Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will now consider the topic of the licensing and harvesting of seaweed in Ireland with representatives of BioAtlantis Limited, Brandon Products Limited, Carraig Fhada Seaweed, MB Quinn Limited and Ocean Harvest Technology. I welcome Mr. John O'Sullivan, chief executive, Mr. Brian Fanning, Dr. Kieran Guinan and Dr. William O'Connor from Ecofact Environmental Consultants Limited on behalf of BioAtlantis Limited; Mr. Paul Mullins on behalf of Brandon Products Limited; Mr. Damien Melvin and Mr. Frank Melvin on behalf of Carraig Fhada Seaweed; Mr. Micheál Quinn, managing director, MB Quinn Limited; and Dr. Stefan Krann, managing director, Ocean Harvest Technology. I thank them for their attendance. I propose we take the delegates in the order I have listed, which is alphabetical. Is that agreed? Agreed.
By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. In addition, the opening statement and any other documentation provided for the committee may be published on its website after the meeting. 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.
I call on the respresentatives of Brandon Products Limited to make their opening statement.

Mr. Paul Mullins:

I thank the joint committee for giving us this opportunity to appear before it. We sent in our written submission which, I understand, we are not to repeat. I will, therefore, make some additional comments.
In October 1999 the Irish Seaweed Forum was established by the then Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. In the seven months to May 2000 the forum, consisting of 17 individuals drawn from industry, academia and Government institutions, met on six occasions to consider its brief, which was to evaluate the current state of the seaweed industry, consult widely, investigate the potential of the industry and examine the barriers to development. The final report which was published with 12 recommendations clearly identified research and development as the chief priority.
The forum specifically addressed the issue of harvesting and concluded:

For a long time it has been considered that the legal status of harvesting ... was a serious problem for the development of the industry. Through consultation with the Office of the Attorney General it has been found that legislation regarding this issue is much clearer than was previously perceived and is no longer thought to be a serious barrier to development.

Mr. Damien Melvin:

I thank the joint committee for giving me the opportunity to address it. It is a great opportunity for the seaweed sector to use this forum to address the current issues in the licensing and harvesting of seaweed.

It is important for me to highlight the methods we at Carraig Fhada Seaweed use to harvest seaweed. We harvest the majority of it for food, but we also harvest it for the cosmetic market. To ensure our seaweed is only of the finest quality, we hand-harvest everything. Correct harvesting techniques eliminate further work during the drying and packaging processes and ensure the seaweed is harvested in a sustainable and ecological manner. Our experience during the years has helped us to identify prime harvesting areas and we have found correct management of these areas yields a better quality harvest, year on year. We do not harvest in a linear manner but in a patchwork style which eliminates the possibility of the rocks being stripped bare and ensures adequate seaweed cover for the aquatic life on the foreshore.

Our business is all about sustainability and managing our resource became of paramount importance to the success of the business. We obtained our first seaweed harvesting licence in 1995 which allowed us to hand-harvest seaweed along the coast of west Sligo and we maintained a licence up to last year. We have never had issues in renewing the licence. An application to renew it was submitted to the foreshore unit in Wexford over 12 months ago and to this day we are still awaiting a decision on it. We were asked for further information which was provided.

Experts and engineers were examining it, which is reasonable enough, yet 13 months down the line there are still no answers. Repeated attempts to determine the progress of the application proved fruitless.

It must be noted that it is not a new application; it is simply a renewal of a previous licence. There was nothing new in the application. I am not aware of the issues that might delay the application but I question the complete lack of transparency employed by the foreshore unit up to this point. Again, one must ask the question why the licence was continuously granted up to last year and now there is a delay in processing and issuing the licence. The licence is the backbone of the business. Effectively, we are breaking the law if we harvest seaweed but that is our livelihood so we must do it.

Due to the apparent lack of regulation within the industry our business is constantly under threat from individuals who harvest seaweed during the summer and sell it for a quick buck at fairs and markets. There is no restriction on their harvesting seaweed and there is no accountability. I pay VAT, tax and rates. I conform with the regulations set out by the HSE for my business but I cannot compete with a cash economy. Turnover takes a dramatic fall during the summer months. Last summer was a prime example. August was the quietest month of the year, down almost 40% on July, and July was by no means a busy month compared to previous months.

There needs to be reform in the way the licensing of seaweed harvesting is carried out. No one individual or company should have the exclusive rights to the foreshore or any section of the foreshore. It belongs to everybody and should be managed accordingly. We need to take a number of steps. First, we need transparency from the Department as to why there is a delay in the issue of licences. Second, we need immediate reform in the licensing process to prevent over-harvesting and illegal harvesting of this natural resource.

Finally, what we have is a natural, renewable resource. We are on the edge of Europe. Most of the coast is unspoiled in any way. What we have is probably the envy of most of Europe. We have pristine, prime waters. If we as an industry can develop the resource to its full potential without destroying it, we can leave a legacy for many generations to come.

Mr. Micheál Quinn:

I am Micheál Quinn from MB Quinn and Sons. We are located in Ballyhaunis, County Mayo. We are new entrants into the seaweed business. We are in operation approximately 12 months. Before that we manufactured wood shavings and sawdust and due to the downturn in the economy we found margins getting tighter. At that stage we had 14 full-time employees and we had to reduce staff numbers to five. We had machinery repayment commitments and we had to make a decision on what to do with our drying equipment. We set about looking at various options. We made a cautious decision to invest in more machinery to dry seaweed. We set about the change and in the past six months we have taken orders from companies in Asia and Europe. At the moment we employ ten full-time employees. We have ambitions and plans to grow our staff up to somewhere between 20 and 22 people in the next 18 months. We have orders of the magnitude of 3,500 tonnes of dried Ascophyllum at the moment. I have no gripe with Acadian Seaplants Limited buying Arramara Teoranta, and I wish it the best of luck, but my main concern is that we have people harvesting seaweed for us from north Donegal down as far as south Clare and if the option was swept from under our feet our company would be out of business and we would lose 20 employees. In the past 18 months we have invested €1.2 million in our plant without aid from anyone. The proposed change would be a total disaster for us. I have no problem with a licence being granted but it should remain with the people on the shore. Some of the documents outline that the licence is needed for the preservation of the seaweed but the people of Ireland have been harvesting seaweed for generations. If one looks back to 1947 when Arramara Teoranta was set up, if the people on the shore were not able to look after seaweed in a proper way there would not be any seaweed there today.

Dr. Simon Faulkner:

I thank the committee for inviting Ocean Harvest Technology to discuss the licensing and harvesting of seaweed. Although as a company we are not completely reliant on locally harvested seaweed, Ocean Harvest Technology currently provides seaweed-based feed ingredients for a number of applications. Some of the seaweeds used are obtained from local harvesters who are in turn monitored by our sustainable management plan. The plan takes into account harvesting estimates, pollution, specific techniques and our sustainable annual yield.

Ocean Harvest Technology applied for a foreshore licence in 2011 to harvest small quantities of various seaweed species in a sustainable manner, excluding the commonly harvested brown seaweed, Ascophyllum nodosum. Unfortunately, at this stage and after three years we have still not obtained the licence.

Moving forward, we feel that Irish seaweed is a great resource and should be used for the benefit of Irish people. Therefore, any licensing protocols must provide a maximum benefit for the Irish economy. However, they must also facilitate the wishes of local harvesters who have been harvesting seaweed for more than two decades. This will most likely require collaboration between industry and universities but also adequate regulation and enforcement. I thank the committee for inviting Ocean Harvest Technology before it today. That concludes my opening remarks.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome BioAtlantis Limited to the committee.

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

I thank the Chairman and committee members for taking the time to meet us. We made a detailed submission and we ask all members to take time out to read it. We have five minutes to make a case today but the majority of the detail is in the submission.

BioAtlantis commenced business in 2004. It commissioned its production facility in 2007 and got into the market at that point. Since then, we have grown at an average annual rate of 45%, which by any standards is decent. We plan to grow at 25% per annum going forward. Our spend in the Irish economy in 2013 was €2.9 million and our spend in 204 will be much greater. That is normal business practice.

Our primary resource and raw material is Ascophyllum nodosum seaweed. Having control of that raw material is critical to us and to the future of our industry. What we want is that companies should not be allowed to monopolise the resource. A maximum of 25% of the total resource should be allowed to any one processor. Licences should only be granted to responsible processors. They should be granted on an exclusive basis for specific areas.

Preference should be given to companies that add value to the seaweed resource. The committee should investigate the role of Údarás na Gaeltachta in the sale of Arramara. It was a State asset and I feel there are questions to be answered.

A monopoly over the ascophyllum resource in Ireland should not be allowed happen. That will have effects on harvesters. An application for a licence has been submitted covering the area from Clare to north Mayo for 40,000 tonnes. There is approximately 59,000 tonnes in that area. So Acadian and Arramara will be allowed to pick and choose which harvesters they want to work with, which should not be allowed. Acadian is our major competitor worldwide. Following the decision by Údarás, Acadian controls our raw material supply, which should not be allowed.

BioAtlantis plans to grow at 25% per annum. While that sounds ambitious, we have already done that over the past seven years. In this year we have grown by 25% in the first six months. The Kerry Group had a target to double in size every five years. I spent most of the 1990s working in the Kerry Group so I know what has to be done. I know where we have to go and we have put the foundations in place.

Licenses must be granted to responsible processors only. This will ensure the environment is protected; overharvesting will not occur; SAC and SPAs, where the majority of the seaweed grows, will be fully protected; full traceability will be available; and ease of monitoring by the Department.

There are problems with unregulated harvesting. There are specific examples in Clew Bay where all the holdfast was taken out. That means it may not grow anymore. It is vital to be responsible.

Licences are granted on an exclusive basis for specific areas. If licences are not granted for specific areas it will result in confusion, a lack of clarity and a lack of responsibility leading to blame game, with people saying, "He did it; it's not our fault". There also needs to be knowledge of specific requirements for each SAC and SPA.

We have applied for a harvesting licence for 12,500 tonnes in Clew Bay. We have to take account of all the islands in the bay. We have quantified the resource on all those islands. Some of them are already overharvested meaning that we must not harvest them for the next two to three years. We have had to take account of the seals. The mudflats were omitted from the plan; we will not be harvesting in the area around the mudflats. We will also omit areas where the seals are moulting or breeding or do so only at specific times of the year. This has to be done properly. The birds have to be protected. Account has to be taken of a resting site for birds and those areas are omitted at certain times of year.

Preference should be given to companies that add value. We have invested in research and IP. We have three patents. We have invested in equipment and in complex processes and formulations. We have put in place the basis for a high-growth company. The resource is a serious asset to us. It is not coming in and out. It is our livelihood and we will cherish it because it is our lifeblood.

Arramara, which wants rights from Clare to north Mayo, including Belmullet, is only drying seaweed. It is adding a small amount of value, but it does not add high value. Why should it be allowed to control that area?

BioAtlantis plans to protect stakeholders in Clew Bay, including the processors and harvesters. We are looking at 20 full-time jobs or 40 part-time jobs. Some people might prefer to work at certain times of the year and work on the farm or wherever for other times of the year. We can go either way. We have the resource. We have to have a strong development plan and we have put that in place. We have to take care of the environment as it represents our future. We have to take care of the SACs and SPAs. This is regulated by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, but it does not have a free handle here. Europe is looking down on us. If it is not done properly Europe will intervene and prevent it from happening. Tere are already fines from Europe because of breaches.

In Clew Bay hand-harvesting can continue in a traditional way with 20 full-time or 40 part-time jobs. We plan to take out some of the hardship related to hand-harvesting. No one would say this is an easy job. The majority of people are interested now because the economy went belly up in 2007. The traditional harvesters may not exist and some of the hardship must be removed from them.

We compared the traditional methods used in Ireland with processes in other countries for use in Clew Bay. We asked if it made sense to use the rake system used Canada where harvesters work on barges. It looks lovely and is interesting. However, the majority of Clew Bay SAC is made up of small pebbles. Seaweed would grow on a person's fist. When harvesting small pebbles with a rake, once picked up the whole thing is gone. Acadian has allowed for 6% mortality in Canada. In Clew a maximum mortality of 1% will be allowed. We need to focus on the fucus.

I will outline the benefits of licensing BioAtlantis in Clew Bay. A monopoly of the resource is avoided. A license is granted to a responsible processor. BioAtlantis will take care of the resource. The harvesting methodology will remove much of the hardship from the harvesters because we are using a collection vessel, which allows more time for cutting and ensures there is full traceability. There will be a full plan over the quality because one can see whether stones or fucus is brought in. It provides a huge opportunity to control. We have 20 full-time jobs or 40 part-time jobs. It will allow us to continue on our strong growth trajectory.

The final slide contains our recommendations which I initially asked.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will give everyone six minutes. I ask members not to make opening statements or give opinions and instead just get straight into the questions and answers. Once the six minutes are completed, I will ask the member to stop and I will move on.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before proceeding, I have a question. Will we not hear from all the witnesses first?

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will have two sessions. We have heard from everybody sitting in front of us. We will have a second session.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. This is a very interesting debate and one that is very topical in the west of Ireland. It clearly also affects the north, south and south west also. It is a complicated issue. The role of the harvester was only mentioned once or twice. Looking from the outside it might be asked if it would make more sense to set up some kind of independent organisation representing the harvesters, which could then negotiate with the rest of the companies in the field for whatever price is necessary to sell the raw material to any of the companies represented here so that they would have more of a say over how the raw material is utilised.

There are a number of issues here, including the exclusive rights in an area. In my area of Connemara there is a traditional right called the striping of the seaweed and the shoreline although there is a question over the legality of that. There is a kind of common law understanding that people would have a certain stripe on the foreshore that they cut and they do not go into other people's stripes for love or money. Where are the traditional rights of the seaweed cutters being held in that regard?

Questions have been raised about the sale of Arramara Teoranta by Údarás na Gaeltachta. The BioAtlantis deputation stated there were questions to be answered. I am keen to find out which ones should be answered. What are the issues Bioatlantis, as an industry player, believes should be raised?
If an exclusive licence is granted, surely it keeps potential new players out of the market. What would happen if, for example, a co-operative in Carraroe decided to set up a venture and do something with seaweed? If some of the other companies involved, whether it be BioAtlantis, Acadian or any other player in it, have cornered the market and have licences covering the entire foreshore, where is the space for new companies to come in? Surely provision would have to be made for this in any new legislation.
There is an argument to be made about the technology being used to cut seaweed. My ancestors cut seaweed using the hand harvesting style. The BioAtlantis deputation suggested that if a licence was granted to Acadian from County Clare to Belmullet, damage could be done if the company used the technology it was using in Canada. We have been told that Irish shoreline is similar to that in Canada. What damage could potentially be done? BioAtlantis stated there was an argument to be made vis-à-visÚdarás maintaining there was a need for regulation to manage the foreshore. BioAtlantis disagrees and has suggested that potentially no management system is required. Who should manage the issue of sustainability? Is there a role for the likes of Foras na Mara? Surely there should be some independent oversight, rather than leaving it in the hands of any number of companies with licences. If there is to be regulation, it should take the form of independent regulation, rather than leaving it to the stakeholders who own the licences. We have got into trouble in other areas in Ireland during the years and I question whether we should go that way.
I gather the harvesters maintain that it might be better to go down the route of their setting up a co-operative or other organisation to represent their rights, almost like a fair trade scenario. We have seen this happen in the case of coffee bean growers and other companies throughout the world. They believe the cake is being carved up by the companies and that their rights are being excluded. What is the view of the deputations on such a scenario?
There was a meeting recently between Oireachtas representatives from County Galway and the Minister which several people in attendance at the committee today attended. My understanding is that no complaint has been made as of yet by the European Commission's directorate for the environment and that the licensing regime is being brought forward as a precautionary measure to pre-empt potential problems in this area. Do the deputations have views on this? Are there examples of complaints made against individuals harvesting along the coastline?

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are those questions directed towards BioAtlantis?

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are directed towards all of the industry players, although they may not wish to answer all of them.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to avoid duplication.

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

I will try to get through the answers as quickly as possible.

Having co-operatives is a good idea. The only issue is if there would be a co-operative with control of seaweed, but there are other companies involved also. We are trying to add value. We have a five or a ten year plan. Let us suppose a co-operative sells the product at a given price for the next five years and someone else then comes in and decides to double the price. That is a question to be asked because the new player might have an alternative use and suddenly decide that the co-operative was out of the business. There are pros and cons. Are the co-operatives willing to put money into this industry, to invest money in resources and people who know how the environment should be protected, etc?

Another question was related to Clew Bay and the technology used. I am not saying the use of rake methods is wrong. All I am saying is that they may not be suitable in the area. We examined the issue in the case of Clew Bay and determined they were not suitable. The rest of Connemara and Clare may be perfect for the use of rake methods.

There was a question about having an independent body. I agree totally with the idea of having an independent body, rather than the industry running things on its own. We have seen what has happened in the beef industry, etc. It should not do it. As the chief executive of a processor, I take the view that there is no issue with having an independent body. However, if there were three or four processors, one would very easily figure out which were cowboys and which were genuine operators.

Mr. Mícheál Quinn:

As a processing company, it is our view that if the licence was to be granted to one commercial identity, it would completely eliminate our business. We would be unable to buy seaweed from a harvester and the harvester would be unable to sell to us. We would be out of business and the operation harvesting seaweed would have only one company to supply and it would be told exactly what it would be paid. There would be total control to which I am altogether against, but I have no problem with a licence being issued to a co-operative, a group of people or perhaps an individual. I have no problem with the business being policed by an independent body. However, it is wrong that a harvester or company cannot have fair play and engage in fair trade. We are all fighting for fair play for everyone.

Mr. Paul Mullins:

What must be remembered is the accepted overall objective, which is to take this fabulous resource on our doorstep and maximise the economic benefit for the country. I am being patriotic about it, but I want to see more and more of the value it can generate kept in Ireland and used for the benefit of the economy. One of the risks in a co-operative type system is that it would simply sell to the highest bidder, which could be a Chinese company seeking raw material to be processed in China. That would not be in our interests as a country or an economy. We should stand back a little. All of the details relating to whether a harvesting co-operative or a company would be preferable should be considered as part of the bigger picture in terms of what we want to achieve. We want to achieve the maximisation of the resource for the economy. We want to achieve long-term sustainability and ensure the resource is not damaged by over-harvesting or incorrect harvesting. I am not suggesting this has been happening to date, but there is the risk as the commercial demands increase. Rather than getting into the details of some of the questions being asked by the committee - they have merit in their own right - we should consider the bigger picture and understand how we can make our needs fit. It should mean that no single entity will be allowed total control, that future sustainability will be managed in a way that will guarantee the resource is not damaged and that the economic benefit will be maximised for the economy.

Mr. Damien Melvin:

I will repeat what the other gentlemen have said. There are traditional rights, whether legal or illegal, and they must be taken into account. I do not believe any company or body can have exclusive rights to any part of the shoreline. People have harvested for years, generations and centuries and if that right is taken away from them, it will not be good for anyone.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was a specific question asked about Údarás. I am aware its representatives will be here later and it would be useful to have an answer. The BioAtlantis deputation stated there were specific issues about the sale that Údarás should answer. Will Mr. O'Sullivan enlighten us?

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

The first aspect with which I have an issue is that it was not advertised publicly. When I read the law I presumed the sale of State assets would be advertised publicly. As it is not specifically laid out that it should be so advertised, legally, the company is right but, morally, it is totally and utterly wrong. The two companies Údarás picked out were Setalg in France and Acadian in Canada. Setalg is part of the Roullier group which was fined €60 million in 2011 for running a cartel. It was the first choice of Údarás. Acadian has engaged in highly unethical advertising campaigns against Irish companies. I have mentioned this previously. The evidence is available and the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

There is a third aspect with which I have an issue.

We were not allowed into the sales process initially; we had to battle to get into it. One of the Údarás personnel demanded €2 million in funding before we would be allowed in. We got past that hurdle and then we had 12 days to prepare a submission. Setalg and Acadian had over a year, if not two or three years, to prepare their submission; we got 12 days.

We were told when we met Údarás that the up-front price was not relevant - that it was secondary. The most important aspect was the plan. We took their guidance. If we had been buying it and it did not matter what we were doing with it afterwards, we would have put in an up-front price, but we concentrated on the post-development plan, which was to double the size of Arramara. That included driers, an indirect heating system, and research on the animal feed business to bring it up the value chain. We bid €1.5 million for the up-front price, with €4.2 million in the post-investment phase, bringing it up to a total of €5.7 million. As far as I am aware, Acadian bid €1.8 million - I have no idea of the post-investment process - and Setalg bid €2 million.

As far as I am aware, when the final bids were in the rating was changed. A rating of 3 was given to the up-front bids and a rating of 1 given to the rest. We have never seen the three bids. I have spoken to Ministers. I have written to both the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy McGinley and Deputy Deenihan, yet I have not got any information on the bids for each of the places. The lack of transparency, and the lack of patriotism, were frightening. It made me disillusioned with the Irish language, with Údarás na Gaeltachta, and with our political system. This is our first opportunity to speak in public. We could have gone to the newspapers but we decided it was more ethical to work through the system. We were wasting our time. The only people who get anywhere in this country are those in the newspapers. Otherwise, we are wasting our time.

