislation that will impact on fisheries. The concept of maximum sustainable yield has come in recently. This will ensure stocks are exploited while maintaining their sustainability. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy is taking place. A new data collection framework is coming on stream and a new ecosystem approach is being enshrined in the Common Fisheries Policy, all of which are important in terms of framing inshore and CFP fisheries into the future.

The last slide deals with Ireland as an island nation. Ireland has a sea to land ratio of 10:1. In the past our island status, being on the periphery of Europe, was seen as negative. In Harnessing our Ocean Wealth, an integrated marine plan for Ireland, it is seen as something positive. Targets are set in the new maritime policy for Ireland to increase the turnover from the ocean economy to €6.4 billion and to increase our GDP from the ocean economy to 2.4% by 2030. There is great potential in the ocean for fishing, shipping, aquaculture, renewable energy, oil and gas, and tourism and leisure. By developing this plan we can harness and optimise that potential. If there is one thing I would pick out in terms of science and optimising the use of the ocean around Ireland, it is the concept of marine spatial planning; that is looking at the ocean as it is and its users and trying to manage them and minimise any conflict.

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

I thank Dr. Connolly. If members agree I will take the presentations from each of the representatives. The next speaker is Mr. Jason Whooley of Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

Mr. Jason Whooley:

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to address the joint sub-committee. It is useful to present to the committee, particularly with our colleagues from our sister agencies, the Marine Institute, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and our colleagues from Udarás na Gaeltachta, with whom we have an excellent working relationship.

We understand that the main focus on is the communities’ socioeconomic situation and on promoting sustainable industries. I will present on aquaculture, island and coastal fisheries and inshore fisheries. I have a brief opening introduction and my colleagues, Mr. Donal Maguire and Mr. Michael Keatinge, will be happy to take questions later.

I believe that the Irish seafood sector represents a tremendous opportunity to create much needed jobs in our remote, coastal communities as well as adding more export value to the Irish economy. In BIM’s new five-year strategy for 2013-2017, which will be launched in the next few weeks, we have set out key targets for jobs and value growth in the sector, which on realisation will have a very positive impact on the communities socioeconomic situation and, most important, on promoting a natural resource based on sustainable industry. The importance we are attributing to this is reflected in our vision which is "A scaled Irish seafood industry capitalising on the growing opportunities for seafood in global markets and providing sustainable employment in our coastal communities".

The opportunity for Irish seafood will come from expected growth in market demand. The Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO, and the World Bank predict that the global population will reach 8 billion by 2025, and this will necessitate a substantial increase in food production to meet the demand that will be created by this population surge. Coupled with the fact that the world’s centre of economic gravity is moving towards the east, with more than half the world’s middle classes living in the east by 2020, resulting in continuing income growth in Asia where there is a strong cultural preference for seafood, this means there will be a strong local demand for a product which previously had been exported. Thus, it is our view that supplies into Europe, which is heavily dependent on imports from the east, will also be reduced. Currently, Europe imports approximately 65% of all the seafood it consumes. From a whitefish perspective, the volume is as high as 90%.

I believe Ireland is strategically well placed, given its proximity to lucrative fishing grounds, to take advantage of this market opportunity. The FAO estimates that an additional 42 million tonnes of seafood will be absorbed by the global market each year by 2030. Given that world capture fisheries are at their maximum sustainable yield and will not, in all likelihood, alter significantly, the FAO suggests that additional supplies will be largely met by an increase in aquaculture production.

While in the short term the continuing recessionary situation in key seafood markets such as Spain, Italy and to a lesser extent in France will make trading conditions more challenging, in the longer term the shifting of global seafood supply to the east will inevitably create shortages and thereby present opportunities for Irish producers in these important traditional markets. Thus, either through developing new markets in the Far East or by finding niches in the traditional markets, there will be exciting opportunities for Irish seafood and Irish seafood producers to capture.

The committee may be interested in some current facts on the state of theIrish seafood sector. The industry provides 11,000 full-time and part-time jobs in fishing, fish farming, processing and ancillary services including net making, fish distribution and a range of other activities. As my colleague Dr. Connolly pointed out, the industry is predominantly located in coastal locations at some distance from other centres of economic activity, and the jobs are critical to maintaining viable communities in these regions. By way of example, BIM has conducted studies on Killybegs and Castletownbere which illustrate the critical role and contribution of the seafood industry in both of those key coastal locations.

In Castletownbere 81% of employment is related to fishing while in Killybegs the figure is 69%. Similar economic studies on other fishing ports are under way.

At primary production level, sea fish landings to Irish ports in 2011 were 269,099 tonnes with a value of €199 million. Provisional data for 2012 show that output from the aquaculture sector amounted to 36,285 tonnes with a value of €129 million. The seafood export sectorhas performed well over recent years. In 2012, exports of Irish seafood increased 18% in value to €517 million on an increased volume of 350,032 tonnes. It is worth noting that the 18% increase in value in 2012 exports followed a 14% increase in value from 2011 exports which means that there was a strong double digit growth in exports. The leading markets were: France - €115 million, Great Britain - €78 million, Spain - €54 million, Germany - €28 million, and Italy - €27 million. Outside of the EU the key export destinations are west Africa, Egypt, Russia and Asia, which had a combined value of €155 million. It is also worth noting that our seafood exports to China in 2012 was double the 2011 figure.

Sales on the domestic market reached €310 million. The retail sector is performing well but the food service business has been adversely impacted by the economic climate. The total sales of seafood, both the export and home markets, amounted to €827 million. The seafood processing sector is characterised by a large number of companies. At least 80% of sales is accounted for by 40 companies in which the turnover ranges from a high of €50 million down to €5 million. A significant number of smaller companies have sales of less than €1 million.

BIM believes that there is a need to realise that scale will be an important consideration for our sector over the coming years. This realisation is necessary to engender greater competitiveness and take advantage of the global market opportunities for seafood. It would enable us to deliver on the very ambitious Food Harvest 2020 strategy and secure a sustainable seafood industry providing sustainable jobs.

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

Obviously somebody has a laptop or mobile telephone placed near a microphone. I have received a note from the broadcast unit stating that the equipment is interfering with its broadcast of the meeting. Please check if the equipment has been left on and switch it off. The signal may be subtle but the broadcast unit has been able to detect it and it prevents a clean transmission.

I thank Mr. Whooley for his presentation. We will continue later with the two other delegations and they will be followed by a question and answer session. I call Mr. Micheál O'Mahony from the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

I thank the sub-committee for its invitation to attend along with our colleagues in aligned State agencies. On behalf of my fellow authority members I wish to express our welcome for the initiative to focus on Ireland’s inshore and aquaculture sectors. The SFPA welcomes interest in the public services we provide. We believe that our work is integral to the support and protection of a profitable future for these sectors. In these, and all seafood sectors, SFPA’s role involves the promotion, verification and, if necessary, enforcement of compliance with sea fisheries conservation and seafood safety legislation.

The authority was established as Ireland’s competent authority charged with ensuring compliance with both sea fisheries conservation and seafood safety legislation in Ireland. This two-fold role sees us working with wild catchers and aquaculture producers and includes seafood processors up to, but not including, retail. Key components of our work include inspection of fishing landings, co-operation with the Irish Naval Service regarding monitoring and inspection of vessels at sea, sampling of shellfish production areas, inspection of processing establishments, certification of exported seafood consignments, and representation of Ireland’s approach to fishery protection and seafood safety at various EU and international fora. The authority works with its sea fisheries protection consultative committee. We are happy to report that the recent appointments made by the Minister to the committee included representatives of inshore fishing and the fin-fish and shellfish aquaculture sectors.

With regard to the inshore wild catching sector, the vessels involved in the sector numerically constitute the largest component of the vessels in the Irish fishing fleet. Approximately 75% of the 2,162 vessels in the Irish fleet are less than 10 m in length. In general, these inshore vessels operate on a day-trip basis and target high value fish such as prawns, pollock, turbot, brill, mackerel, crustaceans such as lobsters, crayfish or crab, and shellfish such as razors clams, scallops or whelks. The fishing gear used and fishing patterns of these inshore fishing vessels leave a generally light environmental footprint as their operating range and capacity is restricted by the size of the fishing vessels used and their vulnerability to bad weather and sea conditions. The value of the harvest from these waters contributes significantly to the local economy of our coastal and island communities.

There is generally a culture of compliance in inshore fisheries in Ireland. For example, the v-notch and berried lobster schemes have proved successful initiatives in protecting and improving inshore lobster stocks. In general terms, the SFPA has found a laudably strong sense of ownership and responsibility shown by inshore fishers in the conduct of their business. That is not to say the sector is without compliance issues. Fishing by unlicensed and unregistered fishing vessels continues to be something we detect. It is unfair competition for legitimate fishers who have invested their money to operate their fishing vessels in a compliant manner. Also, a small number of disreputable restaurants seek undersized lobsters from fishermen in an effort to maximise the profits they make from their gourmet clients. Illegal commercial fishing for bass is also a problem in some parts of Ireland.

The authority's role in verifying compliance with fishery conservation legislation is performed on a risk basis. We tailor our inspection programme to ensure the best possible protection of Ireland’s marine resources. Inshore fishing vessels are generally viewed as being low risk given their catching ability relative to other fishing vessels. There is no sector that receives zero official controls, but the frequency of inspections increases with vessel size. Collated 2011 figures of inspections of Irish vessels by the SFPA at port, or the Irish Naval Service at sea, indicate an average of 0.3 inspections per under-10 m Irish vessel per year. The analogous figure for over-24 m Irish vessels is 6.8 inspections per vessel per year.

To ensure an appropriate platform from which to base a meaningful regulatory support to inshore fishermen, the SFPA has procured its own rigid inflatable boats, RIBs. The boats were purchased following a previous appearance by the SFPA before the Oireachtas joint committee where a committee member observed that we should have sea-going capacity for this work. The authority works closely with Inland Fisheries Ireland and the Naval Service to maximise efficiency in promoting compliance with the management rules for the inshore sector. While we cannot be at every landing point every day of the week, the often close-knit nature of the inshore sector ensures a useful flow of information to our confidential line which we follow up.

Our legislative mandate includes an explicit role in promoting compliance. The authority has identified particular challenges faced by the inshore wild catching sector when it comes to an awareness and understanding of its legal obligations. The intricacy of the regulations, the frequency with which they change, coupled with the part-time seasonal nature of this work and absence of a representative organisation with whom we can discuss these issues can hamper overall compliance levels. Therefore, the authority took the initiative to engage with representatives of the inshore sector in the south east to develop a comprehensive, user-friendly guidance document for use by the sector. The outcome is a Guide to Compliance for the inshore sector that outlines in one document the key legal requirements for these fishers. We printed the leaflet, including a leagan Gaeilge, and made it available free of charge through our regional port offices to these fishers. It was printed on tear-resistant and moisture-resistant paper. We have included the leaflet in the pack that we provided to the sub-committee today. We have received reassuringly positive feedback from fishers. I ask members to browse the leaflet and we are happy to receive feedback.

The authority is committed to the minimal intrusion in the working lives of fishers and continues to put much effort into the utilisation of remote sensing data to enable verification of compliance from a distance. We have chosen to implement a derogation available to fishing vessels over 12 m for approximately 50% of the Irish 12 m to 15 m sector, exempting them from using electronic logbooks when their fishing patterns allow. Recently, we made a submission to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform proposing that we fund from our budget a pilot scheme to trial the use of small-scale, user-friendly data logging devices for use in smaller vessels. They would facilitate demonstration of compliance with both fishery and environmental legislation.

Within the context of the mandate of the sub-committee, and our competence in sea fisheries and food safety regulation, we can see some opportunities. We see potential in harnessing the authority's vessel positioning to support particular marketing claims such as labelling fish as caught off the coast of west Cork. We believe that the fish caught by the inshore sector have many unique selling points, particularly for the Irish consumer. They range from its low food miles to its freshness due to short trip to its artisan attention to detail in primary handling to its direct contribution to coastal economies.

We are currently working with our colleagues in BIM and the fishing industry on a project designed to ensure regulatory compliance with obligations around traceability and provision of information to consumers, and we see benefits in differentiation of inshore seafood.

