Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 8 November 2016

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Fishing Industry: Discussion

5:00 pm

Chairman:

I welcome the delegation from the Marine Institute. Dr. Peter Heffernan is the chief executive, Ms Caroline Bocquel is director of corporate services, Dr. Paul Connolly is director of fisheries, Mr. John Evans is director of policy innovation and research services, Mr. Mick Gillooly is director of ocean science and information services and Mr. Liam Lacey is the director of the Irish maritime development office. I thank the witnesses for attending the meeting to discuss issues pertaining to their particular area of responsibility.

I remind members, witnesses and persons in the Gallery to switch off their mobile phones.

Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are reminded of a long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I ask Dr. Heffernan to make his opening statement.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for inviting me to address them today. I wish the committee well in its work and hope that the institute will continue to enjoy a very positive relationship with this committee as it has done with its predecessors.

The statutory remit of the Marine Institute - I should know this by heart - is to undertake, to co-ordinate, to promote and to assist in marine research and development and to provide such services related to marine research and development, that in the opinion of the Marine Institute will promote economic development, and create employment and protect the marine environment. This mandate was further expanded to include the provision of services to support the development of the shipping and related maritime services sector through the Irish Maritime Development Office, which is a service area within the institute.

As can be seen from our annual reports, we operate under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine and are governed by a board of directors under the chair of Dr. John Killeen. The board maintains a strong focus on corporate governance and had good engagement with the executive management team, completing an annual review and update of the institute's strategic business plan in 2015, and it has recently commenced the process for the development of a new strategic plan for completion in 2017.

We provide a range of scientific and technical services to our parent Department as well as to a host of other Departments and Government agencies pertaining to Ireland's maritime domain, an area ten times the size of our terrestrial landmass. We deliver these services through the efforts of a highly qualified and dedicated workforce of approximately 200 full-time and temporary contract staff. We operate from world-class infrastructure including laboratory facilities in Oranmore, County Galway, and Newport, County Mayo, and the research vessels RV Celtic Explorerand RV Celtic Voyageras well as the unmanned submarine Holland IIand regional offices in Dublin and key fishing harbours.

Our turnover is projected at €45 million with 35% of this coming from a variety of sources outside our Vote, including competitive international research awards, charter income and funding from other Departments for service provision. We support the implementation of the Government's integrated marine plan, Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth, through our work with the interdepartmental marine co-ordination group chaired by the Minister, Deputy Creed. During 2015 and 2016, we have delivered key projects relating to national marine research infrastructure as well as international collaborative achievements in marine research, and a wide range of national scientific and advisory programmes.

On the research infrastructure front, we saw the successful installation in 2015 and commissioning in 2016 of Ireland's first ocean observatory in Galway Bay, with a 4 km subsea power and data cable deployed off the coast from Spiddal. This collaboration between the institute, the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SmartBay Ireland, UCC and DCU is a huge step in Ireland's marine research infrastructure. It will enhance our ability to attract companies to develop and test ocean-energy technology in Ireland, allowing energy developers to monitor how their devices perform in the ocean, as well as providing unique real-time access to monitor ongoing changes in the marine environment including those related to climate change.

A major upgrade to the RV Celtic Explorerwas carried out in 2015 and included the installation of state-of-the-art sonar systems for bathymetric mapping in deep and shallow waters and the installation of a deep-water sub-bottom profiler.

On the Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance and the implementation of the Galway statement, in June 2015, an international team of seabed mapping experts led by Thomas Furey from the Marine Institute boarded the national research vessel, RV Celtic Explorer, to map a transect of the Atlantic Ocean between St. John's, Newfoundland, and Galway. This was the first seabed mapping survey to take place under the Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance, a collaboration between the EU, USA and Canada, established by the Galway statement signed at the Marine Institute in May 2013. Among the achievements of this survey was the charting of a mountain range with peaks higher than Carrauntoohil.

The Marine Institute is taking a lead role in this collaboration as the lead partner in the Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance co-ordination and support action funded by EU Horizon 2020. Further transects followed with international vessels, and the RV Celtic Explorerdid a further transect in 2016. Work is at an advanced stage with an international seabed mapping working group to prepare a campaign mapping the entire north Atlantic with the Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance partners. Ireland is regarded as a world leader in this arena in light of the national seabed-mapping programme led by the Geological Survey of Ireland and the Marine Institute.

Significant EU research funding has been leveraged by EU research organisations to support the implementation of the Galway statement with approximately €140 million invested in a range of projects to date from Horizon 2020. Major alignment efforts with Canadian and USA national funding programmes have been achieved. Canada announced an unprecedented $220 million investment in an Atlantic Oceans Frontier Institute during September. This is a collaboration between universities in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. The Marine Institute is one of a very select group of international partners in this initiative.

Ireland continues to perform excellently in the marine-related funding programmes of Horizon 2020. To date, Irish researchers, including those in the Marine Institute, have secured between 4.5% and 5% of available funds which is several times the expected pro rataearnings by Ireland.

We worked closely with the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF, operational programme for Ireland, particularly on developing biodiversity and data collection schemes. The EMFF operational programme was launched in January 2016 and the Marine Institute was allocated funding of €36 million for the new data collection framework until 2020. This will support the largest fishery scientific efforts in the history of the State during the period of the programme. Further important programmes were established under the EMFF integrated maritime policy element to support the work of the interagency marine development team to be established in the Marine institute-IMDO; and to support the provision of technical and scientific services from the Marine Institute to the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, which has the lead role in the establishment of marine spatial planning in Ireland.

We maintained a strong focus on the delivery of key scientific services, including seafood safety, providing scientific and technical advice to the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine, carrying out a range of monitoring programmes to support the EU legislation including the marine strategy framework directive, the water framework directive and the EU data collection multiannual programme. Retention and expansion of our laboratory accreditation ISO certification has been important to ensure the highest quality in all scientific and regulatory advisory services.

Our role in ensuring the safety of Irish seafood involves supporting the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland by monitoring farmed finfish product to ensure residues of treatment chemicals are below regulatory limits; farmed and wild shellfish for the incidence of potentially harmful microbiological agents such as E. coli and norovirus, and biotoxins; and Irish waters for the incidence and prevalence of harmful algal blooms and environmental contaminants, with contaminant analyses also supporting EU requirements under the water framework directive and the marine strategy framework directive.

The Marine Institute houses three national reference laboratories for diseases of finfish, molluscs and crustaceans, and is the competent authority for ensuring compliance with fish health regulations. We also support marine research nationally through our research and funding office and by providing access to the national research vessels, RV Celtic Explorerand RV Celtic Voyagerthrough the ship-time funding programme.

We produce an annual stock book which contains the latest scientific advice on those stocks fished by the Irish fleet. This was delivered to the Minister in November 2015 and was a key component of his sustainability assessment presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine in December 2015. It was also at the heart of the negotiations at the EU Council of Ministers in December, which set fishing opportunities for 2016.

We look forward to this year's discussions with the committee in the coming weeks.

We provide significant support for education and training across scientific disciplines and in the maritime and seafarers domain each year through programmes such as the strategic marine alliance for research and training, SMART, and the Irish seafarers education assistance scheme, ISEAS, in partnership with a range of higher education institutions. We launched the Cullen fellowship programme in 2015 that provides research and training opportunities for scientists in marine and related disciplines leading to masters and PhD degrees. We also target programmes at primary level, such as the Follow the Fleet and the Explorers Education Programme, as well as secondary levels, with targeted local science festival participation, school visits to the national research vessels and an open day at our Oranmore headquarters for transition year students annually. We are expanding our use of video content to bring our work and the importance of our shared marine resource to a wider audience. This includes the Galway Bay ocean energy test site and ocean observatory and the transatlantic seabed mapping survey.

The Marine Institute supports the work of the marine co-ordination group and the implementation of the integrated marine plan, Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth, HOOW. This involved the provision of key support services for the work of task forces, the preparation of the annual progress reports and organising the major national Our Ocean Wealth Conference, now in its third year and attracting over 400 delegates annually, and the public engagement event SeaFest. I recommend that members attend the conference on 30 June 2017. The Marine Institute will house and manage the soon-to-be-formed marine development team, a team created to work collaboratively across development agencies and Departments to achieve the ambitions set out by the Government in the Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth plan.

Recent independent economic reports on the performance of the Irish marine economy indicate it is outperforming the general economy and on course to achieve the HOOW turnover target of €6.4 billion by 2020. Turnover growth from 2010 to 2012 was from €3.1 billion to €4.2 billion, with a continued estimated trend to €4.5 billion to 2014. The recent OECD report published this year indicates the anticipated growth trends across the global marine economy from its current level at $1.5 trillion to an estimated $3 trillion in 2030; it is important that Ireland continues to work in an integrated manner in order to take best advantage of global growth projections.

Under the aegis of the marine co-ordination group and as part of the implementation of Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth, a major marine festival to generate public engagement about Ireland’s marine domain was created. In its first year of 2015, it drew 10,000 visitors to Ringaskiddy in Cork and last year in Galway it grew to over 60,000 visitors. Plans are well under way for 2017 events in Galway from 28 June to 2 July across a campus stretching from NUI Galway to the harbour area. Again, I take the opportunity to encourage committee members to participate. The new national marine research and innovation strategy is a key action for the Marine Institute under the integrated marine plan. There is also preparation of a new national marine research and innovation strategy for 2021. This has been prepared in consultation with the marine co-ordination group and is now open to an online public consultation process in November. We aim to complete the strategy by the year-end, if feasible, depending on the scale of public consultation. We welcome the views of the committee on the draft plan.

On climate change and oceans, we can consider that half the oxygen we get in every breath we take has been produced by microscopic plants floating in the ocean surface layers and that 97% of all the water on this planet has its "reservoir" in our oceans, so one can begin to grasp the critical importance of a healthy ocean to the planet's life support system. Our weather and climate are hugely dependent on the interactions of the Atlantic Ocean and the atmosphere. With the reality of the serious challenges posed by climate change and its impacts both on the oceans and coastal nations such as Ireland, the Marine Institute is redoubling its efforts to participate in national, European and global scientific programmes to generate fit-for-purpose capability to forecast the major changes in our oceans and help mitigate their impacts. We also participate in climate action groups with the Department and interdepartmental and agency climate-related scientific committees and advisory bodies. We anticipate a significant societal demand for enhanced scientific capacity in this arena in the years immediately ahead. One of the major reports to be produced by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change next year will deal with the interactions between the oceans and cryosphere.

Brexit poses significant challenges and complex issues for the entire marine economy. The institute will place a high priority on supporting our parent Department with scientific advisory services in the period ahead as the Department continues to deepen its analyses of the likely impacts on the fisheries sector. In addition, through the work of the Irish Marine Development Office, we will continue to assist the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport in forming a comprehensive understanding of the likely impacts of Brexit on our shipping, ports and transport sectors, as well as the consequential impact on international trade. This in turn supports our parent Department and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport as they feed into the central contingency framework being co-ordinated by the Department of the Taoiseach.

Recognising the contribution and quality of Marine Institute staff, the board, together with the executive management team, made employee engagement a key ongoing priority objective. A Great Place To Work survey of staff was carried out, as well as a culture audit, and a number of initiatives were introduced focusing on enhancing employee engagement. We have also achieved and maintained Excellence Through People standard accreditation in human resource management and this has been held continuously since 2005. This accreditation complements the wide range of laboratory-based scientific services that are accredited by internationally recognised accreditation bodies. Staffing levels were a significant pressure point for the organisation, particularly during the latter stages of the recent economic crisis, when they reached critical levels. Through the dedication and sustained effort of the staff of the institute, we managed to maintain and in some instances increase core service delivery programmes throughout the very challenging climate of cutbacks and staffing embargoes. The institute continues to liaise with Department to address critical competency and capacity gap areas in the context of the work force planning framework in the public sector. We have seen some limited but very welcome recruitment from Exchequer resources in recent times and we have benefited to a greater degree from capacity growth funded from external competitive funding sources.

The Marine Institute has recently been honoured by two international awards. In September, we received the International Co-operation Project award from Commissioner Vella, DG MARE, for our role as co-ordinators of the Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance Co-ordination and Support Action. Tomorrow, we will be the recipients of The Maritime Alliance - based in San Diego - International Maritime Partner award in recognition of the Marine Institute’s role in the creation and ongoing promotion of the SmartOcean Cluster in Ireland, which is a cluster of marine technology and ICT-based services companies and research centres.

I thank the Chairman and the committee will appreciate from the above that the Marine Institute is a dynamic, internationally recognised organisation that provides a wide variety of services to our diverse clients. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss matters of interest with the committee and to working with it in the period ahead.

Chairman:

I thank the witness for a very comprehensive opening statement.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the responsibilities of the Marine Institute is to evaluate the environmental impact studies relating to aquaculture licensing. The presentation referred to the potential of the marine sector to create wealth in the global context. How can people involved with the aquaculture industry plan for new markets when they cannot get licences? The institute is a core component of the process so what is causing these delays that are seriously holding back the potential of the industry to create jobs on the west coast of Ireland? This is regardless of whether the Department makes a decision for or against a licence and either way, people need certainty. Decisions must be made in a proper timeframe that allows everybody to know where they stand. What is the experience of the institute in that regard? Does the institute have a role in examining the causes of coastal erosion and what can be done, particularly for communities and amenities around the coast, in protecting against it?

Photo of Charlie McConalogueCharlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Heffernan for taking the time to put his presentation together, come before the committee to deliver it and then answer our questions. I welcome him and his colleagues.