Tony McLoughlin (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses are very welcome and I thank them for their contributions. I come from a small coastal community in County Sligo, where I have two companies. I welcome the representatives from Carraig Fhada Seaweed and Voya, from County Sligo. I have seen what happened in recent years but the major concern is the delay in getting the licence from the Department, which Mr. Melvin mentioned. Mr. O'Sullivan said he wrote to Deputy McGinley and Deputy Deenihan, and somebody mentioned the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government being informed-----

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

No. It is the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government that granted the licence. The sale of Arramara was under the control of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. That is the difference.

Tony McLoughlin (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but I want to ask the Melvin family about the licensing because I am aware of what has happened in that respect. Are there other companies in a similar situation in that they have applied for licences and are awaiting a response? I understand there may be three or four. Why is there such a delay? In regard to Carraig Fhada, I know it is 12 or 14 months since the application was submitted. What is the length of time-----

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

We submitted our application in January 2014 and it has not gone for public consultation yet. There were no objections to anything we put in. No one has come back from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government saying we needed to do anything extra. I am a bit paranoid at this stage. Are they waiting for the Arramara-Acadian submission to be put in place?

Tony McLoughlin (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a valid point because what is being fed back to me is that there is some interest working here, and it is causing major concern and distress to companies I know personally in my constituency of Sligo. These companies manufacture, employ, support local enterprise and contribute financially to this country through taxation, and the sale of companies that have been heavily subsidised by the Irish taxpayer to foreign businesses is a worrying trend. More worrying is the access these companies demand to an Irish resource without expense or a contribution to the Irish tax system. Future growth relies upon continued secure access to this renewable resource. Local companies I know have harvested in the same areas for the past 15 years and have been able to demonstrate an ability to avoid doing damage and maintain the integrity of the biomass over the years. My concern is that foreign companies might not have the same vested interest in protecting the future viability of Irish resources. Mr. Melvin might comment on those concerns.

There is deep uncertainty about the granting of harvesting licences, and the term of the licences means that some of these local companies are unable to seek investment. If someone is waiting six, eight or 12 months for a licence it can cause difficulties in terms of seeking funding or additional investment from lending institutions. Some of these companies may be unable to seek investment as investors are concerned that they have no long-term guaranteed access to seaweed resources.

It is vitally important that this committee listens to what the witnesses have said and proceeds with the recommendations. Would Mr. Melvin agree that the granting of long-term licences with conditions would allow these local companies to secure future commercial investment and allow them expand their businesses? He mentioned that there are 40 people employed in his company. I know that during the summer it employs quite a number of people on both a part-time and a full-time basis. Voya employs approximately 40 people. These companies are very concerned. Without security of access to the raw material, does Mr. Melvin agree that it represents too much of a risk for potential investors? A local company harvesting less than 25% of the available biomass in the granted area needs access to a greater number of areas to ensure that delicate balances are achieved.

This committee should recommend that companies involved in the seaweed harvesting business that have a proven track record in corporate governance and a high level of regard for the environment should be considered as a consultative body with regard to future legislative moves in this area.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been called to another meeting which I have to attend. Can Senator Ó Murchú take the Chair?

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Michael McCarthy (Cork South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Tony McLoughlin (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Damien Melvin or Mr. Frank Melvin might wish to answer the questions.

Mr. Damien Melvin:

On the question, as I said in my opening statement, our licence expired last March. We submitted a renewal application in June. It took seven months to get a response from the foreshore unit. At that stage they told us there was insufficient information, even though it was what they requested. We supplied extra information and we still have not hard anything. We have been told that engineers, experts and specialists are looking at it but we still do not know the stage of the application.

Tony McLoughlin (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has any of those people visited Mr. Melvin's site?

Mr. Damien Melvin:

Nobody. It is hard to believe that somebody in Wexford can make a decision on how I am to harvest seaweed in Sligo. It has got to the stage at which they do not even answer our e-mails.

We are in limbo. We do not know if at some stage in the future when we are harvesting seaweed we will be tapped on the shoulder and told we can no longer do so.

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

The committee has received a written submission from Dr. Stefan Kraan, managing director of Ocean Harvest Technology, in which he concludes that in respect of the harvesting of Ascophyllum nodosum, the solution to the current impasse could be to grant licences to individual harvesters who currently harvest the species or can demonstrate that they have been harvesting the species during the past 20 years. He further concludes that in this way a competitive element will remain in play in respect of supply and demand and pricing and that this does not prevent new players from entering the industry. I would welcome a response from a representative of each of the organisations as to whether that is a possible solution to the current situation.

I have a couple of specific questions of the representatives of BioAtlantis Limited. I read somewhere that the reason BioAtlantis applied for a licence in Clew Bay was to try to protect its supply of raw material. Should a new licensing regime be put in place? Would BioAtlantis be willing to withdraw its licence application if everybody else were to agree to allow individual harvesters who have traditionally harvested to continue doing so and to sell to whatever commercial entities they can do a deal with?

Appendix 2 of the written submission provided by BioAtlantis is a statutory declaration in relation to Arramara Teoranta. What is the significance of that, particular paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 thereof? Also, appendix 4 is a copy of a letter received from the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, which states that he approves the sale by Údarás na Gaeltachta to Acadian Seaplants subject to a number of conditions being fulfilled, including that named customers of Arramara Teoranta be guaranteed supply of product on reasonable terms and conditions into the future. Perhaps the Mr. O'Sullivan would elaborate on the company's understanding of that arrangement, whether any work has been done in terms of finalising that arrangement and whether that condition has been included in the terms of the sale.

I would welcome a comment from each witness on the reason processors, as opposed to individuals who have been traditionally harvesting, should be granted licences to harvest.

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

On the first issue regarding the harvesting rights, my only issue in that regard is that most areas from County Clare to County Mayo are special areas of conservation. In 2013, I received notification that the sale of Arramara Teoranta had gone through, with which I had an issue. We now have no control over whether we will be supplied. We spent almost eight months preparing our submission to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Dr. Kieran Guinan worked full time on that project with Ecofact Environmental Consultants Limited. This is about more than just seaweed. Birds and seals must be taken into account. Much of what happens is no longer in the control of the Irish people. Unfortunately, these decisions are made by Europe. In regard to whether an individual harvester should be allowed to harvest, while I have no objection to that, I find it difficult to believe that it will be possible for everybody to do so. It will also be virtually impossible to validate and monitor. I have no issue with the concept.

Arramara Teoranta was a state company. BioAtlantis Limited went into production in 2007, at which time we obtained our dry raw material from Arramara Teoranta. As we were dealing with a body of the State, there was never any need for us to engage in harvesting. It is perhaps something we might have envisaged doing further down the road. Currently, Arramara Teoranta is owned by our major competitor worldwide. I have worked in the food industry since 1989. I worked for Golden Vale and Kerry Group. I have never come across a company that has used the tactics being used by Acadian Seaplants. That is my opinion. The food industry is tough. There is a line one does not cross. We have to have control of our resource. Otherwise, we will have to consider moving our operation to Scotland.

I received a letter from the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley. I have not heard for months from the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, but amazingly I also received a letter from him yesterday. The Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, states in his letter that he is informed that our supply is guaranteed into the future, with no definition of what is meant by "into the future". Does "into the future" mean a political term of five years? We are trying to build a long-term company. The Kerry Group started in a greenfield site in 1973. I had the joy and privilege of working in that company. The objective is to build long-term companies, not companies that are going to disappear the first time something goes wrong. Companies are either in it for the long haul or they are not.

As stated by an earlier speaker, all the Chinese operators want is raw material. They do not give a fiddlers about the quality of it. They want it for the fracking industry. They just buy up what they want and move on. While the concept of what is suggested is good, it will not work. The solution is to grant a licence to a number of different companies and to provide that where an operator does not play ball, abuses harvesters by not providing them with proper terms and conditions or fails to take care of the SACs, the licence may be withdrawn. Licences not used properly should be withdrawn. The solution is to use the best of industry in conjunction with the best of local harvesters. The cost of investing in the boats picking up the weed from the areas is €200,000. Trying to pike weed with a four-pronged pike is no good. We have been there and done that. It is not something that one would recommend to anybody in the 21st century. We should be trying to make this as easy as possible using the traditional method. Licences should be granted to the people interested in harvesting. In my view, there are not that many genuine harvesters. The person willing to harvest 800 tonnes per year will earn €30,000 to €40,000 per annum doing so. That is a decent income, which could be increased through a combined activity.

In regard to the statutory regulation mentioned, I am not sure to what that relates. It appears to relate to a grant. Údarás na Gaeltachta turned down our offer, despite the fact that we are an Irish company. It then received an offer from Acadian Seaplants and grant-aided it in respect of future investments. As far as I can see, that is what happened. I cannot verify that. Perhaps someone should ask Údarás na Gaeltachta if it has grant-aided that company or put in writing that any future investment in Arramara will be grant-aided. Has it put in writing that any investment will be related to the granting of the licences for harvesting from County Clare to County Mayo?

We submitted our licence application in January. Arramara submitted its application in March or April. We applied for 12,500 tonnes. We do not want to be stepping on anybody's toes. OGT in Donegal has applied for a licence for 9,000 tonnes. The traditional area for Arramara weed is Galway.

We respected that area, but next we have a licence application coming which covers an area from County Clare to County Mayo. In Clew Bay alone, we have to manage 110 km of coastline.

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

I have a general question for all of the delegates on their view of the proposal in the Ocean Harvest Technology submission regarding the granting of licences to individual harvesters.

Mr. Frank Melvin:

My colleagues and I are different from the others at the table today because we are involved in sea vegetable production. The other delegates have it in common that they are into a particular species, with which we do not deal at all. While issuing licences to individual harvesters seems fine in many ways, there is an aspect of it which would present problems for me and others. If I were to go to the county enterprise board in Sligo or IDA Ireland tomorrow morning seeking assistance to expand my business which is flourishing and has huge potential, one of the first questions I would be asked is whether I had a licence to do it. If I have no licence, that will be the beginning of the end for me, just as it would if I were to go without a licence to my bank manager to ask for financial assistance to develop the huge potential I see in my business. I am 100% certain about that potential, but all of the people mentioned will reject me simply because I do not have a licence. I am sure Deputy Thomas Pringle's intentions are good in this regard, but although what is proposed might work for some, it certainly would not work for me and my son.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Following on from Deputy Thomas Pringle's question about harvesters, I understand Mr. O'Sullivan has submitted an application for a licence in Clew Bay. On the one hand, he referred to accommodation for traditional harvesters, while, on the other, he wants the licence because of the way things have turned out in Arramara Teoranta. He has cited some of the difficulties that may confront small harvesters, including European regulations. If he were to receive the licence, what terms and conditions would he operate in respect of these harvesters?

I am not clear from the delegates' evidence whether they have all been dealing with Arramara Teoranta. I see shakes of the head indicating that is not the case. Deputy Thomas Pringle pointed out that one of the conditions of the sale would seem to offer assurance. I understand, however, that Mr. O'Sullivan has concerns about what it might mean. Given that Arramara Teoranta is now under new management, what discussions has he had with the company? What are the terms and duration of his existing contract with it? Has that arrangement fallen by the wayside or is he still getting his seaweed from Arramara Teoranta?

It seems from what the delegates are saying there are issues with the current regime, even though the value of having traditional harvesters is also recognised. Mr. Melvin has observed that the unregulated cash economy is something with which he has to contend. Mr. O'Sullivan and others referred to the issue of sustainability and how it is monitored. The suggestion is that there should be some independent oversight, rather than leaving it up to individuals. The gist of what the delegates are saying, as I understand it, is that we should be seeking to maximise the benefit of this natural resource, which sounds sensible. The issue is in focus because of the situation where Arramara Teoranta has been bought out.

The other issue cited as important, by Mr. O'Sullivan in particular, is that of research and development, environmental concerns and so on. If all of this is above board in respect of Acadian Seaplants Limited, am I correct in saying his real concerns are about there being a monopoly and about security of supply into the future? In other words, he envisages his company expanding but is fearful that he will not be able to get additional resources? At this time he is competing for part of the area for which a licence is being sought by Arramara Teoranta. Clew Bay comes within its scope and Mr. O'Sullivan is seeking part of it for himself and putting out the figure of 25% as a proposal. Will he indicate whether I have got all of that right?

Mr. Damien Melvin:

In regard to licensing and the cash economy, my view is that the issuing of licences should be based on a number of factors. As I said in my opening statement, anybody who wants a licence should be entitled to one. If a person wants to harvest seaweed for his or her own personal use, there should be no issue with it. It has been a tradition that people are allowed to do this, but it should be regulated. Any company that wants to harvest commercially is entitled to do so, but it should be a requirement that it be tax compliant and has obtained approval from the HSE before a licence will be granted. This would ensure any company selling on the open market was complying with HSE regulations and paying its taxes, which is what I have to do.

It is important to allow people to utilise the sea and the resources it produces naturally every year. It is unfair to eliminate any person or body from engaging in that activity. Seaweed is natural, renewable and one of the few resources we have left. It is important that it be managed correctly. That cannot be done from Wexford; it must be done at a more local level, perhaps through local authorities or the Environmental Protection Agency. People should be allowed to harvest seaweed, but there must be oversight to ensure it is all above board.

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

Deputy Michelle Mulherin asked about the terms and conditions we would offer harvesters. Harvesting seaweed is hard work; there is nothing pretty about it. The number of people who genuinely want to take part in a life of harvesting seaweed is minimal, although there are some who have been doing it for the past ten or 15 years. I agree completely with my colleague's suggestion regarding tax and regulation. Whether one is an employee or a subcontractor, a person's aim is to build a business for himself or herself and his or her family. Some of those involved will invariably be reliant on additional sources of income. We are trying to give them a taxable income. As it stands, some of them may not be paying tax because, if they are categorised as self-employed, they are allowed to write off a lot of expenses.

Any harvester we engage will have a PRSI number and be offered a sustainable price for his or her seaweed. Harvesters are getting €35 a tonne from Arramara Teoranta; we will probably pay €40 or even €50. All harvesters will be on a contract; there will be nothing iffy about it and we will train up. Many harvesters do not know about fucus, for example, or the issues with seals. They might be perfect harvesters, but they may not be aware of these issues. As far as I am concerned, they will be treated in the same way as any employee of BioAtlantis, which is to say they will be treated properly.

The Deputy asked what discussions we had had with Acadian Seaplants Limited. The sale of Arramara Teoranta was approved early last year and an engagement began last October involving one of the company's representatives, Mr. Daniel Parker, Brandon Products and, possibly, other companies.

We were not making much progress; we seemed to be going around in circles. I took the document and said it made no sense, that the people in question had no interest in trying to do a deal. I rewrote it and said we should make a commercial contract, that this made sense and that we could do a deal. However, this was twisted and turned and with the elections the people and harvesters got to know that Aramara Teoranta was being sold. The submission on the harvesting licence was sent in and suddenly the harvesters realised the implications of what was happening. The sale of Aramara Teoranta was giving control of a seaweed resource from County Clare to County Mayo, about which everyone was excited and there was a big push to do a deal. We had a good meeting in Tralee on 24 April at which substantial progress was made. Údarás na Gaeltachta will be involved in the deal for five years, but what will happen after it leaves? Do we put a plan in place for year six? We have nothing in that respect; we cannot be in this business for a five year game. Údaras na Gaeltachta, the Department of Arts, Heritage an the Gaeltacht and the Ministers involved signed off on the deal on 9 May and we have had either one or two e-mails since, but we have no agreement with Aramara Teoranta. We have, however, continued to obtain our supply . I have the letter from the Minister of State, Deputy Dinny McGinley, stating Údarás na Gaeltachta, amazingly, had negotiated a deal that was better for us. We have not received any reduction in price, nor have we obtained a better quality product; what, therefore, is this amazing deal? There is no timeframe for it and nothing has been put on paper. If it was very open, why have we not had sight of the documents? It is fairly simple to set out that it is an agreement, that is what concerns us. As far as I am concerned, we are on a complete tangent and have to get the harvesting licence for Clew Bay, as otherwise we will have a serious strategic problem.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To clarify, Mr. O'Sullivan said he had a good meeting-----

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

We made progress.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but to what end?

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

The outcome of the meeting was that Acadian would take all of the issues into account and come back with revised proposals.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To clarify, is Mr. O'Sullivan saying that in the previous year he issued it with a commercial contract?

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

I went back and said it would make much more sense to have a commercial contract, getting rid of some of the silly things, and that we should try to get a deal done. As I said, substantial progress was made on 24 April. Once the contract was signed on 9 May, it did not matter.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I seek clarity. I do not come from a coastal or a Gaeltacht area, nor am I familiar with such areas. However, I am alarmed by what I have read in the submissions and what I have heard today. I know there are other groups from which we are waiting to hear. However, the answers to the key questions lie with Údarás na Gaeltachta as to the reason for what seems to be its strange decision to sell Aramara Teoranta to a foreign company, considering that its raison d'êtreis to encourage Irish-based indigenous small-scale industries to keep people in rural and Gaeltacht areas. That and other questions that have been raised are the ones that most need to be answered. I do not know whether the committee will be empowered to investigate the decision. These are sensitive practices, for the ocean and ecology. It is bizarre that any company would be given control of our natural resources, but this seems to be a growing trend on the part of the Government. I have heard the submissions and there are many representatives present, but Údarás na Gaeltachta needs to make a submission and answer some of the questions put.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy does not seem to have a specific question at this time.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the representatives of the companies. As I am not a member of the joint committee, I did not receive the briefing materials until I arrived. I received some of them from Deputy Paudie Coffey. I come from the Connemara area of County Galway and accepting the ins and outs of what has happened, I want to see Aramara Teoranta grow and thrive and provide employment in the area. I equally want to see the traditional companies represented here to grow, thrive and flourish. I also want to see the traditional harvesters continue in their role and domestic harvesters being accommodated, whcih should be done without question. I hope all of these objectives are on the wish list and that they can be accommodated in terms of what will happen under the foreshore Bill.

A number of the representatives have talked about the need for regulation. When account is taken of the issues relating to EU regulations and Natura 2000 impact statements and while I know there is talk of co-operatives, do the representatives agree that it is beyond the financial ability of harvesters to apply for licences and publish appropriate assessments and that the common-sense approach would be for companies, whether it be those represented or others, to submit applications for licences? Mr. Melvin mentioned the role county councils could play and that the process could be undertaken on a county basis. If companies do not apply, who will apply?

On the specific issue of Aramara Teoranta's application, I presume all of the companies represented will make a submission when the application is published and that they will highlight the areas in which they have had an ongoing interest for many years, particularly Clew Bay and Sligo. I assume - perhaps this reflects innocence on my part - the foreshore section of the Department will take these issues on board in considering any application from another company, that it will state that in the case of Clew Bay there is a company with a licence and managing a business and that the same will apply to other areas. I cannot speak for those in the foreshore section, but that would make sense to me. I know from the discussions we had with the Minister a few weeks ago that it would have stated any application should include full mapping details.

Mr. O'Sullivan talked about the cutting method used and the need to ensure eight inches of growth. Surely it is not in any company's interest to do anything that is not sustainable. Every company that is harvesting and that wants to grow it business and the harvesters who want to create a future for themselves and those who will come after them wants to harvest in a sustainable way. Is there any evidence to suggest there are practices that impact on the future growth of the plant?

Mr. Damien Melvin:

This goes back to the licensing issue of who should or should not apply for a licence. It is hard to know. Ideally, everybody should be allowed to apply for a licence if he or she so wishes, regardless of whether it is for personal use or if he or she wants to make some money out of it. People have a vested interest in it. Alternatively, the businesses which process the seaweed could be given a larger licence and subcontract out the work to harvesters. Perhaps that is an idea worth considering. Perhaps licences might be given on the basis of scale. We harvest less than 50 tonnes a year, but applications have been submitted for the harvesting of ten of thousands of tonnes. I do not understand how our licence needs to be treated in the same as that of a business harvesting 40,000 tonnes.

That is why I suggested this should be done at a local level, though perhaps not by the county councils. I only raised them because they exist in each area. This requires intimate knowledge of an area of coastline, be it Clew Bay, Killala Bay or Sligo Bay. A decision on an area's suitability for harvesting seaweed must not be made by an individual behind a desk. If it is done locally there is a possibility that it can be managed and the resource can be harvested sustainably so it can be reaped year after year. Some areas are decimated for years after harvesting, so this needs to be managed properly. Regardless of what organisation is in question, the key is that the resource be managed properly.

Mr. Paul Mullins:

One of the reasons the issue of exclusivity keeps reappearing is accountability. We are not talking about exclusivity for its own sake - exclusivity allows for the accountable management of the resource and it is very difficult to have accountability where more than one entity harvests in a specific location. That is not to say exclusivity must be extensive, as it can apply to small pockets.

I support the comments on Údarás na Gaeltachta and I find the behaviour of that organisation in this process mind-boggling. It defies logic that Údarás na Gaeltachta did not look at the national interest, and I have made this point to the Minister in several communications and to the organisation itself. Its behaviour has been disturbingly disappointing.

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

The suggestion on harvesting does not make sense economically for individuals who harvest 40, 100 or 200 tonnes. Subletting was suggested, and that is what we are talking about. Harvesters will either be employees of BioAtlantis with a contract to supply a specified number of tonnes that year or will act as subcontractors. If harvesters are employees, BioAtlantis will cover all of the costs, onerous regulations and matters relating to the standing scientific committee, SSC, and they will get the revenue. If they act as subcontractors they will also be given a contract to supply a specified number of tonnes that year, but the harvester is responsible for issues such as traceability. As employees, the only issue facing them is cutting the seaweed properly and doing what is asked of them. We want to build relationships and create jobs in Clew Bay. It is not the case that 12,500 tonnes of seaweed are currently being taken from Clew Bay. We want to create genuine employment because people coming in and out of the area are of no use to us and are, in fact, disastrous. We work with families and people who genuinely want an income. We have no interest in stepping on anyone's toes, and local rights are protected - it is illegal to cross boundaries.