A key challenge already mentioned facing some traditional inshore fisheries has been the implementation of EU directives designed to ensure the protection of environmental habitats. Following ministerial direction in 2009, the SFPA has been active in demonstrating Ireland's compliance with these obligations. SFPA-devised control plans have provided assurance that inshore fishing vessels can operate within areas under special protection without damaging the habitat being protected. The accurate recording of catches and the precise tracking of fishing operations are key features of these control plans, which are necessary for Ireland's opening of fisheries and aquaculture in inshore Natura-designated special areas of conservation.

The shellfish aquaculture sector is an important feature of Ireland's inshore coastal waters, with approximately 70 production areas classified and monitored by the SFPA in co-operation with the Irish Marine Institute. Bottom-grown mussels, rope-grown mussels and trestle-grown oysters are key production systems, and Ireland's industry is primarily export-oriented, with particular reliance on European Union continental markets.

The production of these live bivalve molluscs is subject to a prescriptive regulatory regimen in EU legislation, designed to manage health risks associated with both algal toxins and micro-organisms. The production and sale of these seafood products must be underpinned by robust official control and monitoring systems which classify production areas according to the bacterial conditions present and manage the weekly opening and closing according to changing algal blooms. These official control sampling programmes require significant SFPA resource deployment, in the order of 20% to 25% of the resource available to us.

We work with the shellfish aquaculture sector, particularly the Irish Shellfish Association, to try to achieve the best balance in protecting consumers and Ireland's market reputation while facilitating the practicalities of harvesting and trade in these food products. We have been particularly active at an EU level in working to influence the legislative standards being developed with these objectives in mind. At this time some of the regulatory changes being proposed are likely to prove challenging for the sector, especially in the area of standards for toxins and viruses of public health significance.

Regarding fin fish aquaculture, the SFPA's role centres around ensuring that the food safety obligations expected of producers are being met. From our initial creation in 2007 we developed a programme of official controls to verify compliance with the European food safety, animal remedy and animal by-product regulations at these sites. We worked with the Irish Salmon Growers' Association, hosting an information session to explain and orient producers within their legal obligations. We received strong feedback from that sector concerning regulatory burdens arising from the involvement of various State agencies. We have therefore collaborated with State colleagues to streamline our official controls into part of a single wide-ranging inspection, verifying a variety of matters, performed by a single official on a single visit. We believe such a joined-up approach to discharging Ireland's obligations is good for everyone - industry, State agencies, taxpayers and consumers.

Ireland's seafood sector is export-oriented. Market access for food outside Ireland depends on trust in the official control systems. The food control authorities of importing countries depend on the assurances provided by the authorities of exporting countries. In the case of Irish seafood exported outside the EU, SFPA officers are responsible for attesting to the safety of the product and the legitimacy of the catching vessel, with catch certificates and health certificates. Without this SFPA work, Irish exporting of seafood would not exist.

Since our creation in 2007, the SFPA has been a key interlocutor in negotiating market access for Irish seafood in Japan, Russia and China, as well as achieving a significant reduction in the regulatory burden required for Irish seafood exports to the United States. A substantial component of our available resource is devoted to this work, both at a central level through the Department of Foreign Affairs, working with the resource-intensive expectations of importing country authorities, and through our officers on the ground, working with Irish exporters to provide the necessary certification for every individual consignment leaving Ireland going to a third country.

Seafood - particularly high-value products, notably including live molluscs, live crab and smoked salmon - tends to have perishability characteristics which result in a large number of low-volume consignments, with challenging transport logistics. This is a demanding and increasing part of our work. In 2011 our officers issued health certificates for 932 consignments comprising 26,000 tonnes of Irish seafood going to 39 different countries. In 2012 that had risen to 1,437 consignments, 63,000 tonnes and 44 third countries outside the EU. While that is a clear manifestation of the benefits of industry compliance, we struggle to service industry expectations and support Government policy to increase the volume and value of output and exports of seafood as envisaged in Food Harvest 2020. We believe our resourcing must acknowledge this regulatory output so that we can provide the necessary industry support.

I hope the SFPA's commitment to supporting the continued success of the inshore and aquaculture sectors is evident in our brief presentation. While we sit here, SFPA staff are working hard to implement Government policy, dealing with real people who are working hard to try to make their livelihoods in these sectors. We strongly believe that fit-for-purpose regulations are an integral pillar of the successful future of these sectors. Our work supports the ongoing viability of compliant operators. These industries are clearly the backbone of the coastal and island communities and we look forward to being part of their future. We would welcome any questions committee members might have for us.

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

I thank Mr. O'Mahony. With regard to his comment that boats had been purchased after the SFPA's last appearance before this committee, we would like to think we had that much influence on every delegation that came before us. Our wish list is not always responded to as well as that. I invite Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin from Údarás na Gaeltachta to make his presentation.

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

A Chathaoirligh agus a chomhaltaí, táimid an-bhuíoch daoibh as ucht cuireadh a thabhairt dúinn inniu plé a dhéanamh ar an cheist thábhachtach seo, straitéis forbartha inmharthana do phobail oileáin agus cósta. Ba mhaith liom achoimre ghairid a thabhairt ar na phríomhphointí anois. Déanfaidh mé sin i mBéarla.

We are grateful to the Chairman and members for extending an invitation to contribute to this important discussion on the preparation of a sustainable development strategy for coastal and island communities. We would like to present to the committee a brief summary of the principal points detailed in the submission we have made available to the committee.

Síneann cósta na Gaeltachta, atá thar ar 2,500 km, ó chósta thuaidh Dhún na nGall tríd Muigheó, Gaillimh, Ciarraí, chuig an Rinn i gContae Phort Láirge agus tá sé thart ar 25% d'fhad chósta na hÉireann, lena n-áiritear sé chinn d'oileáin Gaeltachta. Tá daonra 71,367 i gceist agus muid ag áireamh sa limistéar sin ach a bhfuil i bhfoisceacht 10 km ón gcósta. Tá 6,500 post lánaimseartha as an iomlán fostaíochta lánaimsearth de 7,000 duine atá fostaithe ag cliant comhlachtaí an údaráis i láthair na huaire.

Údarás has targeted development objectives in the following sectors: seaweed, mariculture, food, sustainable development energy, green and clean tech, and tourism, mostly cultural tourism.

Ba mhaith linn cuidiú lenár gcliaint fiontair bunaithe ar acmhainní chósta nó ar fhiontar atá ag fo-soláthar nó ag tabhairt seirbhísí do na hearnálacha thuasluaite. Ba mhaith linn tacú le comhlachtaí Gaeltachta sna hearnálacha thuasluaite fás agus forbairtí a dhéanamh trí airgead agus tacaíochtaí cuí a chur ar fáil dóibh agus ba mhaith linn páirtnéireachtaí, comhghuaillíochtaí straitéiseacha agus ghréasáin a fhorbairt geallsealbhóirí cosúil le na daoine atá thart ar an mbord anseo inniu.

There are challenges and opportunities. We believe the licence system should be reviewed and simplified. It is critical that sufficient resources are made available to the appeals board to support its ongoing work programme. We would also suggest a three-year development scheme for commercial aquaculture. If that is done, we believe there are many opportunities in seaweed, mariculture, food and tourism development, especially cultural tourism.

Traditionally, the coastal Gaeltacht communities have been dependent on the marine resource. This resource has been integral to the overall economic, social and cultural development of the Gaeltacht. It is imperative that every support and development opportunity is provided to these vulnerable marginal coastal communities to ensure their ongoing viability. Such supports can be delivered in an integrated fashion through financial and development measures, which will create employment and local added value. We believe Údarás possesses the required expertise and experience in local economic regeneration, enterprise development and the delivery of community-based and sectoral initiatives that support such communities. My colleague Jim Keogh and I would be happy to expand on any aspect of this presentation and respond to any questions members wish to submit to us.

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

I thank Mr. Ó Cúláin, and I thank all the witnesses for their presentations. We started with an outline of the overall picture from the Irish Marine Institute, followed by Bord Iascaigh Mhara's presentation on promotion and identification, the presentation from the SFPA and, importantly, the role of one of the support agencies already on the ground supporting coastal and island communities. I ask all four members to keep their initial questions to about five minutes, following which we will hear the answers. We can then take additional questions without any time limit. I call Deputy Ó Cuív.

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

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh na hoifigigh ar fad atá anseo tráthnóna. Is é an cúlra a bhaineann leis seo ná gur tháinig daoine a bhíodh ag plé le sruthlíonta chugainn ag rá nach raibh an tslí beatha traidisiúnta a bhíodh acu fós acu, agus nach raibh rogha malartach curtha ina áit. Baineann sé go mór le hÚdarás na Gaeltachta os rud é gur tháinig formhór na ndaoine ó Oileán Árainn. Bhí siad ag iarraidh go ndéanfadh muid an cás go mbeadh cead acu dul ag plé le sruthlíonta arís. Mar is eol don údarás, mura mbeidh obair le déanamh ag pobal na n-oileán agus ag pobal an chósta - mura mbeidh saothrú le fáil - ní bheidh aon phobal ann, agus muna bhfuil aon phobal ann ní bheidh an Ghaeilge ann.

The background to these hearings is that some fishermen from Arranmore did not take up the buy-out package as to do so would have required them to affirm that they would never go out drift-netting again. They attended the joint sub-committee and spoke to us. This is about the vulnerability of coastal communities, which has come to the fore in the context of the challenge of up-siding in other people's interests. Deputy Pringle is from the constituency in question. The fishermen's position is that the sea is full of fish, which they do not have the wherewithal to get at. They do not have piers to go out to the deep sea, they are not allowed to fish salmon and they are ill-equipped to fish year-round for other species.

We must consider this on a cross-agency basis. It is a pity there are no representatives in attendance from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine or the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, as one of the most significant deficiencies is the lack of infrastructure. The chief executive of Údarás na Gaeltachta raised a fundamental point when he referred to licences but I raised an even more fundamental one in a previous incarnation, which was that, with the exception of Inishmore, there are few significant fishing licences in the islands. That is for the simple reason that piers were not built on the various islands in time for them to acquire the licences in the first instance. When I was Minister, we were trying to build a pier on Arranmore and got as far as the design stage. I think the project has run into the sand. Tory Island had no significant pier until approximately ten years ago. Inishmaan had nothing that one could reasonably call a pier - it had a slipway. Inisheer had a very poor pier at which boats could not be left during the winter. Despite the fact that these islands are sitting in the middle of the Atlantic, many of their communities do not have the wherewithal to fish. They lack either the necessary quotas or licences.

As I have only five minutes, I will focus on a few issues. What is the potential to increase the output of shellfish by semi-farming it? I use the term "semi-farming" to refer, for example, to Údarás na Gaeltachta and its ownership of the oysters in Kilkieran Bay where, since it took over from Gael Linn, there has been good co-operation with the local co-operative. Mussel farming in Killary Harbour uses absolutely natural mussels which attach themselves to ropes and is not done in the traditional way. What is the potential for inshore fishermen to increase their income through the various aquacultural processes, including V-notching, which do not rely purely on nature but are developed in a natural way using nature's own tendencies?

Seaweed has been mentioned only in passing today. What is the potential for inshore communities to develop low-volume, high-quality products from seaweed? What do we need to do on seaweed rights? There is a saying in Connemara about "spite feamainne" and neighbours who are having a dispute. In the lore, an argument over seaweed rights is more bitter than any other argument. Is there anything we can do through the Marine Institute to create further natural products, exploit different types of seaweed and move up the market chain? Údarás na Gaeltachta knows my view that seaweed was a high-volume, low-value product for years, which I was anxious about. Údarás na Gaeltachta is now seeking to move up the chain to a higher-value product. Is there more we can do with seaweed?

Given the constraints on fishing, is there more we can do on marine leisure? Where does that fit into the picture? Given that the sea is not privately owned, will coastal communities have a role in renewable energy? If tidal or wave energy production develops, will it be the preserve of large multinationals while local communities have a purely employee role in the sector? Is there significant potential to use the sea to create renewable energy?

Can Mr. Whooley clarify something? He referred to an upsizing of companies. There are many small processors operating in small, isolated communities that employ people here and there. Does he envisage a consolidation of the processing industry or is he talking about all of these small companies growing while a few large ones emerge in parallel? I would be very surprised if someone were to suggest that we should get rid of highly successful niche companies which have established high-value, low-volume markets for their products. It would fly in the face of what is happening in the land-based food industry, where we have Kerrygold and Glanbia operating alongside a hugely expanded artisan food industry. Where does BIM see us going in that context?

