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

Apologies have been received from Senator Mary Ann O'Brien. I remind members, witnesses and those in the Visitors Gallery to turn off their mobile telephones. We are meeting to discuss the national strategic plan for sustainable aquaculture development. I welcome from the Irish Farmers Association, Mr. Richie Flynn, aquaculture executive secretary, aquaculture committee, from The Environmental Pillar, Mr. Michael Ewing, co-ordinator, Ms Karin Dubsky and Mr. Rory Keatinge, from Iascairí Intíre Cois Cladach na hÉireann, Mr. Eamon O'Corcora and Mr. John Connolly, and from the Irish Seal Sanctuary, sea fisheries advisory group, Mr. Brendan Price.

I thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee to discuss issues contained in the draft national strategic plan published by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which seeks to chart a path for developing a sustainable aquaculture industry. The committee was notified of the process and that a draft policy had been published and a consultation process was under way. In order to assist the committee in preparing its submission to the draft plan, we decided to invite in a number of representative organisations. The timeframe was short and that is why the meeting is being held at this hour on a Wednesday evening. Committee room availability is limited and I appreciate that some people have travelled quite a distance to be present this evening.

I advise the witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, 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. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair 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.

As there are four groups, I propose that each group have ten minutes to make an opening statement, after which we will go to questions from members. A Bill is on Report Stage in the Dáil and some votes may be called. I have agreement from the Whip that if a member stays, such as Deputy Martin Ferris or Deputy Pringle, to cancel me out, we can continue the meeting rather than suspend, which would be unfair.

Mr. Richie Flynn:

Anyone looking at the seafood sector will have noted a sudden rush in official reports and consultation processes on aquaculture and seafood in general in recent months and it is safe to say there is some confusion about the role of each document. The information overload is felt by the industry as well. The 300 active producers of oysters, mussels, salmon, clams and trout that we represent, however, only want to hear about a clear plan to deal with the single biggest issue, namely, licensing. The total failure by successive governments to simply do their job has been hurting development, corroding confidence, ruining markets and stifling investment. All the industry asks is that the Irish State provides a clear, modern and transparent working licence system.

We have the operational programme for seafood and FoodWise 2025, which was launched last week and which had a lot to say about seafood. Over the next few days, the harnessing our ocean wealth plan will be launched in Cork. The matter before the committee is the national strategic plan for aquaculture, a bit of bed time reading. To put it simply, the NSP is a technical requirement from Brussels in which every Government in the EU sets out how they will spend a portion of what they get in European maritime and fisheries fund, EMFF, funding, as well as what those national Governments can put up to match that. For states like Spain, France, the UK, Denmark and Ireland, where the marine industry is important, this has gained a lot of attention and we are all operating at different speeds. The rules are set down and agreed in law and anyone who has been following the progress of the EMFF through Brussels will know that the rules have passed through the Commission, the Parliament and the Council. We have had a fair go at them, from the point of view of colleagues sitting around the table, and using the federations in Europe, to get to the new review. The Common Fisheries Policy review was overshadowed by the review of the Common Agricultural Policy review as the two were happening at the same time. We are dealing with the funding application of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, review as our farmer colleagues have done with respect to their review.

The European Commission attached a high priority to aquaculture development in the new programme to offset imports of seafood into the EU and to address a greater demand for seafood while wild fisheries were static. There is a lot in the CFP about wild fisheries and aquaculture is just a portion of it.

The national strategic plan, NSP, is a virtual shopping list of potential investment headings, some of which are in the form of grant aid directly to farmers who must convince shareholders or lending institutions to assist them with at least 60% of the overall project cost. If they want to build a new shed, boat or put out trestles, they have to put up 60% of the cash. Up to 40% could be available in grant aid for capital costs if they fulfil a range of criteria first. It is not a hand-out. The NSP also contains schemes to fund State agencies on training, research and development and measures to alleviate hardship caused by long natural biotoxin closures for shellfish producers. We have seen such occurrences in the south west, particularly over the past 12 months. If the NSP comes into shape in its current form, the Minister will have funds available to look after people in such circumstances.

However, the entire NSP is purely waste paper, just like its predecessor the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF, in which we handed back much funds. There were virtually no grants awarded for investment to my members or Irish small and medium-sized enterprises in the last fund. Investment in the industry came to a standstill. The fund was recycled into other areas while Irish fish and shellfish farmers watched as competitors in other EU member states accessed it. The reason for this was the same Department which could not deliver licences insisted that a licence was a pre-requisite to getting a grant.

The joint committee has had several submissions from IFA aquaculture and others over the years and has been supportive of a common sense approach to solving this problem. In the face of systematic inertia, however, it appears that even a cross-party committee cannot get the right people to roll up their sleeves and tackle an administrative issue. The committee is once again showing leadership in preparing a submission on the NSP. The IFA urges the committee to be focused and not distracted by irrelevancies.

We speak for the companies and individuals who have put their families’ futures on the line, who have re-mortgaged their houses and put their kids through college on the back of aquaculture. We speak for the people who want to hand over their farms to the next generation to farm the sites they set up in the 1980s and who want to be able to set out new development plans. We speak for the entrepreneurs who want to stay in their communities instead of making hard decisions in the face of yet another demoralising and frustrating six years of kicking the can down the road. It is time to have clear deadlines and achievable targets. It is time to change the emphasis in all these reports to focus on profitability rather than production targets. It is time to give our sales people and marketers something to work with and allow us the scale and continuity of production which customers want. Confidence will only come into this industry with clear deadlines in the NSP. The committee must remember two points, namely, clearing the licensing backlog in six months and setting a time limit of 30 weeks, or 150 days, from receipt of application to determination. These are simple, achievable and yet incredibly valuable targets for 2,000 people and 300 businesses around the coast.

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

I thank Mr. Richie Flynn. I call on Ms Karin Dubsky of The Environmental Pillar to make her opening statement.

Ms Karin Dubsky:

I am pleased to be seated beside the IFA witness and agree with much of what has been said. Section 13 of the Fisheries Act needs to be commenced to enable us to clear the backlog of licences. The Environmental Pillar is happy to have this NSP. However, it has come too late. It should have been introduced for public discussion four years ago. It should have been delivered to Brussels 14 months ago, which was the deadline. To give it to us now with no public consultation means there is time pressure and little real change is likely to be made to it.

However, we will never give up. The Environmental Pillar has an alternative vision. Ireland has more, and a better, diversity of marine resources than any other EU member state, particularly those in the coastal zone. We have the luxury to say that we will have a different and top quality of aquaculture, building on our diverse shellfish, crustacean and fish species. We still have more native oysters per area than any other country. Germany is now giving €6.5 million in its EMFF allocation to get its native oyster stocks back up and running. The German authorities have prospected in Ireland to do this. However, there is not even a word about the value of our native oyster in the NSP. The NSP makes it out that native oysters come from aquaculture but they do not. They are a combination of wild harvest and aquaculture. The data are not adequate to separate the two. There are many unknowns in the NSP’s data. How many of the jobs figures are part-time and full-time?

Our vision calls for building aquaculture slowly, using the huge number of local people, like our colleagues here from Galway, who still have knowledge of the marine environment. I have just been to France where I examined areas where climate change has meant lands have become inundated. They are using this land to make shallow basins and lagoons for aquaculture, so that marginal farmers will be able to diversify into aquaculture. Such potential is not explored in this plan.

This plan concentrates on significant tonnages from salmon and gigas oysters.

We do not necessarily need gigas oysters. I know they grow faster, but they carry a lot of diseases which our native oysters get. If we put the emphasis into showing how valuable our lobsters are, instead of exporting 97% of them, our jobs would be in creating that wealth. In Boston, where my intern comes from, there are a huge number of jobs in the lobster industry. I would like to see that kind of vision but is it now too late? Are we stuck with this or can the committee make recommendations for a review of this report so that it can be amended? Or can we cast it aside and have a genuine discussion as was had in Northern Ireland? We were invited there to participate and see what the different scenarios and options were.

Aarhus convention compliance on land is pretty okay now. I think we are at the European average. When it comes to the marine environment, however, it is woeful. We share that frustration with the industry because we cannot get information or public participation. That is because access to justice in An Bord Pleanála is questionable. For example, the cumulative effects of many farms are not taken into account. Unless one is very rich one cannot go to the High Court. We have a history of adversarial argument, but we need to work together with all the different parties, including research and tourism. They must all mutually support each other so that we get a top, world class aquaculture.

I will now pass over to my colleague Mr. Rory Keatinge.

Mr. Rory Keatinge:

I wish to make four main points about fin fish and how they were dealt with in the reports. There is very little information in the documentation before us on the impact of fish farms on wild salmon stocks. For example, there is a lot of information in chapter three of the SEA on the impact of disease on farm fish, but not on wild stocks in the vicinity.

I know there is some disagreement among scientists at present, particularly with regard to the impact of sea lice on farms and wild salmon stocks. While we do not agree on these issues, the legally binding precautionary principle will often apply until we can agree on these matters.

Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, has called on salmon migratory routes to be factored into the SEA. It does not appear anywhere else and is certainly not mentioned in the plan. To this effect, NGOs will be proposing that a 25-km buffer zone from salmon bays and estuaries be enforced for the location of farms before any other factors are considered.

The second point concerns current laws. Current laws are by protocol and, as such, are extremely difficult to enforce. We have enclosed in the document as an appendix our current situation with two marine harvest farms where over-stocking is occurring and criticisms are being ignored. Protocols are often seen as soft law. We would like statutory instruments and statutory regulations on aquaculture, so that the couple of bad operators are brought to justice, held to account for what they do, and the rest of us do not get dragged along with it. This is a system by which the rest of us live, including the terrestrial farming community, and it should be the same for the aquaculture industry.

Third, there is concern among the communities - as we have seen in this country - about the impact of aquaculture on the natural environment. That is why so many people protest in Galway Bay. Many NGO groups are also concerned with various aquaculture issues but they do not seem to be involved in the strategic assessment process or the plan itself. Public participation is a key component, yet it seems to be lacking. Some of these groups have requested an audience with this committee and, unfortunately, have been refused. Many of them have far more relevant things to say that I do and are much more qualified to do so. There may be contrasting views from what they have to say, but their views need to be heard.

Fourth, closed containment aquaculture is now considered to be the most sustainable and what a lot of the world considers to be the future of fin fish. It is becoming more popular worldwide. It is acknowledged in the report that a good percentage of future development will consist of this closed containment aquaculture. We do not get much detail in the report, however, as to how, when or where this might happen, or an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of that system. There is an indication of €1 million funding in seven years, which does not seem like a lot for the future of this industry.

Mr. Michael Ewing:

We had great hopes for this plan but we are very disappointed with it. It is not sustainable, despite the name. The moves in it are basically designed to support major industries, but not small people working on inshore areas or coastal communities. It is a big missed opportunity and we ask the committee to take that into consideration.

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

On a point of information, Inland Fisheries Ireland are coming before the committee next Tuesday.

Mr. Michael Ewing:

Good.

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

I now call Mr. Ó Corcora. We meet again.

Mr. Éamon Ó Corcora:

A Chathaoirligh agus baill an choiste,I thank the committee for the invitation. It was late in the day when I received it, as I was out at sea, but we will do our best anyway. The inshore fishermen's point of view is seldom listened to, unfortunately, but we have had hearings with the committee before now. We were satisfied that, at least, we were shown some respect.

To get back to our presentation, we would be totally opposed to this new strategy that seems to be the Government's strategy of industrialisation of large fin fish farms. We do not agree with it and feel it is damaging to the environment. There are several examples of this.

From our own research on fin fish farms, the problem concerns cages at sea versus land. We are totally opposed to cages at sea and would like to see closed contained fish farms onshore which have no problems with lice or pesticides. Recently, I have been looking through a lot of data on fish farms and we are worried that some of the feedstuffs and chemical treatments have an awful effect on wild salmon and wild trout.

For years we have been lobbying politicians to install shellfish hatcheries to save our lobsters and crayfish in particular, as well as shrimp. We seem to be 30 years behind every other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada and Australia. We could go on. We do not have a problem with bivalve aquaculture, involving oysters and mussels, provided it is done in an environmentally friendly fashion.

As we see them, the issues are pollution by cages at sea from fin fish farms, involving salmon and trout; escapees from fish farms, as we had in Bantry Bay during the storms last year; and the use of feed sources for wild stocks. In particular, two countries have been licensed by the EU to take up to 600,000 tonnes of krill and capelin from the cold waters of the North Atlantic. They have been doing that for years while a small number of people who were drift-netting for a few days per year in Ireland were stopped.

They have done far done damage than any Irish fisherman has ever done.

The content of feed pellets that is allowed by the EU is another problem, with some of them containing the likes of chicken and pork. That is completely unacceptable to us, but it is approved in Europe, as one can read online. Another is the use of pesticides and antibiotics, with several reports showing it is a danger to health for people to eat fish treated with those types of substances. Sea lice, too, are a serious problem. In fact, tests done in 2012 showed that on some Irish salmon farms, there were up to 44 lice per salmon. That has a terrible environmental impact. As we see it, it is a case of commercial fishing versus fish farming and there is not enough regard for the welfare of local communities. There are 1,800 small fishing vessels in operation in this country and each one of them is as important in its community as is the small family farm, shop or post office to other communities.

Ours is a dwindling industry and it is in serious trouble. I hope the committee and the Oireachtas will agree, immediately or at least after the election, to put their shoulder to the wheel and do something about this. What we really want for the inshore fleet is a sustainable lobster stock for commercial fishing. We do not want to see lobster farms being set up instead of lobster hatcheries. All of this should be done in conjunction with small-boat fishermen. I have given 36 years of my life to this; my colleague, Mr. Connolly, has given some 50 years. The decline in the industry is happening at an alarming rate and poses a serious risk to many small coastal communities.

We have seen from other countries what can be done. In the UK, for example, there is the National Lobster Hatchery in Cornwall and, in Scotland, the Orkney Lobster Hatchery. The latter has been in operation since 1985, which makes one wonder why Ireland, as an island nation, is so far behind on this. Other facilities in Britain include the Firth of Forth Lobster Hatchery in North Berwick, the hatchery to be constructed at Bridlington, and the Lobster Hatchery of Wales on Anglesey Island. Moving to North America, we find the New England Aquarium Lobster Lab and the Pictou Lobster Hatchery in Nova Scotia. Australia is home to the Redclaw Hatchery and a crayfish hatchery in Queensland. Senegal has a shrimp hatchery. In Ireland, on the other hand, we have overfishing, no regulation, unlicensed operators and a blind eye being turned to all of it. We should not be 30 years behind other countries; we should be 30 years ahead of them. I emphasise, however, that the changes which require to be made must be done in conjunction with coastal communities and the local fishermen who have earned a living from these activities for many years.

We recommend that there be a strategic environmental assessment of closed aquaculture practice, using onshore tanks, which offers better water quality and increased production capacity. Scotland has been looking into this in recent years and there has been an application in this regard from an operator in west Cork. We must have a rejuvenation programme whereby lobsters, crayfish, shrimp and other fish that are under threat would be released into the wild. That is vital if we are to be able to sustain our livelihood and keep our communities alive. A coastal community fund for projects like that is available elsewhere in Europe, but we have never had anything like it here. Unfortunately, coastal communities in this country are ignored, with the perception among those communities being that they just do not matter.

The strategic plan should include provision for onshore fish farms and shellfish hatcheries, which would help to rejuvenate wild stocks, ensure a viable commercial fishing sector and offer an environmental benefit. A study done in Senegal shows that prawn reintroduction can help to fight infection and safeguard a sustainable future for rural coastal communities. There is also tourism potential in hatcheries, as anybody who has visited the National Lobster Hatchery in Cornwall will know. That facility is a real money spinner. In addition, the construction of hatcheries will lead directly to the creation of jobs as well as creating spin-off employment potential.

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

Thank you, Mr. Ó Corcora. I now call Mr. Brendan Price to make his statement.

Mr. Brendan Price:

I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to attend the meeting. The Irish Seal Sanctuary welcomes the committee's input to the development of a national strategic plan for sustainable aquaculture development and is happy to assist it in any way. Unfortunately, the draft plan is somewhat insubstantial and is 14 months too late in the wake of the consultation period for the seafood development programme. As other speakers mentioned, we certainly need to avail of the time left to us to effect changes in the plan or, if necessary, extend that time. The Commission, in making this issue a condition of funding under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, has indicated that the stakeholding must be widened and deepened. The reality, however, is that many stakeholders in Ireland are unacknowledged, including most of those involved in small family enterprises in local coastal communities.

Having said that, the draft strategic plan is very welcome and at least gives us something to get our teeth into. In the context of Food Harvest 2020 and the focus on harnessing our ocean wealth, we have an opportunity to examine what our growing contribution to the EU demands. The strategic environmental impacts, appropriate assessments and the plan itself generically indicate that we have the capacity to meet the types of targets indicated, but they fall far short when it comes to offering any type of specific reassurance. The national strategic plan for aquaculture must be economically, ecologically and socially sustainable, but neither the plans nor the assessments really address the realities for operators. Much of the work on the assessments is either yet to begin or is in progress. With due respect to the authors of the plan, they were dealing with massive information deficits and outdated data. Both the plan itself and the assessments are quite disconnected. There is no breakdown of how the €30 million in funds allocated under the EMFF might actually be matched to projections. On that basis, the plan falls very short, with no attempt or opportunity to measure the projections and deliverables.