If small, local operators want to harvest a couple of tonnes it is not an issue. However, if BioAtlantis has a licence to harvest in Clew Bay and another person uses a truck to take away seaweed and does not cut it properly, it creates an issue. We want a common-sense approach to be taken. To regulate this properly the onus must be on the processing company, as that is how traceability and accountability can be enforced. If the processing company does not act correctly it should lose its licence. This applies to BioAtlantis too.

There are 110 kilometres of coastline in the small area at Clew Bay. Arramara seeks a licence covering the area from Clare to north Mayo. Can Arramara possibly harvest sustainably and be specific on issues from Clare to north Mayo? It is not practical.

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

First of all, I would like to apologise because the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine is sitting at the same time as this one and, as agriculture spokesperson for Fianna Fáil, I will have to try to be in two places at once. This is an issue that arises occasionally in the Houses.
To go back to the beginning, do the witnesses agree that the two issues the Department must consider when deciding on the distribution of licences are sustainability and the public good? Everything is predicated on these factors. The Minister must ask whether a licence application is sustainable, as reinforced by the EU habitats directive, and in the public interest. This industry has been very underdeveloped in Ireland and we did not realise our wealth, so I take it the witnesses agree that we must aim for a diverse and growing industry. We must seek new products, added value and different types of seaweed to add to the wealth because, traditionally, Arramara was a low-added-value, bulk processor of seaweed. Do the witnesses agree that sustainability is a criterion?
Over the past three months I have become convinced that the status quoof an unregulated sector is not sustainable. Does anyone believe the status quocan continue? Harvesters were poorly informed because they harvested without a licence, which has been illegal since 1933. Despite this, factories, including Arramara, were happy to buy the harvested seaweed and accept it was the harvesters' to sell. The factories were in a better position to check the law than the harvesters. There is a suggestion that only the harvesters were mistaken in their behaviour and factories should thus have the right to harvest now. I accept harvesters had no right to the seaweed in the first place but, equally, factories had no right to buy it from them. Do the witnesses accept that they bought goods from people who were not in a position to sell those goods because they did not own them? The harvesters sold seaweed to factories either on the pier or direct to the factory door and the factories paid a price. If harvesters acted illegally then so too did the factories.
I was surprised to hear talk of PRSI, taxes and so on. The simple fact is seaweed harvesters were liable for PRSI and tax like any farmer or self-employed person and means testing, was also a factor. We introduced a special exemption on means testing to allow the harvesting of a certain amount of seaweed without loss of full social welfare allowances, but it was taken into account. It is questionable to say the State did not know because tax auditors could easily have checked whom the factories purchased seaweed from. I assume all of the witnesses kept proper records of those from whom they bought seaweed. It is a travesty of justice that seaweed harvesters are being singled out as having acted illegally, and I have seen how they have had to account for themselves. I would hate to think any State company did not keep proper records.
Is it viable to take seaweed from offshore islands such as the Aran Islands, Inishturk or Inishbofin for processing on the mainland? If not, are people there seeking licences to exclusively harvest seaweed? Should a limit be placed on the maximum that can be granted to any one industry? Should we say no single group or person can get the sole licence for a period?

What period of time does Mr. O'Sullivan think would be the proper length for the licence?

I have the impression that BioAtlantis is proposing that the processors hold the licence. It seems to be putting the argument that if the processor does not hold the licence it cannot go to the bank. There are big processors in the farming industry but they do not own the cows. The malt processors do not own the barley. Why is seaweed harvesting so different? I was involved in the timber industry. The processors do not own the timber but they get money from banks. Why is this industry unique, as a renewable resource-based industry, such that the processor must own the base for production?

I have heard a great deal about harvesters this afternoon. Have any of the witnesses examined whether they or the harvesters own the seaweed? Many farmers have appurtenant rights to seaweed. How many of the witnesses have checked that the State owns the seaweed where they want to harvest or how much is in private ownership? One still needs a licence but one could get the licence and not be able to harvest because a farmer has appurtenant rights to the folio.

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

I will try to answer all of the questions. The current situation cannot continue in respect of sustainability. I am not sure whether, if we were to be examined by the European Commission to see that we are in line with the proper systems, it would be allowed. I am not sure whether it is sustainable.
How does one define the public good? Does it mean extra employment for the country? Is it measured in exports? I think it is defined by several criteria. One is that what our generation leaves behind should be the same as what we got. Our job is to pass it on in the same condition as we got it in and not damage it. The second is to create jobs, sales and exports. BioAtlantis employs seven people with doctoral degrees. There are not many companies around the country that employ seven people with PhDs. There are three engineers and two accountants in the company. Not many companies provide such high-value jobs. We are small but we are growing rapidly. That is to the public good. We are involved in research on gut health. We have a patent on a bioactive ingredient from seaweed that could improve gut health and microbiological immunity. That is also in the public good. We could potentially produce something that would reduce the incidence of irritable bowel disease. It will probably take us five more years to get to where we want to be. That is all work in the public good.
In respect of the diversity and growth of the industry, we export to 30 countries. We export to China and sell there at prices as good as those we get in Europe. The Chinese came to us to buy seaweed meal for the fracking industry. The question is whether we should operate as farmers did in the old days, when they exported cattle on the hoof, or process here and create jobs. In the beef industry the processors step out of line every so often. I agree completely that there must be independent control.
I do not think the status quocan continue. It is not sustainable. Factories bought seaweed from harvesters. We have a licence application for Clew Bay. Being nice boys is a disadvantage to us because we could go up to Clew Bay and pay €50 to get the weed, but we do not do that. Since 2007 we have bought the weed from Arramara. When the Acadian Seaplant sale process started it would have been logical to create a presence in Clew Bay and buy it from the harvesters. That would have been breaking the law, which would have been very advantageous to us in this instance. We did not do that. BioAtlantis did not break the law. We have never in the past seven years bought a tonne of seaweed from any harvester on the west coast. I have no idea whether all the harvesters in Arramara are tax-compliant. That is not my problem. We want to build a relationship with the people we want to employ in Clew Bay. We are building an industry. They will be tax-compliant, whether as self-employed people or as employees. That is not my problem.
There are many offshore islands in Clew Bay. We do propose to harvest seaweed from them. At the moment, guys go out in a small punt to try to tow it back in a net. They are probably not complying with the health and safety legislation. Clew Bay is open water. If we put a vessel into Clew Bay to take tonnage there we have to be licensed by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. That is quite a strict process. We will work with the offshore licences. They will harvest and we will take responsibility for buying it from them.
In response to the question of whether there should be a maximum allowed for any industry, how does one define an industry?

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

I was referring to a particular company.

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

I would say maximum 25%. If more companies are allowed to grow up there will be clusters. If there is only one company the rest will be way down. Companies copy each other. We might be one of those that are ahead but people will copy us. In that way, more people will come into the industry. As it grows more people will come into it. I think a maximum of 25% would be best.

Processors hold the licence. Dairy co-operatives do not sell to other co-operatives. If I wanted, tomorrow I could buy in-calf cows and sell milk to Kerry co-op next March but I would not need a licence. I would not have to comply with Environmental Protection Agency standards. There is no barrier to entry.

Mr. Paul Mullins:

Deputy Ó Cuív asked a valid question when he compared this with the malting and dairy industries. The problem with those industries is that both have had to consolidate and grow in order to survive. One does not have a 25- or 35- acre farm for malt that can grow to several hundred acres. Traditionally, harvesters have worked part time and have harvested small amounts to supplement income from other streams such as fishing and farming.

The onus is coming from regulations and from Europe to harvest the seaweed sustainably and to be able to show records that we are following best practice. The cost of this will make it economically unviable for individual harvesters to comply with the regulations. Whereas the comparison makes sense in theory, the issue of scale is the single biggest reason that it will move on from that position.

In regard to the maximum harvests, I completely support the principle that no single entity or group of people should have more than 20% or 25% of licences. This does not mean they have to be restricted to 20% or 25% of the resources because they would be able to purchase more on the open market. We make the case in our submission that companies which add value by processing in Ireland should get a rebate on the fee charged for harvesting.

Hildegarde Naughton (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the witnesses to clarify their views on the establishment of co-operatives. Reference was made to part-time harvesters whose ancestors have been doing this work for generations. Mr. O'Sullivan suggested that major barriers arise in regard to co-operatives.

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

No, I do not think that.

Hildegarde Naughton (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If I may continue, I wish to ask about designated areas for part-time harvesters and smaller companies. In regard to the costs involved in preparing records and the importance of sustainability, is there a way for smaller harvesters to come together to deal with the application process so that they have access to designated areas along the coastline? Perhaps they can work with smaller companies. I will be asking Údarás na Gaeltachta how State supports could be provided to these smaller harvesters so they can pitch for their own designated areas.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In regard to County Mayo, I am anxious that we maximise the benefit of our seaweed resources by harvesting them in a sustainable way. Mr. O'Sullivan indicated that he has applied for a licence to harvest 12,500 tonnes. What experience does he have in harvesting? Has he or his company ever harvested seaweed? Has he confidence in the Competition Authority or has he considered that option in regard to his situation?

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As another group of witnesses are waiting to meet us, I ask that members hold their questions for the next session and that witnesses give a brief response.

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

I will be as brief as possible. I have no objection to co-operatives. If we were operating in Clew Bay we would be in a group of harvesters because we would not be able to train them individually in terms of explaining what has to be done and managing which islands should be harvested and the times of the year when they should be left alone because of the seals, etc. I have no objection if they want to come together to bargain collectively and to work as a group to get the best deal. It is an onerous task to apply for a licence and if a co-operative wants to do this work, it is not an issue for me.

In regard to smaller harvesters, all I can do is speak about our own area. We will be picking the people who are genuinely interested and want to build a livelihood. The total resource that can be harvested in Clew Bay is approximately 12,000 tonnes annually. We have made an application for 12,500 tonnes, which is much lower. We are only harvesting 20% of the resource every year over a five year cycle. We will not be over harvesting by any means.

In regard to my experience in seaweed harvesting, I have been involved in the seaweed industry since 1998. For better or for worse, I know seaweed. I have also harvested because I put it into the boot of my car and brought it home. In 2004, when Ireland was booming, I had to carry laminaria from the beach to my car and transport it for extraction. I have been involved with every aspect of the seaweed industry. I have been out at 2 a.m. when things went wrong and we were battling to recover. One might ask what madness was I involved with at a time when Ireland was booming. I am a chartered accountant and was operations manager of a division of Kerry Group that was worth €150 million. I had plenty of options but I know how to harvest seaweed and how far from the resource to cut it. I know that one will get away with cutting it from four inches.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. O'Sullivan has explained it very well.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He has confused me somewhat. Is he saying he was cutting it and transporting it in the boot of his car?

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

No, I am not. That is what I did when I had to carry out trials in advance of establishing the company.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He has not harvested on a commercial basis.

Mr. John O'Sullivan:

No, I have not harvested on a commercial basis.

Mr. Paul Mullins:

A question was raised about the Competition Authority. The authority was asked to investigate this transaction but it deemed it to be too small. It was reassured when it spoke with a senior executive of Údarás na Gaeltachta who was involved in the process. The executive assured the authority that because Arramara did not control the resource there was no competition element. What surprises me is that the same executive was not aware that Arramara was making an application to control more than 72% of the resource.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I presume those who offered will get priority in the next session. I thank our witnesses for their contributions and propose that we suspend the meeting to allow the new witnesses to take their seats.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh gach éinne. I am going to ask the clerk to the committee to read the privilege regulations and any other information that may be of relevance to the witnesses.

Clerk to the Committee:

Ba mhaith liom a chur ar aird na bhfinnéithe, de bhua alt 17(2)(l) den Acht Um Chlúmhilleadh 2009, go bhfuil finnéithe faoi chosaint ag lán-phribhléid maidir leis an bhfianaise a thugann siad don choiste seo. Má ordaíonn an coiste dóibh, ámh, éirí as fianaise a thabhairt i leith ní áirithe agus má leanann siad dá tabhairt, níl siad i dteideal dá éis sin ach pribhléide cáilithe i leith na fianaise acu. Ordaítear dóibh nach dtabharfar ach fianaise a bhaineann le hábhar na n-imeachtaí seo agus fiafraítear díobh cleachtadh parlaiminte a urramú nár chóir, más féidir, daoine ná eintiteas a cháineadh ná líomhaintí a dhéanamh ina n-aghaidh, ina ainm, ina hainm nó ina n-ainm nó ar shlí a bhféadfaí iad a aithint. Ba mhaith liom na finnéithe a chur ar an eolas go ndéanfar na ráitis tionscnaimh a chuir siad faoi bhráid an choiste a fhoilsiú ar shuíomh gréasáin an choiste tar éis an chruinnithe seo. Meabhraítear do chomhaltaí an cleachtadh parlaiminte atá ann le fada nár chóir dóibh tuairimí a thabhairt maidir le duine atá taobh amuigh de na Tithe nó le hoifigeach ina ainm nó ina hainm nó ar shlí a bhféadfaí iad a aithint.
I wish to draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular issue but they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of today's proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also wish to advise witnesses that their opening statements and any other documents submitted to the committee may be published on the committee's website after this meeting. 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 any official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau, atá mar chathaoirleach ar Arramara Teoranta; agus an tUas. Dónall Mac Giolla Bhríde, atá mar bhainisteoir ginearálta leis an gcomhlacht céanna. Cuirim fáilte freisin roimh Dr. Raul Ugarte, atá mar thaighdeoir sinsearach le Acadian Seaplants Limited; Mr. Rex Hunter, atá mar leas-uachtarán - bainistiú acmhainní - leis an gcomhlacht céanna; agus Ms Linda Theriault, atá mar stiúrthóir caidreamh poiblí agus rialtais leis an comhlacht. I hope I have pronounced Ms Theriault's name correctly. Cuirim fáilte freisin roimh an tUas. John Bhaba Jeaic Ó Conghaile as Cearta Cladaigh Chonamara agus an tUas. Máirtín Ó Murchú atá mar rúnaí leis an gcoiste sin. Cuirim fáilte freisin roimh Mr. Tony Barrett, atá mar CEO ar Irish Seaweed Processors Limited; agus an tUas. Seán Ó Mocháin ón gcomhlacht céanna. Cuirim fáilte freisin roimh an tUas. Steve Ó Cualáin, atá mar phríomhfheidhmeannach ar Údarás na Gaeltachta; agus an tUas. Séamus Mac Eochaidh, atá mar bhainisteoir fiontraíochta leis an údarás. Gabhaim buíochas leo uilig as bheith i láthair. I thank them all for their attendance here today. Iarraim anois ar ionadaithe Arramara Teoranta labhairt os comhair an choiste.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

I am the chairman of the board of Arramara Teoranta and the president of Acadian Seaplants Limited. While the topic of this meeting is the licensing and harvesting of seaweed in Ireland, my comments apply to just two species of seaweed - ascophyllum and fucus. Other seaweed species will require their own different licensing and managing processes.

I am here today to speak in support of the licensing of the seaweed resource of the ascophyllum and fucus species. I will list the important factors that should be taken into consideration when decisions on licensing are being made. I will speak about the reasons Arramara has applied for a licence. I will also provide examples of what can happen in both a regulated and an unregulated commercial seaweed harvesting environment. We believe seaweed licensing is important to ensure the resource is managed in a responsible and scientific way. We believe it is needed to ensure harvesting practices are sustainable and the habitat is protected from an environmental perspective. Seaweed licensing is important if we are to maximise the economic benefit of the seaweed resource to Ireland and ensure it is used to make value-added products, create economic benefits for harvesters and generate economic benefits in harvesting communities.

I would like to run through the factors that we believe should be taken into account when licensing is being considered. Licences should be granted to cover a specific geographic area on an exclusive basis. Exclusive licences are needed to avoid competitive commercial harvesting in the same geographic area. Having said that, individuals should be permitted to harvest seaweed for their own personal use as long as it is not for resale. Unregulated competitive commercial harvesting leads to the over-harvesting of the resource, which consequently leads to the loss of harvester jobs and the closure of manufacturing facilities and habitat degradation. The licenceholder must be held accountable for the economic benefit to Ireland, including to the harvesters, and for the sustainability of the resource.

Arramara Teoranta has applied for a licence to ensure it has an ongoing source of seaweed for its business. I want to emphasise that we are aiming to ensure all the harvesters will have an opportunity to continue to harvest seaweed on an ongoing basis. We want to ensure continued employment and make a contribution to the coastal communities of the west. Arramara has applied for a licence in the areas where Arramara has traditionally obtained seaweed. It has been processing seaweed for more than 67 years, since 1947. Over 300 harvesters have supplied Arramara with seaweed in recent times. We want to ensure each of those harvesters can continue to have the opportunity to supply seaweed to Arramara now and into the future.

I will provide examples of what can happen in a both regulated and an unregulated environment. The submission we have furnished to the joint committee contains a chronology from Acadian Seaplants showing that each time a licence was secured, investment followed.

We have established an industry that started in Canada that is growing and is sustainable. We have five world-class processing facilities in rural communities, 25 researchers, including nine who hold PhDs, 45 sales and marketing people located in seven countries, namely, Canada, the US, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, Colombia and Japan, and we have more than 250 employees in Canada. In June, we opened a new, 115,000 sq. ft. value-added, state-of-the-art manufacturing facility. This happened because licensing provided assured access to seaweed, allowing investment and proper management of the resource to take place.

Global demand for seaweed is growing dramatically, and we have heard some examples of it here today. As a consequence, the potential for over exploitation will increase over time, without proper management. For example, in September 2013, Chile shut down the harvesting of brown seaweed due to over harvesting in an unregulated environment. This resulted in the loss of harvester jobs and manufacturing plant closures. In a regulated, licensed environment, Acadian Seaplants has been able to build a sustainable seaweed industry in Canada, ensure the scientific management and sustainability of the resource and habitat and create value-added products in a rural environment for use domestically and exported to more than 80 countries around the world. An unlicensed commercial competitive environment will result in over harvesting, loss of harvester jobs and industry shut-down. Together, the partnership between Arramara and Acadian Seaplants in a licensed environment will result in an Irish success story featuring an Irish company, resource and people. A licence for Arramara will provide assured access to the resource for the 300 plus harvesters who supply Arramara Teoranta.

Mr. John Bhaba Jeaic Ó Conghaile:

Is mise John Bhaba Jeaic Ó Conghaile ó Chearta Chladaigh Chonamara. Rugadh ar oileán mé agus bhí mé ag baint feamainne nuair a bhí mé deich mbliana d'aois. I am from Cearta Cladaigh Chonamara. I was born on an island off Lettermullen-Furnish with 15 houses. I am over 60 years old and since the age of ten I have been cutting seaweed on the shore for potatoes, fruit, vegetables and everything. We cut seaweeds such as carageenan for winter as jelly. The sea around us was our income. The first year I started cutting seaweed there were seven seaweed factories in Kilrush and six in Connemara. We used to dry the seaweed and bring it to the factories and it provided a good income. We would have approximately seven acres of land and harvest approximately four lorry loads every four years, and then let the seaweed grow.

We have looked after our seaweed all this time, and cut it the right way, with a knife. We have looked after the environment and ensured the seaweed regrows. We have looked after everything at the shore, as it has looked after us. Now, one company is coming in and wants all the rights from County Mayo to Galway, which is wrong. We have looked after the seaweed for generations and we should be left as were have been all these years to ensure it grows in the right way. We had three meetings in Connemara, each of which was attended by approximately 150 people. The one thing people wanted was to keep the seaweed rights they have had for all these years. They do not want one big business to take over the seaweed from us.

We are talking about coastal communities which have no factories. The nearest factories are a long way from us and there is no employment in our area. We have nothing against Acadia, Arramara or any other factories, only against the idea that one company would have the right to all the seaweed from County Clare up to Mayo. While a company might say we can do whatever we want and cut the seaweed as we do, I do not think we will be able to do so in years to come. In our area, people cut seaweed to help pay their car insurance, water rates and telephone bills. It is hard work, and if one company gets the licence, it can reduce the price from €30 per tonne to €10 or €20, which would be wrong. If one company has all the seaweed rights, it will destroy the culture of coastal communities and everything we have.

Mr. Máirtín Ó Murchú:

We would like the land and seaweed that were marked in the folio numbers to be respected. We would like the Minister to search in the congested district board maps and the dealing numbers for any seaweed papers that have been lost, so they can be known. The seaweed was cut right and was always there. It is renewable and good, and the people had it. The people cutting now, who may not have the folios or the rights, have done a good job and have looked after it, and it is still there after approximately 100 years. If the State claims seaweed cutting must be licensed, the licences should be given to the cutters who have looked after it and ensured the seaweed grew again.

In the 1960s, approximately 65,000 tonnes of seaweed were taken from Connemara and sold, and the seaweed is still there. It was never abused. People cut it with a knife below and it grows again even better. Studies have proven it is the right way to do it. Although it is not an easy life, people would like to have the right to do it and wish to be able to sell it to Acadia or any other company that wishes to buy it. Over the years, Arramara Teoranta has been a great buyer of seaweed and has employed many people in hauling and cutting seaweed. People had the right and could sell it. We hope they will retain the right so the current generation and the next generation will have something, and if someone new wants to start out with a smaller company they will have the right.