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and a graph has been circulated which refers to 1,614 boats under ten metres in length. We are here to discuss the owners of those boats today, not the owners of the large boats. This whole issue is about the small boats. How do we sustain those people and their communities?

I have one question for the Marine Institute involving special areas of conservation. From memory, I believe a bay must be surveyed before an aquaculture licence can be issued. As a result, there are significant delays in issuing licences. What is BIM's role in issuing licences and preparing bays, particularly bays which are special areas of conservation, for licensing? There was a reference in another context to a competent authority. Regarding compliance and special areas of conservation, including Cuain Chill Chíaráin and other bays, what is the competent authority? Is it the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority? Does it depend on the species?

My understanding is that there is one agency appointed by the State which has the competent authority to rule on whether a person is in compliance with SAC legislation-Natura 2000, which appears to be always a huge barrier.

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

I thank the delegates for their presentations. I welcome the commencement of this engagement which if utilised properly can be hugely beneficial in terms of meeting all of our hopes and expectations.

I come from a fishing community. As such, I am conscious of the marked decline over the past number of decades in this sector, particularly in inshore fishing. Like Deputy Ó Cuív, for me, the 1,614 vessels are the most important given their connection with our respective communities. The people involved come from, live in and spend their money in the communities. One of the biggest disasters in this area of the fishing sector was the abolition of drift netting. It has done huge damage, the knock-on effect of which has been felt by the crab, lobster, crayfish and gill netting sectors. Pressure on these areas has increased as a result of that measure.

I am acutely aware, having played a central role in it, of the oyster fishery in Tralee Bay. Management of that fishery and sustainability of the crop has, despite all the pressures, continued to be a source of income to the 78 permit holders there. It is down to management that it has survived. Previously all involved in the sector, because we were fishing based on greed rather than quota and benefit, were exploiting it. Despite this effort, I am concerned about pressure on the lobster and crayfish sectors in particular. In this regard, I fully support the v-notch. Some very close friends of mine are involved in the industry. When fishing previously we fished approximately 100 to 150 round barrel pots, but currently these people are fishing 600 to 800 pots. I understand people in other areas are fishing up to 1,000 pots. They are doing this in order to make a living. That is the reality. The cost of diesel, insurance, boat maintenance and so on is high. These fishermen are under extraordinary pressure. While it is to their credit that they remain involved, it is a huge investment for a small return. I know of people who have been hauling 600 pots a day for approximately €50 or €60.

My first question is to Mr. Whooley and is based on the current debate around aquaculture, salmon farming and so on. Has consideration been given to on-shore facilities for aquaculture, in particular in relation to salmon? I am told it is feasible. I acknowledge there are differing scientific views on this issue and that it is often difficult to ensure the right decision is made when there are so many differing views to be taken into account. For example, the IFI is totally opposed to what is proposed for Galway and is prepared to take the matter further if it goes ahead. All of us have to make up our own minds. We all want to see more people involved in the sector and the continued viability of coastal communities. Currently, our coastal communities are not viable; they have been decimated. The escape valve has been emigration. A number of our inshore fisherman are dependent on non-Irish nationals for a crew. The level of emigration is also causing a problem in this sector.

On the restoration of the sea bass quota, I have received representations from various different groups, in particular the IFO, who believe the sea bass quota should be reinstated and could provide an income. Has any consideration been given to this issue? I would welcome the views of other delegates on that matter. On aquaculture and other projects, those of us involved in putting together the presentation on natural resources consulted with many people. Central to this process is local consultation. The imposition of a particular measure on people without consultation can cause serious resentment and can be detrimental to the good will that may exist in that regard.

Reference was made earlier to the labelling of inshore fishing. That is a marketing issue. Proper labelling and marketing of this fish could provide a great return for local communities. It may also result in additional income for related industries within communities. As far as I am concerned the elephant in the room is the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, the impact of which, in terms of quota, has been detrimental. It has resulted in competition in Irish waters between Irish fishermen and fishermen from countries whose quota far exceeds ours, which, in turn, is having a knock-on effect for people in coastal communities. We all know what happened in 1972-73. This issue has never been properly addressed. If we had an adequate quota we could develop an infrastructure and industry that would be of great benefit to Ireland as a whole and, in particular, to coastal communities.

On the SFPA, we have had our difficulties with it in the past. I am taking the delegates at their word that matters have improved greatly. It was stated that there is a great deal of consultation with the south-east, which I welcome. As a public representative from a coastal community I am regularly contacted by people about the operations of the SFPA. I am happy to take the delegates at their word that a lot has changed.

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

Members have posed questions to all delegates. Perhaps Mr. Whooley will respond first.

Mr. Jason Whooley:

I will try to address the issues raised by Deputy Ó Cuív, the first of which was also raised by Deputy Ferris, namely, the involvement of inshore fishermen in aquaculture and ranching. The example of how oyster fishing in Tralee Bay is managed, as mentioned by Deputy Ferris, is an excellent one. The operation is professionally managed and there is a good working relationship among the individual fishermen. It also has an onshore facility, from a hatchery perspective. It is a good example of what can be done in terms of inshore fishermen moving from what is traditionally seen as wild fisheries to managed fisheries. Similarly, the mussel farming operation in Roaring Water Bay mentioned by Deputy Ó Cuív is an excellent example of inshore fishermen, side by side with in-shore fishing, successfully growing mussels and supplementing their incomes. There are other examples of this around the coast. The difficulty for an inshore fisherman or small group of fishermen is our onerous, and rightly so in some respects, licensing system through which they must navigate in order to obtain a licence to farm. I am sure Dr. Connolly will have more to say on the SACs, Natura 2000 and their implications.

Deputy Ó Cuív raised the issue of seaweed. I agree absolutely that seaweed offers significant potential. As I mentioned earlier, the BIM strategy to be launched in a number of weeks will have a specific emphasis on seaweed. We successfully managed to farm seaweed in Dingle and Castletownbere in the past couple of years, through local inshore fishermen growing it. That has proved very successful. My colleague, Mr. Donal Maguire, might deal with that issue specifically.

I will now address another question raised by Deputy Ó Cuív on scaling and upsizing and how that sits with the traditional businesses around our coast. The Deputy is absolutely correct, the traditional small businesses which have developed niches in the marketplace for their products and employ low numbers of people are critically important not only to the coastal communities but also to the future of the Irish seafood sector. We have an absence of the larger companies that operate in other sectors. We do not have companies on the scale of Glanbia or the Kerry Group. There is no seafood company in Ireland with a turnover in excess of €50 million. That lack of scale impacts negatively on our ability to deal on the global market. Many of our competitors have companies of that scale and in simple terms they are able to out-muscle us in the marketplace. That is a real challenge in the market day-in, day-out which we need to address. We need to develop companies of scale in parallel with our existing niche companies. Last year we were fortunately able to get four companies to collaborate together and go to the Chinese market as one rather than compete against each other in that market. Companies from Kilmore Quay, Castletownbere, Donegal and Mallow in County Cork came together as a group to access the Chinese market. That has been very effective.

I will now respond to Deputy Ferris's question on the onshore growing of salmon. We have successfully grown onshore species such as turbot. We also grow onshore species such as perch in Tipperary and Monaghan. The challenge with salmon is that the world production of salmon is 2 million tonnes per annum. Of that 2 million tonnes, approximately 10,000 tonnes to 15,000 tonnes is produced on land. The reason is simple, while it is technically feasible, it does not make sense financially. The added difficulty for a country like Ireland is finding large sites proximate to the coast in which one could situate these cages. Another factor is the cost of energy and recent statistics show we have the third highest electricity costs in the OECD. The cost of electricity for the pumping machines would make it even more difficult for an Irish operation to succeed. That is not to say we are not looking at this possibility or that further down the line it has potential. In my opinion it will be five to ten years, at best, before such a project would be financially viable.

My colleague, Donal Maguire, will deal with seaweed and will comment further on salmon.

Mr. Donal Maguire:

As Mr. Whooley has mentioned we have done a great deal of work of seaweed. The most recent project funded by the Marine Institute under its research programme was administered by BIM on its behalf. We have perfected the technique for hatching and growing seaweed so that one can seed lines, a bit like mussel lines, and put them out in the sea to produce special individual species of high value seaweed, such as Deputy Ó Cuív mentioned. There is considerable potential in this field. As it is regarded as an aquaculture process it will require aquaculture licensing. The first licences of this sort will be applied for shortly in west Cork. We have done a great deal of work in the past with our colleagues in Údarás na Gaeltachta on using the existing seaweed resource and finding higher value niches in the nutraceutical area for it as an additive to various cosmetics. Of course, some of the finest golf greens and some of the best racehorses run on seaweed by-products. There is much work being done to try to maximise the value of the existing resource and to develop a new farmed resource. The farming of seaweed is very big business around the world. The Chinese farm millions of tonnes of seaweed every year and use it for a multiplicity of purposes, including shipping it to Japan, where it is used to wrap around sushi products. It is an emerging technology.

Finding sheltered areas on the Irish coastline may be a challenge but we have no doubt that it will be a significant industry in the future. The important thing to note is that in the medium term - ten to 20 years time - there will be no single species fish farms. We will be looking inevitably at multi-trophic aquaculture. Ideally there will be a fed farm, which is a fin fish type farm, perhaps a salmon farm and a seaweed farm in the stream of that to make the best use of any enrichment coming from it and the seaweed will probably be used in turn to feed valuable shellfish or become an ingredient in animal feeds of one kind or another, including fin fish feeds. There is no doubt that farming up and down through the trophic levels of the sea, starting with seaweed and then moving through shellfish and up to fin fish and integrating these into unified systems, will be the way forward for fish farming.

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

Will Dr. Connolly comment on the competent authority?

Dr. Paul Connolly:

I will respond to Deputy Ó Cuív's questions on the role of the Marine Institute and SACs. The competent authority for Natura 2000 is the National Parks and Wildlife Service. This is part of EU legislation, which Ireland as a member of the EU must comply with.

The role of the Marine Institute is to work with our colleagues in different Departments and semi-State agencies and look at the risks associated with fishing activity in relation to special areas of conservation, SACs. The best way of defining our role would be to give members an example. The cockle fishery in Dundalk Bay is in a special area of conservation. The Marine Institute surveys the cockles to determine the biomass of the cockles. We define a management plan with the local stakeholders on the quantity of cockles to be taken out. We must not just consider human consumption, but the food for the very important bird populations. We need to define the quantity of the cockles to set aside, not alone for the fishermen but also for the birds that live there.

In a sense we develop a management plan for the cockles in that SAC. We want to ensure the sustainable exploitation of the cockles and that the birds have enough food to live on because they are intrinsic to the SAC. We define a closed season and open sea and the best time to fish for these cockles. Working with the different players, we come up with a management plan. Our role would be to assess the resource, determine its size and work with the stakeholders to try to quantify how much we can sustainbly take out of the resource. Between SACs and SPAs, there are 29 bays on which we are working at present. To set up management plans and give the advice to the stakeholders requires a great deal of background data. We must establish the benthos of the bay, the bird population and one needs all this information to develop management plans.

I would now like to respond to the two questions from Deputy Ferris. We cannot land seabass in Ireland. It is a very frustrating part of daily life for fishermen when their colleagues from France and the United Kingdom can land bass and they cannot. The bass population was in a serious state of decline and this triggered the stop on the exploitation of bass. It was an Irish regulation. The EU will establish quotas for bass across the EU, and the talk is that they will be introduced next year.

Allied to that, there is now international scientific advice on the quantity of bass that can be caught at sea. It is the first time we have had such advice.

Another element which comes into the complex equation is the forthcoming discard ban in the CFP. It is illegal for Irish fishermen to land seabass, but when they catch them, it will be illegal to discard them. We have a dilemma and the way out is to develop a management plan. All stakeholders in the seabass fishery, including anglers, must consider what their objectives are and attempt to reach a consensus on a management plan. Such a plan might involve closed seasons and a mechanism whereby fishermen may not target seabass, but any seabass they catch, they may land and sell. Given the policy changes which are about to happen in the CFP and the idea of a total allowable catch coming in, there must be a coming together of the anglers who want to retain the ban on landings and the industry which is intensely frustrated by the ban.

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

Mr. Connolly mentioned the introduction of a bass quota. Will the quota be determined historically? If it is, we get nothing.