There are some amusing minor oversights to be spotted as one goes through the document, such as the statement that our aquaculture programme is located at 40 degrees of longitude to the west, which would put it somewhere off Newfoundland. I assume that is just a typographical error, but it suggests the haste in which the document was put together. There is insufficient acknowledgement of the need for major regulatory change. A new aquaculture regime requires a new, independent and sovereign regulatory system, independent of outside agencies such as the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, the Marine Stewardship Council, endorsements by the World Wildlife Fund, and the old-fashioned patronage of Bord Iascaigh Mhara and others.

A glaring recent example of green washing was the Marine Harvest Ireland incident, which was mentioned by another speaker.

The fishery press wrote that Marine Harvest Ireland obtained global environmental and social sustainability industry standards for Irish salmon farming. This is quite unacceptable and it was over the heads of Irish environmental sector non-governmental organisations, ENGOs. The response of the World Wildlife Fund, WWF, to articles on the subject with its endorsement was that it was for the American market and there was no real need to consult with Irish interests. The Aquaculture Stewardship Council was set up by the WWF and Dutch sustainable interests. It is an outside accreditation body with no input from Irish ENGOs, civil society or wider stakeholders. That presents a real problem because the aquaculture industry is plagued with this backlog of licences and perceived conflicts as they would call it with the Natura sites in many cases.

These problems, as Mr. Flynn indicated earlier need to be addressed urgently. They are two points that we would all take up and agree on. The idea of allowing accreditation continue without stakeholder input is unacceptable and if it is found out how lacking it is that will put at risk the whole Origin Green programme. That jeopardises the beef and dairy sectors and others availing of the programme.

Further incidents include 83,000 salmon escapees from Inver in 2010; pancreas disease and the attempt to prevent its disclosure by the Marine Institute, on commercially sensitive grounds, in 2014; 230,000 escapees, the biggest ever escape in Ireland, from Bantry Bay; a 3.5 km illegal pipeline from the Kilkieran-Carna public water supply to treat amoebic gill disease, AGD; and the programme states, with respect to fish farming, that the offshore fin fish farms and fish farming generally does not require fresh water. It very much does, it requires it on site, on the landward side and for the treatment of AGD. These things need to be factored in. Marine Harvest is not alone. There have been other incidents, such as the Mannin Bay Salmon Company damming the Bunowen river to treat AGD. Can these farms, relying on grant aid, support and proposed compensation, faced with parasites, infection, algal blooms, jellyfish and extreme weather events be considered sustainable? The plan advocates public insurance. Is it fair to expect the public to pay out for unfortunate events, if unfavourable sites are selected and projects approved?

In terms of stakeholding and the European maritime and fisheries fund, EMFF, €30 million goes to aquaculture. Various sums go to the research and management agencies and there are massive conflicts of interest in the management authority for the EMFF. Very often the management is a beneficiary of research money too. There is a conflict of interest between those disbursing the money, those receiving it and those in receipt of contract services or proxy inspectorate positions. That needs to be addressed. The ENGOs and community and civil society are not included as stakeholders in Origin Green or in the break-out of figures to assist with its work. That needs to be addressed because it is not wide.

The proposal to EMFF fund Bord Iascaigh Mhara, and to appoint aquaculture agents, an archaeologist, an ornithologist and a sustainable development expert, makes nonsense of these roles. In the case of agents, BIM officers are there for that purpose; archaeologists should be employed by the OPW; biodiversity experts and ornithologists - and certainly having only one for the extent of farms envisaged - will not do. They should be employed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, which has a vital role. Often when the old licences were granted and the NPWS was unable to be present at the assessments or meetings there was a teleconference about the strategic environmental assessment. In recent years the NPWS has seen 30% staff cuts and 40% budget cuts and it is not in a position to even attend these meetings. It is the statutory, sovereign, independent, competent legal authority for the conservation of our biodiversity, the implementation of the nature protection aspects of the Water Framework and Marine Strategy Framework directives and the Common Fisheries Programme. Most important, what is left out of the plan is the governance and partnership which is alluded to in the assessments and in the plan to include all stakeholders. With these limiting factors the plan is unsustainable. Without the break-out of funds I do not see how it would pass an investor, never mind a bank manager although maybe we do not talk about them.

The strategic environmental assessment, SEA, and appropriate assessment, AA, repeat the aspirations of the national strategic plan for sustainable aquaculture development, NSPA, and analyse them generically but say specifically they cannot assess them in any meaningful way. They are inadequate. This will come down to licence applications, project analysis and compliance with the nature protection directives. These things cannot happen if they are all in the hands of the one authority. BIM cannot be developer, beneficiary, licence holder and inspector. The protocols mentioned earlier need to be given statutory recognition so that there are independent sovereign assessors who will assess and monitor these firms in our interest and the wider interest of the environment.

Ireland should set high standards and not be controlled by one or more major players if its object is to be organic, sustainable and qualify for EMFF support. The organic standard is wide open to challenge and it puts the entire Origin Green programme at risk. Already, the United States and some Asian countries will not recognise the cage farming of fin fish and salmon as organic in any way. Discredited accreditation will destroy this plan before it starts, and I hope the committee is able to use its influence to persuade the Minister to extend the consultation period to embrace wider and deeper stakeholding from civil society and the ENGO sector.

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

I apologise for being late but there was an agricultural event for Holstein friesians in Limerick today and I have just returned from that. We should recognise this is a document published by the Minister. We will make a submission and the Minister will then publish a final document. We are not writing the document. Whatever we do as a committee, the witnesses have to understand that while we could argue that we might not start where we are and might not finish where the Minister intends finishing but we have to try to influence the document if we feel changes need to be made. It is important in today’s discussion that we work within that framework. My guess is he is not going to totally rewrite his own document.

Several big issues have been raised. There seems to be concurrence that the licensing regime needs total reformation. In chapter 8 the document refers to progressively removing the current aquaculture licensing backlog.

Everyone who submits a licence application is entitled, within a fixed timeframe, to have it approved, approved with conditions or declined. I tabled a parliamentary question on behalf of a small fisherman who submitted an application for an oyster fishing licence in 2012. I was informed yesterday that the engineering section of the Department is still dealing with the application and no further information was provided on the timescale for finalising the process. An application to build a 50-storey office block must be processed within eight weeks. The planning authorities may ask for further information but they must give a decision within eight weeks unless the applicant extends the timeframe. The Department should be able to deal with an aquaculture licence application within a similar timeframe.

If studies have not been completed on certain bays, licences cannot be approved for the bays in question and people should be told they cannot apply for a licence until the relevant study has been completed. The idea that someone will submit a costly application and wait for years for an outcome is unsatisfactory. I accept that this is not a new problem and also occurred when my party was in government. It is time the Oireachtas addressed it.

Action 22 is to review and revise the aquaculture licensing process, including the applicable legal framework. What is the witnesses' view on removing responsibility for the initial and final decision from the Minister and leaving the Department as the promoter of aquaculture? We can debate what type of aquaculture we want but if the Department's role is to promote aquaculture, surely it should not sit in judgment on licences. One cannot promote a sector and, at the same time, make decisions on licensing applications. I am interested in hearing the views of the witnesses on having a new legal framework that would provide for time limits, keep the decision-making process at arm's length from the Department - technically it would be kept at arm's length from the Minister, but Ministers generally do what their officials recommend - and introduce new decision-making and appeals systems. Establishing a proper framework for licensing is a big issue.

The submission made by the Environmental Pillar appears to say two things. I fully agree with its call for a much greater emphasis on using native skills, meaning people who understand the sea and their coastline, rather than an approach focused on large multinational companies. It would be better to have many small operators with indigenous knowledge than a big bang solution. On the other hand, however, the submission also frequently refers to environmental impact statements and so forth. In cases involving applications for seaweed or aquaculture licences I find that if the process is not proportionate to the activity, small local operators who do not have sufficient resources to carry out the studies required tend to lose out. I am interested in finding out how a balance can be struck in this regard.

I am particularly interested in the shellfish sector. There has been a major problem in Connemara with the importation of French oysters and the spread of disease. B'fhéidir go dtabharfaidh Mr. Ó Corcora freagra ar an gceist seo mar is mó tuiscint atá aige ar an gcladach ná éinne anseo. Do we have enough native species of seaweed and shellfish on our seashores to allow us to forego the importation of species from outside the island? I understand, for example, that we have some very good and valuable native oysters and we will be in serious trouble if they become infected. This issue needs to be teased out.

I was particularly interested in the issue of lobster hatcheries. I assume these hatcheries use native seed. I was in contact with a gentleman from Achill for a long time who was trying to promote this idea. The problem was that no one would give him money because there was no significant commercial benefit to him. If his proposal had been funded, it would have had a significant benefit for fishermen who are involved in lobster fishing. This is interesting issue.