When people look after something for 100 years and it has grown, they will not abuse it but will look after it. We would like it to remain as it is. If regulations must come, they should apply to people who are cutting and have been there for generations so no cowboys can come in. So far, no cowboys have been cutting seaweed because cowboys want easy money. It is not easy work, but people earn money on it and we would like it to continue.

Mr. Tony Barrett:

I thank the committee for inviting me. I was CEO of Arramara Teoranta until 2007, when I left to form Irish Seaweed Processors limited for the extraction of bioactive compounds from Irish seaweed.

Since the 1960s Arramara Teoranta purchased and processed only one seaweed, ascophyllum nodosum, from harvesters who did not hold a licence but claimed traditional harvesting rights. In May 2014 Arramara Teoranta was formally transferred to ownership of Acadian Seaplants Limited. In March 2014 Arramara Teoranta applied to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government for a foreshore licence to harvest ascophyllum nodosum from north Mayo to north Clare, driving suspicions that Arramara Teoranta is being used as a proxy to gain control of Irish seaweed resources.
In January 2014 the Joint Sub-Committee on Fisheries published its report on promoting sustainable rural, coastal and island communities. The main focus of the report is on the social and economic situation of rural, coastal and island communities and the promotion of sustainable industries. The main industries discussed by the sub-committee with stakeholders were inshore fisheries, sea angling, seaweed, aquaculture and tourism, particularly marine tourism. Údarás na Gaeltachta advised the sub-committee on matters relating to the seaweed industry. According to the report, Údarás na Gaeltachta identified to the sub-committee that the principal issue in developing the seaweed processing industry is the regulation of supply, and that investors would be unlikely to provide or secure capital funding when uncertainty surrounds the supply of the raw material to be processed. Údarás na Gaeltachta cited to the sub-committee the case of the state of Nova Scotia in eastern Canada, where the state leases out an area and the company awarded the lease is responsible for sustainable harvesting of the seaweed. It explained that in Canada at the practice is to cut 1 ft. per annum, which is done from boats, but at present nobody in Ireland is responsible for the sustainable harvesting of seaweed and people take seaweed off the rock and the plant is gone. Based on this advice the sub-committee recommended that the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Environment, Community and Local Government resolve the regulatory licensing issues which pose an impediment to the development of the seaweed industry.
In A Guide to Commercially Important Seaweeds on the Irish Coastwritten by Jim Morrissey, Dr. Stefan Kraan and Professor Michael-----

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I respectfully ask the witness to speak into the microphone.

Mr. Tony Barrett:

I beg the Senator's pardon.
The book is written by Jim Morrissey, Dr. Stefan Kraan and Professor Michael D. Guiry of the Martin Ryan Marine Science Institute at NUI, Galway and published by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara. It states the Irish seaweed industry is almost unique in its sustainable exploitation of Ireland's natural resources, and that the use of sustainable harvesting practices which use a cutting frequency of three to four years to allow the target species, such as ascophyllum nodosum, to regenerate has endured this. It states that for a resource which has been exploited for many centuries, and particularly intensively in the past century, Ireland's seaweed resources could accurately be described as well maintained with considerable potential for further sustainable development.
The book also states ascophyllum nodosum grows apically, in other words, the tips actively grow with the plant progressively becoming older towards its base. As I mentioned, the growth cycle takes between three to five years, depending on the area. The book states the adoption of sustainable harvesting practices for exploitation of this resource since the start of large-scale exploitation of ascophyllum nodosum by Arramara Teoranta in the 1960s has successfully maintained and even enhanced the natural resources of ascophyllum nodosum. It states sustainable harvesting means allowing regeneration of the resource between harvests and to this end a number of guidelines have been adopted over the years by hand harvesters applying to Arramara Teoranta. These are listed and include that when cutting seaweed at least 15 cm to 25 cm above the base of the plant should be left attached, which serves to speed up the regeneration process greatly, as if the entire plant is ripped out the resultant space would be quickly colonised by other seaweeds, such as fucus spiralis, and considerable time would elapse before ascophyllum could recolonise the site.
Another guideline listed is that an area should not be completely harvested until bare and rather, a proportion of the biomass, preferably 50%, should be left to maintain a canopy to minimise the impact to the other plants and animals living there. This measure helps minimise the displacement of many fish and other animals living among ascophyllum beds. The fronds generally take between three to five years to regenerate fully following harvesting but the exact period depends on the area and the time of harvesting. Sustainable harvesting requires that such a period of time is allowed to pass before the next harvest occurs. Fallowing of harvested areas between cuts should therefore be carefully observed. It has been found that regular harvesting of ascophyllum nodosum allows greater production.
I will refer to the national seaweed forum report published in 2001. The forum was established by the Minister with responsibility for the marine to develop the seaweed industry in Ireland. Údarás na Gaeltachta had a member on the forum. The report states:

The coast of Ireland has a myriad of different algal species. This forms a potentially very valuable resource. Tapping into this resource is completely sustainable due to a combination of the renewable resource and the good husbandry practices that are employed in its harvesting. The main seaweed crop used in Ireland today (Ascophyllum nodosum) requires a recovery time of only 3-4 years and so the fallow period of 4-5 years employed in Ireland is quite sufficient for sustainability. The fact that the cutters used by the largest company in Ireland (Arramara Teoranta) have been cutting seaweed in the same areas over and over again for more than fifty years provides the practical evidence to support this.

Due to the nature of the data available from Canada it is quite difficult to narrow down the differences seen to a particular crop but an overall decline of the Industry is evident. At present the largest seaweed company in the Maritime Provinces (Acadian Seaplants Ltd.) employs 220 people full-time and 870 people seasonally (May to October). Traditionally Ascophyllum was cut using hand-held knives or sickles at low tide or from boats with a toothed rake with a long wooden pole. In the late 1980s the Norwegian suction cutter machine was introduced to Canada. These machines have very high efficiency and quickly put Canada second in the world (after Norway) for Ascophyllum production. Lack of effective management and competition between companies led to over-harvesting of the stocks, putting the sustainability of the resource in jeopardy.

Mr. Sean Ó Mocháin:

We heard much about competition from Mr. O'Sullivan in the previous session. My understanding of the basis of the EU is that we have a free market. Giving licences to large commercial organisations over the heads of the local communities and people who have made their living on this sustainable resource and protected it for years is the very antithesis of open competition. No company has the right to walk in and deprive these people of their traditional rights. They have protected the resource for years.

The representatives of Acadian Seaplants Limited are talking as if they are experts with huge experience in this area and therefore know what is right. Údarás na Gaeltachta is letting them away with it. The people of Connemara and Mayo have been doing this for 67 years and have not destroyed anything. They should be allowed to continue to do this. The Government and the EU need to come up with some means of protecting these people's livelihoods in their own homes. For example, they should simplify the forms so these people can get their licences. Perhaps some kind of simple control can be organised through co-operatives. If that cannot be done, it is a poor day for this country. We have already given away our fish and our oil rights, and now we are going to give away our seaweed. I do not think it is right. It is very important for these people to be allowed to keep their rights and to make a living from them as they always have. They have done nothing wrong. I do not see why anybody should have the arrogance to come in and say that these people have done something wrong and are going to destroy the industry. They are not going to do so.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Iarraim anois ar ionadaithe Údarás na Gaeltachta cur i láthair a dhéanamh.

Mr. Steve Ó Cualáin:

Déanfaidh mé achoimre ar aighneacht Údarás na Gaeltachta. Táimid buíoch don choiste as cuireadh a thabhairt dúinn plé a dhéanamh leo ar an gceist thábhachtach seo, feamainn a cheadúnú agus a bhaint in Éirinn. Ba mhaith liom achoimre a dhéanamh ar na príomhphointí atá inár n-aighneacht. Tá os cionn 30 bliain caite ag Údarás na Gaeltachta i mbun cláir fhorbartha agus cruthú fostaíochta sa Ghaeltacht. Tá straitéis na heagraíochta dírithe ar phlean comhtháite a dhéanann freastal ar riachtanais fhorbartha teanga, eacnamaíochta, chultúrtha agus shóisialta phobal na Gaeltachta.

Tá dúshlán ar leith ag baint le cothú deiseanna forbartha agus fiontraíochta sna limistéir seo de bharr a nádúr scaipthe tíreolaíochta agus a n-infreastruchtúr easnamhach fisiciúil agus teileachumarsáide. Ag an am céanna, tá buntáistí agus buanna ag na ceantair seo a dhéanann tarraingteach iad mar láithreáin rathúla ghnó. Is féidir a rá go bhfuil feamainn i measc na hacmhainní saibhre cósta seo. Tá an fheamainn lárnach don eacnamaíocht áitiúil cois cósta sa Ghaeltacht le blianta fada. Is gineadóir fostaíochta tábhachtach í, ní hamháin do na comhlachtaí próiseála ach freisin do na bainteoirí agus dóibh siúd a chuireann seirbhísí ar nós seirbhísí iompar ar fáil.

Tá fás suntasach tagtha ar an margadh domhanda i dtionscail na feamainne. Tá thart ar 16 milliúin tonna bainte in aghaidh na bliana, le luach de €7.4 billiúin. Tá tionscal feamainne na hÉireann ag leanúint na dtreochtaí céanna idirnáisiúnta. Tá sé ag méadú. Tá timpeall 200 daoine fostaithe san earnáil in Éirinn, ag easpórtáil idir 85% agus 90% dá dtáirigí feamainne le láimhdeachas de €18 milliúin. Tá buíochas ag dul don dream a bhunaigh an tionscal agus a choinnigh beo í le 67 bliain anuas, ach anois tá gá le infheistíocht agus saineolas breise má tá an buntáiste le baint as an bunábhar luachmhar inathnuaite seo do na glúinte atá le teacht. Ní féidir fás agus forbairt a bhaint amach gan an acmhainn atá ann a aithint, aghaidh a thabhairt ar bhainistiú na hacmhainne seo agus breisluach a ghiniúint ó na táirgí a bheidh le forbairt.

Tá fás mór tagtha ar an suim atá á chur ag fiontraithe san fheamainn, ach le forbairt cheart a dhéanamh, tá gá le hinfheistíocht. Tá sé deacair infheistíocht a mhealladh gan córas ceart rialachán. Ní thiocfaidh rath ná fás ar an earnáil seo in éagmais infheistíochta. Ní tharlóidh infheistíocht ar an scála cuí gan rialacháin cuí ar an bunábhar. Is í an bagairt is mó ata ar earnáil na feamainne ná go mbeidh an iomarca bainte gan aon rialú. Creideann muid gur chóir nach gcuireadh córas rialacháin bac ar na mionbhainteoirí dóthain feamainne a bhaint le freastal fás glasraí, srl., dá n-úsáid féin.

There is a significant and expanding global market for seaweed. The Irish seaweed industry is following international trends and is expanding. The seaweed sector has been one of the key drivers of the coastal economy in the Gaeltacht over many years. It is important not only for those employed in the processing companies, but also for harvesters and those who provide facilities and logistical supports, including transport services, to the sector. While the development opportunities for the seaweed sector are substantial, growth and development can only be achieved by identifying the resources available, addressing the management of that resource and adding value by expanding the product range.

The level of interest in seaweed-based enterprise is increasing, with entrepreneurs keen to develop businesses using this resource. The development of the seaweed sector requires a regulated environment to attract the investment necessary and maintain and protect this rich natural resource. The greatest threat to the seaweed sector comes from unregulated over-harvesting. Údarás na Gaeltachta is of the view that commercial, competitive harvesting can only be managed through a regulated environment where full exploitation on an ecological, environmental and economically sustainable basis can be optimised. It is our view that there is a need for a comprehensive appraisal of the seaweed resource to determine its potential contribution to the coastal economy. It is on the basis of such research that the State can prepare detailed plans and take a proactive approach to developing this sector.

Tuigeann an t-údarás go gcaithfear bheith airdeallach ar an traidisiún agus muid anois ar an tairseach chun an tionscal a fhorbairt ar mhaithe le luach saothar níos fearr le ghnóthú as an bhfeamainn agus breis fostaíochta a chruthú sa Ghaeltacht dá bharr. Ba mhaith linn a dhearbhú don choiste go bhfuil suim ag an údarás forbairt a dhéanamh ar earnáil na feamainne ar mhaithe le forbairt na comhlachtaí atá ag feidhmiú faoi láthair, na bainteoirí feamainne, na geallsealbhóirí agus soláthraithe eile den tionscal ar mhaithe le forbairt na hearnála agus cruthú fostaíochta. Ba mhaith linn freisin a athdhearbhú nach bhfuil aon ról sonrach nó dlíthiúil ag an údarás sa phróiseas ceadúcháin atá faoi chaibidil, ach go gcreideann muid go bhfuil gá le córas rialacháin de shaghas éigin amach anseo má tá forbairt agus rath i ndán don tionscal.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Beidh ceisteanna againn anois. Tabharfaidh mé sé nóiméad do gach ball.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make a brief statement. Overall, this is a fascinating story. Seaweed seems to be a very good story for Ireland. Possibly, it can get better. Like all success stories, it is creating its own problems. I have a number of questions. Obviously, the existing traditional harvesters are worried about the future. What kind of future will they have if this licence is granted and Acadian Seaplants gets involved in the manner that has been outlined by the people who have concerns? What will be the future for small and medium-sized enterprises like Brandon Products, which is based in County Kerry, if Acadian Seaplants becomes a huge player in the market? Brandon Products and its counterparts might not be providing huge employment, but they are creating valuable jobs and have room for expansion. If I understand correctly, Acadian Seaplants is a competitor of Brandon Products. Will they work together? Is there a legitimate fear that the whole thing will be taken over by a big monster?

Why did Údarás na Gaeltachta feel it was appropriate to sell Arramara at this particular time? Was that a policy decision? Was it a strategic decision? When Acadian Seaplants bought Arramara, was there an understanding that it would be granted this licence? Did talks take place in advance at Government level to copperfasten this deal? If that happened as part of this process, it should be made quite clear.

I am worried about the Sligo experience. Mr. Melvin, who has been harvesting for many years, told the committee earlier about the difficulty he is having in getting his licence renewed. Is that something we need to worry about in the context of the 70% licence that Acadian Seaplants will have?

There is some resonance with the situation regarding traditional bog and turf cutting. Coincidentally, the Minister, Deputy Deenihan, is involved in both cases. Has he been in talks with harvesters and with small producers like Brandon Products? Is he aware of their concerns? Has he made any pronouncement on the matter?

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would the representatives of Údarás na Gaeltacht like to respond to the specific question that was directed at them?

Mr. Seamus Mac Eochaidh:

I can confirm categorically that there was no understanding that Acadian Seaplants would be the beneficiary of a licence. This question has been asked many times, for example, through the parliamentary questions process, and we have dealt with it. It was made clear in one such reply that there was no question of selling harvesting rights to anybody or any company. Údarás na Gaeltachta sold its shares in Arramara to Acadian Seaplants. Údarás na Gaeltachta did not have a licence. Arramara does not have a licence. There was no way anybody could give anybody an understanding. There were no discussions publicly, privately or otherwise.

I can confirm to the committee that it was purely a sale of our shares in the company. I confirm that is what Acadian Seaplants Limited bought and that prior to the sale, the board of Arramara Teoranta decided it should seek a licence under the foreshore Acts. That was an independent decision by the board of Arramara Teoranta.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In regard to the decision to sell the shares, was it strictly a commercial decision or was it done with a view to the future of the industry?

Mr. Seamus Mac Eochaidh:

With regard to the sale of our shares in Arramara Teoranta, Údarás na Gaeltachta took over Arramara Teoranta or was given the shares in it in 2006. Since 1947, it had been a joint venture between the Irish Government and a company called International Specialty Products, ISP Alginates. This company indicated in 2006 that it was going to withdraw from Arramara Teoranta and the market and the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs at the time asked údarás to purchase the ISP shares and take over the shares the Minister held. We did that.

On examining the situation, we had to invest money in Arramara but quickly came to the conclusion that we did not have the expertise, the resources or the ability to grow Arramara for the best benefit of the company. Therefore, we set about the process of seeking a strategic partner for Arramara. In 2010, we appointed consultants to advise us on that and this process culminated in March 2013 when the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta decided to sell its shares to Acadian Seaplants Limited. That decision was approved by the Minister with responsibility for the Gaeltacht, in conjunction with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, on 29 July 2013.

Therefore, the answer to Senator O'Sullivan's question is that it was a strategic decision by Údarás na Gaeltachta that it did not have the resources to grow this company to its full extent and so embarked on a process to find a strategic partner who could bring benefit to Arramara, the State and the other stakeholders, such as the harvesters and the Irish customers. The deal that was concluded with Acadian Seaplants Limited embodies those criteria and aims. In regard to the future of SMEs such as Brandon Products and Bio Atlantis, the deal that has been done embodies a future supply to those companies.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a guarantee?

Mr. Seamus Mac Eochaidh:

There is a contract between Údarás na Gaeltachta and Acadian Seaplants Limited to guarantee supply to those companies.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

I would like to reiterate and confirm what has been stated, that there was no assurance of any raw material, resource or licence of any type for us. We knew that in purchasing Arramara, we were purchasing a company that did not have rights to any seaweed. Two of the points raised by Senator O'Sullivan concerned the supply of material to the customers, in particular Brandon Products and Bio Atlantis. One of the challenges for us is that because we do not have any rights to the seaweed, this makes it difficult for us to guarantee absolutely that we can provide both of the customers mentioned with an ongoing supply. That said, we have given a guarantee to Údarás na Gaeltachta that those companies will be our first priority and that we will supply to them on an ongoing basis to the extent we can obtain seaweed from harvests we receive.

It is important we go on the record in regard to Brandon Products and Bio Atlantis, two companies we know quite well. While we do not always agree on everything, we can agree on the following. We believe it is very important that Arramara and organisations such as these, which are creating value added products in Ireland, have licences, so that they will have assured access to raw material in the future and to assure they, and the others here who are making these kinds of investments in capital and in research and development, will have the raw materials necessary to create a viable industry here in Ireland. We believe this is important and believe a cluster of good companies that is working to enhance the Irish seaweed industry will be able to make a difference in the future.

I would also like to refer to the question on the harvesters. I believe past performance is a good indication of what to expect in the future. For the past 25 years, we have had quite a number of licences in Canada, where we managed the resource and worked very closely with the harvesters. We were able to map out every bed of seaweed in our licensed territories, quantify them and come up with annual harvest plans. Every harvester knows he can harvest a specific quantity on an annual basis, because of the close co-operation we have with the harvesting community. We indicate to the harvester which area to go to and how much to harvest from it and what area to move to next. These things are worked out and negotiated with the harvesting community. Based on that type of long, historic ability, the harvesters can depend on that employment year after year and we, as a company, can depend on the raw material to build the business. This kind of co-existence works for both parties.

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there any way in which the guarantee from Acadian Seaplants Limited that it will supply and co-operate with the smaller businesses be incorporated in a more formalised way? As it stands, the guarantee is pretty vague. If I was in business, I doubt I would get much banking credit on the strength of it.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

In the case of Brandon Products and Bio Atlantis, for example, we have presented them with written contracts and we have negotiated with them. The agreement is in negotiation and I expect we will find an agreed path that will cover a certain period of time. We purchased the company eight weeks ago, but the supply to these customers has remained exactly as it was and we have ensured this supply retains the priority it had for Arramara Teoranta and that the product quality, availability of supply and pricing are identical. We want to assure everybody we are here as a responsible player to work with the Irish seaweed industry and to do our part to foster this kind of cluster in the industry.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an grúpa chuig an comhchoiste. Ar dtús, nuair a chas mise, Éamonn Ó Méalóid ó Chearta Chladaigh Chonamara, an Seanadóir Trevor Ó Clochartaigh, chomh maith le Teachtaí agus Seanadóirí eile, leis an Aire, an Teachta Jan O'Sullivan, cúpla seachtain ó shin faoi na ceisteanna seo, dúirt sí go raibh sí ag lorg an toraidh céanna agus a bhí muidne ag lorg, sé sin, go mbeadh na bainteoirí feamainne beaga in ann leanúint ar aghaidh mar a bhí siad. Céard a cheapann na finnéithe faoi sin? An nuacht maith é sin?

Tá a fhios againn go bhfuil an Roinn ag lorg comhairle ón Ard-Aighne faoi na folios agus rudaí mar sin. Dúirt ceann de na hoifigigh ag an gcruinniú nach dtéann na cearta folio thar marc an uisce ard. Cad a cheapann na finneithe faoi sin?

Mr. John Bhaba Jeaic Ó Conghaile:

Tá an marc, an dath gorm, thíos faoin high water mark. Tá sé níos gaire don áit a mbíonn stop an taoile, agus tá sé marcáilte.

Mar sin, an té a cheapann gur b'shin í an áit atá an taoile is airde nuair atá trá ann, tá sé contráilte. Tá sin chomh siúráilte agus atá mé anseo.

An dara rud ná go bhfuil ceart ag na daoine. Thugadar aire don fheamainn, ghearradar i gceart í, táthar sásta í a dhíol agus déantar corr phunt aisti. Ba leo í agus d'oibríodar go crua uirthi. Táimid uilig ag iarraidh go mbeadh an áit chun cinn agus níl éinne in aghaidh Arramara Teoranta ná tada eile, ná ag iarraidh slata mara a thabhairt isteach arís ná triomú - obair chrua - ach ba cheart go mbeadh seo ag muintir na háite agus má tá buntáiste le fáil, gur acu a bheadh sé.