Dr. Paul Connolly:

This is another significant issue which could hurt Ireland badly. If the quota is determined by historic landings, the fact that Ireland has closed the fishery raises the possibility that we will get no quota. It will be an area of significant debate in the process of defining and allocating quotas. We must sit around the table. A management plan for seabass in an Irish context within the TACs from the EU is the only way out. Otherwise, we will get ourselves into an impossible position.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

I will provide the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority's perspective on Deputy Ó Cuív's question on special areas of conservation and move on to some of Deputy Martin Ferris's comments. My colleague, Dr. Connolly, has spoken about the Marine Institute's role in special areas of conservation whereas the role of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is relatively circumscribed. When the Marine Institute has issued a recommendation on what is an appropriate outtake, it is the authority's job to ensure fishers comply and take only what is allowed. We can show that Ireland has a meaningful approach to special areas of conservation and the compliance of fishers within them. There are logistical challenges in monitoring the outtake, including technological difficulties in transmitting information to a central authority in real time. If Dundalk cockles, for example, is managed on a weekly outtake basis, to get the information collated on a Friday to be in a position to distribute quotas for the following week for individual vessels is logistically challenging. We are looking at fit-for-purpose, small-footprint data loggers which might be appropriate for use in this area.

The Deputy's question was really about who does what and where does it all stop. I will walk the committee through the environmental obligations. The two relevant EU directives - one on birds and the other on flora and fauna more generally - require member states to designate as special areas of conservation places with specific environmental characteristics which it is sought to protect. That has been done by the competent authority for the purpose, which is currently the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, under Natura 2000. There are various marine areas which have been designated, some of which are inshore and some of which are offshore. Currently, the competent authority with responsibility for co-ordinating Ireland's overall approach in this area is the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which co-ordinates the inputs of the Marine Institute, BIM and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority to produce a coherent approach to pre-designated special areas of conservation to allow activities including aquaculture. In Deputy Ferris's part of the world, the Cromane Bay fishery was the first area to be opened under the process in 2009-10. Dundalk cockles has been opened and Mr. Whooley mentioned Roaring Water Bay, which is another output of the process.

I encourage Deputies to consider special areas of conservation from the widest possible perspective, which is what we try to encourage in our interface with the industry. I will explain what I mean by that. For example, an aquaculture producer whose production area had been designated as a special area of conservation saw that as a significant challenge and communicated that view evocatively to the authority. He has turned that around, however, and now markets his shellfish across the EU as grown in pristine special area of conservation waters, designated as environmentally protected. I will not say he commands a market premium, but he is certainly maximising the benefits of the designation. Rather than to view designation as a challenge, it can be looked at as an opportunity. Protecting a marine environment is a good thing. The very fact that there is a lucrative, rich, traditional fishery in an area means it contains a unique ecosystem. Protecting it is a good thing.

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Mar fhreagra don Teachta Ó Cuív, labhair sé faoi phobail beaga gan pobal gan teanga. Aontaím 100% leis an méid a dúirt sé. Sin an bun prionsabal ar bunaíodh an údarás an céad lá agus oibríonn muid ar an phrionsabal sin i gcónaí. Luaigh an Teachta go bhfuil oileáin beaga, cosúil le oileáin beaga cois chósta, amach ó chósta Árainn Mhór i ngreim ag reachtaíocht náisiúnta agus nach bhfuil sin feiliúnach do phobail beaga cois chósta. Aontaímid le sin freisin. Dá mbeadh aon bhealach thart ar sin, ghlacfadh muid é.

Maidir le tairgíocht sliogéisc, bhí an uain céanna sin 20 bliain ó shin i gCiarraí thiar agus i nDún na nGall agus i nGaillimh. Aontaímid go bhfuil deiseanna ansin. Ó thaobh fuinneamh inathnuaite.

There are three potential sites at the moment, including one off Belmullet and one in Galway Bay, off Spiddal, where we have, with our colleagues in the Marine Institute, tracked the whole bays under the smart-bay programme. There are also possibilities off Achill and the Clare coast. We are in constant contact with the people who are involved in these projects. ESBI's WestWave project off Achill is one.

To reply to Deputy Ferris, small vessels are most important, including to us. They are often the only vessels people in small coastal communities have. We support fisheries, including shellfish fisheries - I am aware of the one near Tralee - and developed some in Waterford and Donegal in the 1980s which are still in existence. In respect of the two projects Deputy Ferris mentioned, we agree with local consultation 100%. It is in my submission that there is no possibility of properly implementing any project without local consent. Fish labelling and marketing to increase value are things to which we should all aspire.
Maidir le feamainn, b'fhéidir go ndéarfaidh an tUasal Mac Eochaidh rud beag faoi sin.

Mr. Séamus Mac Eochaidh:

Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal a rá faoi cheist na feamainne. Mar atá ráite ag an tUasal Ó Cuív, tá neart féidireachtaí ann don earnáil sin. As my colleague, Mr. Maguire, mentioned, the principal issue in seaweed processing is the regulation of the supply. Tá a fhios agam go dtéann sé siar ó thaobh na feamainne de. A survey carried out approximately 13 years ago suggested that there was approximately 70,000 tonnes of ascophyllum nodosum, which is the most commonly-processed seaweed. The main processor is a company we own outright, Arramara Teoranta, which harvests 25,000 tonnes per annum. The problem is that while the Office of the Attorney General confirms that, as it sits below the high water mark, 98% of all seaweed belongs to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, it would be a brave Minister who would try to claim it. It is a traditional issue. To move to higher-value seaweed processing in the absence of establishing the claim requires substantial investment.

We have two companies in our remit, one of which we own 100%, which dries and mills 25,000 tonnes of Ascophyllum nodosum. Another company in our remit, in Donegal, extracts liquid from seaweed and the remaining by-product is used for soil enhancement. The drying extraction plant gets three times the value for liquid extraction compared to the drying and milling plant. Therefore, the drying and milling plant is almost like beef on the hoof in comparison.

To build a sophisticated liquid extraction plant would probably cost approximately €10 million, but we will not get anybody to put €10 million into an industry when they do not know where the supply will come from. This is a difficult issue, probably akin to turf-cutting in terms of people's perception of who owns or does not own the seaweed. We have seen the issue dealt with properly in places such as Halifax, where the state leases out an area and the company that gets the lease is responsible for sustainable harvesting of the seaweed. Ascophyllum nodosum, for example, can be cut back to four inches from the rock and it will grow again in four years.

I am not a scientist, but I am advised that seaweed, like other crops, benefits from being harvested and cut properly and sustainably. In Canada, the practice is to cut one foot per annum, which is done from boats. Currently there is nobody here responsible for the sustainable harvesting of seaweed. People can go to the shore and take all the seaweed. They can take the seaweed off the rock and then the plant is gone. The State has an obligation to regulate this resource for everybody's benefit.

Harvest 2020, an official Government report, states that 38,000 tonnes of seaweed is harvested annually. We can see how that is made up. Aramara harvests 25,000 tonnes, another company harvests approximately 12,000 tonnes of maerl and the balance is harvested by small suppliers. However, if one goes to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and inquires as to who has a licence to harvest seaweed, only the maerl harvester and one other harvester, which harvests laminaria in Kenmare Bay, have licences. Although the laminaria harvester has a licence, which took two years to obtain, he is not harvesting. Therefore, how is it that 38,000 tonnes are being harvested if there are no licences?

This seaweed is being harvested on a very simple basis. It is being done by individuals through a hand-cut process and is deemed to be for personal use. That is fine as far as it goes, but what if we want to expand the industry? In Japan, approximately 43,000 people make their livelihood from seaweed processing. This would probably equate to a livelihood for 3,000 people in Ireland. I reckon that no more than 100 people in Ireland are making a living from seaweed currently and there are no more than 50 million sales. There is no reason we should not have 1,000 people involved and 500 million sales, but we must regulate and sustainably harvest the crop.

In response to an cheist a d'ardaigh an Teachta Ó Cuív faoi cé mhéid species atá ann, Dr. Paul Connolly will know a lot more than me about that. In the last report I saw, approximately 13 species were mentioned as being possible to harvest commercially.

Mar focal scor, we have similar problems in general industry where the údarás operates as in the seaweed industry. For many years, significant amounts of money were spent on academic research, but the industry was not commercialised and the commercial companies had not caught up with the research. I am glad to say this is beginning to happen, particularly in NUIG, where the science is really beginning to unlock the benefits of seaweed. I have seen French products that cost €100 per gramme because of the use of a little extract from a seaweed plant. That is where we need to be, rather than drying and milling stuff and sending it all over the world as a commodity product. The potential is enormous, but if we do not have regulation, we will not have investment to unlock that potential.

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

Thank you. I noticed the back-up team writing vigorously while Mr. Mac Eochaidh was speaking.

Mr. Michael Keatinge:

I am Michael Keatinge, fisheries development manager in BIM. I also look after the training division. A number of points have been raised and I will deal with them in no particular order.

Deputies Ferris and Ó Cuív mentioned V-notching. This is one of the few success stories we have and is to be commended. Members will all be aware it is a co-operative arrangement whereby berried female lobsters are returned live to the sea and the State pays half the cost and the fishermen the other half. There is a considerable monitoring input of this from fishermen. This year, we will probably spend approximately €80,000 on the arrangement. This is not a plea for more money, but we are accommodating everybody who comes to us with regard to that programme. With regard to our lobster stock, I echo a point made already in the context of seaweed as to whether we could get more from our lobster stock and other inshore fishery stocks. I will defer to Dr. Connolly on this, but I think we all agree the chances are we could. It is down to management.

Natura will provide a significant input into the management process. Dundalk Bay was mentioned; the cockle harvesting in that bay is extremely well managed. As Deputy Ferris said, management involves local input. The surprising thing is that the fishery management plan under which Natura operates comes from the fishermen. The State agency's role - certainly BIM's role - is to assist the fishermen in producing their plan. That plan is then assessed by the Marine Institute to ensure it is compliant with the requirements of Natura. The development of the plans has been a tortuously slow process. We have looked at Roaring Water Bay and we are looking at Kilkieran Bay, Clew Bay, Lough Swilly and a number of other areas. There is an ongoing process with the European Commission to clarify precisely how the whole programme will operate. Other member states have laboured slightly and have lacked a deep understanding of the situation, but that is not necessarily our fault. Some of the delay is due to the legislation itself. It is a matter of interpretation. Developing the plans has taken longer than it should have, but down the line they may prove successful.

The question was raised as to whether we envisage enhanced income and benefit for local communities through more local ownership. My personal view is that this offers an avenue for exploration. A number of fisheries have traditionally been vested in local ownership. Tralee oyster fishery and Kilkieran Bay have been mentioned. Local ownership poses some problems. It is like the old adage of the chicken and the egg. The question is who will have first ownership and how will the process be managed. It would be wrong to raise those intellectual barriers because that type of well-managed locally owned fishery can prove extremely beneficial to communities.

Mention was made of the drift net ban. There was never a drift net ban. The ban was on weak stock fishing of salmon. When and if those stocks return, fishermen will be able to use drift or draft nets. It will not matter then if they catch them with harpoons. The committee that looks at this problem year on year is the standing scientific committee, which was originally attached to the now abandoned national salmon commission. The standing scientific committee carries out an assessment annually of the rivers, the conservation limit and where we stand in respect of the conservation limit. I do not want to get into specific details, but I am aware that the committee had Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, before it previously in connection with Arranmore, and that the point would have been made that Arranmore seems to be at a crossroads, with fish passing by that are destined for a multiplicity of rivers, not just in Ireland but also on the continent. A net put in the water there will not only take fish destined for a river that is in surplus but will also take fish destined for rivers that are, perhaps, not in surplus.

There is an important point to be made. In some of our rivers, where we are beginning to see strong numbers of returning salmon, it is vital that the new distribution is fully utilised. Traditional wild-catch fishermen, along with their angling colleagues, must be able to enjoy the surplus. We should not lose sight of this. I do not wish to be unduly specific, but I will mention the Moy. There are 26,000 surplus fish in the Moy this year. This begs the question of who can access those fish. We could have a valuable export market in wild salmon, which attract huge prices on the continent. This is an issue we should look at. Questions must be asked as to how the surplus can be managed and utilised. We must ask whether there are new opportunities for traditional fishermen to devolve into managing an upstream trap with a smoking or processing ancillary business attached to it.