In recent years, all organisations' funding has generally been affected. Regarding the challenges Dr. Heffernan's organisation faces in meeting the service level expected of it, and particularly regarding assistance to meet the targets under the Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth strategy, is the Marine Institute under particular pressures or does the organisation need certain issues addressed to enable it to do the work expected of it - and which it does on an ongoing basis - properly?

Could Dr. Heffernan flesh out the potential implications of Brexit and the considerations we need to take into account regarding the work carried out by the Marine Institute?

A key aspect of the Marine Institute's work is assessing fish stocks and working to monitor them. Could Dr. Heffernan provide an update on how that is working out, the current trends and the likely future trends from the assessment that the Marine Institute has carried out to date?

Photo of Martin KennyMartin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses and thank Dr. Heffernan for his presentation. Dr. Heffernan mentioned that the Marine Institute does a lot of international work with various agencies from different countries. I expect that Brexit will have an impact on this. What kind of impact does Dr. Heffernan expect it will have? Will it mean that there will be more opportunities, particularly if a lot of this work, we assume, is EU-based and coming from an EU perspective, and that Britain may not be part of that any more?

Second, regarding the EU waters, I am looking at one of the little maps in the presentation with the red shading around Britain. There will be a big hole in it when Britain leaves the EU. It will put everything into a very volatile situation, not only for our fishermen but also for everyone and everything involved in the marine industry. Where will that go? What impact does Dr. Heffernan expect it to have? If he does expect it to have an impact - I am sure he does - what planning is happening in respect of that matter? What measures are being taken to try to assess where we go from here?

That is enough for now. I will leave it at that.

Chairman:

I will go back to Dr. Heffernan before I call the other questioners.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

I thank members.

As Senator Mac Lochlainn pointed out, our key role in the general agricultural licensing arena is in the provision of the scientific and technical advice to a particular application. One of the great delaying and frustrating factors for everybody involved in the arena in recent years has been the judgment against Ireland in the context of compliance with EU legislation. Ireland found itself on the wrong side of an EU court judgment, which meant that Ireland had to undertake a significant body of new science surveying bay by bay across every area that was designated under those special areas of conservation, SACs, or special protection areas, SPAs. That took a very significant scientific lift during the worst period of the fiscal crisis. However, I am glad to say that by the scientific effort on the part of the institute, in partnership with several other agencies - including the Department's agencies represented here today and the National Parks and Wildlife Service - we provided the scientific basis for the creation of appropriate assessments, which was a critical step against the conservation objective. The provision of those assessments bay by bay allows the licensing authority with confidence to deal with the license application and the progressive backlog. We will have the vast bulk of all that work completed in the fiscal year ahead, which will cover the vast bulk of licensed activity pending or seeking renewal. The backlog has been a significant source of frustration for everybody involved on the State side and the private sector side of planning for agriculture. There is a very significant body of support in this regard, and I am sure BIM will articulate that in the context of support for agriculture developments in the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF, programme in the period ahead. We are nearing the end of that tunnel of the pipeline of provision of appropriate assessments across all the key bay areas.

The key role the institute provides in the issue of coastal erosion is the operation of a coastal data buoy network. Buoys M1 to M5 and M7 are in situproviding real-time, hourly, satellite-transmitted information on the state of the oceans. We are increasingly building an integrated digital ocean picture from a multitude of data sources - fisheries, environmental and coastal. We seek to be and will be increasingly strong partners in the national effort for long-term flood forecasting led by the OPW, in partnership with Met Éireann, with which we operate the data buoy network. We are very ambitious about the development of an Irish capacity to be in a global leadership position. We argue that that is the capacity Ireland requires, given the scale of our marine resources, to understand what is being driven by climate change, what are natural challenges and the scale of the risks and how to mitigate those risks, be it coastal erosion, shifting of fish stocks or opportunities created by the changes.

One thing is certain: things are changing in the ocean and they are changing more quickly than predictions, not only for fish stocks but also for the survival of life on this planet. Mankind needs to know that. One of the benefits of the Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance is that the scale of the scientific undertaking is bigger than any one country but that, because of the Galway statement, the EU, Canada and the US are all aligned to work together on the big lift. If I were to simplify it, I would say it is a question of mapping it and observing it. It is worth thinking, for example, how much we take for granted in how we are able to observe with the aid of satellites. One can see one's back garden with the aid of satellites but one cannot see a mile under the sea floor. A satellite cannot penetrate the ocean. It can give one a picture of the ocean surface, the surface layers and the temperature and brilliant scientists are able to turn those temperature readings into an image of the sea floor. However, the work on the transect from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Galway showed last year that a mountain on the sea floor was inaccurate on a vertical scale by between 1 km and 2 km and east to west or north to south by 2 km plus. Over £120 million was the original award for the contracts for the search for the Malaysian airliner which went down on 8 March 2014 and which has still not been located. The search area has been increased by 50%. The search company's gear hit a volcano and the company lost that gear because it did not know the volcano was in front of it. These are among the best survey companies.

If water is taken away, the sea floor constitutes 70% of the surface of this planet, and less than 10% of it has been mapped. However, Ireland is a world leader in mapping its marine territory and is so recognised. It is great to go to international meetings at which Ireland is held up as the poster boy or girl for being able to do this. We kept it alive with funding through the then Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources through the worst of the fiscal crisis because there was a real sense that this was an achievement by Ireland against a very tough backdrop.

For coastal erosion, the build-up of the science capacity and the integrated digital systems is important. I mentioned the seabed cable in Galway Bay. That is a very important first investment by Ireland to be a leader in playing in that big arena and to be able to make forecasts about the ocean. The ocean will influence every sector, be it shellfish, safety, salmon production, mackerel or herring. Nature will push us around a lot more than we will push it around, so we need to understand it. It is a big piece of real estate with a huge volume of water in it. We have a lot to offer regarding coastal erosion, but not exclusively in university centres such as the UCC centre, which is world-class and does fantastic work on design.

I would say most piers and harbour protection plans were designed or modelled there in tanks that model ocean energy devices for prototype developers.

Deputy McConalogue asked about the nature of the challenges. Any agency could come in here and tell members it needed more resources, but set against the scale of Ireland's marine territory, a quantum step in our investment is justified and it would return to us. An independently verified cost-benefit analysis on the seabed mapping exercise shows a return of between four and six times the original investment. Creating knowledge and being able to use that knowledge pay back big time. Given the scale of Ireland's resources, progressing the economic objectives in the integrated marine plan to get to the figure of €6.4 billion will justify increased investment by the State when resources permit.

We have had to adapt to, react to and live with the reality of the fiscal crisis and I commend the team around me, and the staff at the institute, on the way they have demonstrated their ability to keep their cutting edge and to keep winning European money when the system did not even allow us to employ people with 100% funding from such resources. We are in an era in which there is a welcome delegated sanction mechanism to replace the public sector. We are competing very well for resources and creating employment opportunities and these are the primary initial pathways to growth. We await the outcome of budget Estimates and provisions for next year.

My colleague will comment on the specifics on some of the work being done on the fish stocks. Brexit will afford many more challenges than opportunities. In some niches there may be opportunities, but we have many successful partnerships with Scottish, Welsh, English and Northern Irish bodies and they are very important to our scientific work as it is structured at the moment. They are important for the work done through EU reference labs on, for example, seafood safety, and we are going to have to watch what happens very carefully. We are doing a lot of analysis on the potential impact and we will be very busy in the years ahead in supporting several Departments with scientific advice, analysis and assessments as to the various ways it could play out. There was a question on the potential for a partner in a research proposal to be lost to us. EU-based scientists are worrying about how welcome they will be as leaders of research proposals within the EU or with a big partner if there is a risk to their eligibility or if their eligibility criteria remain unknown while negotiations are happening. That could influence many scientific partnering groups that prepare competitive proposals to Europe and have to make judgment calls on how wise it may be to partner with an English institution. We have excellent and successful partnerships with UK-based institutions. The UK Treasury has guaranteed all partnerships in contract at the moment with a letter of comfort so that, if somebody withdraws, the Treasury will make up the funding for EU partnerships. It would be a sad day if all the partnerships with EU groups which have been built up over decades were lost.

Dr. Paul Connolly:

Deputy McConalogue asked about fish stocks and trends. We are now at a critical part of the year and all the results of the science are coming together. There are good news stories about stocks and bad news stories. It is a mixed bag but we are working very closely with the industry, representatives of which we met all day yesterday. We went through the advice for next year's fishing stock by stock. We met environmental non-governmental organisations, NGOs, last week and we are just about to produce our stock book, which the Minister will bring with him to the December Council. He will have the latest scientific advice on all the stocks and we will be highlighting all the key points he needs to make in the negotiations. The stock trends are all outlined in the stock book and we assure the Minister that he will get the best science support at the December Council. We will get back to the committee when the Minister presents the sustainability assessment to this committee in early December. All the science we are undertaking will be finalised and he will present the results of the trends for all stocks to members at that meeting. We will also be here to answer specific questions.

Chairman:

There are three questioners left: Deputy Pringle, Senator Mulherin and Senator Ó Clochartaigh.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My first question is on the Natura 2000 bays. Dr. Heffernan said the institute was nearing the end of the assessment stages, but how near the end is it? There are 90 bays. Once data collection is completed and appropriate conservation objectives are set, there will be a requirement for the process to start again and for the science to be updated. Has that been thought about? Has the way the project is going to work into the future been considered? One of the difficulties was that there were three agencies, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Marine Institute and the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine, and nobody really took ownership of the process or co-ordinated and drove it. Does Dr. Heffernan agree that this needs to happen in the future? There will be a need to update the science for each of the bays. What planning has there been around that?

Dr. Heffernan also mentioned the Irish Maritime Development Office which was set up to provide services to support the development of the shipping related maritime services sector. Will he expand on its role? How will it interact with the Marine Survey Office in certifying seafarers? Does he see a role for the institute in terms of the many farmer-fishermen who have left fishing and gained certification in England, through the MCA, to work on offshore wind energy construction but who do not have equivalency here in terms of the recognition of qualifications? Is there an opportunity for the institute to develop something along those lines?

On the question of the Galway Bay offshore renewable research centre, what is SmartBay Ireland and what is the relationship between SmartBay Ireland and the Marine Institute? How will the relationship develop? There appears to be a lot of concern in Galway that a 35-year lease has been sought for the site, leading to a degree of permanency in offshore renewable energy construction. When the original ten-year lease was awarded in 2006, was an appropriate environmental assessment carried out? Would any details of the assessment be available which one could look at?

The seabed mapping of Irish waters was fantastic and very impressive and the partnership with Canada is very interesting. Is this raw science which will feed into climate change research or is there any commercialisation potential to it? If so, will the witnesses expand on it?

The institute monitors farmed finfish. Has there been any research into dioxin levels in farmed finfish?

Finally, many mussel farms go down owing to the appearance of biotoxins in certain bays. Is there any research into what is causing biotoxins and into what can protect mussels from them?

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Harvesting Our Ocean Wealth strategy is a very ambitious document. Our ocean wealth is underdeveloped in comparison to Scotland and Scandinavian countries. There are concerns as to the environmental impact of aquaculture and fish farms off the coast and as to the sustainability of our wild fish stock. Inland Fisheries Ireland raised concerns about the impact of fish farms passing diseases onto returning wild salmon. What is the position of the Marine Institute on this? The concerns are legitimate because inshore angling is very important and it is very important to conserve fish stocks. Dr. Heffernan said many issues were at play but some of the material online about the environmental fallout from fish farms causes great concern.

It has been suggested that onshore, rather than offshore, fish farms are preferable because it is easier to contain their environmental impact. Can we not try to take this approach? On ocean and wave energy, can the witnesses say how we compare to the work being done in Scotland? I believe Scotland is far ahead of us. Every time we try to develop a wind farm in this country, we are told to put it offshore or develop ocean energy. What costs are involved in ocean energy and how feasible is it? The Marine Institute has to take economic considerations into its work. How close are we to developing this? The most economically viable renewable energies are supported but they are still not as cheap as fossil fuels. How far are we from ocean energies becoming viable and coming into the mainstream to feed our national grid? Is it a long time away? How advanced are they in Scotland?

Dr. Connolly said he would return to us with further information. Is this in respect of the aquaculture review? I understand the Department was undertaking a review, or perhaps the Marine Institute was doing so on the Department's behalf. How is it progressing and what input has the institute had into addressing environmental impact concerns? If we do not take account of environmental issues, we do not have sustainability and things do not last, meaning we pay a price in the long term.

Can the witnesses give an update on what is envisaged for the seaweed industry and seaweed harvesting? There are concerns over how the rights of traditional seaweed harvesters are being protected and how we can access and harvest seaweed in a sustainable way while providing industry with sufficient quantities. How can we expand that market?

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

I am aware of the issues relating to the SmartBay project off Spiddal and I know the institute carried out a number of consultations, which was very welcome. I understand there have been some 500 objections in the course of the planning process. Are the witnesses aware of the nature of these objections? Have they been asked to supply further information in response? Where does the process go from here?

Brexit and quotas were discussed and I know the Marine Institute does a lot of forward modelling but, if and when Britain pulls out of the Common Fisheries Policy, will we have an opportunity to renegotiate the policy? What scientific arguments could we make in that context? Do the witnesses have any sense of what the British will do as regards fishing endangered stocks? If they are outside the Common Fisheries Policy, this will be a big question. Might there be a Norwegian-style scenario in which the UK will tie in with EU policy on common fisheries? Other countries have gone a bit rogue on fishing stocks when it suited them so will the Marine Institute create a model for a doomsday scenario?