As I stated, the joint committee will make a submission on the document, rather than seeking to rewrite it. Salmon farming is a vexed issue. Agreement or willingness to allow fish farms varies from place to place along the coast. Some communities take a positive attitude to salmon farms, while others oppose them. The committee must examine the issue objectively. The document refers to 7,000 tonnes of biomass, whereas Bord Iascaigh Mhara referred to a figure of 15,000 tonnes. It was intimated to me that one cannot compare the 15,000 tonnes measured by BIM and the figure of 7,000 tonnes - because it is a biomass measurement. It is a bit like live weight and dead weight for cattle. For example, a sheep that is measured as having a certain dead weight will have been twice as heavy when measured as live weight. For this reason, the measurement we are given here would not necessarily be half the size, max, of the proposed Galway Bay fish farm. I hope I have made myself clear.

I am interested in finding out the views of the witnesses on the proposed maximum size of fish farms, allowing that they would not ban cage fish farming. How appropriate is the proposed maximum size, on which there are diverse views? On our visit to Scotland, people there were stunned to learn of the sheer size of the proposed fish farm in Galway Bay. I understand Bord Iascaigh Mhara intended to replicate this around the coast in its big bang approach.

I would appreciate responses to the issues I have raised. The purpose of meetings such as this is to allow members to get a balanced view that will help us in making a balanced submission to the Minister.

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

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I do not propose to repeat the questions Deputy Ó Cuív asked. On the presentation by the Irish Farmers' Association, Mr. Flynn asked members not to be distracted by irrelevancies. Will he expand on that comment? What are the irrelevancies in this debate?

I was interested in the point that the Department could not deliver licences because it insisted that a licence was a prerequisite to obtaining a grant. Surely grant aid should only be given to people who are licensed to carry out a specific activity.

I accept the difficulties people are experiencing in having licences processed and fully support the two recommendations made in this regard. The joint committee should make a strong statement on the need to clear the backlog of licensing applications.

I have been raising the delay in processing applications since 2011, when I came into the Dáil. I understand it is quite a technical process, but it appears it has been neither resourced nor given a lead Department. It crosses so many different Departments and institutes that nobody has ownership of the licensing process. That has been a big failure. I would agree fully with the 30 week timeframe for the processing of licensing applications. There is no doubt that an investor hoping to get a licence should not have to wait forever to have a licence application processed.

On the environmental pillar and the protocol on enforcement, I wonder whether the witnesses could expand on the difficulty that causes in terms of regulation and enforcement of activity in the aquaculture sector. Any sector must have open and transparent regulation to be reputable. That is vital. It is something of which the sector should not be afraid. It is something that should exist to benefit everybody.

I would be interested to hear the IFA's views on the future of closed containment fish farming. I have made inquiries about the funding. As has been pointed out, there is potential funding of €1 million over seven years for closed containment projects, which amounts to €50,000 per site or application. I know very little about it, but €50,000 probably would not come to within 5% of the cost, rather than of the 40% level of grant aid. That is totally inadequate.

The lobster and crayfish hatcheries are vitally important. It is something that we should be rolling out, particularly in the area I come from in Donegal, because all fisheries have been closed in area 6A and inshore fishermen can only go after lobsters and crabs. Have they any detail about the impact the hatcheries have made on stock levels in the areas where they have been operating? They might expand a little more on that. That is something we should include in any submission we make on the plan. It is interesting to hear the views on it. There are cross-views that this plan probably is not sustainable and is a rush job. It goes back to the fact that under the EMFF we did not get our act together and we did not draw down any funding until maybe the last year of the previous programme. This seems to be a rushed attempt to be in a position to draw down even the limited funding available there. I doubt the Minister will redraft it or put it back out to public consultation, but I wonder whether the witnesses would see any merit in a mid-term review, with a proper and wider consultation process as well.

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

I am struck by the parallels between this matter and that of forestry, and the work that was done with regard to time limits on the Forestry Bill 2013, which came before this committee. It is fair to say that there was not broad agreement on what kind of forestry we should have in Ireland and what was environmentally sustainable as regards forestry, but it was agreed that if one wanted to encourage people to get into forestry one must be able to grant felling licences in a particular period of time, and substantial work was done by the committee on Committee Stage, and more on Report Stage, to achieve a degree of certainty, which was a big step forward on what it was. If we, as a committee, could achieve that or at least point to that with regard to licensing, we would be doing a lot.

I was struck by what Ms Dubsky had to say with regard to the possibilities of producing a high-end product. The same goes for all sectors of food production in Ireland. We are good at developing for the mass market, but sometimes one wonders whether we are doing enough as a country to develop for the high-end market, which is clearly growing. Increasingly, consumers are worried about where their food is coming from, for their own health reasons but also for the health of their successors. If this planet is to be sustainable, consumers want to know that the food produced is sustainable. Not everybody is interested and not everybody who is interested can afford it, but many who are interested can afford it. I visited Brittany relatively recently and was struck by the fact that everything around Mont Saint-Michel was labelled. The lamb was labelled Mont Saint-Michel, the postcards were obviously Mont Saint-Michel and so was the cheese, but we do not do that in Ireland. There was an effort with Burren beef and Burren lamb, but that did not get very far. Maybe that means that what I am pointing to is pie-in-the-sky and cannot work. I do not fully understand, if it can work so well in other countries, why it cannot work here. I wonder what is being done with regard to labelling a sustainable product with iconic sights in Ireland that tourists increasingly want to come to, such as Galway Bay - viewed from the Cliffs of Moher, viewed from the Aran Islands or viewed from wherever - or Bantry Bay or Dingle Bay, and then getting a premium price for that. What is being done, what can be done and is there anybody looking into it? Should the Department be looking into funding the development of these brands or labels abroad?

On the fish farms, I would agree with what Deputy Ó Cuív had to say about what we saw in Scotland, particularly with regard to finfish, and how they were slightly taken aback by the scale of the proposals in Ireland. The shellfish sector in Scotland seems to be much more developed, and also with regard to ensuring that those who operate it have a degree of control over the market, that it is not so dominated by the multiples and that, through the use of co-operatives, they are able to exercise some degree of control. Regarding the contained farms, how much more expensive is it to produce fish out of these, and is there any evidence that consumers are interested in paying any more for it? Clearly, consumers are prepared to pay more for wild salmon caught at sea than for farmed salmon, but there is an issue about the labelling of that too. There was a fairly famous brand - one could get the fish at Dublin Airport - that was flogging off farmed salmon as wild salmon, but that is a different issue entirely. Is there any evidence that consumers are prepared to pay more and how economically sustainable are contained finfish farms?

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

Senator Ó Clochartaigh, who had to go to a vote in the Seanad, indicated that he would return. I will let the witnesses respond to the points and questions asked and allow the Senator to contribute when he returns. The easiest way is probably to go back through the rotation, starting with Mr. Flynn.

Mr. Richie Flynn:

This is a big ask, as there were a lot of questions. I will not get to them all, but let us pick the ones that are most relevant. The others can be picked up later.

We would very much welcome Deputy Ó Cuív's viewpoint on a better system based on the model used by An Bord Pleanála, which is what we thought we were getting with the 1997 Fisheries (Amendment) Act, to which he and other Deputies in the House were party, and to which I was party as well, in seeing through the system and in talking through all of its various ins and outs. That did not happen for a combination of reasons. I would point primarily to Ireland not being able to deal with Natura 2000 across a range of issues. Aquaculture was only one of many areas that it was not prepared to deal with on the habitats directive. Also, the eye was largely taken off the ball about manufacturing in general, and the food sector in particular, during the good times.

I recall beating a path to the doors of many public representatives only to be told about the benefits of the construction sector and others over going out and trying to earn a living from the sea. I think anybody involved in fishing, processing or aquaculture would share my view in that regard. When a refocusing eventually took place, the same public representatives began to ask questions as to why there were so many licence applications outstanding. It must be remembered that these applications were for renewals in the main.

I return to Deputy Thomas Pringle's point about the prerequisite to have a licence. Of course, having a licence should be a prerequisite in obtaining a grant, with a lot of other things. In the past, however, one could not seek a renewal. Where one could not do so, one was granted protection by the Minister under section 19 of the original Act. One continued to operate, to be inspected, to complete the various forms and pay one's licence fees. Effectively, one had a licence because one was working as a licensed operator who was playing by the rules. In addition, the conditions of one's licence still stood. The one exception was that one could not draw a grant to continue to replace essential equipment. Anyone who deals with boats and equipment in a maritime environment will be aware that it is necessary to either repair existing equipment or replace it with new equipment. In many cases, one must constantly invest just to stand still. If one has plans to develop, has customers coming to one's farm saying, "I would like to buy 100 tonnes this time next year," and one has not been able to make the necessary investment, one will be obliged to just shrug and say, "I cannot do it." If these customers ask why that is the case, one will have to provide them with an explanation as to why the Department cannot process one's licence application, etc. Customers such as those to whom I refer have already walked away. We lost a great deal of that business in the past ten years. I know the people in Scotland very well and they were completely mystified as to why we could not make progress here.