We see rivers such as those in Waterford beginning to recover. The Nore and the Suir have both recovered. Unfortunately, the Barrow has been a problem and has not fully recovered. This raises the question of whether the conservation limit has been set too high because there has been human intervention on that river. As on Arranmore, there are fishermen in Passage East and Cheekpoint who did not take the buy-out and are waiting for the day when they will be allowed to begin fishing again. It is important that those involved in that particular process recognise that not everyone took the compensation. There was never a ban on drift-net fishing; there was a ban on mixed stock fishing. If a river is below the surplus but then gets back to that level, fishing should reopen. Scientifically, that is possible.

The issue of labelling was raised and the point has been well made by my colleague in the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. We are involved in a good project with the SFPA and the fishing industry in this regard. We are all well aware of what has happened in the meat sector. To say there is no substitution in the fishing industry would be perhaps to tell a lie. Everyone is aware that at times one could happily eat a haddock and it is every bit as good as cod. Why not? Some of the lies that may be told are not necessarily as black as others. That being said, it is important that we build credible labelling, traceability and assurance around our seafood. It is essential to exploit what is a natural product in the fashion we can and the example of using a special area of conservation, SAC, to our advantage is a good one.

There has been a consistent policy within Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, in the past 15 years to devolve our staff along the coastline. I hope the Deputies and Senators here are more familiar with their local BIM officers, whether in Galway, Kerry or wherever, than with us. There is a strong sense of participation at an agency level. For example, one of the initiatives we are currently working on, which the committee may wish to come back to, is the roll-out of the European Fisheries Fund Axis 4, which is similar to the Leader programme and works in conjunction with Leader, but is a new source of funding to underwrite the types of initiative I believe the committee is focusing on, including how we create new and devolved opportunities in areas that are otherwise going through a change and how we create an interface between the fishing of the past, the marine skill-set and marine tourism. There are many opportunities in these areas. Those who are familiar with many parts of the country, not least Dunmore East, Kilmore Quay or parts of Galway or Donegal, see that process taking place. The coastline is not all made up of Killybegs and Castletownberes; far from it. Axis 4 is something that will re-emerge during the next round of funding from Brussels and something that could be used in future to complement, not compete with, the work that has already been done by Leader, but with a much stronger focus on maritime and marine-related activities. That is something we would see as a positive outcome.

Mr. Andrew Kinneen:

I will make some general comments in response to questions put forward by the committee. It is important that inshore fisheries are recognised as having special characteristics. We have referred to their economic importance to coastal communities. The environment on board an inshore fishing vessel is entirely different from that on a larger fishing vessel. It is not the place to be weighing fishermen down with paperwork, electronic gadgets and the devil and all to monitor fishing. We need to keep it simple, low cost and as practical as possible. From that point of view we are looking at low-cost systems which we believe would be good for and well suited to inshore vessels. Larger vessels have vessel position monitoring systems that operate using satellites. We believe a low-cost equivalent could be achieved by using shore-based mobile phone networks, data loggers and so on. This is far more practical and it is an easier option for fishermen.

We need to emphasise the particular management of these vessels in terms of their fishing within special areas of conservation and Natura sites. There is some work to be done in order that people understand that the fishing gear these inshore fishing boats use is not destructive. Some people come to the argument with the view that the use of a small-scale dredge, a string of lobster pots or a small passive fishing net is destructive because they take a protectionist view of special areas of conservation. It is important that the special characteristics of inshore fishing vessels are recognised. It is an entirely different ball game to larger-scale fishing vessels using larger-scale heavyweight fishing gear. There is something of a lack of understanding and it is important that this is dealt with as time goes by.

Dr. Connolly from the Marine Institute commented on scientific assessments and management of out-takes. There is also a need to manage the protection of identified marine organisms, whether a seaweed or a benthic species. For this reason the SFPA is of the view that low-cost, appropriate monitoring systems are valuable because one can mark off a patch to protect a particular species while leaving the fishery active and exploitable.

Another key point to emphasise is the role of marine spatial planning in the future protection of livelihoods of inshore fisheries. We need to ensure that one marine activity does not impinge unnecessarily on another marine activity. Inshore fisheries are particularly vulnerable in this regard. They are also vulnerable to the misbehaviour of larger vessels operating in deep sea areas and we need to pay attention to that aspect of it as well.

The issue of bass was raised, as was the challenge of getting a just quota for Ireland because of the catch-22 situation - no pun intended - and because we have a ban. There may be some value in considering the recorded catches of recreational fishers that have been going on for years and have demonstrated the recovery of the stock. Inland Fisheries Ireland has a long record of reporting catches from recreational fishermen and this may be something that could be extrapolated by scientists. However, it is a tricky question to be worked through.

There are some difficulties from the SFPA perspective in trying to work with the inshore sector. Local consultation is fantastic and is the way forward, but we miss not having a representative body. There are representative bodies for fin-fish aquaculture, shellfish aquaculture and various sectors involving larger fishing boats along the coast. We can exchange messages and understand each other better by being able to talk to individuals. However, we do not have that in the inshore fisheries sector and that is something we may seek to develop.

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

I thank everyone for their presentations. I have some specific questions, particularly for the SFPA. The Common Fisheries Policy has six- and 12-mile limits. What flexibility, if any, exists for member states within the six- and 12-mile limits to end variations? I have in mind specifically inshore fisheries and sustaining inshore fishing communities. The SFPA presentation referred to the benefits of differentiation of inshore seafood. What are the potential benefits and how should policy be developed to deliver that? What would that policy look like?

The presentation from Údarás na Gaeltachta referred to a requirement for a de minimis scheme for small-scale fishermen. Will the deputation expand on that?

The next question is for Bord Iascaigh Mhara. Some of the issues relating to seaweed, shellfish and aquaculture have been referred to already. How should policy be developed to assist and encourage inshore fishermen to diversify in these areas? What must be done to ensure that we specifically target people who want to move out of inshore fishing?

I have a general question on policy for coastal communities. What policies should we be considering to assist and incentivise fishermen in communities to diversify? It is important to ensure that people who wish to stay in fishing are assisted and that policy can be developed to ensure that can be done in a sustainable way. Everybody referred to tourism in their presentations and that is important, but a vital part of the tourism product is seeing traditional fishermen at work in coastal communities.

I will make a brief comment which is not really relevant to the work of the committee but it was raised in connection with the seabass fishery. Could the witnesses comment on the futility of Ireland's unilaterally introducing a ban when our own waters are fished by up to nine other countries? We will probably see that working itself out with the introduction of the quotas over the coming years.

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

I welcome the different organisations and bodies that have made presentations here. We are not talking about the fishing industry but only about the inshore sector, the islands, the coast and a specific issue concerning aquaculture. The organisations have given some very useful information. It gives an optimistic view of the potential that lies off our shores, which many living on the coast have known for decades. Some may not recognise it, but managed well, it has the potential to create a lot of economic activity in areas which the IDA and Enterprise Ireland largely ignore. That is why it is important that we get accurate information and that the projections are sustainable and will lead to achievable policies for those communities.

Many of our inshore fisheries aim at non-TAC species, for which there is no quota. Can Dr. Connolly see any way for his organisation, the Marine Institute, to support further an inshore sector that would not be affected by TACs? He might also outline some of the issues that have arisen. Where I come from I often hear that the science does not match the experience or the perception. There is a lag. I know the present Minister is serious in saying that where the science supports it he will look for an increase in quotas, but not where the science does not support it. We are dealing then with the precautionary principle. Will Dr. Connolly outline for us how long it takes, typically, from the point at which the Marine Institute identifies an issue for it to go to ISIS-Fish, or through the Commission, the Council and the whole EU structure, before coming back to the Irish legislature through an instrument that can be used on the ground? Our perception is that the process takes up to four years. That is a pinch point on which coastal communities need some clarification. It is interesting that Dr. Connolly identified two of the most valuable stocks, and there are many, maybe 30 or 40. Historically, mackerel sustained inshore communities, but now it is in the offshore sector. Does Dr. Connolly see any potential, using the science he has studied, to allow the development of an inshore fishery that is not covered by TAC?

I have some questions for Mr. Whooley of BIM. Fisheries are quite limited. By and large there is no great potential for increased quotas or stocks. It will remain static. The potential to increase our activity in these sectors is very limited but aquaculture has potential for coastal communities. We are coming from a very low base. The Norwegians and the Scots have been dealing with the same EU legislation as we have since 1973, the same issues with Natura sites and the same natural environment, the eastern Atlantic. The same people are involved, they have come from the same base but they have done ten times more work. They are years ahead of us.

I reserve the right to raise this again if there is a second round of questions, but the big issue is licences. Could we get some idea of the number of licences that have been applied for on Natura and other sites, if that data is available? I am aware that there is a significant project off the Aran Islands, but we could spread this around. It is becoming a serious issue around the coast.

I was particularly interested in the presentation by the SFPA. As the watchdog for the fisheries it has had a difficult job in creating a dialogue and mutual respect between the industry and the regulators. I am particularly pleased that it has identified areas where the inshore fleet in particular would benefit from appropriate interpretation of directives or measures that the offshore fleet deals with every day. I welcome an expansion of those programmes, particularly when one sees the number of vessels in the fleet. There is no correlation between the number of vessels and the value of the landings. Many have low overheads. There is a living to be made, more or less, if they want to be left alone as long as they are licensed to do what they are doing and they are compliant and not having an impact on other people. I welcome the SFPA's approach to this. It might be useful to examine areas where this could be expanded to promote sustainable fishing.

I am not as familiar as some members of the committee with Údarás and would like to know if it supports projects in onshore processing that would tie in with the inshore fisheries and add value to the work of the local guys who are landing there. Would they have ownership or could they invest in their own processing facilities in those areas? That would be very helpful.

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

I welcome the witnesses to the committee. Mr. O'Mahony talked about turning a potential disadvantage into an advantage. A large proportion of Irish fishing vessels are under 10 metres. We have 1,614. Mr. O'Mahony said that there is generally a culture of compliance in the inshore fishing sector. People land their fish, they go out for no more than 24 hours and they go after high-value stocks. As a result the fish is fresh, unlike the fish frozen on factory ships. Does that not present an opportunity to the State to market that in Ireland and internationally and to develop strategies to get those fish to international markets in Europe, where there is a demand for it? What is BIM doing at the moment? If anyone else wishes to provide answers I would welcome those too. What are State agencies doing to market that product?

SFPA mentioned it had inspection points to certify our exports. Where are they located? Who is certifying shellfish, in particular live shellfish, which are imported? Where are they being certified?

We learned from Mr. Whooley's presentation that sea fish landings at Irish ports were valued at €199 million and output from the aquaculture sector was valued at €129 million. What proportion of the budget is geared towards the marketing and development of sea fish versus the marketing and development of aquaculture?

I have some specific questions. I thank the delegates for providing a chart on the minimum fish sizes fishermen can bring on board. I understand they are legislated for by way of statutory instrument on the recommendation of BIM. If that is not the case, which body is involved? They are obviously done with a view to protecting fisheries and ensuring sustainability. Is velvet crab fishing protected or minimum sizes applicable? If not, why not?

Mr. Keatinge had information on salmon stocks in rivers. Is there a trend? If so, what is the trend in regard to the upstream Parteen weir on the Shannon?

Mr. Whooley mentioned the need to realise scale is an important consideration for the sector. A proposal, which we will not discuss, will go to the Department. I understand BIM has a strategy of developing large offshore fish farms. Would that policy displace existing fisheries? I refer to the general policy of displacement. Could it be counterproductive? Irish beef is marketed as a top-end product. If we seek to market fish, in particular the types to which I referred, namely, from inshore fisheries, is that at odds with developing and marketing a mass produced product from large sea farms? Are there any health repercussions for humans? Has that been considered as part of the process?

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

We will go in reverse order this time.

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Deputy Pringle referred to de minimis schemes. I said it is currently critically important to maintain employment and the fishery policy would be flexible and innovative. In many cases EU state aid rules will preclude countries from grant aiding anything that will distort competition. In most other industries there is a de minimis get out clause and one is allowed to use up to €200,000. The maximum allowed in the fisheries sector is €30,000, which puts it at a major disadvantage. I mentioned it as an example of something that could provide more flexibility. A sum of €200,000 per project would be substantial aid.