There has been much discussion among fishermen about the factory shops that fish off our shores. They maintain that not an awful lot of monitoring is going on as to what happens on board. They are going through our waters and hoovering up a lot of our fish. They take the good fish and spew out whatever is left, which is having a much bigger impact on fisheries stock than traditional fishing. Is there any scientific evidence to support or refute such an argument? Is it possible to find out whether waste is being discharged from ships in this way?

Have the witnesses been asked for an input into the successor to the Foreshore Act, which deals with the seaweed industry and the licensing of seaweed harvesting? What is the potential of multitrophic aquaculture? Is it a science for the future or will it come on stream in the short term? Do we have the potential to become world leaders in the area? The fish farm of Inis Oírr has gone by the wayside but have projects of this type gone off the table completely? There was talk of a fish farm on a similar scale off the coast of Mayo but is that still being considered? Is the institute still preparing consultations on that project and others? Where is fish farm policy going? Are we still looking at major projects or are we looking at smaller, more sustainable, inshore projects?

Chairman:

This committee will be doing a body of work on Brexit over the next number of weeks and months. I invite Dr. Heffernan to come back at a later stage to feed into some of the aspects of the report, which we intend to publish early in the new year. I invite him to address the issues raised by members.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

I will start with Deputy Pringle who had the highest number of questions. He nearly hit ten questions, so I will see if I can get ten answers.

With Natura 2000, we are stretching over a three to four-year period and we are in the last six to nine months. The Deputy asked what is left to be done in terms of appropriate assessments by bay. The number of relevant licences is diminishing the priority of licences. In terms of scientific lift, the back of it is broken. By year end, the estimates from the figures before me are that the vast bulk of it will be done.

The question on the updating is a very pertinent one. It is something we will engage in. I assure the Deputy and the committee that, as the service provider for carrying out the appropriate assessments, I felt very co-ordinated, very pushed and the team, the demand and pressure to get the work done was there constantly. It was a national exercise. We were in a bad place in terms of a court judgment so there was no easy out. The scrutiny level from Europe was very large and the wriggle room was very minimal. Ireland has done a very solid job in equipping itself to be at the forefront of the undertaking of such assessments and to stand over the scientific assessments done on those with confidence. That will empower decision-making as opposed to being a bottleneck for it in the period ahead.

On the question about the work related to the ports and transport and the linked question on seafarer certification for those who wish to pursue another career, through Mr. Liam Lacey, who is the director of the IMDO, we are on the advisory board to the National Maritime College in Cork, which provides such certification and training.

The operation of the Marine Survey Office is a function of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, so I would not be confident to comment on the policy there. We work very closely with the National Maritime College. The first SeaFest in 2015 was on the campus shared by the National Maritime College with elements of Cork Institute of Technology, CIT, and University College Cork, UCC.

With the permission of the Chairman, Mr. Lacey will address the broader question of the possibilities in the shipping and transport area. I ask Mr. Lacey to answer that quickly.

Mr. Liam Lacey:

On Deputy Pringle's question on the role of the IMDO in port transport shipping, we are required to deliver policy advice to the Department and the Minister in those areas. We are involved in business development both at the national and international level. Ireland has a very fine indigenous shipping industry, and companies such as Irish Ferries, Arklow Shipping and Mainport are on the move and expanding. We very much encourage that.

On the international shipping scene, Ireland has opportunities to encourage shipping companies to trade within Irish waters to deliver the services required to maintain our trading links with the rest of the world and also to come to Ireland to take advantage of Ireland's tonnage tax regime which requires such companies to create an organisation here in this country which creates employment. We are also involved in training, as Dr. Heffernan said, through the National Maritime College in Cork. We sit on the advisory board of that and we support the training of cadets in shipping companies through the provision of funding for their training. We are also involved in the development of our ports and work very closely with the Department to understand and predicate the requirement for increased capacity in our ports as the economy of the country grows. Those two things are very closely correlated, so it is important for us to have a clear view about when additional capacity needs to be delivered at our ports because of the very long lead times involved in that.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

I will address the question about Galway Bay and the 35-year lease and come back and close out with a second questioner. On the Galway Bay application for the renewable energy test site, our role is as a partner to the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland in the operation of the test site, and that led to our application for the lease and the renewal of the lease. It has been applied for on a 35-year basis. The 35-year term is explained on the basis that the overarching plan nationally, the Ocean Energy Development Plan, is couched in a 35-year timeframe. The infrastructure that was invested in by Science Foundation Ireland and the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment in creating the test tank facility in the centre of excellence in Cork is predicated on the 35-year basis. The goal is to give certainty to potential device prototype developers that there is integrated full-scale testing capacity in Ireland. Senator Mulherin asked about how we compete to attract technology developers. It will help to develop technology solutions to help Ireland avail of the fantastic scale of renewable resources at and off our shores, both in the water and the air associated with the seas. That is the rationale for the 35-year term. It aligns with the overarching Government plan.

My colleague, Ms Caroline Bocquel, will quickly explain the SmartBay relationship.

Ms Caroline Bocquel:

SmartBay is a not-for-profit company established in 2011 to take receipt of and spend a Higher Education Authority, HEA, grant that was provided to establish a national testing demonstration platform in Galway Bay. At that time, there was no possibility of any State agency being able to operate a grant of that nature because of our inability to hire people. The partners, which were the National University of Ireland, NUI, Galway, Dublin City University, DCU, and the Marine Institute, established a not-for-profit company with the specific purpose of managing and promoting the test site. The grant expired in June 2016, so it has a much narrower role now which is simply to promote the test site. It is doing that on behalf of the Marine Institute and the SEAI and will be reviewed annually.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

The original lease applied for was for ten years, and at that time an environmental impact statement, EIS, was not required by the licensing authority, but all our applications are done in line with the application requirements at the time. I can say with full assurance that the protection of the marine environment is at the very core of what the Marine Institute is about.

The question on our science is a very good one in the context of raw or basic science and the potential to commercialise. The science we undertake ourselves is very much focused on the services we provide which are very much at the interface of the governance of resource development, its sustainability and supporting its sustainable development. We focus on the science the Marine Institute competes for to be in that arena. We fund science that runs the spectrum of basic through to applied and very much understand that one has to speculate to a degree in creating knowledge to get an impact.

In reference to the arena of ocean energy development, the biggest mistake for a State agency would be to predict the winner. Our role is to be part of integrated opportunity creation in Ireland in order that those who have the brains, drive and innovation, primarily in the private sector, to go after an idea have the machinery to facilitate testing and demonstration to allow them to break it, make it better and compete. We would be competing in what is very much a global marketplace. We have the challenge in Ireland to create the environment where people can sustainably harvest that energy potential and be the people who create the intellectual property, companies, businesses and employment and who make the sustainable and green energy available. We can be at every facet of that business chain or we can be the guys bringing the sandwiches out to the international experts who have done it and the international companies who own it. I know which side of the equation I want Ireland to be on and that is why we are trying to play that role.

On dioxin levels, through our advanced chemistry programmes the institute is part of the national testing and screening both in the environment and in food products.

We have research initiatives of varying scales, both partnering in Europe and funded nationally, that get behind the science capacity.

In biotoxins, the Deputy raised a point which brings together much of what I said earlier. These are naturally occurring "red tides" which are driven by natural ocean forces. We are involved in predictive systems working with shellfish farmers all over the country over the years investing in both the nationally funded and EU funded programmes that are progressively increasing our ability to predict. The ideal scenario is that the farmer gets advice that the next three or four days or week, for example, are looking bad and if the farmer can get the product out of the water body, he or she can still get it on the market. We work with BIM and the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority in the system. It is added value research. During the past 20 years, we have availed of partnerships with Canada, the US and Europe in building up the capacity. I like to think we are at the cutting edge of it. I think I addressed all nine of Deputy Pringle's questions.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Dr. Heffernan saying we do not test for dioxins in farmed fin fish?

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

We do test for them. We are part of the national screening system.

Chairman:

We have questions from Senators Michelle Mulherin and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh. Sorry for rushing you. We also have two more groups to speak.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

I am in the Chairman's hands. The concerns about fin fish farming are nothing new. The national policy is for the development of sustainable aquaculture. One of the key areas of concern is sea lice management. It is monitored, entirely independently of the industry, by the Marine Institute. It is publicly reported on, has been repeatedly reviewed nationally and internationally and is seen to be at the forefront of such system monitoring. There is absolute transparency as to the scale of the risk at any one time. We are the competent authority for fin fish diseases, such as diseases of salmon farmed in Ireland and it is monitored independently of the industry. There are very strict and rigorous protocols for farm movements, inspections, export and placing on the market, which all companies have to adhere to. In certain quarters, there is an ongoing and very real concern about fin fish aquaculture. The Marine Institute's opinion is that current practices in fin fish aquaculture in Ireland are at the forefront of sustainability and we are securing a very high value for organic and wild production of a modest tonnage in fin fish farming. There is market evidence of this. Some would advocate that onshore farming is preferable, and I recognise this.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What does Dr. Heffernan say to it?

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

Sustainable, farmed salmon production is sustainable, licensable and is securing a very good place in the market. There is a place for it in Ireland's future.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What does Dr. Heffernan say to the IFI? It does not have an economic consideration but is just considering the wild fish and conservation.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

I accept the fact that the IFI would have a view on it. There are many potential threats to wild fisheries. The IFI has a role in the protection of wild fisheries and will voice an opinion on any potential risk area. There are many causes of mortality in salmon and fin fish. In the Senator's county, we run the largest monitoring station for salmon, eel and sea trout movement in Ireland for over 50 years. The facility was originally established by Guinness and it is one of three indicator sites in the world for the state of stocks. We have a very good picture and provide a very good scientific overview of the state of salmon stocks. However, the best science brains in the world have been investigating what is causing the mortality and continuing decline of salmon at sea progressively over a number of years, and it is still an elusive quest.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the targets in the Harnessing our Ocean Wealth strategy for aquaculture be achieved without environmental degradation?

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

The licensing conditions that prevail for the operation of aquaculture in the sea protect against environmental degradation. There is a very rigorous, independent monitoring programme on a number of parameters for it and I am happy to stand over the rigorous and independent nature of the aquaculture monitoring programmes we are associated with. It can be done in a sustainable manner.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it not the case that there is no treatment of the effluent coming out of fish farms? It just goes into the sea. It is not like how we dispose of other effluent, with septic tanks or the environmentally conscious disposal of slurry.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

The fish are of the sea and belong in the sea. Their waste products are natural in an natural environment. The key is that the quantity is in tandem with the movement and scale of the water. There are very strict monitoring programmes to ensure there is no build up of fish waste beneath a fish farm that would degrade the locality. This is monitored independently. The disease and lice situation is monitored. It is right that rigorous, exacting monitoring programmes are imposed in the licensing conditions for those who are granted a licence to cultivate in the sea. It is done sustainably.

I will return to the test site in dealing with Senator Ó Clochartaigh's material. Ireland, bar no place on the planet, has the best combined advantage of wave energy, offshore wind energy and, to a lesser degree, tidal energy. The published projections by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland give testament to this. The sequence of what is likely to be commercially viable is: first, tidal; second, offshore wind; and third, wave. This week, an Irish company is deploying a tidal turbine system which is potentially the most advanced in the world, in the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia, which has the largest tidal surge on the planet. There is an Irish company at the forefront. The Senator has rightly pointed out that the Orkney Islands are enjoying a potential leadership role in their wave energy test site. However, it is on an offshore island. Ireland will be increasingly competitive with the integrated package from the university based system in Cork, the quarter scale system in Galway Bay and the full scale system off Belmullet in Mayo. We will be able to compete for those technology developers. Only in the past week, an Irish based company is developing a quarter scale prototype in Galway Bay on the quarter scale test site, having taken it through the whole development system from Cork. It was manufactured in Shannon Foynes and deployed locally.

I may be corrected if I am wrong, but I think the estimates are €1.5 to €2 million circulated within the Irish economy with each prototype that gets to the quarter scale.

On the seaweed industry, the issue of rights and protection is a licensing issue and beyond the scope of the Marine Institute. We have invested, continue to invest and will continue to invest in the science around sustainability and harvesting techniques alone and in partnership with other agencies. We look at the added value and biotechnology potential of seaweeds, which is very strong. It is not only seaweeds, but a lot of other deep water ocean organisms and there is a significant body of research funded in Ireland to compete internationally in that arena. We partner with other funding entities nationally and internationally on that. I think I have hit the Senator Ó Clochartaigh's questions there.

Chairman:

It is the last round of questions now.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

I thank the Senator for his visit to the Marine Institute earlier in the year to inform himself on ocean energy. The application for the renewable energy lease in Galway Bay is at the stage in the process where the public consultation has been completed and the submissions received. Over 500 submissions were received. We are engaged in the process of providing feedback to the licensing authority on those submissions and hope to have that done in a matter of weeks. We will then await the consideration and determination of the licensing authority on that. I have no estimate of what that timeframe would be.

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

Can Dr. Heffernan clarify the types of submissions to which the Marine Institute is responding?

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

They ranged across the issues that were raised in the public consultation. There were concerns about the 35-year period and the potential for a backdoor to a grid-connected facility, which this will not be. All the frequently-asked questions that are on our website have more or less come up again as part of the consultation. There is nothing of significance that came up which was not in one way or another raised in public consultation or e-mails or comments. I am conscious that it is in a process which I do not want to prejudice by commenting on anything other than to say that over 500 submissions were received. We are responding to them and the process will take care of itself then.

On Brexit, it is way too early in the process to get into renegotiation of quotas. My colleague, Dr. Paul Connolly, can comment to a degree on that. Every scenario would have to be analysed in any comprehensive doomsday versus best-case scenario. Opportunities, risks and threats will certainly be part of our own assessment from a service-provision perspective. I am sure there will be many areas where scientific scenario assessments will be called for at some stage or other.