Thugadar aire don fheamainn le céad bliain agus os cionn sin agus nuair a bhí neart feamainne á bhaint agus gach uile rud eile á dhéanamh, níor chuireadar aon díluacháil uirthi agus ní dhearnadar aon dochar di. Cén fáth mar sin nach acusan a bhfágfaí an rud inniu? Táimid ag iarraidh í a dhíol le gach uile duine, le duine ar bith a cheannóidh í. Tá Arramara ag ceannach go leor, mar tá monarcha mór aige agus fuaireadar an áis. Táimid sásta díol le héinne eile atá ag teacht chun cinn. Má thagann daoine óga chun cinn sna blianta romhainn a bheidh in ann níos mó a dhéanamh léi, díolfar leo sin chomh maith í.

Tá muintir na háite praiticiúil. Tá siad an-mhór as ucht aire a thabhairt don chladach. Mar a dúirt muid cheana, bhíodar chomh géar ar an bhfeamainn ionas nach ndéanfaí damáiste di. Bhí na cladaigh marcáilte agus glacadh le sin. Thugadar aire thar cionn don fheamainn. Mar sin, cén fáth anois an mbeadh éinne ag ceapadh go ndearnadar drochmheas uirthi agus nach bhfuileadar sách maith le hí a thabhairt chun cinn? Roinnt blianta siar, is é an faitíos a bhí ann ag cuid de na comhlachtaí ná nach mbeadh éinne sásta an fheamainn a bhaint agus go gcaithfí é a dhéanamh go meicniúil. Go dtarlóidh sé sin, is ceart í a fhágáil mar a bhí sí. Tá sí ag fás go maith agus is é an dream a thug aire dhi agus a thug cead di fás an dream ba cheart do Jan O'Sullivan nó duine ar bith eile í a fhágáil acu.

Má tá gasúr óg ann, fágtar aige í ar bhás an athair agus tabharfaidh sé aire mhaith di. Tá aire mhaith tugtha don fheamainn ag muintir na háite. Nílim ag rá ag Cladaigh Chonamara amháin, ach siar chuig cladaigh Mhaigh Eó agus suas go Gaillimh agus an Clochán. Thugadar aire di, shaothraigh siad airgead aisti agus níor cheart go ndéarfaí leo anois gur thugadar aire di ach go bhfuil an tionscal ag iarraidh níos mó airgid a dhéanamh nó go dtabharfaidh sé aire níos fearr di ná mar a thug muid. Tá muid agus na daoine á dhéanamh go maith. Creidim gur ceart í a fhágáil againn. Más cúrsaí airgid, cúrsaí cánach nó rud ar bith eile atá i gceist, sin rud difriúil. Ní shin atá muid ag caint inniu air.

Táimid ag caint ar chearta agus go mbeidh daoine in ann a bpunt a shaothrú agus an fheamainn a dhíol leis an bhfear is fearr leo. Mar atá inniu, má tá feamainn gearrtha agam inniu agus má tá leoraí ag John, tabharfaidh mé dó í agus muna dtaitníonn sé liom, tabharfaidh mé don chéad fhear eile í. D'oibrigh sé sin. Tharraing cuid de na daoine móin muna raibh an fheamainn le tarraingt agus d'oibrigh sin go maith. Ní raibh locht ar bith ar sin agus ní cheart go n-athródh sé. Sin mo chreidiúint phearsanta.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

Obviously, if we look at the harvesting of seaweed over the past 67 years and at specific patches, that harvesting has been done in a sustainable manner. Therefore, the sustainability of the resource is real. The challenge arises when one looks at the sustainability of the industry and the totality of the resource in Ireland.

I will use a fictitious number for illustrative purposes. If, for example, we had a total resource of 100,000 tonnes, sustainable on an annual basis, that is the maximum amount that could be harvested. This brings us back to Deputy Ó Cuív's question on the difference between seaweed and farming cows. We could have an infinite quantity of cows, but the seaweed is finite. Only a certain amount of it can be harvested before cutting into the principle of the resource. Therefore, if an industry developed and was harvesting 120,000 tonnes per year, there would be nothing left after a couple of years. While the individual patches would regrow, we would have now caused a situation where individual harvesters would not have anything to harvest and the industry could no longer depend upon the raw material and would have to scale back its operations and, perhaps, suffer plant closures.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Deveau obviously appreciates the concern in the community exemplified by the harvesters and Cearta Chladaigh Chonamara. He would be aware of the concerns also from various other sources. I said at the initial hearings that I would like to see his company grow, be sustainable and create employment in the Connemara area, but I would also like to see the traditional Irish companies equally able to grow and flourish and to see the harvesters continue their work. Mr. Deveau pointed out that domestic harvesters would be able to continue harvesting. Is what we would like to see an unfillable wish list or are all these issues compatible? Can Arramara, the harvesters and the companies have a future in the area?

There has been some concern that after a number of years, Arramara could, if it acquired a licence, close down a plant and leave. I do not think that is the plan, but will Mr. Deveau comment on that? There is a view in Departments in regard to licences that people or companies should use them or lose them. Will he comment on that also? A number of companies that presented on this earlier related to distinct geographical areas from which they harvested. Does Mr. Deveau envisage a situation where Arramara's application would be happy to admit certain areas from north Mayo to Clare? Clew Bay has been mentioned as an example. Is this something it would consider as part of its application?

In regard to Údarás na Gaeltachta, did it get any advice in regard to licensing, the folios and traditional rights when it was engaging in regard to the strategic partnership?

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

I will address the question regarding advice on folio rights first. The advice we received was that this was a complex issue and that the údarás wanted to make it clear that it was up to us, if we were interested in concluding the transaction, to accept the responsibility of figuring out how to operate in that environment. We have had preliminary discussions with the various Departments to try to understand the situation. The advice we got was to continue with the application Arramara had put together in order to clarify and get the rights to the seaweed and to be able to develop that area.

Deputy Kyne raised the question of the use it or lose it clause. This particular clause exists in the licences we have in Canada. Effectively, this clause prohibits an organisation from getting a licence and not using it for the benefit of Ireland.

If one is considering a licensing a regime, sustainability, habitat protection and maximum economic benefit are important factors. There needs to be a mechanism to address a situation in which an entity receives a licence but does not use it, as harvesters would not be able to harvest and others who might use seaweed for their economic benefit could not access it.

A question was asked about the recommended length of harvesting licences. Based on our experience, I might be so bold as to suggest a relatively short initial licence of three years. One year is too short because of the way in which the plant grows. A period of three years allows for people to show that they are working on ensuring sustainability, habitat protection and a level of capital investment that will benefit Ireland economically. Once people have shown they can do this, longer licences might make sense.

Another of the Deputy's questions was on the compatibility of companies like Arramara Teo, the harvesters and other players in the industry. Given the quantity of available resources, all of the entities that want to and are currently making substantial investments can co-exist, have access to those resources and work with the seaweed harvesters to ensure that all of the harvesters can continue doing so in a way that will work for everyone. In this way, we could develop a substantial and world-leading industry. This assurance is necessary if the industry or anyone with a licence is to make the substantial investments required.

I do not know whether I have hit all of the Deputy's questions.

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What of the geographical issue? Are other companies harvesting in those areas?

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

The Deputy asked about Arramara Teo's licence application and whether we would be capable of modifying that licence to allow other entrants. We can work together in a way that would allow a proper division of territories. It is important to remember that we have applied for 21 specific areas from Belmullet to Ballyvaughan, covering approximately 20% of the coastline in question. There are substantial quantities of seaweed in those areas, but there are many other areas along that stretch that also have seaweed. By sitting down with other organisations, we will be able to work out a scheme under which all parties will be able to develop their respective businesses.

Mr. Sean Ó Mocháin:

There seems to be a suggestion that there would be a difficulty in guaranteeing supply without a commercial licence. Consider the situation the other way around in EU terms. If people are prepared to pay the right price for the product, they will get it. Giving a licence to a processing company is not required. Rather, give licences to the individuals harvesting the seaweed, allow them to sell it to anyone they want and let competition decide who gets it. This is how the EU works and is how this process should work. It is a simple system.

Mr. Máirtín Ó Murchú:

To clarify, we have just heard for the first time that the two Departments asked Arramara Teo to proceed with its licence application. Why did they do that? Did they ask Arramara Teo to apply for the licence while ignoring the situation for the other people involved?

Mr. Seamus Mac Eochaidh:

Cuireadh ceist faoi whether we got advice on the folios. The answer is "No" because we did not sell rights to Acadian Seaplants Limited. Arramara Teo did not and does not have any. D'iarradh orainn soiléiriú a thabhairt faoi cad is brí le "folio rights". Appendix No. 4 of the seaweed forum defines it well. It states: "As the great majority of the foreshore is State owned, permission to exploit the benefits of a natural foreshore resource such as seaweed, is for the State to give or withhold in accordance with the provisions of the Foreshore Acts 1933 - 1998." Those are now the 1933-2002 Acts. It continues:

In certain areas the transfer of title to tenants which occurred on the break-up of large private estates, may have included seaweed harvesting rights. In practical terms the validity of such rights would depend directly on the express provisions of the title documents. It is not considered, however, that the enjoyment of such rights would be extensive and/or would not constitute a major impediment to the harvesting of seaweed in coastal areas.

Mr. John Bhaba Jeaic Ó Conghaile:

We are discussing seaweed, but there would be more than seaweed involved if a company got the licence. People have been harvesting carraigín on the shore for years and trying to make a pound. Some people never cut their seaweed. Instead, they sell it to harvesters. They should have a large say in this matter. It is on their folios. They have maps for their seaweed, for example, between two rocks, a stream, etc. Everyone knows where his or her seaweed is.

If one company gets this, every small farmer or fisherman who does this all his life will not have the right to cut the duileasg or get the carraigín to make a few pounds. I would love to see it left the way it was, and the people that cut the seaweed able to look after the seaweed.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Céad fáilte roimh uilig. Meascfaidh mé mo chuid ráitís idir Bhéarla agus Gaeilge mar gurb í an Ghaeilge is nádúrthaí dom.

Ó thaobh Údarás na Gaeltachta de, deineadh roinnt líomhaintí an-tromchúiseacha ar ball maidir leis an ról a bhí ag an údarás ó thaobh díol Arramara Teoranta. Dúradh nár deineadh fógraíocht poiblí ar an díolachán. Dúradh nár iarr an t-údarás ach ar dhá chomhlucht tairiscint a chur isteach. Dúradh go raibh rud éigin neamhghnách a bhain leis an gcomhlucht as an bhFrainc, ó thaobh cúrsaí eitice de, a bhí go poiblí, go raibh fógraíocht neamheiticiúil déanta ag Acadian Seaplants maidir le comhluchtaí Éireannacha, nár scaoileadh comhluchtaí áirithe isteach sa bpróiséas díolacháin ach go dtí deireadh an phróisis agus go raibh bliain tugtha do Acadian agus don chomhlucht as an bhFrainc iarratas a réiteach ach nár tugadh don chomhlucht Éireannach ach 12 lá le hiarratas a réiteach. Dúradh gur iarradh airgead €2 mhilliún suas chun tosaigh. Má bhítear ag iarradh tairiscint a dhéanamh, caifear teacht chuig an mbord le €2 mhilliún agus ní raibh sé soiléir cé mhéad a chuir na comhluchtaí éagsúla ar an mbord. Dúradh, tar éis dos na chéad iarratais a bheith curtha isteach gur athraigh Údarás na Gaeltachta an córas marcála a bhain leis na hiarratais agus dúradh, mar a deirtear i mBéarla, that the lack of transparency was frightening.

Ba mhaith liomsa deis a thabhairt don údarás freagra a thabhairt air sin. Tá sé fíor-thromchúiseach mar líomhain. An bhfuil bunús ar bith leis? An bhfuil sé fíor? An mbeadh an t-údarás sásta na cáipéisí a bhain leis an bpróiseas tairisceana a chur os comhair an choiste seo? Tuigim go mb'fhéidir go raibh roinnt dintiúir a bhí faoi rún agus a bhain le cúrsaí iomaíochta, ach ó thaobh an phróisis scórála agus marcála, an próiseas a lean an t-údarás agus na céimeanna a thóg sé, an mbeifear sásta níos mó eolais cruinn a chur ar fáil don choiste le gur féidir freagra cuimsitheach a thabhairt ar na líomhaintí sin? Tá sé fíor-thábhachtach go ndéanfaí a leithéid.

B'fhéidir go bhfuil an t-údarás in ann soiléiriú a thabhairt ar céard go díreach atá díolta aige. Tuigtear dom gur leis an údarás go fóill na foirgintí i gCill Chiaráin. Dá bhrí sin, céard a cheannaigh Acadian? Cén seasamh atá ag an mbarántas atá sínithe ag Acadian le hÚdarás na Gaeltachta ó thaobh na soláthraithe eile muna bhfuil aon bhaint ag an údarás leis an gcomhlucht níos mó? Cén brú atá an t-údarás in ann a chur ar Acadian le haon rud a sholáthar do na comhluchtaí eile a bhí os ár gcomhair níos luaithe? Nach bhfuil Acadian in ann siúl ón tuiscint sin mar nach bhfuil aon smacht ar an údarás ar Acadian níos mó?

Ó thaobh ceadúnais de, an bhfuil an t-údarás mar eagraíocht ag smaoineamh ar iarratas a dhéanamh ar cheadúnas bainte feamainne do na ceantair éagsúla? De réir mar a thuigim, tá sé de chumhacht ag an údarás, mar eagraíocht Stáit, iarratas a dhéanamh, da mba mhian leis, ar an Roinn Comhshaoil, Pobail agus Rialtais Aitiúil. An bhfuil aon machnamh nó aon phlé déanta ag an údarás leis an Roinn faoi sin? Dá mbeadh comharchumann áitiúil san iarthar ag smaoineamh ar iarratas a dhéanamh ó thaobh baint feamainne de, an mbeadh an t-údarás sásta tacaíocht a thabhairt do smaoineamh den chineál sin? Mar shampla, dá mbeadh na leads atá anseo ag bunú chomharchumann, an mbeadh ról ag an údarás i dtacaíocht a thabhairt? Dá mbeadh, cén tacaíocht a mbeadh sé sásta a thabhairt?

Cad iad na coinníolacha a bhí leis an gconradh a bhí ag an údarás le Acadian ó thaobh díol na comhluchta? Tá sé ráite go raibh barántas do na comhluchtaí eile. An bhfuil aon coinníolacha eile curtha leis an díolachán atá déanta ag an údarás?

Cén brabús glan a bhí ag an údarás as an díolachán seo? An bhfuil sé mar chuid den socrú atá déanta le Acadian go bhfuil an t-údarás ag cur deontaisí ar fáil ó thaobh forbairt ar ionaid i gCill Chiaráin nó in áiteanna eile, nó deontaisí fostaíochta nó eile? An bhfuil aon socrú déanta ar an gcaoi sin? Glacaim leis go mb'fhéidir nach n-inseofar dom cé mhéad a fuair an t-údarás ar an gcomhlucht ach an bhfuiltear in ann insint dom céard é an difríocht idir an méid atá an t-údarás ag fáil ó Acadian agus an méid a fhaightear má íoctar tada ar ais leo? An bhfuil aon brabús glan ag an údarás as seo?

I will just focus on Acadian, agus déanfaidh mé sin i mBéarla ó thaobh ómóis de. I welcome Acadian. As somebody who lives within three miles of Arramara Teoranta and whose family and friends have worked there for a very long time, I welcome any development in Arramara and I do not have any issue with the private company purchasing Arramara. I have said publicly that in my view the rights to harvest should be held by the harvesters and that there should be some mechanism whereby the private companies and all the players in the field should be able to negotiate with the harvesters, almost like a fair trade scenario. I have made that view clear from day one.

From what I have heard today there seems to be a sense that the witnesses are like the big bad wolf, that they belong to a very big multinational company coming in to squeeze the other players out of the market and that we should not expect anything else. We are told initially that the company will play ball with everybody but, bit by bit, the players will be squeezed and pushed out of the market, one way or another. The witnesses deserve an opportunity to counter that argument but that is the argument being put forward.

In a scenario where a co-operative or another entity were to be set up to represent the harvesters and it were to apply for a licence and be successful, would the company be willing to interact with it and to negotiate with it in collective bargaining? That is what they are considering.

We have heard that Garth Brooks has pulled out of five concerts in Croke Park because he did not get the licence he was looking for. Will Acadian Seaplants pull out of Cill Chiaráin if it does not get the licence it is looking for? This is a very serious question, believe it or not. Is it conditional on the licence being granted or will the company pull out if the licence is not made available?

Why has the company bothered buying Arramara because it is my understanding that it did not buy the actual facility, rather it just bought the shares in the company. Would it not have made more sense for the company to set up a different plant without any of the hassle with the history of Arramara and start afresh to tackle the competition in that way? What is the logic behind buying Arramara? I have asked údarás and I ask the witnesses what deal was done. What is the net profit for údarás from the deal?

Over the past year or two have there been negotiations on the licensing issue between the company or any of its agents with any Ministers? Has the company had negotiations with Ministers or talked to them about the regime in Canada and suggested it would be a good idea to have that type of regime here in Ireland? Mr. Deveau mentioned that a lack of regulation, if it is allowed to continue, would lead to the industry shutting down. I find that hard to take because the industry has not shut down in the past 73 years nor has it been regulated. I do not buy that argument, quite frankly. I would like to see a situation where Acadian can do well, can bring development to the whole industry, all along the west coast, but I also want to see the other players in the industry being given fair play. I have said from day one that my primary interest is that the right of the seaweed cutters and the individuals in the industry to cut seaweed in the traditional way must be the number one priority for us as legislators, and I will fight to ensure that happens. If it needs a process of negotiation whereby all the players sit down together and that needs to be done, I am happy to play any part I can in that process.

Mr. Steve Ó Cualáin:

Ba mhaith liom aird a thabhairt ar na cupla ceist deiridh a d'ardaigh an Seanadóir ansin, agus labhróidh mo chomhghleacai ar na mionsonraí. Ó thaobh go ndéanfadh an t-údarás iarratas ar cheadúnas bainte feamainne muid féin, ní rud é sin atáimid in ann a dhéanamh leis na hacmhainní agus leis an saineolas atá againn. Nuair a ghlac muid an comhlucht Arramara anonn i 2006, bhí sé lag go leor, agus is é an chéad rud a bhí le déanamh againn ná an comhlucht a thabhairt ar ais chun foirfeachta le go mbeadh muid in ann buntáiste a bhaint as. Is dóigh gurb é an rud ba éasca a dhéanamh ag an am ná gan tada a dhéanamh, ach mheas muid, i straitéis an údaráis ag an am agus muid ag breathnú ar acmhainní nádúrtha an cheantair, go bhféadfaimid buntáiste níos fearr a bhaint as na hacmhainní nádúrtha a bhí thart orainn agus gurb shin an bealach ab fhearr le forbairt a dhéanamh i gceantar iargúlta, áit a raibh fostaíocht gann, mar a dúradh. Sin an bunús a bhí taobh thiar den iarracht atá ar siúl againn ó shin i leith, ó 2006, go dtí gur díoladh an comhlucht.

Chuaigh muid i mbun phróisis trédhearcach a bhí infheicthe ag Ranna eile stáit chomh maith linn féin. Bhí sé cothrom agus cóir. Rinne muid gach rud a d'fhéadfadh muid i gceart. Thóg muid tréimhse an-fhada chun é a dhéanamh, mar atá a fhios ag an gcoiste. Thosaigh sé seo i 2010 agus chuaigh sé ar aghaidh ansin go dtí gur ceannaíodh an comhlucht i 2013. Fiú amháin, bhí tréimhse fada idirbheartaíochta againn leis an gcomhlucht a cheannaigh na scarannaí sa gcomhlucht. Sin an méid a dhíol muid, na scarannaí. Níor dhíol muid na sócmhainní. Is ar an mbunús sin a chuaigh muid ar aghaidh.

Maidir leis na ceisteanna sonracha a chuir an Seanadóir ar chuir muid iseach ar cheadúnas, níor smaoinigh muid air sin a dhéanamh mar níl na hacmhainní nó an saineolas sin againn. Sin an fáth ar lorg muid páirtnéar straitéiseach sa ghnó seo a bhéadh in ann an tionscal seo a thabhairt ar aghaidh go dtí céim eile. Maidir le comharchumann áitiúil a theacht chun cinn, tá píosa fada caite againn ag plé le comharchumainn ar fud na Gaeltachta. Tá suas le 30 comharchumann nó comhluchtaí pobalbhunaithe a bhfuil muid ag plé leo ó lá go lá. Déanaimid é sin i gcónai. Maidir le hiarratais, labhróimid le haon duine. Is é an bunús atá taobh thiar dá bhfuil ar siúl againn ná go bhfaighimis an buntáiste is fearr as an acmhainn luachmhar aiceanta seo do phobal na Gaeltachta. Sin é an fáth a bhfuil muid ag dul. Tá mé sásta labhairt le duine ar bith faoi sin.