Deputy Harrington referred to inshore processing. There are up to 20 processors along the west coast such as O'Cathain Iasc in Dingle, O'Mahoney and Ted Browne. There are quite a few in Rossaveal; at one stage up to 400 people worked in Rossaveal, but the figure has reduced to 40, mainly because of a lack of raw material for processing. The same applies elsewhere, such as Teelin in Donegal.

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

Does Mr. Ó Cúláin have any figures on the inshore sector? I am aware Dingle is geared towards offshore fishing.

Mr. Séamus Mac Eochaidh:

Earagail Eisc is the largest processor of crab and Breizon Teoranta processes lobster. There are 765 people working on those projects and a large percentage are based on inshore fisheries.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

I thank the Chairman. I will try to answer the direct questions that have been put to us and refer to my colleagues to pick up the pieces of what I do not answer.

Deputy Pringle asked about the CFP and its provisions for protecting traditional inshore fisheries. This is a fairly complex area. To step back from the big picture, one of the guiding principles of the current CFP is that EU waters can be accessed by all EU fishers. There are some exceptions. Another guiding principle is that outtakes are defined per member state, regardless of from where they take them. The CFP defines the outtake the member state can take from EU waters and, in general terms, allows access by all EU vessels to most EU waters. The exception to which the Deputy referred is the protection of what would generally be regarded as the exclusive economic zone of the member state. There are two sections measuring from the baseline, which is the high tide line. There are divisions of six and 12 nautical miles. In general terms, the CFP provides for a member state to protect everything up to its 12 nautical mile limit from, in our case, non-Irish fishers. There is protection within the CFP for access. Notwithstanding that access protection, the maximum TAC for member states remains. It is just a matter of where it is caught.

We are getting into the complex area of Ireland's relationship with the UK, but I am happy to discuss them. There are particular access rights for UK fishing vessels entering the six to 12 and the zero to six mile zones. In general terms, they protect traditional fishery rights for people on the island of Ireland which they enjoyed prior to the inception of the State.

Mr. Andrew Kinneen:

Reference was made by Deputy Harrington to the potential of inshore mackerel fisheries. It should be noted that the outtakes of TAC species, whether taken inshore or offshore, all have to come from our national TAC. BIM operates a select representative group of, I understand, approximately 100 vessels. We take statistics from them and extrapolate them to model the outtakes of inshore fisheries, which we then model into the statistical returns given to the Commission and, in turn, to ICES.

The good news is that a lot of the high value species are not TAC species, such as lobster and crayfish, and are not subject to such limitations. There is great fishing effort limitation and the trend to use more fishing gear for fewer returns is a notable feature of what is currently happening. It points to the need for good marine spatial planning.

On the protection of velvet crab, the Deputy has caught me offside. I am not in a position to answer his question but I will research it and revert to him. I cannot quote him a minimum size for the species. We regulate all the landings of fishermen, go through all their catches with them and determine whether clawing or whatever else might apply.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

I am happy to deal with questions which may not have been answered. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked about inshore seafood products and differential labelling. He also asked what needed to be put included in legislation to make this happen. There are various reasons, but it is not for the want of legislation. Deputy Noel Harrington referred to the fact that, in general, fishermen wanted to fish. Inshore fishermen are not marketing experts; they just want to go out, catch the fish, sell them today and do the same tomorrow. In general terms, that has resulted in it being a world market rather than a niche market.

Deputy Michael McNamara referred to the market for Irish beef. Rather than legislation, we might instead need awareness and an appetite.

It is fair to say local is the new organic with reference to produce. There is an increasing consumer desire for low carbon mile figures. The proximity of Ireland to the rich natural fishing resources and the lower volume of diesel used by Irish fishermen in the search for fish are marketing points that might have benefits. We are in the middle of a recession, but the high-end food market seems to be relatively recession-proof and perhaps this should be considered.

There is a need to improve the awareness of consumers. For example, what does the term "line-caught mackerel" mean to the average consumer? Are consumers aware of the benefits of it not being towed in a trawl? Are they aware that larger fish, rather than the smaller fish, will bite the bigger hook? This is an example to simplify a very complex issue.

The question of freezing fish was raised. The Common Fisheries Policy is extending the fishery control regulation to the retail sector. The descriptive labelling of fish as not previously frozen will become obligatory at retail level. This will give an advantage to this type of fish product. I have observed marketing ploys in use in some member states for terrestrial food, whereby the food is labelled to indicate that 30% of the retail price is returned to the primary producer. There are ways available that do not require legislation. However, as a regulator, I have to express the view that we need the courts to take seriously any non-conformance with labelling regulations. It must be taken on board. I acknowledge that it is not the end of the world, but any non-conformance with regulations misleads the consumer and needs to be taken seriously.

Will I deal with the other direct questions?

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

We will finish and then move to discuss BIM.

Ms Susan Steele:

To reply further to the questions asked by Deputies Thomas Pringle and Noel Harrington about the benefits of inshore seafood and how it could be legislated for, the legislation at point of sale simply requires identification of fish from the north-east Atlantic, which means from Iceland down to Spain. Aquaculture products are labelled to indicate that they are farmed or non-farmed produce. The legislation we regulate does not allow for inshore fisheries products to be labelled, nor does it provide for how it is labelled. However, inshore fishermen can work with local companies, restaurants and hotels. BIM will work with them to develop products for sale locally. It is not really a legislative issue as much as a product development and marketing issue.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

Let me deal with Deputy Michael McNamara's questions about our role with regard to imports and exports of seafood. He asked about our role in the official control of exports of seafoods. That is done at the processing plants located in Ireland. This is a significant logistical challenge for the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority as it involves visiting each processing plant to inspect each consignment. We have a legal obligation to inspect and certify consignments. We have to drive to each processing plant each time a plant has a consignment going to another country.

Imports of food into the European Union is a matter attracting particular EU scrutiny because once food comes into one member state such as Ireland, it has entry into the entire European Union. Rotterdam is the largest importing port in the Union. We have two designated border inspection ports in Ireland - Dublin Port and Shannon Airport. Ireland is a net exporter of food rather than a net importer, while the European Union is a net importer of food, being the largest importing block for seafood in the world. In round terms, seafood makes up approximately one in five consignments of food arriving in Dublin Port. I do not have exact figures, but I can forward them to the Deputy. We do not work at the border inspection ports; we provide technical support for the staff of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine who man the ports.

On the question of who inspects seafood imports such as shellfish into Ireland, live shellfish is not imported. I note there is a representative present from the Irish health food association. Ireland is a net exporter of shellfish, of which very little is consumed here. Dead shellfish which have been processed such as Bangladeshi tiger prawns and Canadian frozen lobster are being imported. These products are inspected at the border ports under a reciprocal relationship. The onus is on the exporting country to provide the attestations which are then verified at the border inspection port by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We provide direct support for the inspection staff.

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

That must be at either Dublin Port or Shannon Airport.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

If Ireland is the point of entry to the European Union, this must be at a border inspection port, but it could conceivably enter the Union at Rotterdam, for example, which is highly likely. It can then come into Ireland through Rosslare, Cork Airport or any Irish entry port. It does not have to be through a border inspection port. As the border inspection port is known as the BIP, it is "bipped", so to speak, in Rotterdam and it is then subject to free trade within the European Union. That is the basic principle of the Common Market.

Mr. Jason Whooley:

Like Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, Deputy Michael McNamara raised the issue of inconsistency of scale versus niche products. It is important to understand Ireland's position on seafood. Unfortunately, the vast majority of our seafood is sold in a commodity format. Unquestionably, we need to move away from that system. The future for the majority of Irish seafood must be in niche, high value production.

I referred in my opening statement to the 35,000 tonnes of aquaculture product produced in 2012. The European market for seafood is worth about €55 billion per annum, totalling 15 million tonnes. On a slow day the European market can take everything produced in Ireland. That is the scale of the opportunity offered in Europe alone. Even if we were to double our organic salmon production which is going to a niche market, the impact on the overall market would be minimal. There are absolutely no health issues of any description to do with aquaculture or farmed salmon.

On the marketing and development of sea fish versus aquaculture products, the marketing and promotion of Irish seafood are within the remit of our colleagues in Bord Bia. From a business development perspective, BIM actively engages with the seafood sector.

We are involved in areas such as value-added processing and assisting our processors to scale up and create more value-added products for the international and domestic markets. In addition, we have a dedicated seafood development centre, the only one in Ireland, dedicated to the delivery of value-added products for Irish seafood companies ranging from small to very large companies. The centre in Clonakilty has proved very successful in adapting a traditionally commodity-type focused product to a more value-added niche that is proving lucrative for many Irish companies.

Deputy McNamara asked about the budget split. From a BIM perspective, with regard to fisheries and aquaculture, the fisheries and training budget for 2013, including capital and current spending, amounted to a total of €2.32 million versus an aquaculture budget of €1.4 million.

My colleague, Mr. Keatinge, will deal with the issue raised by Deputy Pringle regarding inshore fishermen and how we can provide a structure for them to take advantage of aquaculture. My colleague, Mr. Maguire, will deal with the issue raised by Deputy Harrington regarding the potential for the development of the aquaculture industry.

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

There is also the question of developing access to markets. Is any work being done in that area?

Mr. Jason Whooley:

Bord Bia is doing very good work on that.

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

What about transport infrastructure?

Mr. Jason Whooley:

Transport infrastructure?

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

How are fish landed in a small pier such as Quilty or a small pier in Cork or Galway transported from there to market? Is anything being done in that respect?

Mr. Jason Whooley:

There is the matter of the physical infrastructure required to transport the raw material to the market. Allied to that is the route to market as in the vehicle - not a physical vehicle but the business model - that takes the product to market. We would focus very much on the physical infrastructure at the processing site. For example, we assist companies financially to introduce new machinery that would add to the shelf life of some of that raw material. Rather than trying to ship live raw material out of the country, we can develop value-added products with these companies to ensure such raw material has a longer shelf life and to help those companies access greater and more distant markets.

Second, regarding the commercial vehicle or the route to market, we have a very successful route to market scheme available to all Irish seafood companies and collectives. I gave the example earlier of where we had four companies throughout this country dealing with shellfish, specifically live crabs, which now export as one block to a Chinese market of 1.3 billion consumers, which they would not have had a hope of doing as individual companies. We also have two companies dealing with live inshore products doing something similar. That is the type of commercial vehicle we can help facilitate through our schemes and through the expert advice from our staff in Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

Mr. Michael Keatinge:

I will deal with Deputy McNamara's question regarding wild salmon. The figures are from a report of a standing scientific committee and are not BIM figures per se. Unfortunately, there is no figure for the Shannon above Parteen. It would not be a matter for me to discuss that with this committee, rather I would direct the Deputy towards the standing scientific committee who should make its full report available to him. The point I was trying to extract is that there are a considerable number of wild salmon that are now available beyond the conservation limit, many of which are correctly exploited by the sea angling sector. However, there remains an opportunity for the previous wild salmon catching sector, in particular those who did not avail of the buy-out, to access some of these fish. That is an important point. I recognise the specific difficulty that attaches to Arranmore because of its geographical location, but the wider point is more important, that there are scientifically assessed surplus fish. We should be in a position to ensure, whether through diversification projects or otherwise, access to those fish for wild salmon fishermen.

Moving on to the point about wider diversification opportunities in the context of training, the members of the committee will be aware that BIM maintains the National Fisheries College. We have a campus in Greencastle and it has been established since the late 1960s. We have a school in Castletownbere and we have two active mobile training units - we used to have three - which bring our training facilities right around the coast, in particular to those places that are far removed from Greencastle or Castletownbere. Those dedicated professional staff have done a tremendous job over the years. We do not simply provide training for fishermen. We also provide it for aquaculturalists and work boat handlers. We do passenger boat licensing for recreational fisherman. The sea angling fraternity would do licences with us. We are embarking on a new programme of extending that training deeper into the fishing industry at the deckhand level and on the day boat level.

Specifically in terms of diversification, if the aquaculture sector develops, there is a need for more trained skilled persons to operate within that sector, whether it be to operate small boats, work on the farms and so on, and there is a range of training in which we would engage. We look to colleagues to Údarás na Gaeltachta to work with us, and they have done so successfully for many years. We also have a programme with local schools at transition year level in Connemara. It is a wonderful programme that we have run for many years. We normally run a training course on Inishmaan each summer with the local transition year students.