We were stuck on all sorts of points. Whether it is finfish or shellfish, all of the talk about grant aid fuelled development is simply unfounded. There have been no grants provided, as I think I made clear at the outset. As a result of the licensing system in place, we have not been able to access capital grant aid for many years. As a result, the business has been left to stand on its own. This is a fantastic product and we should be earning whatever we can from the market. We accept this. However, from the point of view of there being a level playing field, very successful and much larger Scottish companies - what would be considered large companies here are dwarfed by their counterparts in Spain, France, Holland and the United Kingdom - have access to 40% grant aid. We do not receive such grant aid, which leads very much to a queering of the pitch for SMEs in Ireland. SMEs involved in the export trade should be getting a fair crack of the whip if the rules state this is allowed.

I represent people who have real farms and deal with real fish and shellfish. These individuals are managing their concerns, but they wonder about what they are going to do. They are trying to find markets and dealing with real businesses. It is for them that the plan should be catering. I was afraid that we would become involved in a long discussion about whether a farm that did not even exist should produce 5,000 or 7,000 tonnes. Since the issue of Galway Bay was first raised, I have tried to take every available opportunity to emphasise the number of people who have spent the past 20 or 30 years of their business lives involved in this activity. I accept that we should have a strategic plan, but these are the important individuals from my point of view. I make no bones about it; that is my job. I represent these guys - the real people.

When it comes to questions about whether the figure should be 5,000 or 7,000 tonnes, my view is very simple: if one is long enough in this game, one knows that one does not start with the top figure and say, "That is where we are going and that is what the farm should produce." One tests the site and discovers the environment and what can one do within it. There is no one size fits all; that is the bottom line. The various parts of the coast are extremely different. It is like saying one is going to grow the same amount of grass on the Burren as one grows in the Golden Vale. As Ms Dubsky and everyone else is aware, that is the difference. What one finds underwater off our coasts is just as diverse as what one finds on land. It is not possible, therefore, to adopt a one-size-fits-all policy in this regard.

The concept of recirculation is brilliant. I have seen many recirculation farms in the past 20 years and met many of those who designed, built and are using them to farm all sorts of species. Those to whom I refer are very good at what they do and their methods have improved a great deal in the interim. This is not a new technology and those involved in the business would not be unfamiliar with it. However, it was not invented to replace marine farming. That was not the point of it. Recirculation was invented to conserve water. It was designed to allow a farm to be put in a place where one could have control over the size of the fish, particularly those fish, including turbot and barramundi, which required warmer water. I refer to any fish that would grow outside the natural cycle. The variations in temperature of both seawater and freshwater do not suit an awful lot of fish. That is why they migrate. Recirculation is required in the case of some fish, for example, abalone, which is a shellfish, because the technology makes it possible to control the temperature. That is one reason for using it. We have learned that freshwater recirculation is relatively simple. but it remains quite expensive because it requires a great deal of energy. Seawater recirculation is a different ballgame altogether. It comes down to the chemistry of seawater versus that of freshwater. Seawater is a very aggressive liquid. Without getting into the nuts and bolts of the engineering, one cannot compare like with like.

Those of involved in the industry are not Luddites. I do not want a message to go out that we are opposed to recirculation systems. However, we have to base it on economics. If it is going to cost €40 million to €50 million to establish a farm that could, perhaps, replace one third of current Irish production, one would have to seek the money from a bank, provide matching funding and factor in to one's accounts paying back one's loan during the years. When would one actually start to make a return from the business? There have been many experiments involving recirculation technology across the globe, but, in total, less than 2,000 tonnes of salmon have been produced through the use of this technology. We produce 2 million tonnes of salmon; therefore, 2,000 tonnes is a very small amount by comparison. We have to monitor matters closely, but I want to know what the figures are. I am not going to go around saying this is the answer to everything. I want to know what the figures are and whether this technology can be used in Ireland. If it can, we need to know what method of recirculation would be involved. I know that can be done by means of the use of freshwater recirculation technology, namely, that it produces a better smolt. This would allow us to have greater continuity of supply during the year and put larger fish out to sea where they would spend less time. That would be a really interesting way to move forward.

Major investment will be required. I am sorry Senator Michael Comiskey is no longer present. There used to be a fantastic facility on Lough Allen in the constituency in which he lives, at which really good smolt were produced. However, Leitrim County Council decided to close down the facility a number of years ago. The facility was a model for what is required in this regard.

We need good freshwater capacity for the salmon industry.

I hope I have answered all of the questions asked.

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

Perhaps Mr. Flynn might address the issue of labelling.

Mr. Richie Flynn:

In what context?

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

In the context of place of origin and Protected Geographical Indication, PGI.

Mr. Richie Flynn:

Ireland was one of the first countries to put in place a PGI system. Clare Island salmon are subject to having a PGI.

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

What is being done by State agencies to support, develop and drive the market?

Mr. Richie Flynn:

A great deal is being done. The Deputy referred to cheese, Mont-Saint-Michel and so on. Behind the lovely artisan stall to which he referred are people who are working hard to ensure the availability every day of the products he mentioned. There is a substantial operation behind ensuring continuity of supply. The problem is we do not have this in Ireland. While I can guarantee that from September to December we will have a particular amount of salmon, oysters and so on available, I cannot because of a lack of investment in our farms guarantee that they will be available from January to March. As I mentioned in my opening statement, what we need in Ireland is continuity of supply, which means scale. This year Ireland will I hope produce 12,000 tonnes of farmed salmon, the equivalent of under two days work in production in Norway. I would like to see that figure increased to one week.

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

I propose to take questions from Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh on environmental issues. If there are questions specific to Mr. Flynn, he can respond to them at the end of the next round of questions.

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

As I had to leave earlier for a vote, if any of my questions has been answered, the Chairman might let me know.

There appeared to be a lot of common ground in what people had to say, which I was not expecting. I thought there would be a little more contention on the issues raised. It is good to see that there is a lot of common ground on them.

An issue which has not been mentioned but which I know has been mentioned a lot by the Marine Institute is that of multi-trophic farming. I would welcome the delegates' thoughts on the potential of that type of farming or if it is a pie-in-the-sky type of farming that will not be viable for some time to come.

On the issue of closed onshore salmon farming, each time this issue is raised the question that arises is where has it been successful. Perhaps the delegates might provide examples of where it has been successful and state how it could be copied here. The argument usually made by the offshore open cage farm operators is that it is not viable. Is the opposition to the use of offshore open cages primarily in the case of salmon or is it in the case of every species? In other words, are the delegates opposed to all species?

The issue of imported oysters was alluded to. An issue was previously brought to my attention about a bay which contained native oysters, a number of which it was said were diseased, but in respect of which, after a fallow period, only one diseased oyster was found. However, there was no recourse to have disease free status reinstated. I would welcome the delegaqtes' thoughts on that matter. Every time I raise this issue on behalf of oyster farmers the excuse is that even if those with the authority to do so wanted to reinstate disease free status, they could not do so because of a hiatus in the legislation. The picture painted is of a licensing regime that is in a total shambles. This issue has been raised for as long as I have been a member of the Oireachtas. It is a key issue.

In previous briefings with the IFI, the competent authority in the case of wild salmon, I was told that it saw scenarios where there was open cage salmon farming and wild stocks in the same ecosystem. It is its view that they do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive, but they do need to be regulated and managed properly. Would delegates concur with that view or would they take issue with it?

On the suggestions made around the licensing regime, regulation, hatcheries, etc. I agree that the independence of the regime is of paramount importance to the system. I voice my support for the recommendations made in that regard.

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

Mr. Flynn has already responded to the Senator's first question. I will allow him to give a brief response on the issue of closed farms.

Ms Karin Dubsky:

I will try to respond to the many interesting and searching questions raised.

On section 13 which provides that the Minister can take as long as he or she likes to consider an application, in the Fisheries Act, when drafted, the legislators were democratic and fair in ensuring the inclusion of a clause to limit the time allowed in that regard. However, that provision was not commenced. This also happens in the case of other legislation. The wider issue of the inclusion of a sunset clause to provide that a section which may logically not be commenced immediately can automatically come into force within a year needs to be addressed.

On the licensing regime being in a shambles, while there is no licensing system on Lough Foyle on the Donegal side, planning for aquaculture on the same Lough on the Northern side is of A grade quality. We need a cross-Border approach to this issue as the level of habitat destruction in the area is serious. Many of the farms being established do not involve local people.

The question was asked if there was potential to label our product. The answer is, "Yes," but more money is required. We need to provide additional resources. We need to ensure our shellfish product is of A grade standard. Much of it is currently is of B grade. There is a need for a greater effort in the context of product promotion through tourism. In this regard, we could do what was done in Boston where an old boat was transformed into a lobster hatchery which tourists were encouraged to visit and taste the lobster produced. The entrance fee covered the cost of operating the lobster hatchery. A similar operation, perhaps in Galway, could prove really interesting. I agree that the hatchery issue could have been better addressed in our strategic plan.

On law enforcement, it is hit and miss. There are many excuses given on the reason staff do not report non-compliance. There are more than 600 farms operating, the licences of which have lapsed.