Dr. Paul Connolly:

We are doing a great deal of work to support the Department in respect of when it builds its case on Brexit. The problem we have is that to build models, one needs to be pretty sure or to have a good insight into the way the UK will play the game. At the moment, that is completely unknown. We are starting from a scenario we call "the drawbridge". They will lift up and there will be no entrance to UK waters. There will be all kinds of scenarios after that. We have a great deal of data we can use and when we get a bit more clarity on how the UK will play Brexit on fisheries, we will be clearer as to what route we should take. It is very unclear at the moment and that goes for all the different sectors that will be impacted by Brexit. It is all parts of the economy.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

On factory ships and the context of monitoring activity at sea, there is another agency which is better placed to comment on what is or is not happening there. It is not part of the portfolio of the institute to deal with the monitoring of an activity other than to feed into all of the stock assessments. I am not aware of any waste product issue that has been flagged in recent times but we will certainly be there to provide any advice or assessment called for or needed by the management authorities or the Department in that regard. All international vessel activity that happens in Irish waters is monitored through the Naval Service and tracking systems and is ultimately available. There is a picture - not in real time, but post - so that one can assess stocks.

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

The point fishermen make is that they believe fish is hoovered in, the best graded and taken out and the rest dumped. Dr. Heffernan is saying that is not monitored or cannot be measured as part of the scientific research into stocks.

Dr. Paul Connolly:

If we got the information, we would take it into account in our scientific assessment. However, we would have to get the data. Monitoring that is a control and enforcement issue.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

On seaweed harvesting, I am not aware in real time of any significant legislation in circulation for consultation or pre-statutory instrument. In the normal course, Departments refer to agencies through the interdepartmental mechanisms for opinions on that. There is potential for multitrophic aquaculture which might have finfish, seaweed and shellfish in partnership with one another. The Marine Institute would be a willing partner in the exploration of how that might happen from a research perspective. I am not aware of any application in that regard at the moment. On the issue of offshore fish farm production, the Marine Institute recently provided advice to the Department on scale and that was published in the strategy for aquaculture and the operational programme associated with aquaculture earlier this year. That has been dealt with.

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

In his response on aquaculture licensing, Dr. Heffernan referred to EU legislation. However, that pertains to SACs. There are considerable delays for aquaculture licensing outside SACs. What is the excuse there?

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

I am not aware of the scale outside SPAs and SACs.

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

There are delays of five years in applications outside SACs. There is widespread chaos. That is the only way to describe it.

Dr. Peter Heffernan:

The broader issue is linked back to the central issue of Natura sites and proximity to Natura sites. It is a good challenge to find any bay which is not within relevant distance of a Natura site. The impact of Natura is immediate if one is within an SAC or SPA. If one is proximate, it is not necessarily less challenging. Natura was at the heart of the major backlog.

Chairman:

I thank Dr. Heffernan for the comprehensive answers to the questions today. It was a thought-provoking and enlightening discussion. I thank Dr. Heffernan for coming before us with his team and for the invitation to the two conferences in Galway next year, which I am sure the committee will be delighted to take up. As I said earlier, the committee will have numerous discussions on Brexit. I look forward to the contribution of the Marine Institute to that debate from a marine point of view. We will extend an invitation to the Marine Institute early in the new year if possible.

I welcome the representatives of Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, Ms Tara McCarthy, chief executive, whom I wish well in her new appointment; Mr. Donal Buckley, business development and innovation director; and Mr. Michael Keatinge, fisheries and training development director. I thank them for attending to discuss fisheries.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give the committee. If they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and 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 and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite Ms McCarthy to make her opening statement.

Ms Tara McCarthy:

We thank the joint committee for the invitation to address it. The invitation specifically referenced a wish to speak about issues concerning the fishing industry and our annual report for 2014. In that regard, I should note that our annual report for 2015 has been signed off and is being translated. It will be available to the committee when laid before the Oireachtas in the coming weeks.

On the issues concerning the fishing industry, the most significant live issue for the sector, like many others, is Brexit; specifically how an island nation with a tradition of sharing waters with the United Kingdom will operate effectively after its departure from the European Union. We are not yet in a position to know for certain, but it is clear that a hard Brexit scenario would place huge pressure on the Irish fleet by removing a huge section of its fishing grounds. Like most other observers, we must await the shape the UK exit negotiations will take and see how the Common Fisheries Policy will interpret Brexit.

While decisions on Brexit are matters for the Government, BIM is contributing to an inter-agency and departmental group on the issue - the Food Wise 2025 high level implementation committee. BIM is supporting the industry through economic analysis and mapping the supply chain for the top five performing species in our key markets to establish price margins at every point of the chain and how we can use this information to minimise the effects of Brexit in these categories. From a market perspective, it is important to note that the industry has faced many challenges in the recent past, including that presented by the Russian ban on imports in 2014 and the massive fall in demand from our largest non-EU market, Nigeria, which accounted for 46% of fish exports in 2015. It is a testament to the resilience of the industry that we surmounted these challenges, with exports increasing by 7% to €564 million last year and the domestic market up 6% to €350 million. The Irish seafood sector is performing well and, in addition to the UK market, we have strong sales in the European Union, at €388 million; Nigeria and north Africa, at €98 million; and Asia, at €47 million.

To provide some perspective on the global opportunity, seafood is and has been on trend for some time. The macro drivers supporting consumer decisions are all in our favour – a growing population, an incessant drive towards healthy natural foods, a need for convenience, a demand for sustainability and traceability pressurising other protein choices. There is scope for considerable growth, with the global demand for seafood projected to grow by 50% by 2030. By 2050 the world’s population will be more than 9 billion, 34% higher than today, and we are increasingly turning to the sea for a protein rich and healthy food solution.

While Irish seafood contributes €1 billion in GDP to the national economy, the sector is not currently structured to leverage all of the drivers to the maximum. Improvements are, therefore, required in the industry. We know that it is fragmented at every level of the supply chain and that in many sectors there is an effective cap on production. We also know that we must attract talent to the industry, that we should be leveraging our work on sustainability more, that we should be doing more to communicate that point of difference to international markets and that we could and should add more value to our catch and aspire to working with higher margins. While knowing all of this puts us some of the way on the path to a solution, we have some distance to travel.

In the past year BIM has focused on developing an integrated and strategic approach to core priorities for the agency and the industry. We have further developed partnerships with our sister agencies and outside expertise in order to deliver that streamlined approach and are engaging more effectively with our most important audiences, the sea fisheries and aquaculture sectors, to articulate our integrated approach. That approach is based on the identification and prioritisation of four pillars of focus for the delivery of our services - skills, sustainability, innovation and competitiveness. Each seeks to address a priority issue for the sector: addressing the skill needs of the industry and developing a pool of talent through training; building added value through the creation of a lexicon for sustainability; looking for opportunities to add more value to our product through innovation; and seeking to capture and optimise the value available in the market through greater competitiveness. Each and every pillar is related, interconnected and, to a certain degree, dependent on the other.

Let me begin with the issue of skills. Traditionally BIM has delivered training to fishing communities through its two colleges in Greencastle and Castletownbere, as well as through mobile coastal training units. This year we will deliver 207 courses in 25 locations, catering for some 1,700 students. While this is a significant effort, we know that more is needed. To date, we have been focused on the technical skills required to operate in the industry, but we realise we must also address the provision of business skills, innovation skills and sustainability skills to ensure we support the businessmen and women who are seeking to grow the industry. We are looking to develop a talent pipeline that will offer the industry relevant and recognised qualifications to support its needs from boat to farm to factory to shop.

With our objective to upskill and develop a systematic approach to training provision, improving safety at sea continues to be a priority for BIM. With commercial fishing universally acknowledged as one of the most hazardous professions in the world, BIM developed and has successfully implemented the enhanced safety scheme, a programme of grant aid towards safety training and new innovative personal flotation devices, PFDs, with integrated personal locator beacons, PLBs. Under this highly successful scheme, over 1,600 fishermen have been trained to date. There is sanctioned grant aid for 1,546 PFDs with integrated PLBs. To further promote the programme and encourage fishermen to wear PFDs while at sea, BIM initiated a major award winning safety awareness advertising and public relations campaign in January this year. Entitled "Live to Tell the Tale", the campaign was born out of the stark fact that 53 fishermen and fisherwomen had lost their lives at sea in the past ten years and that last year alone four fishermen had lost their lives at sea. Our research showed that despite more than 52% of fishermen personally knowing someone who had been lost at sea, over half of them did not wear a personal flotation device and that many of them could not swim. As a result of the campaign which featured real fishermen David Massey and Gerald Copeland, the number of training places increased by 23%. Thankfully, to date in 2016, we have had the lowest rate of fatalities at sea in the fisheries sector and, through the numbers enrolled on courses and signing up for PFDs, we believe we have helped to prompt a seismic change in attitude in the fishing community.

Our second pillar focuses on sustainability.

Sustainability has become a critical requirement for accessing higher premium markets and doing business with global food businesses. Working in partnership with Bord Bia's Origin Green charter is central to our sustainability agenda. We have aligned all our environmental management systems and accreditations for aquaculture, fisheries and processing to the Origin Green programme and our robust standards are a first stage of entry to Origin Green, ensuring that our industry is demonstrating high standards in responsible fishing, green processing and environmental management systems for aquaculture.

In fisheries, we are in a time of great change, with the implementation of the landing obligation and a stated desire to move to maximum sustainable yields on all our stocks by 2020. BIM is driving the agenda in terms of studies on new fishing gear technologies that will work in line with the landing obligation to improve sustainability and fishing effort.

Our third area of focus is innovation. We are looking to drive a cultural shift in industry in this space. Innovation is a catch-all word that can have lots of different meanings. Often, however, it is limited to adding value to products. I would like us to be more adventurous when it comes to innovation. Innovation is an attitude and a behaviour. It is examining the things that we do everyday and challenging ourselves on how to do them better and differently. Innovation has a place in every part of the supply chain and our businesses.

We have an excellent infrastructure in place to deliver expertise and technology to industry through BIM's Seafood Development Centre, SDC, in Clonakilty. This facility is now offering seafood companies access to in-house seafood technologists to develop new and innovative products and packaging without having to commit to capital investment. We have also further developed our research capability this year with Irish and international partnerships, including Teagasc and Nofima, a Norwegian research agency. We are considering a ten-year plan to build our research capability in BIM and the SDC to offer industry the best Irish and international research insights that will drive their business.

Competitiveness is about supporting the creation of value and the attainment of maximum sustainable profitability. BIM is systematically examining the essential conditions, or the natural endowments of our sector to achieve growth. Four categories have been identified to help grow competitiveness: business environment; physical infrastructure; clusters and firm sophistication; and knowledge and talent.

Let me focus on clusters and relevant partnerships as one of the ways to build our capability in this area. Our China council, in partnership with Bord Bia, has created a framework for discussion. We are also in ongoing discussions with Teagasc to understand the learnings from producer groups in farming and with Norwegian research agency Nofima to benchmark our industry against the external community. Transparency of information and open communication channels will be key to improving and making progress in this space.

I am conscious that the four pillars to which I have alluded are not the panacea to all the external issues that can affect this industry, but I am confident that they will provide a clear route to achieving the ambitious growth targets set out for the sector in the Government's Food Wise 2025 report and Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth: An Integrated Marine Plan for Ireland. The vision that we have signed up to is Ireland as the international leader in high value differentiated seafood products that satisfy growing domestic and international demand for nutritious, safe, responsibly and sustainably produced food. This is an attractive vision. Realising it will require investment.

The Government has clearly demonstrated its support for achieving the ambitions of the sector with an increase in BIM's annual budget from €18.5 million in 2014 to €39 million in 2016. This increase is largely as a result of the €241 million seafood development plan to be delivered under the European Maritime Fisheries Fund, EMFF, which will include a range of support measures for the Irish fishing, processing and aquaculture sectors. Only last week, we saw the announcement of €12 million funding under the EMFF operational programme to seven fisheries local action groups, FLAGs. These groups, dotted around our coastline, comprise local actors from the fisheries and aquaculture sectors and others with a strong interest in fostering the development of our coastal communities. The funding will be available to the FLAGs over the four-year period from 2017 to 2021 and is an eight-fold increase on the €1.5 million that was available under the previous scheme. As the State agency responsible for providing a range of administrative and technical supports to the FLAGs, we were delighted with the significant increase in funding for the programme.

BIM will also administer and manage the funds for a range of grant aid schemes under the EMFF, including €3.4 million to 27 seafood processing companies under the seafood capital investment scheme towards a total investment of €19.4 million.

At BIM, we share the collective vision for Ireland to become the international leader in high-value, differentiated seafood products that satisfy growing domestic and international demand for healthy, safe and responsibly and sustainably sourced seafood. There was never a more opportune time in which to drive that agenda forward. At BIM, the State has a dedicated and talented workforce with a high level of technical expertise that continues to deliver specialist and vital supports to the fisheries sector. We have a clearly defined and integrated strategy built on the solid foundation of the four pillars. At Government and Department level, we have the policy support. With the EMFF, through the European Commission, we have the resources. The market opportunity is there. The vision is articulated. The plan is agreed and the budget is secured. We must now continue to work diligently to deliver on our promise for the benefit of the sector.

Chairman:

I thank Ms McCarthy. Senator Daly, Deputy Pringle and Senator Ó Clochartaigh will ask their questions in that order.

Photo of Paul DalyPaul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms McCarthy for her comprehensive report. I want to be associated with the Chairman's congratulation of Ms McCarthy and I wish her well in her new post.