Ó thaobh bunú chomharchumann sa lá atá inniu ann, tá sé deacair againn deileáil leis na 30 nó mar sin comhlucht pobalbhunaithe atá againn agus iad a choinneáil beo. Tá siad faoi bhrú seasta ó thaobh ghearradh siar ó thaobh acmhainní. Is é an bealach a bhfuilimid ag dul ná go gcaithfimid comhchúlú a dhéanamh ar an méid atáimid ag plé leo faoi láthair in áit méadú. Ach, mar a dúirt mé, ní iompóimid ó aon iarratas ó mhuintir na Gaeltachta i leith na feamainne nó eile amach anseo.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Maidir leis an bpáipéarachas a bhain leis sin agus leis an bpróiseas, sílim go mbeadh sé tábhachtach é a chur ar an taifead más féidir cead a fháil é sin a dhéanamh.

Mr. Séamus Mac Eochaidh:

Fuair muid cead ón Aire Stáit a bhfuil cúram na Gaeltachta air, a bhí i gcomhairle leis an Aire Caitheachtais Phoiblí agus Athchóirithe. Is féidir liom a dheimhniú don choiste nár tugadh an cead sin go dtí go raibh Oifig an Ard Aighne sásta gur chomhlíon muidne chuile rud a bhí le comhlíonadh againn faoi réir an chóid cleachtais do chomhluchtaí Stát urraithe. Sa chaoi sin, de réir an chóid cleachtais do chomhluchtaí Stát urraithe níl gá le fógraí poiblí chun maoin a dhíol. É sin ráite, d'fhostaigh muid comhairleoir chun an próiseas sin a bhainistiú dúinn faoi treoracha a bhí an-soléir agus trédhearcach. Tugadh deis do naoi gcomhlucht cur isteach ar an bpróiseas, agus ní dhá chomhlucht. As an rud sin tháinig na comhairleoirí eile le dhá chomhlucht. Tuigim gur dúradh níos túisce go raibh comhlucht amháin nach bhfuair deis ach ag an nóiméad deireannach. Is féidir liom é sin a mhíniú. Nuair a thosaigh muid ar an bpróiseas i 2010, bhí an comhlucht sin, BioAtlantis, an-bheag, cé gur sár-chomhlucht é, agus bhí an t-Uasal Ó Súilleabhán anseo níos túisce. Creid nó ná creid, bhí sé chomh beag sin nár cheap na comhairleoirí gur fiú é a bheith ar an liosta mar nach raibh sé ag ceannach ach méid an-íseal ó Arramara. Sin an fáth gur fágadh ar lár é. Nuair a tháinig na comhairleoirí chugainn agus péire comhlucht á mholadh acu, rinne an t-Uasal Ó Súilleabhán teagmháil liomsa agus tugadh deis dó cur isteach ar an bpróiseas ag an bpointe sin. Is cinnte nach bhfuair an comhlucht bliain chun an tairiscint a ullmhú, ach ní bhfuair na comhluchtaí eile bliain chun é a dhéanamh ach oiread. Thóg an próiseas iomlán bliain ach ní hionann sin agus a rá go raibh bliain iomlán ag éinne chun a tairiscint a ullmhú. Is féidir an próiseas a roinnt agus é a thaispeáint. Bhí coicís nó trí seachtain aige chun an bid a chur le chéile.

Maidir le €2 mhilliún a bheith ar an mbord sular féidir le comhlucht tairiscint a dhéanamh-----

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Níl mé ag iarraidh na tairiscintí féin a fheiceáil ach díreach an próiseas a sholéiriú. Tá sé tábhachtach go déantar sin.

Mr. Séamus Mac Eochaidh:

Tá mé ag ceapadh go bhfuil sé sin tugtha againn cheana féin i bhfreagra ar cheisteanna Dála, an córas marcála agus uile ina measc.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Más féidir an t-eolas sin a bhailiú le chéile

Mr. Séamus Mac Eochaidh:

Ní fheictear dom go bhfuil aon fhadhb maidir leis sin. Má tá rud ar bith nach féidir a fhoilsiú is féidir redacting a dhéanamh, ach tríd is tríd táimid sásta an próiseas sin a fhoilsiú. Próiseas trédhearcach a bhí ann.

Ó thaobh €2 mhilliún a bheith ar an mbord sular féidir tairiscint a dhéanamh, níl sé sin fíor. I gcomhráití leis an gcomhlucht sin luaigh mise figiúr a bheadh muid ag súil leis mar thairiscint ach ní hionann sin is a rá gur gá é a bheith ar an mbord. Nuair atá aon rud á dhíol, agus ceannathóir agus díoltóir ann, caitear figiúirí anonn agus anall ach ní raibh aon cheist gur coinníol a bhí ann.

Mar atá ráite cheana ag an bpríomhfheidhmeannach, níor dhíol muid ach na scarannaí. Is leis an t-údarás na foirgintí go fóill. Dhíol muid foirgneamh amháin mar chuid den phróiseas de bharr go raibh an foirgneamh sin ag titim as a chéile agus nach raibh muid sásta aon airgead a chaitheamh air mar thiarna talún. Sin an sean-stór thuas ar barr. Is linne na foirgintí eile agus is é Údarás na Gaeltachta an tiarna talún orthu. Dhíol muid na scarannaí. Dhíol muid, mar a dúirt Mr. Deveau ag an am, the pots and pans of the business, chomh maith leis an traidisiún a bhí imeasc na mbainteoirí a bheith sásta feamainn a chur ar fáil don chóras. Sin an méid a cheannaigh siad.

Cén fáth nár thosaigh siad comhlucht nua? Sin ceist dóibh siúd. Tá muidne thar a bheith sásta nach ndearna siad sin. B'fhéidir nach mbeadh an áis ag an Stát. Níl mé chun an praghas a lua. Tá clás rúndachta sa chomhaontú. D'fhiafraigh an Seanadóir an bhfuil coinníolacha eile ann. Thóg sé sé mhí na páipéir dlí a chur le chéile. Tá 80 leathanach sa share sale agreement. Tá go leor coinníolacha ann. An príomh coinníol ná seo. Muna chomhlíonann Acadian Seaplants Limited an méid atá sa chonradh, is féidir leo suas le 40% den chomhlucht a chailliúint. Is féidir le hÚdarás na Gaeltachta dul ar thóir 40% den chomhlucht muna chomhlíontar na coinníolacha uilig. Ní fhéadfaidh mé níos mó ná sin a rá, ach amháin go bhfuil an clásal sin ann. Tá go leor coinníolacha ann, go mór mór a bhaineann le hinfheistíocht agus soláthrú dos na custaméirí Éireannacha. Sin an príomh rud a bhí ag déanamh buartha don Aire. Theastaigh sé a chinntiú go mbeadh an infheistíocht déanta, go mbeadh soláthar ar fáil dos na custaiméirí Éireannacha. Ní fhéadfaidh mé níos mó a rá ach----

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An bhféadfadh an tUasal ÓhEochaidh aon treoir breise a thabhairt dúinn? Níl mé ag lorg na bhfigiúirí ach, abair, an méid atá an t-údarás ag fáil ó Acadian agus an méid atá sé ag íoc ar ais. Go bunúsach, tá scéalta ag dul thart go bhfuil an t-údarás ag fáil airgid i lámh amháin agus ag tabhairt ar ais leis an lámh eile.

Mr. Séamus Mac Eochaidh:

Is féidir liom a dheimhniú go bhfuil an t-údarás ag fáil i bhfad níos mó ná mar a bhéadh le tabhairt ar ais. Is féidir liom a dheimhniú, agus tá seo freagraithe cheana sa Dáil, gur cheadaigh bord an údaráis pacáiste tacaíochta do Arramara Teoranta, mar a cheadaítear le haon chomhlucht, i leith infheistíocht atá le déanamh ag Arramara Teoranta. Ceadaíodh an pacáiste tacaíochta sin i gcomhréir leis na rialacha maidir le comhluchtaí Stáit. Tá an céatadán níos lú ná 10%. Mar sin, 10% agus 90% na céatadáin atá i gceist.

Maidir leis an gcóras marcála, bhí comhlucht ag tabhairt amach faoi seo ar maidin. Bhain an comhlucht céanna leas as an Acht um Saoráil Faisnéise agus cuireadh an t-eolas sin ar fad ar fáil don gcomhlucht sin. Déanann seo a threisiú cé chomh trédhearcach is atá an próiseas.

Is seirbhísigh poiblí muidne. Níl aon rud againn ach leas an Stáit an t-am ar fad.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

The first question was on why Arramara Teoranta was bought as opposed to taking a different approach. In Canada, we have two operations that are very similar to that of Arramara. We saw it as a fantastic opportunity to be able to transfer the technologies we have developed in Canada with respect to processing, resource management and the application of products to Ireland, and to use Ireland as a base from which to start. By way of example, over recent weeks we sent Irish harvesters, hauliers and management to Canada and brought Canadian resource scientists, managers and engineers here in the first stages of this transfer of technology. Last week, as I mentioned, we announced our initial investment of €2 million in Arramara. This is really our first step. The investments here will be in research and development, marketing, quality improvements and capital expansion.

This relates to the next item. I apologise to the Deputy for not having responded to the question on the closing of Arramara. The Deputy asked whether we would walk away if we did not get a licence. There is no question that we regard these investments as very long-term. We have a track record in Canada in this regard. We believe tremendously in the potential of Ireland. Irrespective of whether we receive a licence, we believe we will be treated fairly here and in a proper manner if we show we can make the right investments, work with the other players in the industries here and do what is required to build an industry. We certainly believe the initial investments can be justified without a licence but, with a licence, we believe we can do a lot more in the future.

I would like to address the issue of co-operatives. Certainly, there have been many areas in which co-operatives have been quite successful. Let me outline the challenge I envisage in a co-operative-type environment. Mr. O'Sullivan spoke about the challenges associated with the Chinese fracking industry. At times there can be blips in demand for raw materials. It would not be unusual for the Chinese to be able, all of a sudden, to offer a higher price to the harvesters at co-operative level and take it all. Obviously there are those here who feel that is an appropriate way of operating. I refer to harvesters getting the harvest price. The challenge here is that if all of a sudden the Chinese took all the harvest, it would be very detrimental to the Irish industry, which is creating value-added products. In other words, the other companies and ourselves would not have the security of supply for the longer term.

In determining the common good, it is best to have a strong and vibrant industry that has access to supply. We should not be looking at ways of allowing for a short-term opportunistic form of behaviour, be it at harvester level, industry level or any other. We want good, long-term investments. The challenge is arriving at a trade-off such that everybody wins, thereby allowing the harvesters and industry to do well and Ireland to be at the level it should be at in leading the world with this tremendous resource.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously, the licensing regime has been in place in Canada for quite a while. Was there any contact between Mr. Deveau's company and any members of the Government on the licensing regime here?

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

In 2007, I met a Mr. Quinlan from the Department responsible for the marine to discuss licensing, the regulatory framework and the process by which one could apply for a licence. He explained the rules and laws of the land.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was there no other contact between agents of Mr. Deveau's company and the Government on the changing of the licensing regime? It is very strange that, although we have had a Foreshore Act since 1933, it is now being policed all of a sudden. It is valid to ask why it is happening now. People are asking whether it is related to the transfer of Arramara.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

We met a woman also but I cannot remember her surname. She was from the Department responsible for the environment.

Mr. Tony Barrett:

I find it almost amusing that a Canadian company is talking about the Chinese coming to take Irish seaweed. I wish to add to what Mr. John Bhaba Jeaic Ó Conghaile said on the risk of setting precedents in regard to a blanket licence for a single commercial entity. The precedent could be such that other resources, such as other seaweed species, would be sought in the future.

I noticed that both ascophyllum and fucus were mentioned in the opening statement of Arramara. From my experience as CEO of Arramara, we never processed fucus. We were quite adamant in stating to seaweed harvesters that we did not want fucus; we wanted ascophyllum only. It is a little odd, therefore, that fucus is now mentioned in the processing portfolio.

I wish to refer to the report of the Joint Sub-Committee on Fisheries published in January 2014, Promoting Sustainable Rural Coastal and Island Communities. The timeline for some of the actions is quite interesting. On 1 March, the press release from Údarás na Gaeltachta states that at its board meeting on that day, it was agreed to sell the Údarás na Gaeltachta shares in Arramara to Acadian Seaplants Limited. This agreement will be subject to the Minister's approval and legal conditions. Údarás na Gaeltachta members were advising the members of the joint sub-committee on 30 April 2013, just two months after the press release on the selling of the company to Acadian. The recommendation from Údarás na Gaeltachta was that the principal objective was to obtain licensed regulation of supply of the seaweed industry. The report was published in January 2014 and, two months later, Arramara made the application for the blanket licence for the region from north Mayo to north Clare. I find the timeline very interesting.

Mr. Dónall Mac Giolla Bhríde:

Is dócha go bhfuil sé de bhuntáiste agam féin go bhfuil mé bainte leis seo ó bhí 2006 ann, nuair a fuair an t-údarás úinéireacht ar Arramara i dtosach, mar bhí mé ag obair in Arramara ag an am. Ceann de na chéad rudaí a raibh mé páirteach ann, i mo ról san údarás, ná freastal ar chruinniú i mBaile Átha Cliath le Roinn na mara in éineacht le cathaoirleach agus le bainisteoir Arramara. Bhí cás á chur i láthair ag an mbainisteoir go mba gá iarratas a dhéanamh le go mbéadh ceadúnas bainte feamainne ag Arramara. Mar a dúirt an t-Uasal Deveau, bhí mé in éineacht leis ag an am, i 2007, nuair a chuaigh muid chuig Roinn na mara arís chun labhairt faoin ábhar chéanna. Ba léir dom go raibh gá le bainistiú ar an acmhainn feamainne. Sa bhliain 2012 bhí Arramara ag déanamh thar cionn sa méid is go raibh an t-acmhainn inmharthana faoina stiúir ach ba léir, don todhchaí agus chun forbairt a dhéanamh ar an tionscail, go raibh gá breathnú ar aghaidh agus forbairt a dhéanamh ar bhainistiú na hacmhainne feamainne.

Thosaigh muid amach ag plé le saineolaithe in Ollscoil na hÉireann, Gaillimh, ag obair ar suirbhé ar an staid ina raibh an acmhainn, agus ag féachaint ar feabhas a chur ar bhainistiú na hacmhainne le cinntiú gur féidir leis an tionscal dul ar aghaidh. Is as sin i dtús 2012 a d'eascair an próiseas a chríochnaigh muid suas i mí Márta na bliana seo, nuair a cuireadh iarratas chuig an an Roinn Comhshaoil, Pobail agus Rialtais Áitiúil ag lorg ceadúnas le haghaidh feamainn a bhaint.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An raibh ról ag an tUasal Mac Giolla Bhríde ó thaobh an údaráis sa bhliain 2006?

Mr. Dónall Mac Giolla Bhríde:

Sa bhliain 2006, bhí mé i mo ról san údarás. Ag an am, bhí mé in éineacht le bainisteoir Arramara a bhí ag cur cás láidir i láthair go raibh gá ann ceadúnais a bheith ar fáil. Is léir go bhfuil athrú aigne tagtha ar roinnt daoine ó shin. Bhí mé leis an údarás ón bhliain 2006 go dtí gur chríochnaigh mé suas in Arramara ag tús na bliana 2012. Ba léir agus mé ag dul isteach in Arramara gur gá breathnú go géar ar cheist an ceadúnais.

Mr. Máirtín Ó Murchú:

What quality of seaweed, or what kind of seaweed, is needed for fracking? Does it need to be of a certain quality? Does it have to he high in alginic acid? What does seaweed need for fracking? Will any old seaweed that comes ashore do? What kind of seaweed qualifies for fracking? It has been suggested that the Chinese might come in and harvest seaweed for fracking. Maybe any old seaweed would do them. What quality of seaweed is needed for fracking? It is just a question. I do not know the answer.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

That is a very technical question. It should really be addressed to the fracking industry. It revolves around the specific attributes of alginate that work in the fracking industry. It is something we are not familiar with. We are familiar with ascophyllum, which is not as desirable as other seaweeds for this particular industry. Following the shutdown of the brown seaweed industry in Chile as a result of over-harvesting, which I mentioned earlier, the Chinese were looking for alternative sources around the world and were exploring heavily here in Ireland in order to obtain raw material for the fracking industry.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fíor-fáilte roimh na finnéithe go léir. Ceapaim go bhfuil sé seo mar cheann de na díospóireachtaí is tábhachtaí sa seomra seo riamh. I want to speak about the aquaculture industry. We have 220 million acres of sea land, or sea water. We have 20 million acres of land. We spend an awful lot of time speaking about land and not enough time speaking about water and the aquaculture industry. I think today is very important.

Given that I live in Dublin, those present might be asking what I know about the sea. I am from Connemara. My father, Packie Sweeney, was one of the purchasers of seaweed going back years. He bought ribbon weed, blackweed, laminaria and carrageen from Mayo to Galway to Clare. There used to be a seaweed factory in Ballyconneely, where I come from, but it is now closed. When we were children, many people were employed packing carrageen. Some of them were employed by my father. Now things have changed and we have to move on. We need to have sustainable development. Every fisherman and every purchaser knows it will not last forever.

Fishermen and harvesters are intelligent people. The sea and the seabeds would not be in the condition they are in today if they had not harvested properly over the years. I will explain what I mean by harvested properly. Fishermen and harvesters know by instinct and by education how to move on from one place to another. For example, they know how many inches to cut before moving on. Self-preservation was good regulation, but we cannot have that now. We need regulations to ensure we have sustainable development. We have groups like Arramara and Acadian Seaplants at the moment. Other groups that know nothing about the sea might come in and take over.

As my party's environment spokesperson in the Seanad, I am very aligned to the preservation of the land and the preservation of the sea. My culture is also very dear to me. We have to ensure people who have been harvesting all their lives are looked after. There are turbary rights and they are with the Queen's estate and the court's estate in the North. I think we are in the EU. The turbary rights come. I have to research it further. I am not my party's spokesperson on this area.

The question of folio rights that we have been speaking about today needs to be followed up. It is known and it is a statutory fact in the North of Ireland that there are inheritance rights with estates. It is written down in law. We are always talking about how thing are done differently in the North, but this is an example of something that needs to be examined further here in order that we can see what we have to do.

I do not think regulation should be led by vested interests. The communities, the industry and the scientists should work together to ensure best practices for the licences and regulations that are laid down. One cannot do one without the other, however. One cannot leave out the communities, the scientists or the industry. They all play together. We have to ensure it is included in our gross national product.

I get worried when I hear about blanket licences that will almost extend from the north to the south. They might extend from Mayo to Kerry. We all know what monopolies do to society, for example, in the grocery industry. We could have the same thing in this case. I am not saying that is the aim or objective of any company. It is something we have to flag and prevent. If one company has a licence from Mayo to Kerry, where will the monopoly stop or start? We are talking about monopolies in oil, groceries and everything else. We have to talk about monopolies when it comes to harvesting and sea rights.

We have to develop regulations for best practice. We saw what happened when this country had developer-led building. We allowed vested interests to dictate what was happening. We might not have had best practice there. We could not have had it. We could go down the same road if we allow this to be led by vested interests, developers or monopolies. I think everyone around the table will agree that we have to focus on how best to protect and manage our sea, which is a valuable resource. The people who have been harvesting all their lives do not want this industry to go, no more than anyone else wants it to go. If it goes, they will not have a living. Self-preservation is the best way to proceed.

How are we going to operate in this sector? That is the question. There are two schools of thought. I have not heard the answers yet. I suppose that is what this committee is about. We need to flesh it out. We have listened to all sides here today. I am sorry I could not have been here for the entire meeting, but I was upstairs in the Seanad earlier. I heard a great deal of what was said. As the Minister said, we are all looking for the same result. We need to focus on how we can get that result. It is important to ensure it is all-inclusive. Nobody should be left outside the door looking in. We can see when that happens.

I would like to speak about the question of access rights, which has not been mentioned here today. Access rights to the sea go with estates. Reference has been made to the possibility that the Chinese will come in. I have heard nothing about that. A company from Canada is coming in. Theoretically, various companies will need access. Mechanical harvesting cannot be permitted because it would devastate the whole thing straight away. We have manual harvesting, which is facilitated by access from certain points. One can get in by many means. If a farmer has rights down to the sea shore, will he have to apply for an access permit if he needs to cross over from A to B past a person who has an inherited right? I have not heard anyone asking this question. I would like it to be answered.

How does one get over it? I refer to applying for a licence. The planning process is open. Information is available on the web. One can apply or one can object. Anybody can put in an observation and an appeal can be made to An Bord Pleanála. Will there be anything like that to ensure everybody has open access to apply for a licence? There are many questions which I would like answered. I know the witnesses will not be able to answer them all today. However, I think our culture is important also. We cannot railroad over it just because we want to ensure one body has a licence from Mayo to Kerry. We all want to ensure Arramara Teoranta which has been taken over continues with the good work because employment is badly needed in the west of Ireland. We want to ensure we get people in who will employ people. I started off by saying my father employed people in what one would call the big bad wolf of the old days and, as I said, there was a factory there. Carrageen was packed and sent off in lorries. I think there was another buyer in Galway at the time.