One of the analyses I did recently for a report for our parent Department involved examining the annual economic returns for the past three years. These are provisional reports. I sound a note of caution to the committee regarding the numbers. It appears, as we might have expected, that during recent years we have seen a drift back towards the fishing sector on the part of people who previously may have had jobs in the construction sector. Some 150,000 jobs were lost in that sector. In excess of 500 people have come back into the fishing industry in the past two to three years. That is an important and perhaps overlooked fact. Those people need training. We will never perhaps reach a point where we are entirely accident free in any industry. If we have learned one thing from Iceland, it is that managing the stocks is not about bringing in rafts of new legislation. We can bring in legislation that states "thou shalt wear a life jacket and thou shalt do X, Y and Z". Managing the stocks is more about education rather than simple enforcement. We did not come here today with a plea for additional legislation. We need to create a culture of compliance, which is a term the SFPA has used very successfully, to generate an ethos of training. That is something in which we strongly believe.

In regard to inshore mackerel, we have developed, as part of our inshore initiative over the years, a small but highly successful line of caught mackerel fishery, and we assisted the inshore fishermen with hand gurneys to catch fish by line. We have become a victim of our own success. Even a small boat might take 20 tonnes or 30 tonnes in a season but if we have 1,000 people doing that, that amounts to 30,000 tonnes, which is half the apparently huge quota of 60,000 tonnes. At times one can become a victim of one's own success. We should not limit this solely to mackerel; we have done it with pollock.

In terms of the work of the committee, if we consider brown crab, shrimp, lobster, crayfish, whelk, razorfish and a myriad of these stocks that are not subject to total allowable catch and quota, I reiterate my earlier point that managing these stocks is not about bringing in rafts of new legislation. Managing them into the future is about co-operation and creating consensus within the fishing community. I believe, but I will defer to Dr. Connolly, that all those stocks, almost without exception, could produce a higher yield.

Mr. Donal Maguire:

I will do my best to address the questions raised both by Deputies Harrington and McNamara about the potential for development within the aquaculture sector, the need to try to maintain the value of the products from it, and the question as to why the Scottish salmon industry, which has a volume of 160,000 tonnes, which started about the same time as ours, has been more successful in increasing its volume.

On the question that if we are successful ultimately in building up one or more of these larger-scale offshore farms, are we in danger of somehow undervaluing the product from them, the answer to that is"no" because the intention is that these would be organic certified farms.

Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, along with the industry, has led the way in developing organic certification. We still maintain a number of very high-quality product certification standards, 2 ISO 65, to ensure quality, traceability, environmental sustainability and organic status. It is hoped the bottom-grown mussels sector will gain Marine Stewardship Council certification. We are constantly working on ways of finding market niches and supporting the industry through doing that.

With regard to the potential from aquaculture, in the immediate to medium term the targets for that are set out in Food Harvest 2020. Those targets are ambitious but we believe they are achievable. There is a difficulty with licensing and it is that issue with licensing that is the difference between Scotland and Ireland. The Scots got off to a roaring start with salmon farming and in many ways it is because the ownership of the foreshore in Scotland is vested in the Crown Estate Commissioners, a rather ancient body but one with a strong commercial imperative, which took a decision that it wanted to push this industry hard. Also, in the hinterland of the highlands of Scotland the land ownership is very different from Ireland. In general, it is owned by a small number of people in very large estates. At the time they also were enjoying income from this particular industry. It got up to a critical mass very quickly, with little local opposition. It also had a rapid licensing system in place. As a result of confusion and difficulties, the industry in Ireland became embroiled in confusion over the sea lice issue and the famous rod licence debate. It got snarled up at that stage and never got past the starting point because of difficulties with perception around the industry.

Unfortunately, in the interim, there was the 2007 judgment of the European Court of Justice against Ireland, which found that our aquaculture licensing system was essentially delinquent in so far as it did not properly take account of the birds and habitats directives. There was a flaw in our system and as colleagues from the other agencies have described, the State side of things, including BIM and all the agencies here, have been playing catch-up to try to bring our system back into full compliance.

To answer Deputy Ó Cuív's question about the identity of the competent authority, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is the consenting authority and as the consenting authority the onus falls on it to then satisfy the requirements of the directives. Satisfying the requirements of the directives requires us to be able to carry out appropriate assessments in accordance with the directives. The difficulty then was that when we went to do that we found that the necessary information and structures were not in place to allow us do it.

There has been a grave difficulty in bringing the State into compliance with these issues. Progress is being made but it is very slow. We are all frustrated by that. Even the officials in the Department suffer the same frustration, but there is no way around it. We must deal with this matter and get it out of the way, and it will be crucial to get it out of the way if we are to achieve the targets set out in Food Harvest 2020.

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

I welcome what Mr. Maguire has said. The only currency in terms of getting the aquaculture industry to increase the outcomes from the industry is licensing. It is the only game in town as far as I am concerned. There is the willingness, the people are in place and the expertise is becoming available. The international comparisons are frustrating, and Mr. Maguire explained the historical issues that have built up in that regard, but we still have a problem. The baseline data are being compiled. Roaring Water Bay, Castlemaine, Dundalk and other such areas are getting their baseline data in place but an issue remains. For example, someone making an application for a licence in a bay that has already been dealt with such as Roaring Water Bay, and I do not know if licences apply there, will have to get somebody to interpret the environmental impact statement with respect to that baseline data, and that is not happening. It is taking too long to get over that hump. Mr. Maguire might give me some idea of the issue that arises in that regard.

Another issue is that in some areas there are not any Natura sites. The process on a site in western Scotland, from concept to harvest, takes two years. In a non-Natura site here I am aware of applications that have been in since 2007. That is very frustrating for those willing to make the investment, those looking for employment here and those who have concerns about the environment. It is even frustrating for the opposition groups that are looking at this process for six years. The perception is that one might engage with a process in the second year, even if one is objecting to it, and five years down the road it still has not been decided. Many operators here just want to know if it is a "Yes" or a "No" in terms of the application. I do not know how many licences it leads on to. Mr. Maguire might indicate how long it takes to evaluate an environment impact statement, EIS, as part of a new licence. How many licences are in the system that require that evaluation to take place? That will give us some idea of how far we have moved on. If we park the history and look forward, what is ahead of us?

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

My question is for Mr. Maguire. I was told, and I might be incorrect on this, that when it comes to salmonids the competent authority would be Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI.

Mr. Donal Maguire:

I will start by answering Deputy Ó Cuív's question. The competent authority in these situations is always the consenting authority. For a marine salmon farming licence, the competent authority must be the issuer of that licence, which is the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. There are a number of statutory consultation bodies which will be consulted when an application is made, including IFI. It will be a statutory consultee in the process but the competent authority is the licensing issuing authority.

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

Yes, but what if it is under Natura 2000? My understanding is that if it went to the European court the competent authority, IFI, would then have to be brought into the process if there was a challenge.

Mr. Donal Maguire:

I suspect it would go to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, which would refer it to IFI in that regard. The Deputy is getting very technical and I would not have the expertise to give him an exact answer to that question. The competent authority with regard to Ireland's compliance overall with the habitats directives is the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

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

I seem to think it has a role in this.

Mr. Donal Maguire:

I could not comment. If I may answer Deputy Harrington's-----

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

An bhféadfainn ceist a chur ar Stiofán Ó Cúláin?

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

Will the Deputy hold off on that until Mr. Maguire has answered Deputy Harrington's questions?

Mr. Donal Maguire:

To some extent as BIM representatives we are speaking out of school here because we are not the competent authority when it comes to licensing but we are deeply involved in it along with our colleagues in the other agencies and therefore we have had to develop a deep knowledge of the topic.

Leaving the history aside and using the horrible catch phrase "We are where we are", which nobody likes to use, the problem is that the State has had a judgment made against it in the European Court of Justice. We narrowly avoided having daily fines imposed because of this delinquency on the part of the system. To avoid that the State has had to get involved in a long series of negotiations with the Directorate-General for the Environment bringing colleagues from the National Parks and Wildlife Service and other agencies, along with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, to seek their agreement on the way forward. That has resulted in this complex plan to try to bring the system back into compliance with the directives.

Another problem that arose along with the difficulty with appropriate assessment was that our system did not have a formal way of declaring whether an individual project, apart from a salmon farming project, needed an EIS. Shellfish projects also have to be vetted for EIS as well as dealing with the Natura 2000 issue.

The short answer to the Deputy's question as to how long it will take is that we do not know because as yet nothing has come through fully from the new system from one end to the other. We hope that is just about to happen in Castlemaine Harbour where the very first aquaculture licences that are in full compliance with all the directives are about to issue.

Thereafter, it is hoped that as the system gains momentum and as custom and practice build up, the entire system will speed up. However, nobody could give a straight answer in that regard at present.

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

Perhaps it is a question on which we could revert to the Department. Has Mr. Maguire any idea how long it typically takes to assess an EIS?

Mr. Donal Maguire:

An EIS has to be assessed in the context of its environment. If it concerns an application pertaining to an area designated under Natura 2000, it could take quite a long time. Otherwise, an EIS could be assessed very quickly, that is, in a matter of weeks. EISs for priority projects such as water treatment units may be assessed in less than a month. They are very small documents.

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

What I am trying to do is determine the scale of the problem.

Mr. Donal Maguire:

There are approximately 500 or 600 applications backed up in the system.

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

Dr. Connolly has not been given an opportunity to respond.

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

I have a question for him also. We have got so much conflicting information on the effects of aquaculture. Sea lice and escapees comprise a major issue. The IFI has a view, to which it is entitled, and the industry has a view. Does the delegation agree that the Marine Institute is the competent authority to adjudicate on and publish the scientific data on aquaculture, particularly in respect of sea lice and the effects of escapees on wild stocks and the environment? Does Dr. Connolly have an opinion on how the current regulations or regime operates with regard to these issues? The IFI, a State organisation, has a view that I believe is contrary to that suggested by the scientific data. What is Dr. Connolly's view on that?

Dr. Paul Connolly:

There were three questions directed to me. Deputy Pringle asked about seabass and whether the stopping of landings was a good idea. At the time in question, the seabass stock was in a state of decline and people were worried about its vulnerability but that did not stop the trawlers out on the Celtic Sea from catching seabass. One wonders, therefore, about the measure's effectiveness.

This matter represents the classic dilemma associated with how one should maximise a resource. Does one want to use the seabass resource exclusively for angling, with tourists coming to coastal areas exclusively for the fishing of seabass, with a view to protecting the stock? On the other side of the argument, one must remember there are fishing vessels in the Celtic Sea fishing for whiting and haddock that catch seabass. There will be a discard ban and this will force the issue as to how one wants to treat the resource of seabass and maximise its impact for coastal communities.

Deputy Harrington asked about the perception about science. There were two parts to his question, one on the scheduling of science and the other on the effectiveness of the science. I will first talk about the schedule, making reference to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, and the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP. The council deals with the provision of scientific advice to the European Union for the TAC species. All the scientific analysis has been done for next year's quotas. All the information has been gathered and we are carrying out the assessments of the stocks. The advice will be issued in July for stocks such as cod, whiting and haddock and the remainder of the advice, on fish such as mackerel, will emerge in September. The advice emerging in July and September gives the industry, which will be affected by it, a chance to examine it, determine its flaws and decide whether it agrees with it. Ultimately, the European Union sets out its proposals for the next year in terms of quotas and TACs. There is plenty of time for discussion. The decisions are made at a meeting of the Council. That is the position on the schedule.

The Deputy commented on perception and asked whether the science is lagging behind. A way to deal with the question is to give an example of what happened last year. We work very closely with the industry. In days gone by, science was viewed as coming down from the mountain with the tablets. However, those days are gone because we work very closely with the industry. If I had to show an example from last year, it would concern the prawn fishery in area VII, which includes the Irish Sea, the Celtic Sea and the sea off the west coast of Ireland. It is worth €33 million and is our most important fishery. We envisaged problems with the way in which the European Union was going to cut the TAC. We said the stock was not in bad shape and that there was no justification for the cut. With the industry, we received funding to carry out additional surveys. The surveys were carried out last June and July in co-operation with the industry; in fact, the industry funded some of them. We did the science but there were no guarantees with it. We said we would give credible, timely and relevant science. We were able to use the scientific data obtained in July at the TAC negotiations in December and this resulted in an increase in the TACs for Ireland. Therefore, the perception that science is lagging behind and not relevant is no longer pertinent. That we are working closely with the industry forces science to be relevant, to see the problems within the industry and address them.