Brexit is the matter that most issues will circle around in the coming years. Ms McCarthy mentioned how it would affect the fishing grounds. How would a hard Brexit affect the industry's markets within the UK?

Turning to the safety issue that Ms McCarthy mentioned, while the new campaign and the increased uptake are commendable, the current figures and the fact that an increase in uptake was required are startling. There is still such a shortfall on 100%. I live a long way from the seashore but, from my knowledge of and interest in the fisheries industry, I would have imagined in my naivete a 100% uptake in such a scheme. How does Ms McCarthy propose to achieve that? What is BIM's next campaign in that regard?

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms McCarthy for her presentation. I will start with Brexit, which will probably be the burning issue for the next three or four years. It has two aspects in this regard, one of which is access to fishing waters in terms of the allocation of quota and so on. There has been a great deal of talk about a hard Brexit, but the UK's fishing industry will still have to access waters outside its own. A hard Brexit has the potential to have a negative impact on its industry and, similarly, ours. A Norwegian arrangement is likely, whereby there are negotiations every year and a quota sharing arrangement is place. Is this Ms McCarthy's view of what will happen post a hard, soft or middle Brexit? There would have to be some sort of negotiation. Can that arrangement exist without access to the Common Market? The EU negotiates with Iceland and the Faroes on access to resources, albeit not successfully.

The second aspect relates to the import and export of fishery products. We export €71 million worth of fish to the UK annually, approximately 8% of our fisheries exports. It is not very significant, although it is significant in value terms. We import €148 million worth of fish from the UK. Regardless of whether there is a hard or soft Brexit, there should be a potential for our fisheries sector. Has BIM considered this aspect in terms of offsetting some of the €148 million in imports and how we might go about gearing up our indigenous industry to benefit?

What is BIM's assessment of the landing obligation in respect of whitefish? The obligation is only starting to be rolled out, but how is it progressing, what are the likely challenges and how will they be addressed?

Has there been much industry engagement with the SDC in Clonakilty and the Letterkenny Institute of Technology, LYIT, campus in Killybegs? How can they develop and what is their potential? This initiative relies a great deal on the industry engaging.

How is the National Inshore Fisheries Forum going? Many of these bodies are fairly new. How is the forum developing, how are inshore fishermen engaging with it and what is its potential?

In respect of the FLAGs, while the funding is an increase on the first tranche at €1.5 million, we were extremely slow to develop fisheries local action groups, FLAGs, and only got in at the tail end of the last common fisheries fund. How does the €12 million compare with other member states and how their FLAGs are operating? From what I see, many other states are better geared up to avail of that funding and develop it. The FLAGs are to facilitate people who have moved out of fishing to develop alternatives. How much can €12 million leverage that over the period of the programme?

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

Cuirim fáilte roimh Tara McCarthy agus gabhaim comhghairdeas léi as a ceapachán. I wish her the best in her new position. Is Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, considering aquaculture onshore or is it doing tests to see if there is potential in that area? I refer to a question I asked earlier of Foras na Mara. Has the large-scale aquaculture that was envisaged for Inis Oirr gone away or is it being envisaged in another site or is such a huge offshore fish farm still on the BIM agenda?

The fishing industry is dying on its feet. Fishermen tell me they are tied up in red tape, regulations and what they would see as the over-zealous implementation of EU directives. Issues arising from the sub-segmentation of the tonnage and kilowatts of boats have been raised with us and these lead to safety problems. There are fishermen in Ros an Mhíl who want to upgrade their boats but cannot because of the rules and regulations. A boat sank off the coast of Scotland a couple of years ago. The owners had wanted to upgrade that ship but had been held back by what they saw as EU restrictions being over-zealously implemented here and the fact that the penalty points system is very punitively exercised.

As the industry developers, one of the key partners BIM needs is the fishermen. How is BIM addressing those issues with the industry to try to work with the State agencies to make sure they can continue fishing and that young people - who are leaving - will come into the industry? The predecessor to this committee did a very good report on sustaining rural communities, one of whose recommendations was having a traditional licence for small-scale fishermen which would be free of quota. Has that ever come up on BIM's agenda or is it something it would push? There seems to be broad acceptance that the small fishermen do not impact much on quota but the paperwork involved in fishing from a small boat does affect them. Does BIM have an input into the discussions on the quotas being implemented within the EU perspective? When the quota is divvied up nationally, I am told the lion's share is taken up by a few big players with a small number of boats. If that was redistributed even by a small percentage it would both benefit smaller pelagic vessels across the rest of the country, the west and south west in particular, and would feed into the fish processing industry in other coastal communities. Does BIM have any comments on that?

We are told that the Maritime Area and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill 2013 is coming forward. That is, I think, the Bill to deal with the licensing of the seaweed industry. Has BIM been asked to comment on that because it is on the legislative programme for this session?

Mushroom companies have already gone out of business as a result of fluctuations in sterling etc. I am sure some of the seafood producers are in an equally precarious situation and depend on British purchasers. Does BIM have any indications from its work with the processing sector whether there are companies going to the wall or close to it? If so, what can be done to support them?

Ms Tara McCarthy:

I thank all the members for wishing me luck in my new role. We would agree with all the members in saying that Brexit is the biggest single challenge facing our industry. That was why we circulated the map as part of this discussion because it shows the UK waters where we would traditionally have had complete open access and a hard Brexit would mean we would not have that access. That is the most startling part of this issue. Most of the food industry is talking about the effect of Brexit and access to the market. From a fishing perspective it is more complex because it affects access to fish. It is almost a double whammy. Our role in the discussions on this is to understand its economics. The Marine Institute will map and build the likely scenario for the stocks. We then work on the economic effect of those stocks. There may be 1,000 tonnes of stock but there is a big difference between a stock worth €1 a tonne and one worth €1,000 a tonne. We also consider what stocks are important to us and which are important to the UK. It would have been our ally in negotiations but that scenario is different now. All we can do is build scenarios at the moment. We can map the information flows and build negotiating positions that would be dealt with at a Heads of State level. We will contribute to informing each member of those negotiations.

The statistics behind safety at sea are positively frightening. The industry is much more dangerous than agriculture and the construction industry. That is not a boast, it is a fact that we had to consider. Our campaign was small and low budget but we tried to get to the truth of why a fisherman does not wear a safety jacket because it would seem illogical not to. We learned that there is a perception that if the sea is going to take a fisherman, it will take him and if he falls into the water he is a goner. A good fisherman does not fall into the water. That was the battle we had in discussing this with fishermen. We tried to tell them we were not trying to insult them by saying they must wear life jackets because they are not good but we asked them to live to tell the tale by wearing the life jacket. We listened to the terrible stories we heard from fishermen's families. When the body is lost nothing can move in respect of the will for that family for seven years because the bank accounts cannot be accessed. We tried to play on the responsibility of the fisherman to live and tell his tale. We learnt a great deal by using real fishermen who had fallen into the sea, not actors but people who could tell the story that resonated with the fishermen. We are continually building the story behind it and are working out how to repeat it.

We are looking at avenues such as the Skipper Expo which we will revisit in March. We had it as our highlight at the SeaFest in July. We are trying to appeal to the broader communities to make everybody aware that wearing a life jacket is a must and the equivalent of wearing a safety belt when driving a car. We have quite a degree of work and communication to do on that and we are still working on the development phases of it.

I am probably going back and forth on the Brexit issue. All arrangements are being examined as we build scenarios, whether it would be an Norwegian arrangement, whether it would be negotiated every year and what the likely negotiation positions would be, but the key stark fact is that English fishermen are communicating that seafood should be seen as the calling card or benchmark of success of Brexit, such that if they win in the seafood industry, then Brexit was right. They are building their profile as well as a very emotional argument with the public in the UK to make the case that a win that everybody can benchmark is if they completely win all access to fish in their waters for themselves. When we are dealing with that as an opening position across the table from us, all we can do is build cases and scenarios behind that to ensure that on our side of the debate fisheries is in no way seen as not being important and that it should also have a high profile. It is by showing graphs like this that we can build it into everybody's agenda that fisheries has to be fought for at a very hard level on our side.

In the context of market breakdown, the UK is our industry's number two market for exports after France. It is an important market for us but there is quite a diversity in our market profile in fish. Unlike in the wider food industry where the UK accounts for 42% of our total exports, while it is our industry's number two market, it is at a lower level. We have companies that would be very dependent on that market, but the difference in seafood is that often much of those exports are sold to spot auctions rather than being tied into retail contracts that would be in place in, say, the mushroom industry or the beef industry. That means there is much greater flexibility when there are issues with sterling or with market access.

Regarding the import opportunity, it is quite specific to seafood in that what we import, for the most part, is salmon, of which we do not have an Irish quantity. We produce Irish organic salmon but often when we look at the supermarket shelves we see our consumers are buying non-organic salmon, which is imported. It is challenging to see a win opportunity completely for that in the shorter term. I will pass over to my colleague, Mr. Michael Keatinge, to deal with the land obligation.

Mr. Michael Keatinge:

People are aware that the former practice of discarding fish has now been discontinued. That was a problem we faced for many years. Much of the catch was thrown back because it might have been undersized and there was a legal requirement to throw it back but perhaps the more difficult issue to comprehend was to be found particularly in our whitefish sector. Fishermen do not simply fish for cod; they will catch cod, haddock and whiting or when they fish for prawns they may get cod along with prawns. If they ran out of quota in one species, they kept fishing for another species and threw back big healthy fish that were dead. That is a major challenge. One of the areas that concerns us as we go into the new regime, which will come fully online in the next two years, is that we could face what are known as choke scenarios, where when, for example, we would run out of cod we would still have prawn quota.

The main area in which Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, has been involved is gear technology in terms of how to develop a net that will optimise the catch to ensure that the fishermen are not faced with the dilemma that if they continue to fish the quota they have, having perhaps over-fished or exhausted their quota in cod, they will now have to leave the fishing grounds and go ashore. It has been encouraging that all the fishing organisations have rallied around this. There has been a huge new emphasis on examining how to effect that change. This approach has been taken on board and in the past two years in particular, we have looked at a range of different fisheries based particularly on their importance. We have looked at the nephrops or prawn fishery and in particular the problems we have in cod or whiting. We are now able to show that it is possible to minimise unwanted catch. It is not that the fishermen do not want the fish but if they catch them they will no longer have fish quota. We are moving towards technical solutions. It would be wrong to suggest that there will not be challenges. I think everybody agrees that the practice of discarding was inherently a problem area. Removing that practice completely causes another problem. I believe we will see a combination of the technical changes we are developing in tandem with what we will call quota uplifts where we will get additional quota to account for what we used to discard. I can see light at the end of the tunnel but the path ahead will be difficult. We have noticed that one element has changed during the past two years. We were doing technical trials for a long time but people were not buying into them. However, now the writing is on the wall and fishermen are genuinely engaging with this process. I believe we will see a way through this.

Ms Tara McCarthy:

With regard to the Seafood Development Centre, SDC, one of our big challenges is ensuring engagement from the industry. BIM has commissioned an internal review in the past three months which my colleague, Donal Buckley, is leading. We want to redefine how innovation is looked at by the seafood industry. Building on what Mr. Michael Keatinge said, innovation is too often simply described as adding a sauce to a product and seen as the production of a ready meal or something like that but that is not what it should be. We are seeking to reinvent the culture of innovation in our industry where we would be associated with the much more traditional approach to our product development rather than being best in the class. We are seeking to benchmark BIM and the industry on where the flows of innovation and the white spaces of innovation are on which we should be working much more closely with industry towards further investment in our gear technology and helping the industry to adapt that technology. That is no point in us doing great research and nobody using it on boats. It must be relevant to the challenges our industry is facing. It is a challenge that we as an organisation and our industry are facing up to where we believe, as I mentioned in my presentation, the four pillars are linked. We believe innovation is key and engagement from industry will come, but it will only come if we support it through our education and training. What we need to do and are mapping to do in our schools in Greencastle and Castletownbere is layering an understanding of the need for innovation into our basic training, and we have young people in our schools. In that way we are training our industry to appreciate the business challenge that lies ahead. We are looking at the innovation element of getting industry engaging with the SDC, whether it be in Letterkenny or in Clonakilty, as a longer-term challenge rather than a six-month challenge, but we are mapping the engagement levels all the time. My colleague, Mr. Michael Keatinge might deal with the National Inshore Fisheries Forum, NIFF.

Mr. Michael Keatinge:

We should be genuinely excited about the NIFF. Small boats comprise 80% of our fishing fleet. I am referring to the traditional currach and the traditional half-decker, the boats we would see not so much in Killybegs but in Belmullet. This area accounts for approximately half the total employment directly on board boats. It brings wealth to the corners of the coastline that many people do not realise or forget about at times. For many years we had very effective, strong fishermen's organisations but they were largely associated with the bigger ports of Killybegs, Castletownbere, Dunmore East, Howth, Rossaveal and so on and the bigger boats in particular. We tried some years ago to create a new initiative around the inshore fisherman or woman. This time around we have gone for a very bottom up approach and, in tandem, with the fisheries local action groups, FLAGs, which are the source of investment, we have put in place local committees to deal with national inshore fishery issues at a regional level.

We have had six and will increase that to seven. Each regional forum then sends two delegates to the national forum. I am delighted to report there has been a deep engagement with the Minister. The Minister has met the forum on several occasions. For the first time, we now have got a direct link from regional groups, which can be inclusive, through the national forum directly to the Minister and the Department.

