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

I thank Dr. Forde and Dr. Gargan for their submissions. Of all the issues arising in this area, the salmon issue is the most controversial.

The concern of the IFI, in terms of the aquaculture issues with which it is most familiar, appears to be around imported species, particularly oysters. Am I correct that the IFI is of the view that we should not be importing shellfish for farming in our waters for aquaculture and that we should try to develop a native industry that obviously would have a natural in-built resilience to diseases? In regard to oyster imports, my understanding is that oysters imported from France in particular have caused severe damage to our native stock and that this is a particular challenge. Perhaps the witnesses would address that issue and outline their view on the importation of seed from places outside this island.

The main issue of focus today for the IFI is finfish farming. I get the impression from what the witnesses had to say that finfish farming has damaged the wild salmon stocks and that they are fairly unequivocal about that. I am sure Dr. Forde and Dr. Gargan are aware that what has been puzzling some of us for some considerable time is the fact that while the IFI has been very strong on this case, and has backed that up with scientific evidence, other State agencies are of the view that the huge expansion of this industry is of major benefit to the country. From a scientific point of view, somebody is right and somebody is wrong. Am I correct that the view of the IFI is that finfish farming has been damaging to the wild salmon stock? Also, if we had never had any farming of salmon in cages around our coast, would the IFI be recommending today that we would be better off at this stage not developing any such farms?

I also got a particular impression from the witnesses on a second issue, although I may be incorrect. It was stated that while the IFI believes that finfish farming has caused severe damage, it recognises that people have licences and, as such, this practice could be better facilitated by way of resettlement or re-siting of existing fish farms to more suitable sites as licences come up for renewal, thus removing them from river mouths and so on. Is the IFI opposed in principle to the setting up of new finfish farms where currently there are none and proposing the relocation of those already in existence when it comes to renewal of licences?

The next issue raised was the contention that the Department should not be the licence giver. That makes sense. I have argued for a long time for reform of licensing, because it is not right that the developer also be the gatekeeper. The Department's role is to develop aquaculture. I mean that in the widest sense. I believe the IFI proposal is an interesting one. The witnesses also spoke of the need for better monitoring and graded penalties and sanctions. On that issue, I was recently told - the witnesses might confirm whether this correct - that in situations in which licences for fish farms have expired and those farms do not comply with the various environmental requirements, it is virtually impossible to sue the operators because, as they do not hold a valid licence, they are therefore not bound by the terms of any licence.

As the fish farms are on an extension of a licence, they are exempt from having a licence, in the strict legal sense. In other words, one cannot stop them fish farming but they do not have a licence. I would like to hear the witnesses' views on that because if that is correct, that would create an emergency.

In regard to the policy proposal of a maximum limit, and the witnesses seem to be fairly negative on fish farms, they appear to say that the maximum proposed is far too high but even if there were a maximum, it would be totally subject to site specific requirements and we need to be conscious of this.

Since drift netting was stopped on the coast, did the wild salmon stock recover? The fishermen were talking salmon from the sea but they were not causing pollution, spreading infections or causing cross-breeding. Is it the case the salmon stock has not recovered and that other factors, such as municipal waste, finfish farming and trawlers sweeping everything out of the sea have had much greater impact on the wild salmon than the drift net fishermen, particularly the fishermen in a currach ?