In 11 years, not one did anything to warrant it being brought to court. The Department told us that it could not take someone to court if he or she was non-compliant and operating outside the area where he or she should be because a judge would throw out a virtual licence. Judges like dealing with real licences. There needs to be a change.

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

Is that in respect of fish farms?

Mr. Michael Ewing:

Does the Deputy mean their size?

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

Size or total elimination.

Mr. Michael Ewing:

Our colleague will revert to the Deputy on that question. I will make a short intervention relating to fish farms and organic labelling. I was around 40 years ago when organic certification started in Ireland. I was at the original meeting on that. What I see happening with this process in terms of fin fisheries and organic labelling is shocking. Imagine a farmer in a field. I live in north Roscommon and there are plenty of farmers around me. They would be horrified if they were told that they were allowed to spray antibiotics and toxic chemicals all over their land, which is effectively what happens on a fin fish farm. All of this stuff is basically poured into the water because that is what is necessary to control the diseases that the fish get. It is crazy, yet that fish is being labelled as organic. If the basis of this plan is to get the premiums for organic products, it will fail because the product is not organic and is already seen as such in some parts of the world. We have a serious problem. We are investing money in a plan, supposedly for the benefit of coastal communities, but actually for the large companies that will operate there. Those companies will walk away and we will be left with the mess. It will be another Ispat steel plant, just offshore.

Regarding the commitment of the companies compared with the commitment of local communities, the communities live there. It is their place and they have been there for generations. Whatever they do, they are committed to it on a personal level. They are not large companies. They do not walk away from messes. They deal with them themselves. These points should be taken into consideration in whatever decision the committee reaches.

Mr. Rory Keatinge:

Deputy Ó Cuív asked about the limits. I know as little or as much as him about dead weight or live weight. All I see is what we have in front of us, namely, the figure of 5,000 tonnes to 7,000 tonnes. I agree with Mr. Flynn that the main factor in determining any size is the location of the farm. It must be, as we have such a varied coastline. It is worth noting that our largest finfish farm, which is on Clare Island, comes in at approximately 3,000 tonnes. To increase this to 5,000 tonnes and then to 7,000 tonnes is to double what we know, which will also double the known impact.

Deputy Pringle asked about protocols versus enforcement. I agree that we have a slightly ambiguous law that ties into our licensing problems. When someone does something wrong, he or she should be caught and should pay for it. In 11 years, a number of fish farms have operated without licences. In the past five years, just one fish farm was taken to court. It won. That is the only case of which I know, but I am not an expert. Other groups campaign on this matter constantly and would happily let the Deputy know the details.

Regulation would help. Farmed salmon and wild salmon populations must live together. We are not so stupid as to think that they cannot. They must. However, the situation is reliant on enforcement. We need 100% positive knowledge that the farm will not impact on the wild fish swimming by on their way out to sea. Sea trout spend most of their time at sea in the inshore area. They do not migrate into the Atlantic. They spend their time around the Irish coast, so they feel a greater impact from the farms within their habitat.

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

We will revert to Mr. Keatinge if he has anything else to say.

Mr. Rory Keatinge:

That is it.

Mr. John Connolly:

I am a small fisherman from the west coast. We mostly fish oyster, lobster and so on. Lobster is an endangered species. There are no lobsters because there is too much overfishing, larger boats and more gear. The worst thing ever was the money given to fishermen last year to get lost or damaged gear back in the water. Most of those who received it were those who already had money, as people had to put so much in to get it.

Something should be done about the lobster season, such as reducing the number of pots to 200 per boat or starting in March and finishing in September. I am 62 years old and started fishing when I was ten years old. Connemara is full of oyster beds. In 1963, when I was ten years old, I saw the oysters and scallops dead in the bay because there was a heavy frost that year that killed everything. Before that, an old organisation that had a factory did a great deal of work on the banks, but since it went out of business, no money has been invested in the banks. We are discussing aquaculture, farming oysters and so on, but if there is too much farming, native oysters cannot be sold. This year, they were priced at only €4 per kilogram. They used to reach €6 or €7. Something must be done to control how many oysters are put on the market so that people who have fished native oysters for years can make a living out of it. The money is decreasing every year. No money is invested in oysters.

In terms of oyster hatcheries, spawn is not being put into the bay. People will fish for one or two weeks per year and clean out the stock. A great deal of money should be invested in hatcheries for lobsters, oysters, scallops and native shellfish. Fishing abalone was tried in my area but did not work. Fishing turbot was tried in my area but did not work. The first mussel farming happened in my area in the 1970s. They achieved £600 per tonne more than 30 years ago. Now, it is not even worth going out. In my area, mussels could not be harvested last year because of the bad weather. They spawn in March, April or May, so one cannot sell any caught then either.

The most important thing is that people who have been fishing for all of their years can always make a living from the sea. There should be investment in hatcheries for lobsters, oysters and so on.

Everyone is discussing seaweed. Arcadian Seaplants wants to come in from Scotland. In my area, everyone is discussing sea spaghetti and so on. Young lads are cutting it. I hope that people will do it the same way. Approximately two months ago, I saw a programme about the same thing happening in Scotland. They used to do it the same way - they cut it with knives and left 4 inches on the rocks - but large machinery came in and pulled the seaweed off the rocks, which meant that it would never regrow. I would not like to see the same happening in Ireland. I would like to see the healthy way we have done it for years continuing.

Mr. Éamon Ó Corcora:

Regarding Deputy Ó Cuív's point, the Minister should be the promoter of both sides of the industry.

I agree there should be a separate entity for licensing.

Two years ago we proposed to the committee that all types of food should be labelled with its country of origin, or place of origin within the country, and whether it had been farmed. With regard to salmon farms and cages at sea, last year a presentation was made in Scotland by Professor Mark J. Costello of the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand on the problem with sea lice on wild and farmed salmon. I do not have a copy with me, but it can be found online and we can make it available to committee members. It is a damning report on cages at sea. He has listed all of the problems, including the amount of lice found on fish and the types and amounts of pesticide used, and it is frightening. I urge committee members to read it.

I have a copy of a letter sent to the Minister, Deputy Coveney, by the Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture. It is with regard to persistent breaches of sea lice levels in Irish salmon farms. I have yet to find out whether the Minister has replied. I hope it has better luck with him than I did. We have not received an answer to any of our letters or e-mails. This issue will have to be examined. There are many reports and one can refer to any of them. There is an issue with regard to high levels of toxins, particularly in European salmon farms. The list is endless. Unfortunately, we do not have a budget to hire somebody to research this for us. We must do it ourselves. I have a young family and I am being pulled and dragged in 20 different directions every day. It is very difficult to conduct research. As far as I can see, cages at sea should be very small and in areas that are not near estuaries, because if large-scale salmon farms are in these areas, salmon or trout coming out of rivers and even trout in bays will all be killed. The committee speaks about the cost of onshore farms and closed tanks, but are we entitled to destroy our marine environment? This is my view. I do not have a degree in marine biology and I am not a qualified ecologist, but I would love to see our national broadcaster or the Oireachtas sending a team of divers with sophisticated camera equipment to see what is underneath the cages in our salmon farms and what sea life is dead.

With regard to lobsters and hatcheries, I have visited the National Lobster Hatchery in Cornwall and I know fishermen in Bridlington and North Berwick in Scotland. All these areas have very healthy lobster stocks. Using far less gear than we do, they can at least quadruple the catch. In recent years, sending fish to markets in Europe has been a problem for us. Some buyers go as far as China for fish. While our stocks are seriously depleted, Canadian lobsters are coming in with no country-of-origin labelling. Someone in an Irish restaurant does not know whether he or she is eating Canadian or Irish lobster, and this is a shame. The hatcheries are very important. From a tourism point of view, the hatchery in Cornwall has everything. It has T-shirts, St. Valentine's day events and educational visits for schools. The lobster stocks in the area are very well managed. It is a real money spinner. Why can this not be done here? Instead of being 30 years behind these people, we should be 30 years ahead.

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

Senator Ó Clochartaigh's question about multi-species aquaculture has not been answered.

Mr. Brendan Price:

It is essential that decision-making be at a remove from the Department and Bord Iascaigh Mhara, which is promoting these developments, including the Galway cages. An essential component of this to address the backlog and adequately assess the Natura sites in particular is that the National Parks and Wildlife Service is adequately resourced to participate in the decision-making process. Otherwise it will not happen and there will be a bigger backlog.

With respect to the cages and the figure of 5,000 or 7,000 tonnes of biomass, looking at some of the licences over the years, there is a range of biomass figures, as it is in the latter stages of growth that the fastest profits are generated. Unfortunately, what would happen without proper regulation is the exception would become the rule. Already, some of these operators, including the two in Bantry to which reference has been made, have been overstocked for three years running and have had a huge escape. It is a great danger and can only be addressed by adequate regulation. As to the finfish farm cages, essentially, the fish are being fed in a toilet. These chemicals are going in and they are dissipating into the environment. It is a throwback to the old days of "dilution is the solution to pollution". Some of these chemicals are directed at crustaceans. I cannot make the connection myself, but it is certainly worth exploring. It is probably the reason many crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters are missing from certain areas.