Our role has been soft. We facilitate it through a secretariat. Funding is provided jointly by the State and the EU to make it happen. We very much left the industry drive this and set the agenda. It has been a period of learning. Where might this go in the future? Moving away from cod, whiting, mackerel or herring, the EU tends to allow us manage non-quota species, such as lobster, whelk, crab, razor clam, nationally. The EU really stands back and allows us to get on with it. The forums will provide the mechanism to create new management thinking around those stocks. Dialogue from the ground up, along with access to the Department and to the Minister, are all important in this regard. The future is about more direct management of local fish stocks by the local groups.

Ms Tara McCarthy:

With regard to the fisheries local action groups, FLAGs, we did come in very much at the tail end of it the last time. We were on a fast learning curve with them because it had to be done quickly with quite limited funding. We were conscious that when this round of FLAGs came, we were not going to make any of the same mistakes that others had made or we might make again. We did a comprehensive review of what happened in that last 18 months to ensure this round of FLAGs would be a productive one.

Within the review, we found that, although it had only €1.5 million of funding attached, it was amazingly efficient in getting small jobs done in local communities. This had an impact on a small job here or creating a full-time job or a part-time job there or making families stay in a locality. Some fantastic individual stories came out of our FLAGs programme. The EU has insisted the ethos of FLAGs must be from the bottom up. It cannot be the State dictating to local communities what they should or should not be doing. This is local communities managing their local areas, coming up with a strategy and deciding what areas should be funded.

Last week, the funding available to each of those FLAGs was announced by the Minister. The designated FLAGs have been established and are now working towards the creation of a strategy to ensure they can implement those funds. We are hugely confident of how much they can do when one increases the budget that significantly. The fact they have been run by local individuals means that we will co-ordinate, help and take the learnings from putting in key measurable impacts. This will ensure we are tracking what is being done, what will and will not work, what will create longevity and be true to the strategy they are developing. When we see what was done with just €1.5 million, we believe a significant amount can be done with €12 million.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that review available?

Ms Tara McCarthy:

Yes, we would be delighted to share it with the committee.

I am not personally aware of onshore tests going on. The large offshore projects have stopped. On 8 December, a national aquaculture strategy was launched by the Department which put the maximum size of any fish farm in Ireland at 5,000 tonnes. The original application for the Galway farm was for 15,000 tonnes. BIM withdrew its application, based on that recommendation of the national aquaculture plan. We have no intention of resubmitting any plan of that size.

I challenge Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh's assumption that the industry is dying on its feet. There are industry challenges but there are significant opportunities for this industry as well. What we are looking to do is create the supports we give in a channelled way to help where the challenges lie. We put a lot of thought into the spaces in which we should be operating. It is one of the most fantastic and challenging aspects of being an agency established since 1952. It has probably done a bit of everything over that period. Focus is the key skill which we have to maintain.

Over the past year, focus has been the absolute priority in our organisation. We want to be the best at doing the four key actions we outlined today. We want to be the best at providing a talent stream to this industry. There is a war for talent and if we cannot attract talent, we believe we will lose that war and then we will be dying on our feet. We are looking to create a skills roadmap. A tender for creating that roadmap for the industry will be issued over the next ten days.

We will be looking at the skills and the parity of esteem, a point raised earlier, to attract people into the industry. If someone comes into the industry, how transferable are their skills? How do we identify the future leaders of our industry? What skills can we provide them with and how do we train people to be businessmen and businesswomen of our industry, not just driving a boat? That is the key change. This industry will not die on its feet if it has the best people working in it.

Clearly, sustainability has to be part of the DNA of our industry. There is a significant amount of work being done in that space. The industry is very poor at articulating just how much it is doing in this regard, however. We need to help and design methods of doing that.

Like I mentioned earlier, there needs to be a culture of innovation. If we think we can do the same things we did in 1952, we will die on our feet. How does one build the culture of innovation into our industry to allow it to manage within the constraints in which it must operate? We are not challenged with implementing all of the controls. However, we would fundamentally support the idea that the industry has to be controlled. It has to work within a sustainable infrastructure because that allows us to have a marketable product, in which, at the end, our customers can have faith and for which they can pay a premium price.

Mr. Michael Keatinge:

We are part of the team traditionally which supports the Minister at the December quota negotiation. All members will be familiar with the annual impact assessment provided to the Oireachtas for the upcoming negotiation. We tend to look at this from a holistic point of view. Despite mackerel being a different price to whiting, as Ms Tara McCarthy alluded to, if one just focused on the tonne of fish, one would miss all the added value which flows downstream from that. Over the past several years, we have done detailed analyses in Rossaveal, Killybegs, Castletownbere and Dunmore East, on how many people derive their employment from fishing, be it in transport, processing or refrigeration. There is a raft of ancillary industries involved.

On the comment claiming the industry is dying on its feet, shipbuilding is back in Donegal for the first time in 50 years. While Mooney's boatyard does not build the hull anymore - it is built in Poland - it is completely fitted out in Killybegs with 20 to 25 jobs coming from that. In Clogherhead, there is investment in new boats by an energetic fishing community.

As for the quota negotiation, I would stress to the committee that, while it goes up and down every year with one stock one year and another stock another year, it has been relatively stable since 2001. There were problems one year with cod and herring in the north west another year. By large, however, it has grown. Part of our role is to bring that additional information on the economic impact and sustainability of communities and to build it up along with the Marine Institute, which has responsibility for the scientific argument. At European level that does resonate. The Council has to take its decision based on the science and the objective of maximising sustainable yield. To think there is complete ignorance of the social impact would be unfair. With the Department and the Minister in the lead, along with the information on the stock side from the Marine Institute and our role in understanding the economic and social impact, I would challenge the view that it has been a bad story over the past decade.

We have embraced sustainability. We are aiming at achieving maximum sustainable yield, sustainability of stocks. It will bear fruit; it is already showing those signs.

Ms Tara McCarthy:

Building on that story, we want to share with the committee today, the Business of Seafood report we published this year, which for the first time gives some clarity on the facts and figures behind this industry. It articulates in a much stronger and more positive way what the industry is; where the jobs are; where the business flows are; where the ports are; and what is being achieved at each port. That probably tells the story of a very complex industry, which is sometimes wrongly compared to other elements of the food industry even though it is much more complex. We are often asked why it cannot be more like dairy and add so much more value to its product. It is a very different product. When we appreciate and can increasingly share with people the business behind this sector, then it will become a much better understood industry. When people understand the industry and we can share the insights of the industry, it becomes much easier to have conversations and negotiate on its behalf.

Chairman:

There are a few more questioners, Senator Mulherin-----

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

Does BIM have any input into the internal division of quota once it is brought as far as Dublin?

Mr. Michael Keatinge:

No, we do not. It is a complex and difficult situation. If one thinks the debate in Brussels is complicated, once it becomes national it is even more complicated. The whitefish and pelagic sectors are very different. At one level we have specialised in pelagic in Ireland and there are success stories in Killybegs, Castletownbere and Rossaveal, even though I know it has been hit. Those decisions are taken very much by the industry itself. The industry representative organisations will meet departmental officials. If there is an agreement, the Minister will generally accept that. I am not trying to pass the buck here, but the industry, itself, really has a significant role to play in that. It is a case of deciding who gets what nationally.

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

On the maritime report, has BIM been consulted on the amendment on the seaweed?

Chairman:

If Senator Mulherin does not mind, I will call Deputy Gallagher first as he has to go to the Chamber.

Photo of Pat GallagherPat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My relationship with BIM - this tells my age - goes back to the days of Brendan O'Kelly. I always had a tremendous working relationship with it. Its people have always been on the ground and available to take many smaller fishermen by the hand.

The most frightening aspect of today's presentation is the red area shown on the map of Ireland and Britain. If there is to be a hard Brexit, we will need to fight this tooth and nail on behalf of the industry. If we have to suffer pain, that pain will have to be shared by the other maritime states in the European Union and not just us.I have attended Council meetings when I had to fly to London in advance to secure the support of the ad hocarrangement that was there for a long time, The Hague Preferences. The British always supported us. It may have been in their interest but it was more in our interest. I do not know what will happen. I am glad that the Department has BIM involved in the interagency and departmental group. Have any meetings take place yet? I hope BIM will be on a level playing pitch with the other agencies involved, including the Department and the Marine Institute. Ms Buckley has flagged that she is well prepared for a hard Brexit.

On FLAGs and Leader, as Mr. Keatinge has said 80% of those involved in the industry are those in small boats. They are bringing their income into the most rural parts and they are all landing at home. That is what is important about them. Am I right that there is a grant scheme in place for buying second-hand vessels? A fisherman, who either has to have the tonnage or buy the tonnage, may want a new small boat. I know that it is not possible to require that they be built in Ireland, but anyone building small boats will be going to Killybegs, Mevagh or elsewhere. I ask the witnesses to think about that if it is not in place.

Is BIM working closely with Leader when it comes to funding projects for the sector?

Mr. Keatinge talked about discards. That was the sexy thing for years in the run-up to the Common Fisheries Policy. Everybody who knew nothing about fish knew everything about discards and how it was going to work. It was almost like suggesting sending an e-mail to the fish that the fishermen did not want to catch saying, "Stay out of our way today." It just does not work like that. I am sorry I cannot be here for the Sea Fisheries Protection Agency's presentation. I hope that good sense prevails in the case of vessels that might have a surplus. How is the system with discards working?

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also welcome the witnesses. Mr. Keatinge mentioned Belmullet. The document, the Business of Seafood, does not give figures for the tonnage or value of landings at Belmullet. I am from Mayo which has many small harbours, including Ballycastle, Kilcumman and Killala. It seems difficult to get funding for structural improvement and to install the safety features needed for navigation into the harbours. Can the funding that is provided under the EMFF operational programme be put towards that or does it only apply to designated areas? After the big storms funding was cordoned and some of them have had some investment. However, many could do with more improvement. As Deputy Gallagher said, these fishermen put money into far-flung areas. Even if it is only part-time work, it can make the difference between people surviving in these rural areas or not. Would this be a mechanism to provide some of this vital infrastructure to allow them to function?

I have some basic questions on remit and jurisdiction. What are BIM's interaction and the crossover functions with An Bord Bia? I live on an estuary which is tidal. The salmon are coming from the sea and people are catching them there. Are those salmon considered as seafood? Does it depend on where they are caught? I ask the witnesses to indicate if that is under their jurisdiction because I want to ask another question. I know there is Inland Fisheries Ireland, but I am talking about the food aspect of it.

Mr. Michael Keatinge:

I will just quickly address that. Up to about ten years ago there was a wild capture fishery that fell under our remit. The Senator may recall that a group chaired by Padraic White looked at the issue. This was in the context, as Dr. Heffernan mentioned, of the decline in returning salmon from the high seas. At the time there was a strong belief that while the wild fishery was not having a direct impact, because of the insufficient numbers of fish that were getting back, it had an indirect impact and we bought those nets out. The Senator might remember that we decommissioned all the drift nets.

In talking about Mayo, the Moy has probably one of the biggest surpluses in Europe and by coincidence is right beside a number of big fish farms.

I am not trying to make any particular point except to say that these things can occur in tandem. There is essentially no wild fishery any more in Ireland. What we have is salmon aquaculture and tourism fishing-angling and these come under the remit of the IFI.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When there was commercial wild salmon fishing in the-----

Mr. Michael Keatinge:

We would have a remit.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Keatinge referred to a particular stretch of the river as probably being the most prolific for salmon fishing in Europe. It is definitely the case in Ireland. In terms of tourism promotion, Ballina, because it is located on the estuary, is cited as being the salmon capital of Ireland. However, it is not possible to get a salmon from that river in a local restaurant. My understanding is that it is possible to fish 15,000 salmon from the river and the estuary without interfering with the sustainability of wild salmon stocks. BIM deals with this issue from a commercial point of view. In terms of tourism angling, there are fishermen catching salmon from the river and the estuary but, as I said, these salmon are not available in local restaurants. In the case of a surplus and where it is sustainable to do so, it should be possible for an area to capitalise on a product for which it is well known.

Mr. Michael Keatinge:

I can answer that question directly because I worked with Pádraic White on the drafting of the report of the drift-net buy-out. I can categorically say that the intention at the time was that where there was a surplus or a new surplus because of the removal of the drift-net fishery, it should be fairly shared out. I would argue that the traditional fisherman, namely, the commercial sea fisherman, has not enjoyed any benefit from the surplus. There is a massive surplus on the River Moy, none of which is going to the commercial side. One could, in theory, have an upstream trap managed by a local community that would harvest the surplus for commercial purposes. A question arises regarding what was the intention as set out in the original report. The State invested €25 million. This had a major socioeconomic impact on the western seaboard, particularly in counties Donegal, Cork, Galway and Mayo. People were very badly affected. There has been some indication of fish returning to rivers where stocks were very low. The River Moy stands out as enjoying a huge surplus.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What can we do?

Mr. Michael Keatinge:

I think that question should be, perhaps, addressed more widely. It would certainly be our view that, as provided for in the original report, there should have been a redistribution of the surplus.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would that accommodate what I am suggesting?

Mr. Michael Keatinge:

I believe it could.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My first question relates to the funding of harbours that are not under the control of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The breakwater at Greencastle Harbour in Donegal is half completed and while the harbour users group has very exciting plans, it is caught in a dilemma in that when it raises the issue with the Minister, the response is that the matter is one for Donegal County Council, which owns the harbour. As I understand it, there are six harbours under the control of the Department and the lion's share of the funding is going to these. The report references the work going on at Greencastle in terms of landings, tonnage and so on, which means that it is obviously viewed by BIM as significant. However, it is not getting the investment it needs to develop industry there. This is particularly worrying for the fishing community in Donegal and other areas closer to what will become British waters only. Has BIM offered an opinion to Government on how harbours are funded?