This is important but so too is culture. I know of the medicinal properties of seaweed. Anybody can go down to the sea and pick a bit. I presume that right will always be there and a licence will not be needed. This is one of the most important debates in this country and it applies mostly to the west of Ireland because it goes from the west coast to Rockall. The east coast is not as long. It is not just a west coast asset but it is an Irish asset. It is a huge asset.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure we have anyone to answer the questions. Basically, the points the Senator is making are about monopolies, access and applications.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sustainable development.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator's questions are very important and they may be for other witnesses but we will open up the debate and somebody might like to comment.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

One comment I would like to make, and certainly want to go on the record, is that I do not believe in monopolies. I do not think that is an appropriate way to operate. I certainly believe there is enough of a sustainable annual harvest to allow for a very vibrant industry in Ireland.

I would like to refer to a comment made earlier that licences should be restricted to 25% of the resource. People should consider that if this resource is not being utilised and there is industry that wants to invest, that industry should have the opportunity to do so because one wants to maximise the benefits of these investments to Ireland. The limit of 25% on any particular licence could be an impediment to the growth of economic benefits in Ireland. That is something I would like to put on the table.

Mr. Sean Ó Mocháin:

We talked about the Chinese buying up loads of land for fracking. Chile was also mentioned. If one has co-operatives of harvesters who can negotiate contracts with suppliers and processors, that solves that problem. It will not necessarily occur. It is very important that these things are done in a way that is sustainable but that protects the local communities. The local communities will protect the asset.

The Senator said it is a valuable asset. It is not a valuable asset; it is an invaluable asset. In terms of losing this one like we lost our fish, when I was a young fellow, I could get mackerel, pollack, etc., on the shore for my dinner but one cannot do that anymore because the Spaniards have come in. The EU has come in and taken everything from us and we let it happen. We must not let that happen to our seaweed. The only way to protect it is to keep it in the hands of the local people who will protect it and control it because it is in their vested interest and that of their families that it continues to be there.

There is another problem, which Mr. Deveau mentioned, namely, a hypothetical 100,000 tonnes. What happens when one reaches that 100,000 tonnes because there is huge demand and huge growth? The 25% was mentioned. If, at the end of the day, it gets to a stage where it is at the ceiling and it cannot get enough, will it still supply its competitors in the same way it did before when there was plenty? Will it cut its own throat? If the control is with the suppliers, the harvesters, they will sell to the people who will pay them. It is then up to the free market. If one pays the money, one gets the stuff but if one does not, one does not and somebody else gets it. However, it is there and it is available. Mr. Deveau is quite correct. He said he was against monopolies. Then we should not give the monopoly of a licence.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would anyone else like to speak? An bhfuil an Seanadóir Keane sásta leis na bhfreagraí?

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not be sásta until I see what the result will be, who will get licences for what and what regulations will be laid down for licences. We have a lot of work to do.

Dr. Raul Ugarte:

I am the research scientist for Acadian Seaplants. Several important comments were made. The reason we asked for a large portion of the resource is that we believe the seaweed is not only the raw material for the industry. In Canada, we take a precautionary approach. Seaweed is also a habitat and it is very important. It is not only a raw material to be used in the in the industry. Dozens of different species benefit from that habitat and some of the species are commercially important. They feed on the resource or they hide in the resource for protection. Therefore, we need an area that is relatively large so, in Canada we apply a very low exploitation rate to maintain the habitat.

In Canada, it is very difficult to detect where the habitat is. Therefore, we go to the same area year after year - three, five or seven years. We harvest in the same location because we apply a very low exploitation rate to preserve not only the resource but the habitat which is so important for other fisheries. This is the kind of management that will eventually apply.

I do not think there is anything wrong because the resource has been preserved for generations but my experience of 30 years in seaweed management tells me that every time competition arrives in a country, over-exploitation occurs. That happened in Chile, Peru and even in Canada. There is no mechanical harvesting in Canada anymore. Everything is done by hand. We maximise employment and we guarantee the resource is maintained for the resource itself and for other species.

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

Tá díomá orm leis an údarás gur láimhseáladh an cheist seo mar a láimhseáleadh í Ba mhaith liom a fháil amach ón údarás cad é an chéad uair ar thuig sé go raibh ceadúnas ag teastáil le feamainn a bhaint. Má thuig sé é sin, cén fáth nár tháinig an cheist seo chun cinn i bhfad roimhe seo? Caithfimid cuimhniú go bhfuil an t-údarás ann ar mhaithe le pobal na Gaeltachta agus lucht labhartha na Gaeilge sa nGaeltacht. Tá an ceart ag Jim Keogh nuair a deireann sé nuair a bhí mise mar mar Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta, gur aistrigh muid na scaireanna ó Roinn na mara go dtí an Roinn Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta, agus gur aistríodh ar aghaidh ansin iad go dtí an t-údarás.

An fáth a bhí agam le sin ná nár chreid mé go raibh aon fhorbairt á dhéanamh ag na Rannaí Stáit ar an gcomhlacht, go mór mhór i Roinn na mara. Chreid mé gur comhlacht nach raibh ag forbairt a bhí ann agus nach raibh an pobal ag fáil an rath as an gcomhlacht a bhféadfaí a fháil. Bhí mé tar éis a fheiceáil thuas i nDúiche Sheoigheach, le muileann adhmad ECC Teoranta, nuair a bhí infheistíocht déanta, go bhféadfaí fostaíocht a chruthú agus jabanna a chur ar fáil. Aontaím, mar sin, leis an mbunphrionsabal go mba ceart infheisteoir a thabhairt isteach, infheisteoir le saineolas a bheadh sásta infheistíocht a dhéanamh i dteicneolaíocht agus an obair a dhéanamh. Níl fadhb agam leis an gcuid sin den phlean, mar ní dóigh liom dá bhfanfadh sé i lámha Rannaí Stáit go ndéanfaí an obair sin. Chonaic muid arís i nDúiche Sheoigheach, leis an muileann admhad a bhí ag Coillte Teoranta, gur dhún sé - le 11 duine fostaithe. Tá ECC Teoranta ann anois agus tá 100 duine fostaithe sa mhuileann agus 100 nó níos mó fostaithe timpeall ar an mhuileann.

Is dóigh liom go bhfuil formhór na ndaoine anseo, go mór mhór na daoine atá ionadaíoch do Chonamara, i bhfábhar forbartha a dhéanamh ar an tionscal seo. Ní dóigh go bhfuil fadhb ar bith ag an bhformhór leis an gcoincheap seo. Ach nuair a deintear forbairt, caithfear a dhéanamh amach cé dhó atá an fhorbairt le bheith déanta agus cé a bhainfidh an buntáiste as. Caithfidh an té atá ag déanamh infheistíochta buntáiste a dhéanamh as. Ach, sa gcás áirithe seo, tá dualgas reachtúil ar an údarás a dhéanamh cinnte gur é pobal na Gaeltachta a gheobhaidh tairbhe as freisin.

Is anseo an áit nach dtuigim an cur chuige a bhí ag Arramara Teoranta nuair ba leis an údarás é. Tuigim go teicniúil gur é Arramara a chur isteach ar an gceadúnas, ach de réir mar a thuigim roimh an dáta ar dhíol sé an comhlacht. Ag an am sin, bhí úinéireacht iomlán ag an údarás ar an gcomhlacht agus, mar sin, bhí an bord freagrach don údarás as na mór cinntí a rinne sé. Mar sin, ní thuigim cén fáth gur láimhseáileadh é ar an mbealach a láimseáileadh é.

Ar an gcéad dul síos, ní raibh an comhlacht oscailte leis an bpobal. Ní thuigim cén fáth nach ndeachaigh an t-údarás amach chuig an bpobal le mhíniú do chuile duine go raibh ceadúnais ag teastáil le feamainn a bhaint. Cén fáth nár pléadh an cheist seo go hoscailte le chuile duine agus na hionadaithe poiblí ina measc? Cén fáth nár míníodh nach raibh an dlí á chomhlíonadh ag éinne agus go gcaithfidís é a dhéanamh ar an gcaoi ceart amach anseo, mar muna ndéanann muid é seo i gceart agus muna mbeidh ceadúnais ann, tiocfaidh an Eoraip agus cuirfidh sé ina luí orainn go gcaithfimid smacht a choinneáil ar seo ar mhaithe leis an gcomhshaol.

Céard a tharla? Chuir Arramara iarratas isteach le haghaidh ceadúnas agus fios aige go raibh an monarcha le díol. Ansin fuair an pobal amach go raibh ceadúnas iarrtha. Céard é an t-imní atá ar dhaoine faoi seo? Tá dhá cheist mór anseo agus tá dhá ghrúpa ann. Tá dream gur mb'fhéidir gur leo cuid den fheamainn agus tá an dream a bhíodh ag baint na feamainne. Shíl an dream a bhíodh ag baint go mba leo í, ach is léir anois i go leor cásanna nárbh leo í. Maidir leis an dream ar leo í, tá sampla de folio anseo agam a deireann there is an appurtenant to the property, a right of cutting, gathering and removing seaweed on and from the shore, the foreshore of such and such islands, coloured brown on the registry map and on or from the foreshore of [name of a place in Connemara] coloured yellow and marked 10A on the Land Registry map.

Ceist a haon ná nach mbeadh sé ciallmhar, sula dtosaíonn muid ag plé na ceiste seo agus sula dtosaíonn daoine ag cur isteach iarratais ar cheadúnais, fiosrú a dhéanamh den údarás chlárúchán talúna cé mhéid den chladach cheana féin gur le daoine aonaránach é agus go bhuil an t-eolas sin ina gcuid folios? Ceann de na rudaí ar cheart teacht as an gcruinniú seo inniu ná go bhfiafrófaí d'údarás éigin, sula dtabharfar amach aon cheadúnas breise, céard is leis an bpobal, céard is leis an Stát agus céard is le daoine aonaránach. Feictear dom go bhfuil se an aisteach ag an Stát a bheith ag braith ar cheadúnais a thabhairt amach agus gan fios ag éinne go deimhneach cé is leis céard.

Maidir leis an dara cheist, ba mhaith liom míniú a fháil ó Arramara, ba leis an t-údarás é sular díoladh é, cén fáth nár chuir lucht bainte na feamainne isteach ainmnithe ar an gceadúnas? Cén fáth nach raibh comh-iarratas déanta ar an gceadúnas idir an monarcha agus iad? Má chreid Arramara go mba ceart don mhonarcha an ceadúnas a bheith aige, cén fáth nach comh-iarratas a bhí ann le lucht bainte na feamainne luaite agus ainmnithe air?

I believe we should not be where we are. I believe this issue should have been resolved before Acadian Seaplants Limited came in. I am not aware of when the údarás and Arramara became aware that there was a legal requirement to have a licence to harvest seaweed. When I submitted parliamentary questions on this issue, I found people had been looking for licences for some time back. It seems strange to me that people did not realise licences were required. Licences were issued as far back as 1966 and it is amazing that all those people who applied since then knew licences were required, but the main processor did not. That is the question. I am disappointed also that there was not open consultation by the factory and that a joint application was not made. Another issue concerns the number of issues affecting Acadian Seaplants Limited, possibly unwittingly on its part.

The fear is simple and real. People from the Gaeltacht have been harvesting seaweed for years. This is one of the industries that has been dominated by Irish speakers from the Gaeltacht. If, in two or three years time, it is decided they are looking for too much money to cut the seaweed, what is to stop Acadian Seaplants Limited from, as has happened all around these islands, importing cheaper labour and displacing the people we can protect now, by not giving out the licence of the State, in their right to continue to harvest that seaweed? It is quite simple. Verbal promises do not count. Possession is nine tenths of the law. Unfortunately for the harvesters, they did not realise they needed a licence. What I want is what we wanted when we transferred the factory to the údarás, which was a democratically elected authority of the people elected to protect their interests, that this industry be grown for the Irish speakers in the Gaeltacht. That is what the mandate is.

There has been a lot of beating about the bush here. There is an interesting dilemma in regard to the people with a legal ownership right. The State should find out quickly who owns what. Having decided on that and on what is owned by the State, I will be unhappy if a licence is issued that does not legally protect the local interest in terms of harvesting. I would be a lot happier if there were some legal protection. That could easily have been done by making a joint application and listing all the people with an interest in the contract for the three years.

This would have protected the seaweed and ensured there was genuine partnership.

There is another technical issue. When Arramara applied for the licence - I have not seen the application because the public consultation date has not been published yet - it said it was for specific areas and only covers approximately 20% of the foreshore. I accept that, because significant parts of the foreshore would not have any exploitable seaweed. Is Arramara looking for an exclusive right to harvest whatever seaweed is on the sections for which it sought a licence? I understood it was yellow seaweed or feamainn bhuí it was interested in, but much of what has been said here today suggests we cannot have two or three people harvesting the same areas, even if they are harvesting different species.

Is Arramara saying that even though it may only exploit one type of seaweed in a given area, it is opposed to any other licences being issued for other types of seaweed growing in that area, because this would give rise to management issues, as mentioned earlier? I am very interested in hearing the technical explanation for this. If Arramara gets a licence for a particular species, does it expect no other licences will be issued for those patches?

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Ó Cualáin wish to respond on behalf of the Údarás na Gaeltachta?

Mr. Steve Ó Cualáin:

Ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh don mhéid a dúirt an Teachta Ó Cuív agus do rud a dúirt John Bhaba Jeaic Ó Conghaile níos luaithe.

Nuair a rinne mé an chéad ráiteas, dúirt mé go gcreideann muid nár chóir go gcuirfeadh córas rialacháin bac ar mhion-bainteoirí - sin iad na bainteoirí a bhí ag baint go dúchasach dóibh féin. Ba cheart go mbeadh siadsan bainte amach as an gcóras rialacháin. Tá sin ráite againn agus déarfaimid arís é má chuirtear ceist orainn faoin ábhar sin.

Maidir leis an bpróiseas go ginearálta, mar a dúirt mé níos luaithe, fuair muid an comhlacht seo i 2006 agus ag an am sin bhí sé iontach lag, goilliúnach agus i mbaol dúnadh. Theastaigh infheistíocht mór uaidh ag an am. Chuir an t-údarás a bhí ann ag an am infheistíocht mhór ar fáil dó agus rinneadh cuid mhór den infheistíocht sin. Ach, dá bheifí ag díol na monarchan ag an am sin, ní gheofaí tada uirthi. Ní raibh tada ann le díol, ach bhí gréasán de na bainteoirí feamainne ann agus tá siad ann i gcónaí. Is é an gréasán sin an rud atá luachmhar.

An plé ar fad a bhí againn go dáta maidir le forbairt an ghnó seo, rinne muid é ar son leasa mhuintir Chonamara agus muintir na Gaeltachta. Dúirt mé cheana, agus táim á athdhearbhú arís, nach bhfuil aon ról sonrach ná dleathach ag an údarás sa bpróiseas cheadúnais, ach tá an próiseas sin ag dul ar aghaidh anois agus beidh sé ag dul ar aghaidh ar feadh tréimhse. Beidh an próiseas oscailte agus trédhearcach agus beidh deis ag gach duine inchur a bheith aige ann. Ag deireadh an phróisis sin, táimid ag súil go mbeidh socrú déanta maidir leis na ceadúnais agus go mbeidh chuile duine sásta. Táimid ag guí, ag súil agus ag tnúth go mbeidh ról lárnach ag na bainteoirí feamainne agus ag muintir Chonamara sa gcóras sin. Ach is ceist don Stát í sin agus tá an Stát ag dul ag tabhairt aghaidh ar sin anois.

Mr. Seamus Mac Eochaidh:

I do not know if Deputy Ó Cuív was here earlier when I read from the statement issued by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government which states specifically that foreshore licences are not exclusive and contain site-specific conditions with which the licence must comply. I understand this to mean that if a person applies for a licence for ascophyllum nodosum, he may get that licence, but this will not impact on the ability of someone else to get a licence to harvest carrageen or chondrus crispus or whatever. The Department is strict on that.

In all our dealings with the Department - as a development agency we have been dealing with it for a number of years - our job is to attract investment into the sector and help the sector grow. The Department is very much aware of its responsibilities in this regard and has a marine licence setting committee. I know, because two of our clients, one a company in Donegal and the other a start-up company in Connemara, and now also Arramara, have made licence applications, that this is an onerous process. It is not just a simple matter of downloading a form from the Internet and filling in some details. The process is onerous and rigorous, particularly in respect of conforming with the National Parks and Wildlife Service requirements. This committee will probably make recommendations to the Minister and I would like to confirm for it that the existing system is onerous and is designed to protect a State asset.

To return to the question of the folios, the Department is clear on the fact that this discussion relates to State-owned foreshore. People must understand that if it is not State-owned foreshore, the Department does not have any rights to grant or withhold licences.

Ó thaobh chomh-iarratais or joint applications agus mar sin de, fágfaidh mé faoin gcomhlacht féin níos mó a rá faoi sin. On the surface, joint applications seem a nice aspiration, but my understanding of the harvesting community is that some are more active than others. Some 200 or 300 people have harvested for Arramara traditionally and the practicality of including all of these in one licence application would be cumbersome.

There has been significant emphasis on the rights that go with a licence, but there are also huge responsibilities. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is trying to ensure somebody takes responsibility for the sustainable harvesting of this national asset. If we do not ensure it is harvested sustainably, we will be made do it by Brussels. The Department needs to be able to identify people who will be responsible for sustainable harvesting. While not impossible, that is much more difficult to do if the responsibility is spread over 200 or 300 harvesters.

Mr. Dónall Mac Giolla Bhride:

Le cead ón údarás, ba mhaith liom labhairt ó hata iar-fhostaí de chuid an údaráis agus mar bhainisteoir Arramara faoi láthair. Chuir an Teachta Ó Cuív ceist agus cuirfidh mé an cheist chéanna. Cén uair ar thug an t-údarás faoi deara go raibh ceadúnas ag teastáil? Fuair an t-údarás úinéireacht ar Arramara ar 16 Deireadh Fómhair 2006. Tháinig sé ó Roinn na Mara, ag a raibh tromlán na scaireanna, agus trí lámha an Teachta Ó Cuív, a bhí mar Aire ag an am.

An fáth go bhfuil mé ag dul siar go dtí 2006 ná, mar a dúirt mé níos luaithe inniu, bhí cruinniú againn le Roinn na mara i 2006 inar ardaigh muid ceist bhainistíóchta Arramara. Bhí mise mar ionadaí ar son an údaráis, an scair shealbhóir ag an am. D'ardaigh muid ceist faoi cheadúnais le haghaidh baint feamainne agus chuaigh muid chuig Roinn na mara chun an cheist seo a phlé. Cuireadh in iúl dúinn ag an am, le bheith 100% fírinneach faoi, nach raibh aon pholaiteoir sa tír a bheadh ag iarraidh dul in aice leis an gceist seo ag an am. Go deimhin, ní raibh aon státsheirbhíseach ag iarraidh díriú air ach an oiread, mar gheall go raibh muid istigh ag am go raibh cainteanna faoi cheadúnais iascaigh agus seo siúd agus araile le ceist maidir le cearta bainte feamainne. Go bunúsach, is é an rud a dúradh linn ag an am: "Téigí ar ais, coinnigí oraibh ag déanamh an ruda atá sibh ag déanamh agus chomh fada agus nach bhfuil aon trioblóid ar an imeall thrá, an foreshore, ní bheidh aon cheist faoi."

Más féidir teacht ar aghaidh uaidh sin go dtí an lá inniu agus muid inár suí anseo, tá a fhios againn go bhfuil dearcadh áirithe maidir le baint feamainne agus leis an dhá saghas ceadúnais. Tá bainteoirí feamainne ag fáil litreacha ag rá go bhfuiltear ag briseadh an dlí trí bheith ag baint feamainne. Dúinn mar chomhlacht, bhí an cheist maidir le gá le ceadúnas i gcloigeann Arramara. Bhí ceist faoi na rialacha chomh fada siar le 2006 agus tá duine eile sa seomra seo atá in ann é sin a dheimhniú. Nuair a chuaigh mise isteach in Arramara, ag tús 2012 mar bhainisteoir, thuig mé an gá le seo a dhéanamh, agus sin an fáth gur thug muid faoin bpróiseas.

Dúirt an Teachta Ó Cuív go bhfuair an pobal amach go bhfuil an t-iarratas istigh ag Arramara.