Deputy Pringle mentioned the mid-term review. Mr. Flynn is all too familiar with the loss of European fishery funds to the aquaculture sector. There is every danger that something like this could happen again. A mid-term review will be set for the programme if it is approved. It might be worth underlining that it needs approval.

I find multi-trophic aquaculture fascinating. It is almost like science fiction, but so are many other things. I will leave the committee with an image. The Irish Sea used to be a multi-species fishery and we sought multi-species and multi-annual management plans for it.

Now it has almost become a single-species fishery. If we go in the direction to which Ms Dubsky pointed, namely, using local technology and knowledge rather than the big-bang approach, perhaps there will be opportunities.

Mr. Ewing spoke far more eloquently than I could on what is happening with the finfish farms but I will refer to the operator I mentioned at the start. The operator credits the operation with €15 million for the Irish economy. The plan credits it with €50 million. There is something of an anomaly there. Marine Harvest in Chile acknowledged it was overstocking cages and over-using antibiotics and it had to cut its operations to a great degree, with the loss of 1,000 jobs. If that is the way the large-scale operations are going, we have to ask whether this is what will happen to us or whether we can avoid it through judicious input at this point.

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

On the question of being 30 years ahead or 30 years behind, we were once pretty advanced with regard to having a huge fishery. Reference was made to the hatchery on Lough Allen. There is a potentially very big fishery in State ownership at present at Parteen Weir, the Shannon hatchery. Very little is being done with it. Have the witnesses any views on whether more could or should be done with it?

One of the things I would dearly like to see is a committee considering fisheries under State ownership, particularly the Shannon one. I appreciate the workload of this one is such that we cannot facilitate this. The Shannon fishery has failed miserably. A variety of obstacles could and should be examined. One is neglect by the owners over the years and also the State by extension. We gave the fishery to the ESB and asked it to go ahead with it but what is required of it is nothing like its core activity. However, it is potentially very important to the Irish economy. Have the witnesses any views on this?

When I referred to labelling, I was referring specifically to PGI rather than the organic labelling of finfish. The delegation was very critical. Would any distinction be drawn between finfish and shellfish with regard to the criticism, or the question of compatibility with meeting the needs of environmental sustainability?

Mr. Ó Corcora should not take the failure to reply to his letter personally. As a Government backbencher who has supported the Government up to now, I rarely get more than an acknowledgement from any Minister, much less a substantive reply.

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

Independent Members get responses after a fair bit of pushing. Perhaps it is better to be an Independent than a Government backbencher.

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

This could be counted as election opportunism because we are being broadcast live. The Deputy might have to declare the cost.

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

Roaring Water Bay was the first Natura bay to have a conservation objective set and licensing opened up. That was about three years ago. There will be a need for a rolling programme of environmental sampling and monitoring of the bay so we will not end up again without licences and unable to produce proper assessments and conservation objectives. I am sure that over time the conservation objectives might change slightly, so we need to keep up to date. What are the witnesses' views on the need to continue the monitoring of the Natura bays to keep up to date with the conservation objectives?

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

I wish we had a lot more time on this because it seems that on the shellfish side, rather than on the finfish farming side, which I will park for a minute, the vision Bord Iascaigh Mhara was putting forward was that we needed very large processing companies to make it economical and to become a player. That always raises two questions. First, who would work in these factories? Would it be the indigenous population? Therefore, is the gain quite as high as it is made out to be, especially for local populations? Second, does one have to introduce non-native species to achieve the required quantity? Is much more in-depth analysis required? If everywhere else opted for production and the island of Ireland, North and South, decided to proceed in the natural way, could one create a very sustainable industry with mussels from Killary and lobsters and scallops? Could one create, while taking local people, in particular, into account, a very sustainable industry that would support a large number of communities? Would one get the extra price in the market if one proceeded in this way?

The second question I have relates to ceist a thógadh níos luaithe. Tá mé ag féachaint ar Seán Ó Conghaile. Is í an cheist atá ann ná seo. Luadh ceist na feamainne. Bhí mise ag iarraidh a rá, dá mbeadh ceadúnais á dtabhairt amach, nach mbeadh aon chead ag aon duine feamainn a bhaint ar chladach Chonamara nó ar aon chladach eile in Éirinn murach mbeadh taithí, abair, cúig bliain nó cúrsa traenála déanta aige nó aici i mbaint feamainne den chineál áirid sin, i gcomhthéacs na hÉireann, agus, ar ndóigh, go mbeadh se mar choinníoll d'aon cheadúnas nó mar chead innealra a dhéanamh faoin scrios a úsáid.

I put forward an idea on seaweed. One could also consider this in connection with shellfish. If a licence were to be granted to somebody to cut seaweed, the cutter would either have to have a grandfather clause - in other words, five years' experience of cutting seaweed of the species in question on the seashores in question - or would have participated in appropriate training on the specific type of seaweed and the specific types of shoreline, such that he could not employ many people who would cause a lot of destruction because they did not know the eco-balance. Would this be relevant in the issuing of licences? Should it be required that the people doing the farming – I am not saying the owners – should have knowledge of the local seas and nature? If a farmer does not understand the nature of his own land, all the expertise in the world is of no benefit. One cannot buy the kind of expertise local knowledge gives one, particularly in the very dynamic and quite complex environment at the seashore.

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

Mr. Flynn might respond to the question on tonnage on closed salmon farms. I believe Senator Ó Clochartaigh asked the question.

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

I can check the record to determine whether it has been answered. I do not want to hold up the meeting.

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

I believe it was about 2,000 tonnes or something like that.

Mr. Richie Flynn:

I really did not want to come here today to talk about that area. Perhaps the development is five, ten or 20 years away. Any facility that has reached production level, with farmed salmon all the way through to market size, has been significantly subsidised. The latest edition of National Geographicrefers to a large American foundation that states it put millions upon millions of dollars into this to determine whether it would work.

No farm so far has managed to get fish to the market without massive subsidisation because that is the only way it would work. They have not proved that they are a commercial entity yet and they have not sold anything that would return a profit that would show that it is possible.

Some deliberately provocative statements have been made, to which I will not rise. Some of what has been said today is very sad because of a lack of knowledge about the industry, which was expressed through some of the language used. That is unfortunate. That is not what I came here for today but I will let it pass because, as Deputy Ó Cuív said, we would need a lot more time. I urge those who have never been to a salmon farm to visit one, as it is obvious that some have not been to one. I would be happy to show them around.

Reference was made to local people. I do not understand the emphasis. Who does Deputy Ó Cuív think runs the farms at the moment? Who owns them and who works on them? It is local people. These are local jobs for local people. Some people have been living and working on the farms for 20 years and 30 years. The Deputy knows them and I know them.

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

With no disrespect, people have been brought into County Mayo.

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

I will interject. The question was that in the future if the project was scaled up, is it envisaged that the farming would continue to be done by local people, notwithstanding what Deputy Ó Cuív said about some farms in Mayo.

Mr. Richie Flynn:

I am sure that anybody setting up a business in a rural area would hope to employ their neighbours to prevent people from having to emigrate and to keep the football teams and the place going. It is not always possible to employ people from the local area. People from all walks of life are living in the town in which I live in Leitrim and all around the coast and they contributing. They are local. I do not really follow the point there. Again, perhaps that is for another day.

Deputy McNamara asked about the ESB in Parteen. Perhaps I am showing my age but the ESB was one of the pioneers in salmon farming in this country with the Salmara company.

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

It was.

Mr. Richie Flynn:

Yes, it was. It divested itself of its interests in salmon farming in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I was not around then but it seems to me that it was not for commercial reasons it was more for political reasons. That is a long time ago. Salmara left behind some sites that are still in use, which could be looked at again. The re-establishment of major salmon rivers around the country is not my area of expertise but it is an issue that should be examined. Programmes were recently initiated on the River Lee and other water systems with hydro-electric work. At one time they were the jewel in the crown of Europe’s wild salmon industry. More work needs to be done to examine what happened and what could be done.

On the Natura 2000 issue and ongoing monitoring, part of the delay was due to setting the baseline. That was a huge amount of work. Members should be aware of the paperwork generated in the appropriate assessments for the bays at Cromane and Roaring Water. Our understanding is that the Marine Institute has completed all of the conservation objectives for practically all the bays at this stage. It is a case of getting the appropriate assessments done, which is a big job of work. That means having the ornithologists and archaeologists in place. I would love if they worked for the National Parks and Wildlife Service but whether it is due to recruitment bans within the service or whatever else, they cannot seem to get them online quick enough. I do not understand why they are not continuing to roll. The Minister promised 150 licences this year. Given that it is mid-July, I do not see how that it is possible or how that can happen and where they will be, even using the Department’s very conservative timetable that is outlined in the strategic plan.