My second question relates to aquaculture. BIM's report, The Business of Seafood, which is excellent, testifies to the growing contribution of the aquaculture sector in terms of job creation. The witnesses will have listened to the proceedings of the previous session. What is their view on the huge delays in decision-making around licensing such that, local community objections aside, decisions are made in a timely manner and there is a proper framework in place for the licensing system? I am advised by the aquaculture industry that people are bewildered at the growth in the industry in other countries and the failure to deliver on the potential of the industry here. Taking on board all environmental concerns there is a space for aquaculture in this State and we are not helping it to achieve its potential. I would welcome a response from BIM on its engagement with the Department over the years to address these issues.

I commend BIM on and thank it for the map provided. One cannot beat a map when it comes to showing the seriousness of a situation. Lest anybody doubts the impact of Brexit on our fishing community, the position is clearly indicated on that map. Perhaps BIM would elaborate further on its input in this area. The opening statement made on behalf of BIM commenced with the issue of Brexit, which testifies to BIM's concern in that regard but I would welcome further detail around the negotiations that may evolve, BIM's experience at a European level and so on. BIM has already made clear that Britain has said that control over its waters will be a key issue for it in demonstrating the benefits of Brexit. What advice would BIM offer to those of us trying to defend the interests of Irish fishing communities?

Photo of Charlie McConalogueCharlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The impact of Brexit on this area is exceptionally concerning. What is the total catch from British waters? Also, it is indicated in the report that strategies, supports and funding are in place. Is there anything outside of the supports and resources already available to BIM to enable it to achieve its objectives that it has indicated to Government it requires?

In regard to the educational aspect and, in particular, the Greencastle fisheries school, perhaps BIM would update the committee on its investment plans and so on in terms of the overall educational provision into the future.

Ms Tara McCarthy:

Meetings have occurred already in respect of Brexit. We have been very involved in Brexit at multiple levels, including with the high level implementation group for FoodWise, with which we shared the map referenced by Deputy Mac Lochlainn, and directly with the Minister. We are seeking to ensure that the uniqueness of the challenge facing the industry is taken on board. The map speaks a thousand words. It does not need a huge level of explanation. At other levels, a number of industry liaison groups relating to the wider food issue have been set up and we participate on them. Approximately three meetings of those groups have already taken place. We also attended the Taoiseach's forum on Brexit on Wednesday last. My colleague, Mr. Keatinge, attended that. We are communicating all of the information from the studies we are carrying out to the Department on a regular basis. There is a call out to industry to communicate information to us. Those in the industry gather that information from all over Europe.

We are also looking at media watching to ensure that what is being said in the UK media and so forth by our colleagues is being captured and sent both to our board and our key stakeholders.

With regard to the FLAGs programme and linking it in with Leader, these are very much local groups. They are being established at local level and in some instances Leader groups have applied to be the co-ordinators of our FLAGs. We are seeking to ensure that there is learning from best practice and that when Leader is doing things very well we learn from that as well. However, the fundamental point is that this can be shaped most purposefully by the people who know the seafood industry or know the sector. Whether they are seeking to create new opportunities having left the sector or they are seeking to create new opportunities and jobs in local communities, they are the people who are driving the agenda and strategy in that programme.

Michael Keatinge will respond on Belmullet, small harbours and the safety features.

Mr. Michael Keatinge:

I wish to make a number of points. Sadly, there has been one death in the fishing sector this year in Ireland. A fisherman was lost in Galway Bay late in the summer. The good story, perhaps, is that this is the lowest year on record. Indeed, so far this year the Irish fishing industry is the safest in Europe. On the safety area, we are working on a programme to roll out safety signage at all the harbours and ports around the country. With regard to the FLAGs in particular, we are supporting co-operation projects with the county councils. Apart from Howth, Dunmore East, Castletownbere, Dingle, Rossaveal and Killybegs, all the other harbours are managed by the county councils. It is a major task but as I travel around the coast, and I do so every weekend, I see the changes taking place. Piers are being repaired. I visit the little pier at Kilkieran Bay all the time, where there is seaweed harvesting and inshore fishing. A small investment like that can be the difference between that harbour ending and jobs being lost. However, the FLAG budget of €12 million is limited. We can do, and have done, certain types of projects with county councils. In Greencastle, for example, we installed the chair lift to enable disabled sailors to participate in sport. However, completing a multimillion euro project such as that mentioned is beyond our scope.

The Department has a direct role in six fishery harbour centres. Putting it bluntly, and we know the facts in this regard, there has been major investment in the new harbour in Killybegs. It is one of the finest fishery harbours in Europe and it has meant that we continue to attract foreign vessels. They always fished off our coasts but they now come here and land. Deputy Pringle and I attended the opening of the new fishmeal plant there. This is a €30 million investment by Norway, in particular, without any State assistance. It will guarantee jobs and improve environmental confidence in the plant. It is really making the statement that Killybegs is going to stay in place. Likewise, there has been a major development in the fishery harbour in Rossaveal that will attract additional landings. There has been major investment in Castletownbere Dinish Island, making it a premier port in the south west. Dunmore East has had a major dredging programme in the last number of years and major work has been done in Clogherhead. The new pier there was completed five or six years ago. The Greencastle project is under way. Yes, we would like to see it finished tomorrow, but hopefully it will be finished in due course.

There has been major investment. With regard to the very small harbours, in the last seven years it has been challenging for everybody to find funds, not least the county councils. My personal experience is that things are getting done and I believe the FLAG programme can assist that. Of course we would like to see more of that type of activity into the future. We are supporting co-operation with county councils for developments in a local area, provided that is what the locals want.

With regard to Leader, we sit on the Leader evaluation committees and they work with us. I am unashamed to tell the committee that we wish to carve out a unique identity. We want fisheries local action groups to be in place and proud of it. That is not to say there is any competition. We do not see them as just another little Leader. We want them to be quite unique in what they are achieving. We are probably unique in the European Union and this is possibly why we are a little slow to get it up and going. On a map of the UK there is a FLAG programme in Wales and one goes all the way around to south Devon before seeing a little FLAG which covers approximately 20 miles. There is another FLAG somewhere south of London. Ireland refused to do that and decided that every inch of our coastline with the exception of the cities, where it is not allowed, would have a FLAG. We were saying that every fisherman in Ireland will be in a FLAG, so it was a bigger challenge. I believe we have done the right thing. There is no fishing community in Ireland that cannot participate in the FLAG programme. It is something of which we should be justifiably proud. The European Union has looked at our model and has recognised that it can work very well.

Ms Tara McCarthy:

Senator Mulherin asked about the Bord Bia link and the remit of the two agencies. Bord Bia is the agency that is responsible for the marketing of all food and drink products. Our agency is the development agency. The marketing of seafood was transferred from BIM to Bord Bia six or seven years ago. However, we work very closely with Bord Bia. Two key areas of partnership are sustainability and innovation. In the case of sustainability, Ireland is in the unique position of having a national programme for its food under the title Origin Green. Looking at how that works in beef or dairy, there are quality assurance schemes that run from farm to fork in which Bord Bia looks at the traceability and so forth. BIM runs the quality assurance and traceability schemes in seafood. There was a remit for us to reformulate all of our schemes to ensure they were allowing Origin Green to communicate strongly for seafood. We have set up a market advisory group that specifically calls out what seafood buyers are seeking in sustainability and what our schemes need to achieve to be able to allow both our processors and Bord Bia make those claims on our behalf. We work in partnership in that way.

There is a second strong area of partnership. As I mentioned previously, we have an agenda of introducing a culture of innovation to the industry. We can do that from a technical perspective but if our insights are not informed by the market and the consumer, they could possibly be a distraction to people. We have set very clear partnerships with Bord Bia in which it helps us on the consumer and market insights and informs us on our innovation agenda, to ensure the advice we are giving to people is practical and relevant to them. In our seafood development centre we are in ongoing discussions. In the last number of months Bord Bia has launched a fantastic thinking house concept in Clanwilliam Court and we are asking it to have an outreach programme to our centres in Clonakilty so that its consumer insight is just a touch of a screen away. When processors go there they will have a seamless connection between Bord Bia and BIM on anything like that. It is a very close working relationship but both agencies have distinct and specific remits within it.

Michael Keatinge addressed the funding of harbours. With regard to aquaculture, we are not part of the licensing system. We are working with industry in the space of facilitating, guiding and advising it through that. There is nobody who has encountered that system who has not been frustrated. They would like it to work much faster, and we are part of that as well. We are in regular dialogue with the Marine Institute on the assessments and we have huge faith in the institute having the scientific advice. We would not presume to touch that in any way. We let those people do their jobs. The Minister has announced that he will undertake a review of the licensing system and we will facilitate any requests made of us. However, we work to our remit, and we are not a regulatory party in that system. What we do all the time is talk to both the Department and industry on the challenges, what is the right thing to do and what must be done so there are no surprises from anybody.

The Senator also asked about the Greencastle school. We are making a significant investment in Greencastle. Michael Keatinge is best placed to describe it.

Mr. Michael Keatinge:

A point I would make about giving somebody a life jacket is that training is essential. In terms of how we approach that, a person does not just get a life jacket. He or she must do a day's training. However, we recognise that if we are to change people's thinking around these issues, doing a training course in a swimming pool has all the realism of the safety of one's bath at home. What we are putting into Greencastle will be a state-of-the-art, world-class simulator. Essentially, it is a swimming pool with waves, thunder and lightning. The idea is to get people into that pool and show them what it will be like if this ever happens and how all of it will unfold in terms of using the equipment, coping with water splashing in their faces and being able to set off their beacons. It is part of the complete change Ms McCarthy spoke about in terms of how we look at skills and training.

Safety must be at the heart of everything, but we have a much bigger plan in terms of the college in Greencastle, the school in Castletownbere and the two mobile units, one of which is currently in Mayo bringing training to Belmullet. Rather than trying to bring people from Belmullet all the way to Castletownbere or Greencastle, we bring the training to them. We are embarking on a radical rethink of creating an industry that has the best talent but that also brings out the best talent. We are literally looking at what we are offering. For example, if a person wants to drive a fishing boat, for many years that person was required to have a certificate from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, and we do the training to prepare that person for it. However, we are saying that the fishermen of the future have to understand microbiology and food handling because they are storing a food product. They have to be able to understand the scientific advice. People getting ready for the seafood industry should be out on the boats with the Marine Institute understanding stock assessment and gear technology.

If we move across that into processing and aquaculture, I hope that when we are before the committee next year, we will be telling the members that we now have a ten-year plan that will radically change things. We have said many times that in modern Ireland, school leavers in Castletownbere, Belmullet or wherever often went into fishing because their fathers had boats. Those young people leaving school now can be whatever they want to be, and we must compete to bring them into our sector and offer them a whole-of-life career. That is what we are about. I am excited about this, and the colleges in Greencastle and Castletownbere and our facility in Clonakilty for the processing side and innovation will be at the heart of that.

Chairman:

Has Ms McCarthy completed her submission?

Ms Tara McCarthy:

Yes, Chairman.

Chairman:

I thank Ms McCarthy and her colleagues for coming before the committee today and for the interesting discussion on their industry, the future of which appears very bright. We will suspend for two minutes to allow the next group to come in.

Sitting suspended at 8.14 p.m. and resumed at 8.16 p.m.

Chairman:

I welcome members of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Agency, Dr. Susan Steele, the chairperson, and Mr. Micheál O'Mahony, authority member. I thank them for attending the committee meeting and apologise to them for being the last group to make a presentation, but we have had a very good discussion so far.

Before we begin, I bring to the witnesses' attention that they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by it 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, and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I ask Dr. Steele to make her opening statement.

Dr. Susan Steele:

It is fitting that we are last because the members have learned of the huge opportunity in the Irish marine industry, and with that huge opportunity comes huge responsibility. I thank the Chairman, Deputies and Senators for the opportunity to meet them. We very much welcome and value their interest in our work.

The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, is the youngest and smallest State agency before the committee today. The 2006 Act established the SFPA with a three-person executive of authority members at its helm, including one chair. Our primary statutory role is as the regulatory agency for Irish sea fishing and seafood production. We are charged with promoting, verifying and, where necessary, enforcing compliance with sea fisheries and seafood safety legislation. We act as the guardians. Our mandate covers all fishing vessels operating within Ireland’s 200 mile limit, more than 2,000 Irish registered fishing vessels wherever they operate, and all seafood produced in Ireland’s 170 seafood processing companies. Under the Common Fisheries Policy we also play a substantial coastal State role for non-Irish registered vessels operating in waters under Irish jurisdiction. Over 80% of the wild fish taken from Irish waters are taken by vessels from other member states. Our Act gives us additional roles in collating sea fishing data, representing the State and providing advice on policy as regards effective control.

We maintain an inspectorate, currently with 58 sea fishery protection officers operating from seven regional port offices 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Our sea fishery role includes the inspection of landings and weighing of fishery products by operators at processing establishments to verify the quantities of each species landed. We work closely with the Irish Naval Service and the Air Corps, which carry out all inspections at sea, as well as a national fishery monitoring centre under service level agreement to us.

In seafood safety our role is to ensure compliance with all relevant legislation, thereby providing robust confidence in Ireland’s reputation worldwide as a source of high-quality fish and fish products. As an official agency of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, we are responsible for the control of the food safety systems around all seafood from production by fishermen or farmers throughout the production chain as far as but not including retail.

We maintain Ireland’s shellfish classification system which classifies production areas according to water quality in line with European food regulations and has ramifications for how shellfish may be placed on the market. We also validate labelling and traceability systems, including DNA checks on fish species.

