Mr. Paddy Mathews:

I have only a couple of points to make. In regard to the Wild Atlantic Way, we have secured an agreement with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to establish a formal link with the causeway coastal route. Reciprocal signage will be put in place so that, for example, drivers coming to the end of the wild Atlantic way will be encouraged to continue to the causeway coastal route, and vice versa. Tourism Ireland is very happy with this initiative because it offers something to promote on a greater scale in overseas markets.

The key objective of the way is to provide something of scale and singularity in order to raise visibility in overseas markets and highlight areas of the west coast that traditionally have not attracted large numbers of tourists, such as north Kerry, north Mayo and Donegal, by packaging them in a single overarching brand. However, it is important that the marketing done by us domestically and Tourism Ireland internationally also accentuates the distinctive characteristics of areas along the way and to avoid the impression that it is homogeneous. There are key differentiating factors and character areas along the route.

Hopefully, these will have the same effect as the Camino de Santiago walkway in northern Spain. People return to Spain repeatedly in order to complete different stretches of the Camino route, which is 2,442 km in length. We are taking a liberty in referring to a figure of 2,500 km but this shows how indented and large our coastline is. It is highly unlikely that visitors would walk along the entire coastline during one holiday. As a result, this gives us the opportunity to encourage people to return here for two or three subsequent holidays. In European terms, Ireland is probably not great with regard to repeat visits. People might come here once and be of the view that they have seen everything. However, the Wild Atlantic Way is a device that would provide us with an opportunity to encourage people to return here and complete different sections of it.

Reference was made to the fish farm in Galway Bay. This is a matter about which we have expressed some concern. As a prescribed body, we engaged with the planning process last December and made a formal submission. We are not scientists and, as such, we are not in a position to examine the environmental impact statement, EIS, in a forensic way. We are concerned that the two agencies involved, namely, Inland Fisheries Ireland and Bord Iascaigh Mhara, do not see eye to eye on this issue. We are concerned with regard to safeguarding the fish populations which migrate from the rivers that flow into Galway Bay out into the sea and then return to those rivers to spawn. We have highlighted the lack of clarity which current exists in respect of the science relating to this matter and the impact involved. There appears to be disagreement between the two agencies to which I refer on that. We can only accurately project the likely impacts on tourism when there is clarity in the context of the science involved. In the meantime we must adopt the cautionary principle which would dictate that until such clarity is forthcoming, we must be even more concerned about the impact on tourism which could possibly arise as a result of the development in question. That is the basis of the formal statement we made last December.