Deputy Harrington's third question was on aquaculture, research and the sea lice issue. The Marine Institute publishes scientific information on various aspects of sea lice interactions. It publishes in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The IFI does so also. There has been a lot of what I would call "my science and your science" trying to justify certain cases. However, I would be very reluctant to comment further on that because, at present, the Marine Institute is reviewing the EIS for Galway Bay aquaculture. Since it involves a statutory process I would prefer not to comment further on that.

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

Perhaps the answer to the second question was the answer to the third. It concerned competence.

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

Ba mhaith liom cúpla ceist a chur ar an údarás. Cén infheistíocht a rinne an t-údarás san fheirmeoireacht éisc ó na 1980í ar aghaidh? An féidir é sin a bhriseadh síos idir bhradáin agus sliogéisc? Cé mhéad duine atá fostaithe sa dá thionscnamh i láthair na huaire? Cé mhéad duine atá ag plé le feirmeoireacht bradán i bhfeirmeacha a bhfuair cúnamh ón údarás? Cé mhéad duine atá fostaithe i bhfeirmeacha sliogéisc a bhfuair cúnamh ón údarás? Cé mhéad tonna atá á thairgeadh in aghaidh na bliana, go mórmhór as na feirmeacha bradán? An ndeachaigh Bord Iascagh Mhara i gcomhairle leis an údarás maidir leis an feirm éisc atá molta ar imeall na Gaeltachta amach ó Inis Oírr? Má chuaigh, an raibh an t-údarás ag plé le pobal an oileáin tríd an chomharchumann ar a dhéanann an t-údarás maoiniú? Tuigim gur eisigh an comharchumann ráiteas nach bhfuil sé i bhfábhar na feirme éisc. Ar ndóigh, tá an t-údarás ann ar son an phobail chun forbairt a dhéanamh i gcomhairle leis an bpobal. An bhfuil an tuairim sin curtha in iúl ag an údarás chuig Bord Iascagh Mhara? Má tá, an bhfuil aisfhreagra faighte ón mbord?

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Caithfidh mé teacht ar ais chuig an Teachta i dtaobh na ceiste a bhain le infheistíocht.

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

Ba mhaith liom go dtiocfadh.

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Ó thaobh fhostaíochta de, tá sé léirithe san aighneacht a chuir muid ar fáil go bhfuil beagnach 2,500 duine fostaithe sa tionscal sa Ghaeltacht. Má thógtar iolraitheoir de 1.8 i dtaobh seirbhísí-----

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

Go díreach sa tionscal.

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Tá 751 duine fostaithe sa tionscal uisceshaothrú agus acmhainní nádúrtha.

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

I gcén áit?

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Tá 271 duine fostaithe go díreach, ach má thógtar iolraitheoir fostaíochta de 1.8, tugann sé sin 480 post eile.

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

An bhfuil na daoine seo ag plé le bradán amháin? Cá bhfuil siad bunaithe?

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Is é sin an t-iomlán a bhaineann le acmhainní nádúrtha agus uisceshaothrú. Tá 751 duine fostaithe go díreach. Caithfidh mé teacht ar ais chuig an Teachta leis an mbriseadh síos idir bhradáin agus sliogéisc.

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

An bhfuil an t-adhmad istigh ansin?

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Baineann an figiúr le acmhainní nádúrtha.

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

Tá mé ag caint faoin mbradán.

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Tiocfaidh mé ar ais chuig an Teachta leis na figiúirí.

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

Go raibh maith agat.

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Caithfidh mé iad a fháil. Tháinig Bord Iascaigh Mhara i dteagmháil le bhord an údaráis ar 29 Meitheamh. Rinne Donal Maguire, Jason Whooley agus Máiréad Mallon cur i láthair do shean-bhord an údaráis ag an am. Ní raibh ann ach aistriú eolais. I am saying that representatives of Bord Iascaigh Mhara made a presentation to us in June 2012.

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

Tuigeann siad cad atá á rá. Ní gá é a aistriú.

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Gabh mo leithscéal. Níor tháinig siad os comhair an bhoird nua go fóill. D'iarr an Teachta freisin faoin dearcadh a bheadh againn. Táimid ag plé leis an tionscal seo ó na 1970í. Tá baint mhór againn le forbairt an tionscal seo. Táimid i bhfábhar tionscal na muirshaothraithe, ach é a bheith déanta ar bhealach nach ndéanfaidh aon truailliú. Tá an próiseas sin ag dul ar aghaidh. Ní raibh mise i dteagmháil leis an bpobal go díreach i dtaobh na ceiste seo. Níl an t-údarás mar fhorbróir sa chás seo. Má théann an togra ar aghaidh agus má chloíann sé leis na rialacha, beimid ar a shon. Tá infreastruchtúr láidir againn sa Ghaeltacht. Níl le déanamh ach breathnú ar Ros a' Mhíl, áit ina raibh 400 duine ag obair uair amháin, mar gheall go raibh iasc ar fáil nach bhfuil ar fáil anois. Tá infreastruchtúr i gCill Chiaráin freisin. Tá tionscal forbartha ag an údarás ar fud Gaeltacht Chonamara Theas. Tá siad ag lorg soláthar breise éisc thar mar atá ar fáil anois. Is í an tuairim ginearálta a bheadh againn ar an tionscal seo ná go mbeadh muintir Chonamara Theas ar a shon mar cruthaíonn sé fostaíocht mhaith.

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

Tá mise ag cónaí thiar agus ní thiocfainn leat ansin, ar ndóigh. Ní léir é sin ar an talamh. Ar phléigh an t-údarás an cás le Comhar Caomhán Teoranta, a fhaigheann maoiniú ón údarás?

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Ní dhearna mise aon phlé díreach leo. Tá sé ar intinn againn dul i dteagmháil leo tríd an strúchtúr réigiúnach.

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

Is údarás Gaeltachta a fheidhmíonn ar son pobal na Gaeltachta atá i gceist anseo, ag deireadh an lae, seachas eagraíocht forbartha amháin. An bhfuil sé tábhachtach don údarás go mbeadh an pobal is gaire ar a shon? De réir mar a thuigim, tá cúram faoi leith leagtha ar an údarás ag an Aire Stáit maidir le cothú na Gaeilge. An bhfuil aon léirmheas déanta ag an údarás ar an tionchar a bheadh ag 500 post ar an teanga?

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Má thagann 500 post isteach sa cheantar, agus má bhíonn siad ar fáil sa Ghaeltacht, beimid ag súil go gheobhadh muintir na Gaeltachta formhór na postanna sin.

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

Ní léir é sin ach oiread.

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Ar an mbunús sin - postanna a chur ar fáil do mhuintir na Gaeltachta - táimid i bhfábhar.

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

An é sin dearcadh an bhoird?

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Mar a dúirt mé, níl sé pléite ag an mbord nua. Pléadh ag an mbord deiridh é.

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

An féidir linn glacadh leis go bhfuil an dearcadh céanna ag an mbord nua, os rud é nach bhfuil a mhalairt curtha in iúl aige?

Mr. Stiofán Ó Cúláin:

Níor phléigh an bord nua é go fóill.

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

If we are quite finished, I call Deputy McNamara.

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

I have a quick question for Mr. Whooley. I have asked about the scale-----

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

He has addressed that.

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

No. My specific question relates to whether there will be displacement. I was here when he addressed the other issue. I would like to know whether there is likely to be displacement of existing fisheries, albeit smaller ones.

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

Is the Deputy talking about displacement or replacement?

Mr. Jason Whooley:

Is he referring to the displacement of existing salmon producers, the displacement of existing inshore fishermen or the displacement of other activities?

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

I am asking about inshore fishermen who catch crab, lobster and mackerel, etc.

Mr. Jason Whooley:

We have worked very closely with representatives of various inshore fishing groups. We have sat down with the individuals at numerous meetings on this specific application at our offices in Galway. We embarked on a comprehensive scoping exercise before we conducted an environmental impact statement. The purpose of that exercise, and of the meetings we held with the inshore fishermen before we conducted the environmental impact statement, was to identify the issues they felt should be considered in the environmental impact assessment that was to accompany our subsequent application. Having discussed with the scientific experts in the Marine Institute the issues raised by the fishermen, including issues relating to the spawning grounds for shrimp, herring and whiting in the vicinity, we are comfortable that this farm will not have a significant impact on inshore fishing activities. In fact, the custom and practice is that very little of the grounds of inshore fishermen is taken up by other fish farms around the coast. They can shoot their pots right up to the anchors of these cages. That can be seen around the coast, for example, in the case of the salmon cages on Clare Island. We are very comfortable that there will not be any displacement.

It is important to understand that a project of this nature and scale is not without impact. We are comfortable that we have done everything possible to try to minimise the impact on inshore fishermen. If we are lucky and successful in our application, we will continue to work with them to ensure any minimal impact that might occur is alleviated by other measures. We have discussed those measures and the potential mitigating factors with them. We will seek to implement them as part of the model we envisage as we move forward with this project.

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

Is any other country proposing to embark on a similar project of this scale at the moment? Obviously, things have happened in the past. I am interested in what might be going ahead now.

Mr. Jason Whooley:

It is interesting that the Deputy has raised this issue. Obviously, we are starting from a very disadvantaged position compared to our international competitors such as Scotland, which produces 160,000 tonnes; Norway, which produces 1.2 million tonnes; Chile, which produces 150,000 tonnes; and the Faroe Islands, which produce 50,000 tonnes. We are at a considerable disadvantage. We recently attended a major international seafood conference in Norway. We presented our case and explained what we are doing as a country from an offshore aquaculture perspective. Over 600 delegates from more than 40 countries attended the international conference. The organisers announced that a session of next year's event will be dedicated to our plans for offshore aquaculture because Ireland is seen as a world leader in this regard. They believe that many other nations are going to try to copy what we are trying to achieve. Some of our competitors from Scotland have been in contact with us to see if they can access our plans. They are very excited by what is happening here. They think our ambitious vision for this sector is groundbreaking and they want to copy us.

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

I have to say on that-----

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

I ask the Deputy to give way to Deputy Ó Cuív, who has a question.

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

How many jobs in transport is the proposed fish farm meant to create?

Mr. Jason Whooley:

We have a breakdown in our latest newsletter. In the last week, I spoke to the managing director of a direct transport company based in Galway who told me that 60% of the work done by his 70 employees relates to the salmon business.

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

Mr. Whooley has already given a figure for the number of jobs that will be created in transport.

Mr. Jason Whooley:

We are talking about 70 jobs in transportation, sales and marketing.

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

How many of them will relate to transport?

Mr. Jason Whooley:

I can give the Deputy a further breakdown at a later stage. I do not have the figure with me now.

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

I would be very interested in that. Are we talking about road transport?

Mr. Jason Whooley:

We are talking about transport in general?

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

Are we talking about sea transport or road transport?

Mr. Jason Whooley:

Obviously, the transport at sea will be directly related to the farm. The issue is road transport.

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

Will Mr. Whooley get us the figures on that?

Mr. Jason Whooley:

Yes.

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

We have had almost three hours of information-gathering which has been significantly beneficial to us. I am conscious the overhead screen for most of the presentation has been on the final slide from Dr. Connolly which states an integrated marine plan should incorporate all other aspects, such as the marine leisure sector. The Natura sites are managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, the foreshore is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government while the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is the competent authority in signing off on an aquaculture licence. Therein lies the problem that is fixable from an Irish perspective, regardless of any other regulations and rules to which we have to adhere.

When those of us who are not so fluent as Gaeilge see the full Official Report of today’s proceedings, we will have a broader perspective. I do not mean any disrespect when I say that.

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

Was the translation service available today?

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

No, it was not available.

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

There should be a translation service available.

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

No; that is a matter for another day.

The sub-committee is trying to bring all the visions of the various delegations together. It is very heartening to hear officialdom admit there is an excess of fish stocks that should be exploited responsibly. It is heartening to hear the fisheries protection agency suggest ways it could collaborate with other sectors. A while ago, we had the Health and Safety Authority adopting the same approach of not being an inspection regime but a visiting one, working with those the agency is trying to help.

We now have much information with which to make recommendations when we are drawing up our final report with the Oireachtas Library and Research Service. We will ensure the delegations are given copies of our findings and recommendations when they are finalised.