Is é an fáth gur fuair an pobal amach go raibh iarratas istigh ag Arramara ná gur chuaigh muid amach i measc an phobail. Bhí cruinnithe poiblí againn leis na bainteoirí feamainne, rud nach raibh déanta ag aon iarratasóir eile ar cheadúnas. Is é an fáth gur fuair an pobal amach faoi iarratas Arramara ná gur dúirt mé leis an bpobal a raibh baint againn leo - na daoine atá ag baint fheamainne dúinn leis na blianta - é. Sheol mise amach os cionn 300 litir chuig bainteoirí feamainne. Chas mé leo ag sé chruinniú: i Leitir Móir, i gCill Chiaráin, ar an gClochán, i gCinn Mhara agus bhí péire i Maigh Eo freisin. Chlúdaigh mé gach ceantar le cinntiú gur thuig na bainteoirí feamainne go raibh muid ag déanamh iarratas ionas go mbeidís, mar bhainteoirí feamainne de chuid Arramara, in ann coinneáil leo ag baint fheamainne faoi cheadúnas Arramara. Ba é sin an teachtaireacht a thug muid do bhainteoirí feamainne Arramara i mí Márta na bliana seo, ag an am gur chuir muid isteach an t-iarratas. Tá iarratais eile istigh ar cheadúnais. Ní heol dom gur ndearna aon dream eile an rud céanna is a rinne muid. Chuaigh muid amach chuig na bainteoirí feamainne agus dúirt muid "táimid ag déanamh iarratas ar bhur son". Is é sin an teachtaireacht atá mé ag iarraidh a thabhairt.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

I would like to respond to two specific questions asked by Deputy Ó Cuív. He asked about the seaweed species in the application submitted by Arramara. The application relates specifically to the ascophyllum nodosumand fucus species, which grow in the intertidal zone and are often interspersed. If ascophyllumwas the only species covered by the application, it would be next to impossible to ensure nothing other than ascophyllum would be harvested. There is always a by-catch associated with such harvesting. The Arramara application does not cover any other species of seaweed, such as laminaria, palmariaor chondrus crispus. They would have to be dealt with by means of other applications or through some other future approach.
The Deputy also asked about foreign workers. As I mentioned in my opening comments, we operate five processing facilities in very rural parts of Canada that are not dissimilar to the Connemara area. We have worked very closely with the local communities in those environments to ensure the seaweed is harvested by people from those specific communities. That system has worked extremely well. I will give an example of what I mean when I talk about "local communities". In Leitir Móir, we work with people from Leitir Móir. In other localised areas, we work with people from those areas. By working closely with local people as we have done in the Canadian examples I have mentioned, we have developed some very successful partnerships. People have been able to depend on this work for their livelihoods.
Some people prefer not to have to go to Dublin for work - not that there is anything wrong with Dublin - but they are not sure whether they can depend on work being available. People in rural communities need opportunities so they can depend on having an ongoing ability to get employment. We believe that if a proper licensed environment is in place in this sector, people will want to stay in their local areas and take up this kind of work on an ongoing basis. That is something very powerful, in our opinion. It puts the harvesting and processing communities in a position to be able to create value added products in a rural environment.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An bhfuil an Teachta Ó Cuív sásta? An féidir linn dul ar aghaidh?

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

The European Union is very different from Canada. We face many challenges, by virtue of the very nature of the EU, that would not apply in Canada.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

Is the Deputy talking about mobility of labour?

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

Yes. Canada does not have the same variations in wealth as the EU. In Canada, basic wages and things would be much more level from east to west. That does not apply in the EU. I am not against people being able to move and get jobs. I addressed my remarks to Údarás na Gaeltachta, which has a particular legal requirement to promote the Irish language. It has a statutory duty. I am not blaming Acadian Seaplants for anything. As a commercial company, it is in the business of making money. Údarás na Gaeltachta, as a statutory agency, has a different role. That is where the key difference lies. There are many people working in our industries from all over the place. That is fair enough. Responsibility for this area has to be given to the údarás if it is to fulfil its mandate in law.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A vote has been called in the Dáil Chamber. I will allow Deputy Mulherin to make a quick comment. We will bring closure to this discussion in a moment.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Much of the ground has been covered over and again. I welcome the investment that has been made in Arramara. It has been indicated that €2 million is being invested as a start. Ireland pitches itself as a small, open economy. It is good to see that this approach is working in the global village. We are competing internationally. Obviously, Acadian Seaplants is coming here because of seaweed. Not every place in the world has seaweed. We have that in our favour. It is the job of the State, the Government and the different Departments to get this right. The delegates have explained very well how they deal fairly with people. The State agencies and the Government are responsible for putting in place the proper regulatory framework. If one of these companies was taken over in the morning and we were dealing with different personalities, the Government would have to ensure on the licensing and the competition sides that the people are protected.
Licensing is a complex area. I would be reluctant to go down the line advocated by Deputy Ó Cuív by saying that we should proceed exclusively on the basis of people's folios and that only such people have rights. People have long-standing rights that need to be protected and respected. These rights equate to people's livelihoods. I would urge some caution in this regard. When we started to formalise and regulate the operation of quarries in Ireland a few years ago, our efforts did not protect the legitimate quarry people per se. Anybody who had dug a hole in the ground - the extent of the digging they did could have been done by me - was entitled to claim it was a quarry. The challenge we face is to get this right. I know that is why we are having this debate.
It is exciting to hear what the representatives of companies that rely on seaweed have to say. There is no doubt that they have a real passion for the industry. They want a bite of the apple as well. The way to go is to accommodate people and provide for the right system. We should not create a monopoly, even if that is done inadvertently through State agencies, etc. I appreciate that Acadian Seaplants is intent on ensuring a monopoly does not develop. The public good, which is referred to in the licensing document and encompasses environmental and cultural factors and the will of the people, is tempered by other things like competition law and the need to get the licence right.
I wish to make a final point. An tUasal Mac Eochaidh said that Acadian Seaplants was chosen because it is in a position to invest and grow. We have been told it is investing approximately €2 million. What are the plans? Can the witnesses paint a picture for us? How can this country hope to benefit from all of their expertise and experience? This country's many harvesters want to work with the company and get a proper return. How can that be facilitated? Will the efforts that are being made to avoid the development of a monopoly assist people like Mr. O'Sullivan, who is concerned about whether he will get more seaweed if he wants it? Údarás na Gaeltachta has said it will give priority to certain people, but how far will it go in that respect? Where is the cut-off point? Will it impede people's ability to grow their businesses? If that is a reality, we need it on the table. How will the company deal with people like Mr. Quinn, who have not had dealings with Arramara and are afraid that their harvesters will be taken and they will be unable to get seaweed? I will conclude because we have to vote.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will allow Deputy Pringle to make a brief comment as he has been waiting for a long time.

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

Is the meeting being suspended or adjourned?

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Pringle may ask a question.

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

I will be brief as this has been a lengthy meeting. It appears that Acadian Seaplants would like to transplant to Ireland a model that works for the company in Canada without recognising that the system in place here is working. The seaweed forum has described it as a working and sustainable system. As such, it is not necessary to impose on the harvesters who have been employed in this area for many years the model that Acadian Seaplants would like to operate here.

Arramara Teoranta has been operating for 67 years. Perhaps the representatives of Údarás na Gaeltachta or former managers of Arramara Teoranta will indicate the number of times in the company's 67 years of operation that supply has run out, seaweed has been harvested in an unsustainable manner or production has been shut down. This would give members an indication of the magnitude of the problem that the new licensing regime is intended to remedy.

On the licences, we learned that Acadian Seaplants is applying for a licence to harvest 75% of available seaweed resources. This would give rise to what would, to all intents and purposes, be a monopoly. Clearly, the monopoly in place in Canada works well for the company given that it is seeking to secure control of the seaweed resource here.

We heard that it is necessary to guarantee supply to a commercial entity. How would harvesters be guaranteed an income under the proposed licensing regime? If they are unhappy with the regime implemented by Acadian Seaplants, where can they sell their products given that the licence will cover the entire west coast?

We heard that past performance is a good indicator of future performance. The joint committee received a submission from another company that included a product service information brochure from Acadian Seaplants, which described Irish seaweed products as inferior to its products. Is this an ethical approach to advertising? Is it appropriate to attack products from another country? Does this indicate how business will be done when the company operates here? If past performance is an indicator of future behaviour, what can the harvesters expect from their dealings with the company?

I apologise to the representatives of Údarás na Gaeltachta as my Gaeilge is not good enough to ask questions as Gaeilge. I will, therefore, stick to Béarla. When Údarás na Gaeltachta gave evidence to the sub-committee an agreement had already been reached to sell Arramara Teoranta to Acadian Seaplants. Should Údarás na Gaeltachta not have informed the sub-committee at the time that it had sold its interest in Arramara Teoranta? Does Údarás na Gaeltachta see its role as being a development agency for Gaeltacht areas? Having exited seaweed production, does it have a role in seaweed harvesting?

We heard from Údarás na Gaeltachta that it was looking for a strategic partner to come on board. Rather than entering a strategic partnership, it chose to sell Arramara Teoranta. How did the relationship with Acadian Seaplants evolve? Is there a partnership in place between Údarás na Gaeltachta and the company? We also heard that if Acadian Seaplants does not live up to the agreement in respect of existing suppliers, Údarás na Gaeltachta will have a right to take back up to 40% of the shares? Is it not the case that Údarás na Gaeltachta will have a right to acquire 40% of the shares and does acquisition not entail purchasing rather than taking back the shares? Perhaps the representatives of Acadian Seaplants will indicate whether there is an agreement in place whereby Údarás na Gaeltachta is entitled to take back 40% of the company if certain conditions are not met?

Mr. Máirtín Ó Murchú:

The Department with responsibility for the marine used to take a nod and wink approach and would not say a word about licences because the issue was too sensitive and could create uproar. This approach was considered acceptable for years, as we have just been told. We were informed that Arramara Teoranta would apply for a licence for the cutters to safeguard them from any new legislation that might be introduced and they would not have any problem continuing to harvest as usual. This is not the way the licence has worked out, however. If it was the case that the licence was applied for to save the cutters and those working on the shore line, we would not be afraid. It seems, however, that the licence was issued in a certain manner and when various people were informed, some of them were not very happy. The process is similar to the scenario set out by Deputy Ó Cuív in that we were to have a joint application between the cutters, owners and so forth as this would protect us from an extensive licence that would come from Dublin, Brussels or elsewhere. If this had been done and we had been consulted, we might not be in the current position. The current approach is creating more fog on the line, which is the reason we want to protect what we do. The solution is simple. We want investment by Acadian Seaplants and development but we also want to protect those who are most vulnerable because it is the most vulnerable who will be kicked out if anything goes wrong. The money that was referred to does not compute with me, but maybe I am too simple to understand.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not believe Mr. Ó Murchú is simple.

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

Mr. Ó Murchú has got to the nub of the issue. I was shocked by a comment made by Mr. Mac Giolla Bhríde. He was told by civil servants not to comply with the law, which has been in place since 1973. It appears offered him this advice because they did not want him to disabuse people of the simple belief that they owned the seaweed. The people who knew the position did not tell the harvesters, which allowed everyone to live in cloud cuckoo land, believing that the harvester owned the material he was selling to the factory. After years of being led to believe this was the case, we have learned that Arramara Teoranta and the Department were conniving to keep people in the dark about the real position. People suddenly woke up to find that not only do they not own the seaweed but that a company is to be awarded the harvesting licence and will be able to bring in anybody it wishes to harvest the material the harvesters believed they had owned for years. While that may not be the legal position, it is the human position. I am being told in a committee of Oireachtas Éireann that this approach was perpetrated by senior civil servants who told Mr. Mac Giolla Bhríde not to apply the law. We know it is not legally acceptable for anyone to tell anyone else not to apply the law.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will deal specifically with the-----

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

This is the nub of the issue.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In fairness to Deputies Mulherin and Pringle, we must get answers to their questions.

Mr. Steve Ó Cualáin:

To respond to Deputy Pringle, the sale of Údarás na Gaeltachta shares in Arramara Teoranta was approved by the board on 1 March 2013, subject to ministerial approval, which was not granted until 29 July 2013. The sale did not proceed until 7 May 2014.

Údarás na Gaeltachta sought a strategic partner. Our role was to seek a strategic partner because, as I indicated, the company could not be sold in 2006 at any market value.

Our subsequent actions, involving engineers and work within the plant getting some streamlining done on the production, meant the company was worth money when it was subsequently sold and the State and údaras got a contribution. It was sold at market value.

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

It is not a strategic partner so this was a straight sale.

Mr. Séamus Mac Eochaidh:

The strategic partnership element arises from the fact that on 7 May, 100% of the shares belonging to údaras transferred to Acadian Seaplants for the consideration agreed. To ensure the conditions of sale with regard to investment were completed to our satisfaction, a mechanism was put in place following extensive legal and accounting advice which entitled údaras to claw back up to 40% of the company should the conditions not be made. It would not be to acquire them, as Deputy Pringle postulated. It would be a clawback at no cost to the údaras but at a loss to the new owners of Arramara Teoranta. From our perspective we are happy that fulfils what we tried to set out to achieve in the partnership. It will continue to the extent where the conditions are met.

It might be important to put something else on the record with regard to Deputy Pringle's view that if it is not broken, why fix it? We had some discussions with the Department on the licensing issue, which is complicated, and the Department is moving very carefully and slowly with it. It is cognisant of the difficulties. The Minister has prevented people from harvesting. People may think this is a one-way street but in the absence of licensing, harvesters can and have been prevented from working, which is not a satisfactory outcome for anybody.

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

It was indicated that údaras can draw back 40% of the sale price.

Mr. Séamus Mac Eochaidh:

It is the shares.

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

The statutory declaration submitted earlier by another witness states there is an option to acquire 40% of the shares. Is there a difference?

Mr. Séamus Mac Eochaidh:

That would suggest there would have to be consideration but there is no need for consideration. The mechanism is complicated but that is the way it is designed. If by using the word "acquire" somebody is implying we must pay consideration, that is not true. The acquisition would be by way of penalty on Acadian Seaplants.

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

It is a signed statutory declaration and it was probably done as part of the sale. It clearly states "acquired". It was submitted in evidence earlier.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The document should come through the Chair. The Deputy is in close proximity.

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

It was submitted in evidence so the clerk has it anyway.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

I am not sure if I can clarify everything but I can confirm that the agreement we have with the údaras provides for very punitive conditions where it can reacquire 40% of the shares of the company for no cost in the event that we fail to meet the conditions stated here. As an example, we spoke about the €2 million initial investment which is being put in place. If there was a failure in future, it would receive the benefit of 40% of that at no cost. That is very punitive from our perspective.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will you deal with Deputy Mulherin's questions?

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

I apologise but there were a number of questions asked and I did not catch all of them.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

Perhaps the Deputy could recap those briefly.

Michelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The main point is that Mr. Mac Eochaidh stated why the company was chosen. The opinion was that the asset - our seaweed business - could not be increased and it found Mr. Deveau's business, which has good credentials. Mr. Deveau has described the €2 million investment in Arramara Teoranta and explained why he sees the need for the licence. What will that investment mean for jobs, for example? What is the limit at which the company can set a priority to sell to Bioatlantis, for example? How can somebody like Mr. Quinn, who gave evidence earlier, not be concerned that the people from whom he buys seaweed will not be affected by the licensing arrangement? He has never had dealings with Arramara.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

I will deal with that issue as it affects other Irish companies. We have agreed to provide priority to the existing Irish customers of Arramara Teoranta, specifically those about which we spoke today. Those customers will have priority over the other customers of Arramara with respect to the raw material and products which the company manufactures. There are other organisations which have not historically purchased from Arramara and as I indicated earlier, the application made by Arramara does not in any way represent all of the seaweed resource in Ireland or the counties of Mayo, Galway and the northern part of Clare. There are areas for which other entities could apply. At this time, anybody can apply for anything. There were questions and comments earlier about who has the right to apply but everybody has the right to apply, although it is up to the Government to decide, based on the merits of the application, who should be selected. The Government may decide it does not want to hand out any licences and that is a decision the Government will make.

The Deputy asked about our plans and I want to take the time to articulate our vision for Ireland. I indicated earlier what we have been able to create in Canada, where we have been able to build an industry where one did not exist. We have five processing facilities, a research centre with 25 researchers and a sales and marketing department second to none. We have over 250 employees based in Canada doing those things.

The quantity of the seaweed resource that we are looking for is available in Ireland. We believe we can create in Ireland what we have done in Canada and provide value-added jobs in rural communities where they are needed. The wonderful part of this resource is that one needs to invest in the rural parts of Ireland, which creates the economic benefit that is so valuable for the regions in which this industry is located.

Our vision is to repeat what we have done in Canada. We have a wealth of experience in this specific seaweed, which is the exact same seaweed species. Although it took us 25 years to do what we have done in Canada, now we just can transfer the technology and do our share to leapfrog the development of the industry and create an industry that has not existed here in the past.

Mr. Tony Barrett:

Deputy Pringle asked that the former management of Arramara Teoranta clarify the supply of raw material prior to the submission of the application. From my time in Arramara Teoranta between 1999 and 2007, from memory, we had on average 20,000 tons per annum of raw material. My understanding is that Arramara received 25,000 tons last year. I do not see the regulation of supply being an impediment to the actual supply of raw material or the availability of it.
I want to clarify a further issue. It was mentioned earlier that a meeting took place in 2006 between Arramara Teoranta management and the relevant Government agencies and Departments regarding the regulation of supply. That did happen, and as the then CEO of Arramara I was at the meeting. I think everybody in the room agrees that regulation of supply is something that is very much required, and that was seen in advance back in 2006. Nothing came of that meeting and the application is made again this year. I think the meeting did spawn the requirement for a regulation of the industry. I would also like to read a footnote from the Joint Sub-Committee on Fisheries report on promoting sustainable rural coastal and island communities. The source of the information is the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO.

Ascophyllum nodosum, a major North Atlantic seaweed resource, is distributed widely from the Arctic Circle to 40 degrees North Latitude. In eastern Canada 45,000 T of wet Ascophyllum are considered harvestable. The present annual harvest ranges is 5/000 to 9,000 wet tons. Hand harvesting has been largely replaced by mechanical harvesting in the last 15 years.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This has been a very long session. Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau has talked about transplanting the Canadian model to the west. Will he clarify the rights of workers under the Canadian model? For example, are the 250 employees in the plant unionised, or is the company open to unionisation? The nub of the issue is whether the seaweed cutters are employees or self-employed with a contract with the company. Do they have collective bargaining rights? Does the company deal with the seaweed cutters as individuals so that if they do not play ball they can be picked off, or do they have a collective right to come together as a group and negotiate as a group with his company?

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

I will deal with the question on the employees of the company. In Canada, the workers have the right to unionise as they see fit. That is not something we have an opinion on. It is up to the workers to decide whether they want to unionise.

The second question related to seaweed harvesters. The seaweed harvesters are located in many different geographical areas, and every year we have pre-harvest meetings. We invite all the harvesters for one particular area to come and sit down with us and we go over issues such as new safety regulations or issues in respect of the harvest. We give them a form so that they can voice their concerns and have a good two-way dialogue back and forth in that kind of environment. We have five such meetings covering different geographical areas, and that allows everybody to attend those meetings. We do that before the harvest begins so that it does not interfere with the harvest in that particular area.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have had a long session.

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

A number of questions that I asked have not been answered.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All right.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

Deputy Pringle made a comment on the sustainability of the industry up to now. To date the harvest has been carried out in a sustainable manner and the quantities of seaweed that have been harvested allow for sustainability. Up to now the companies that have been purchasing the seaweed have been purchasing it in areas where nobody else is purchasing seaweed. There has been almost a de factosituation in which there is only one commercial entity operating in a geographical area. The challenge we see - and we have seen this before - is competitive activity, where two commercial entities are trying to get a certain quantity of seaweed from the same geographical area. We have started to see that kind of behaviour in Ireland and, because the companies are competitive, they do not tend to share information with each other. When one organisation is expecting some seaweed to be there it is not, and vice versa. That would be the challenge if it turned into a situation in which over-harvesting could occur in the future. Licensing would be able to deal with such issues in a way that would stop that from happening.

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

Has Mr. Deveau seen that competitive behaviour take place?

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

I do not know the specific area. The industry is unregulated at present. There was a patch of seaweed we were discussing and it had been left to sit for three years, but somebody else came in and harvested it after two years.

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

Is Mr. Deveau referring to an incident in Ireland?

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

Yes.

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

Mr. Deveau said he had seen it happen in other places. Did he see it happening in Canada?

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

In Canada we do not have that situation because-----

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

The company has a monopoly.

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

-----we have a licensed environment. Under our licence we are able to sit down with the harvesters.

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

Does Mr. Deveau have competitors in Canada?

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

We have competitors and they have their own specific geographical areas which they manage as they have the licence.

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

Does Mr. Deveau have a monopoly in the area in which his company operates?

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

It is very important not to have competitive harvesting, because the resource is a finite quantity. If there is competitive harvesting the seaweed will be over-harvested and essentially in the future there will not be enough to sustain the industries that have been created.

The Deputy raised two other points. First, he raised the issue of product comparisons by companies in the marketplace. Companies in the marketplace are always looking for points of differentiation of their products versus the competitors. That is a fact of life. If we made a product that was black and our competitor made one that was white, we would say the black product was better and the competitor would say the white product was better.

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

Does he try to tell the marketplace that the white product is black?

Mr. Jean-Paul Deveau:

The point I am making is that companies look for points of comparison and they state that their product is better for particular reasons. That is a reality of competition in the marketplace.

The organisations that are here compete and they compete in a proper way by investing in research and development, by doing proper research and by going out and developing markets.

The penetration rate of these products in the marketplace is very low. The real gains to be made lie in getting people, particularly those involved in agriculture, to use these classes of products which, in turn, will create a larger market for everyone. That industry-cluster type of relationship is a great way to build a larger industry and market, not just in Ireland but also across the world, which would be to our benefit and that of BioAtlantis, Brandon Products Limited and other producers.

If harvesters are unhappy, what can be done to remedy it? We know that not every harvester will be happy. What is important is that the community of harvesters is happy and that they have an industry on which they can depend. If that is happening, it is successful.

I commented on a three year harvesting licence. If, after three years, someone had not followed the necessary regulations, the Government could impose conditions in renewing the licence or not renew it at all. Licences should also have clauses to allow the Minister to take action against harvesters who operate in an undesirable way such as through over-harvesting, including withdrawing their licences altogether.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis na finnéithe. They have helped the committee with its deliberations. The committee will give consideration in private to the evidence it has heard and a report will be issued in due course. In the best traditions of Irish hospitality, there was a special céad míle fáilte to our visitors from abroad. We thank them for participating fully in this session.