Shellfish is a real bugbear of mine. I spent all day yesterday with the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority discussing improving water quality for shellfish producers in 80 different bays from Malin Head around to Carlingford Lough, according to the classification to which Ms Dubsky referred. We were dealing with local authorities on discharges but now we must deal with Irish Water. Shellfish should be the best in the world in an area that could attract tourism such as the Galway Bay and north Clare area. There is €20 million coming into that area in tourism revenue every year from two festivals that depend on oysters and yet all the times I have met and talked to the local authorities in the area, they do not seem to get the connection between having clean water, good shellfish and the tourism product they are using. I do not understand the disconnect. The county councils have a big responsibility in terms of their investment, planning and where they put holiday homes, including situations where they did not properly deal with the planning of towns and villages near shellfish beds around the country. There are some prime examples but I am pleased to say College Bay is back up again thanks to our fine work. I will leave it at that.

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

A vote is due to be called at 9 p.m. and we will all have to leave the meeting. We will try to finish the meeting before then. I am conscious that we have all been here since 6.30 p.m.

Ms Karin Dubsky:

I wish to address marine protected areas and the in-depth analysis of another way of doing aquaculture and fisheries. The National Parks and Wildlife Service has finally set the conservation objectives for marine protected areas. However, the Commission is already looking at the issue. Many of the sites we have were assessed in an Article 17 report, which was sent to Brussels. It shows that our marine environment much more than our land environment is in serious trouble. An awful lot of the inshore habitats are not in good conservation status and that means this country does not continue monitoring but must take measures to get it to good conservation status. That is almost like putting the two together because when one has grade A shellfish waters, one is quite likely, although it is not guaranteed, to have one’s habitats in better condition, so it would serve a double purpose.

I understand the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is however doing something on integrated water management but I do not have the detail. It appears that farmers would get training and extra funding for agriculture in sensitive areas. If that included shellfish waters then we would be moving in the right direction. What was done in the Bay of St. Michel by the French was very interesting because it was a Natura 2000 site and it still contains aquaculture and wild fisheries, but only certain aquaculture, which is compatible with such a fine site. The farmers were doing a combination of tourism showing people why the site was designated, what measures were being taken to get it to good conservation status and, at the same time, they were also showing small-scale aquaculture and wild fisheries. The products are all labelled as to location of origin and whether the oysters are native oysters. They do still have gigas oysters but they are in the process of phasing them out because one of the main problems is that the gigas can become an invasive alien.

I concur with what Deputy Ó Cuív said about the need for in-depth analysis. The money went into looking in-depth and on spending millions on how to help fish farms. We should have done it before but now we urgently need money to be spent on seeing whether it is possible for us to develop the industry. I maintain that is absolutely the case because we have a fantastic diversity of shellfish and crustaceans. It is possible to develop the industry but we must find a way to do it.

Mr. Michael Ewing:

Deputy McNamara asked me a question on the organic status of shell-fisheries and finfish farms. Shell-fisheries are naturally organic. Nothing is done to them so they are organic. That is the difference between them. Was that the question?

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

Just to differentiate, as Mr. Ewing was very critical of the labelling of finfish.

Mr. Michael Ewing:

It is what goes on in the cages that is the problem.

Mr. Éamon Ó Corcora:

Maidir le cheist a chuir Teachta Ó Cuív, is dócha an sean stil é mar a dearfá. Deputy Ó Cuív asked if everybody else was to go one way and the island of Ireland was to go another. I have been involved in fishing for 36 years and I fish for oysters in winter and early spring in Tralee Bay and it is the best example of a managed fishery in Ireland. It is also the best example of native wild oysters. It is coming under pressure from two different sources, namely, discharges and no compensation to the daoine bochta who have to try to make a living out of it. There has also been a question over the last few years about the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive which have slightly affected things also. These studies have to be carried out, which is one thing, but I note the following on water quality. Kerry County Council asked a former Minister to ban drift-netting for salmon as it was damaging tourism, but at the same time in 2006, not one of their waste water systems met with European environmental standards. Today, almost ten years later, up to 50% of them still do not.

Salmon ranching may have been something like what was happening on the River Shannon, more so than with the cages there. It was wild salmon and it was the ESB. The salmon ranching in County Mayo is very good and I have no problem with it. Lobster hatcheries for crayfish, lobsters and shrimp are to help sustainability as one can only take so much out. It is like a farmer having 100 sheep on a mountain. If one keeps selling off one's lambs every year, in ten years one will have nothing. In the same way, one has to have a breeding stock. The system we have at the moment is not working. We are 30 years behind the UK and others where we should be 30 years ahead.

Mr. Brendan Price:

I worked on Parteen where I had the honour of working under Noel Rycroft, who was a brilliant scientist and fish manager. That was 35 or 36 years ago, but very little has improved since in open sea fish farming with the technology of the cages, etc. The arguments about them are still the same. I do not know what can be done with Parteen. Its future may be in something to do with freshwater aquaculture. However, it was a very exciting time and we really believed in it. It was a secondary objective of the ESB, its primary one being energy. It lapsed and largely was lost. If we are to believe Ken Whelan of the Marine Institute, by and large the Irish wild salmon is already gone. What we have are mixtures, hybrids, corrupted strains and all sorts of freaks coming back into our rivers and in lower and lower numbers. It is not a case of being frivolous about that, it is a reality. We have lost something. If one reads Fahy's Overkill!about fisheries generally, we have had boom, bust and crash. That is what I fear for with Irish aquaculture. If it is not a niche, quality and premium product, the chances are that the same thing will happen. The image of marine harvest leaving Chile could well be marine harvest leaving Ireland in ten years' time.

On the need for ongoing monitoring, of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, or EMFF, €30 million goes to aquaculture. Nothing goes to NGOs I might add, just to make the point again. I have forgotten the exact figures, but approximately €40 million goes to the Marine Institute and another approximately €20 million goes to the SFPA. I have forgotten the exact figures, but huge sums have gone to enforcement. It is approximately €40 million. This is all very well, but if that money can be found for these objectives to keep the resource in a sustainable condition and develop it, surely some of the money can be found for the National Parks and a Wildlife Service. I do not know what the politics of it are. Then, we would be working with the competent statutory authority to deal with these AAs. I will not say get rid of them but it is certainly about sidelining to the sovereign interest accreditations from the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, the Marine Stewardship Council and others like them. If we go with those accreditations without really being in control of what they are and they let us down at some stage, Origin Green itself will go.

Mr. John Connolly:

The first time fish farming cages went out to my area ESB, it took three years for the salmon to grow. Salmon now are for the market in one year. On the health of the salmon, the fishermen cannot use them. There is something wrong with them although I do not know what. I looked at the Dublin market today and there were heads there to be sold for human consumption. Why can they be sold for people but fishermen cannot use them as bait?

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

I do not understand some of the more detailed intricacies but we must conclude. I hope everyone will agree that it has been a very fair hearing. As I said at the outset, the purpose of the meeting is to help us prepare a submission. While I am a little bit at a loss in terms of the fishing sector, I can certainly relate to some of the issues that are also relevant to the area I am more familiar with. It seems that adequate resources to manage the objectives of an expanding sector are always going to be required, if for nothing else to ensure the integrity of what has been stated is maintained. In the same vein, there appears to be general agreement with regard to licensing, which is complicated. Certainly, everybody agrees that there is a need for an improvement in the process. We will have done something similar with regard to the manner in which An Bord Pleanála has responsibility to respond. That is not quite satisfactory either. Hatcheries seems to be an issue which everybody agrees with. It seems to make sense to ensure that stocks are maintained.

There are areas of division among the witnesses here today and that is part of the healthy dialogue that should take place. It takes place here in an open forum. The members of the joint committee are from a range of groups lest anybody think anyone is trying to put a lid on the nature of these hearings. From our perspective, it is being done in such a way as to help inform us in good faith at very short opportunity. As the witnesses will know, the Dáil rises next week and we have to try to have this submitted by the following week, which is the closing date.

I thank the witnesses for taking the time to come in. Some of them have travelled a considerable distance. It is 9 p.m., which is unusual, as the joint committee has not sat until this time at least in this session. We will therefore adjourn. I note that as luck would have it, under the lottery system, the joint committee's report on rural, coastal and island communities which refers, inter alia, to tourism and aquaculture as part of a sustainable socio-economic model, will be debated on the floor of the Dáil on Friday.

As second item up, it will be taken some time between 12 p.m. and 2 p.m., but probably more likely between 11.30 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. Of course, it would happen on the same day that the Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth conference takes place in Ringaskiddy in Cork but if we defer it, there is a chance we would not get it back on the system. Therefore, we have decided to go ahead. There are members here present who had taken the time to contribute to the work on the sub-committee and I hope the Deputies present all will have time to contribute to that debate. As a committee, we have committed to keep this on the agenda and we are doing that as best we can.