We are also responsible for providing health certificates detailing origin and traceability for every consignment of fish and fish products manufactured, processed or packaged in Ireland for export to a growing number of third countries.

Furthermore, we are responsible for providing health certificate detailing origin and traceability for every consignment of fish and fish products manufactured, processed or packaged in Ireland for export to a growing number of Third countries.

Since our establishment, our remit has broadened and our volume of work has grown. On the fishery protection side, for example, we have developed and maintain substantial ICT systems to facilitate compliance of Irish fishermen with their obligations to have functioning vessel monitoring systems and electronic recording systems on board, and to facilitate transmission and receipt of such data across member states. In addition, we provide the necessary regulatory resources to support the protected designation of marine areas according to environmental legislation.

One of our less visible outputs is our advice on policy regarding effective control. While we do not formulate policy, our work helps to ensure that regulations can be applied effectively.

We are mindful of the burden of compliance and endeavour to assist industry where we can whether its with training for use of onboard monitoring systems, or in seeking selected derogations for the EU such as the weighting derogation obtained by us in 2012 that allows weighing to take place after transport, and typically at processing establishments, provided the SFPA is satisfied with the accuracy and integrity of those weighing systems.

We do not have the resources to be present at every landing or every shellfish farm every day of the week. Instead we adopt a risk-based approach, devoting our time to those areas where we assess the highest probability of non-compliance.

When it comes to compliance, there is no doubt committee members have heard calls for a level playing field. We completely agree that compliance expectations on fishermen should not differ regardless of vessel flag, fishing location or landing port. The reality is that Irish fishermen have tighter quotas than many of their EU counterparts. We devote substantial resource in representing Ireland at various EU fora promulgating our concept of a level playing field and one of compliance. An industry built on compliance is the outcome we are working towards in our three-year Government endorsed strategy. Support, advise, validate and enforce are the four pillars that provide a framework for our work to 2017 and our commitment to fair, effective and independent regulation. The low levels of non-compliance that we find across sea-fisheries and seafood production are testament to the committed efforts of the majority of fishermen, fish farmers and fish processors to try to work within the law.

From time to time we have detected non-compliance. Sanctions have a specific punitive role for the wrongdoer and a much wider deterrent role for others. The dissuasiveness of sanctioning systems is linked to their immediacy and proportionality. Would-be non-compliers need to know that non-compliance will result in sufficiently undesirable sanctions, proportionate to the extent of wrongdoing. However, we have a limited regulatory toolbox. In food safety we can issue legal notices with or without the publication of details, issue fixed penalty notices or fines or initiate prosecutions. In our sea fisheries infringements, we prepare case files for assessment by the DPP with a view to indictment and prosecution. The national system for assigning points for serious infringements of the Common Fisheries Policy, CFP, is being reassessed following various legal challenges.

We will use all the tools made available to us appropriately to sanction those who continue to flout the laws that have been designed to fairly distribute a shared natural resource. The low number of instances when points were proposed or when case files were initiated show our view of how infrequently such actions for serious infringements are appropriate and when used have good effect.

Chairman:

I thank Dr. Steele. The following members have indicated their wish to speak: Deputy Martin Kenny, Senator Ó Clochartaigh, Deputy Pringle and Senator Mulherin.

Photo of Martin KennyMartin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegation for being here today and for all of the work done by the organisation.

Compliance is the big issue that strikes a lot of people. As Dr. Steele has said, a huge number of vessels from other countries operate in our waters. There is a perception that Irish vessels receive a greater level of monitoring that is also more strident and aggressive when compared with vessels from other countries. I ask the delegation to outline what monitoring takes place. What level of scrutiny is carried out on vessels from other waters? What can the authority do when it discovers a problem with one of them?

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

I thank Dr. Steele for her presentation.

I have raised the issue of factory ships with previous witnesses because fishermen constantly raised it with me. How does the authority police factory ships? Is policing only done when a catch is brought ashore? If so, how does the authority monitor what happens on the ship? How does it monitor the amount of fish that is taken on board? Can it monitor whether fish has been dumped? Can it follow ships and identify whether dead fish or the wrong grades of fish have been dumped? Do members of the authority board ships to grade fish that are being processed?

Dr. Steele mentioned that Irish fishermen seek a fair playing field. The fishermen that I have spoken to do not feel there is a fair playing field. They feel that they have been asked to play strictly by the rules. There is a sense that bigger factory ships get away with murder and are not policed to the same level as Irish vessels. I am aware of only one factory ship that berthed in Killybegs being fully inspected. Perhaps there are more instances of factory ships being inspected. I ask the delegation to outline in more detail how its members police a ship that is processing as its moving and fishing because such ships do not necessarily need to land a catch.

Has the SFPA been asked to comment on the Maritime Area and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill? Has the authority made any proposals to the Department in respect of the Bill? There is another Bill entitled the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction (Fixed Penalty Notice) Bill. The authority works the system of compliance. What improvements would it recommend for inclusion in legislation?

Dr. Steele mentioned prosecutions. How many prosecutions have reached the courts since the authority's establishment in 2006? How many prosecutions were challenged? How many court cases were lost by the SFPA? Was a cost incurred in losing the court cases?

People who work in the industry have told me that anyone who challenges the system and challenges prosecutions being brought against them seem to be targeted for more common inspections after the fact. How does the authority ensure such a situation does not happen?

There is another issue that is raised with us. In Ireland we tend to take directives literally and are over-compliant when it comes to implementing them. How do we compare with Spain, France and Portugal, in particular? Fishermen have given me anecdotal evidence that these three countries employ a much looser compliance system and they do not seem to be as strict as we are in Ireland. The authority holds discussions with other agencies and I want it to ensure there is a level playing field. Can compliance be relaxed as part of the new Bill? We all want to ensure the industry is well regulated, maintained and that environmental issues are taken on board. On the other hand, we want fishermen to conduct their work without being too fettered to directives.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Steele for her presentation. I will continue the same theme raised by Senator Ó Clochartaigh. Any pelagic vessel that lands with over 5 tonnes can be inspected at any port in Ireland. The inspection system for factory vessels differs in that they report what they have caught and landed from whatever port they arrive in and the information is sent to the authority. I understand that to be the case but it may not be the situation. How many times are factory vessels inspected at sea when in Irish waters? How likely are inspections to take place? At the start of this year inspections of these vessels that operated off the Donegal coast was topical. The Department was categorical in stating that it would not conduct inspections and it would be left to the Naval Service to decide whether it was safe to inspect factory ships at sea. Should we have a system of asking the vessels to come into safe waters for inspection? Is it a feasible request?

The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA, 2014 document that has been distributed to members indicates there were 1,457 fishing vessel inspections. Is there a breakdown of how many of those vessels were Irish and how many were Spanish or other nationalities? Will the witnesses explain how the information is exchanged with other EU member states on the quota situation of, for example, Spanish vessels or French vessels fishing in Irish waters? Does the SFPA get accurate information on their quotas and how the individual vessels are affected with regard to quotas? Does that information become a factor in whether the vessels will actually be inspected when they land at ports? Any members who have fishing ports in their areas constantly hear the complaint about three or four Spanish vessels, for example, landing into Killybegs Port where the catch is loaded straight onto the back of a lorry and is taken away with no fishery officers present. When an Irish boat from Killybegs or Donegal comes into port, four fishery officers arrive at the boat to inspect it. I know this may be due to a requirement that pelagic vessels be inspected when they are landing over five tonnes but it is something fishermen find very hard to understand and to live with. Reference was made to penalty points being suspended at the moment. Is it the case that no penalty points are being issued? Perhaps the representatives from SFPA can confirm this will be the case, subject to the conclusion of the court cases and before the new regulation comes into effect. There was an issue regarding the Chinese market and mercury levels in crab meat and I do not know if it has been resolved yet. Will the witnesses please update the committee in this regard? My last question relates to oyster dredging in Lough Swilly. Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, has the role of issuing fishing licences to those vessels and the SFPA has an enforcement role and carries out the inspections. Is this is the case? There is a provision that the vessel licenceholder has to be on board the vessel at all times it is fishing. Is that something the SFPA factors in for its inspections?

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The representatives from the SFPA should elaborate a bit more on its environmental remit and in particular its protection of designated marine areas in accordance with environmental legislation, as Dr. Steele has described. Is the SFPA the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, equivalent of the high seas? What is the crossover and where does SFPA's jurisdiction begin and that of the EPA end? With regard to Deputy Pringle's point, if there is a diminution of water quality, for example, if a designated shellfish area experiences a diminution of water quality, does the SFPA go after whoever causes the pollution that affects the shellfish? One of the jobs of work for Irish Water is to address the problem in some coastal towns where there is no proper sewage treatment or sewage systems and where raw effluent makes its way into bays. Is it the SFPA's remit to take on the local authority or whoever is causing the pollution in designated areas?

Photo of Charlie McConalogueCharlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in today and for their patience and willingness in staying until this time of the evening. I look forward to some of the responses - a good bit of the ground has been covered - in particular on the penalty points issue. While the Department is currently working on it, can the witnesses indicate the expected timeline for a new statutory instrument and the preparatory work required for that?

Dr. Susan Steele:

I thank the Deputies for some good questions. The first question was about the scrutiny. We hear this all the time as well. The first thing one will hear at a port is "How come more Irish vessels are being inspected than foreign vessels?" When we look at the statistics - which are in the annual report - and we take out smaller vessels, a vessel landing has a one in ten chance of being inspected if it is a foreign vessel and a one in 15 chance if it is an Irish vessel, when working on the inspections by numbers. We work, however, on a risk basis; if a vessel has had a higher risk behaviour or has shown something that looks like there would be more cause for an inspection, that is how the inspections are done. We do not have a target number per year of so many foreign vessels or so many Irish vessels to be inspected. We work on a risk basis. I will provide committee members with the statistics and the breakdown of how every single inspection is carried out but we are looking at ensuring marine resources are shared fairly.

Reference was made to factory ships and how these might be policed. We see risks in factory ships and we see huge numbers of risks in Community vessels fishing in Irish waters. A Community vessel hails when it is coming in to Irish waters and then we will receive the information on what their catch is when they are fishing in Irish waters. Then, when they exit our waters we no longer receive those reports. Reports can be changed after they leave Irish waters. We see this as a huge risk. We have travelled to meet with the EU Director General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Mr. Machado and the Commission to raise our fears about the risks that are there. The SFPA sits on a number of different compliance committees and with other Community regulatory authorities where we would discuss this issue to try to find solutions to these risks. How do we police factory ships? We police them by inspections. The Naval Service will inspect them with at-sea inspections. They are extremely difficult vessels to inspect due to their size and in rough weather conditions, it would not be safe for naval officers to go on board. An inspection would also involve fishery officers going on board to check things. We have had some successful cases. We use the term "factory ships" but large-scale processing vessels would be a good way of describing them.

Photo of Charlie McConalogueCharlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If one in ten inspections are on foreign ships and one in 15 are on Irish vessels, how many of these would be boarded? Would Dr. Steele have a similar breakdown for that?

Dr. Susan Steele:

I do not have the figures for boarding.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

The figures quoted by Dr. Steele use the denominator of landing, so the factory ships or the large-scale pelagic freezer trawlers do not land in Irish ports in general. In my eight years in the job, I have seen only one landing by that type of vessel in Ireland. They are not included in those statistics.

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

Are there similar statistics for how many times those types of vessels are boarded or how many times they are there inspected on ship?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

There is not a meaningful denominator to describe it but the answer is that we would try and get to them on a risk basis and we see particular risks with those types of ships. We do try to ensure that the Naval Service does get to them when they are in Irish waters at least once per season, but it would be in the order of ten to 15 inspections per year. I can get exact numbers of inspections for the committee but in round terms, there are two broad fishing seasons in which they are present in Irish waters, namely, at the very beginning of year and at the very back end of the year, which effectively is one continuous fishing season that straddles the calendar year. We try to get to those types of vessels at least once in those fishing seasons. At the initial implementation, the landing obligation was in pelagic fisheries. We risk-assessed particular compliance risks on those vessels at that time and we had a specific targeted patrol where we got to 14 of those vessels in a six-week period. This occurred in early 2015 and the weather was a lot better than in the instances we have spoken about. We did a round of them all. There is a finite number of these vessels and we got to them all at that stage. It is, however, done on a risk basis, according to resources, and according to the weather conditions. The decision on whether or not it is safe to put a RIB in the water and to board those vessels 200 miles off Killybegs is an operational decision made by a naval captain.

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

Do the witnesses have any sense of what we are told about overfishing?

We are told that they hoover up fish, grade them and then dump the ones they do not need. Is there any way the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority can monitor such dumping?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

It is particularly difficult to monitor what happens at sea. As we said, a substantial proportion of Ireland's work is in the area of fisheries control. The vessels in question are not registered with us, which means that they do not land fish here. There is a ping on the vessel monitoring system when they arrive in Irish waters and there is a ping every two hours. Generally, we check with the flag state whether they are authorised to fish and for what and receive an answer from its national fisheries monitoring centre. We then risk assess and generally try to target our available resources at least once per season, if we can, weather permitting. We look at their electronic recording system, ERS. At midnight we are told what they caught on that day while in Irish waters. We do not know what they had on board when they entered Irish waters, but we will know what has been declared on that day. We compare this, for example, to amounts declared for analogous fishing vessels alongside them. For example, if a large pelagic freezer trawler is fishing and has authorisation to catch horse mackerel alone and there is another vessel alongside with mixed catches of mackerel and horse mackerel and it is only logging catches of horse mackerel, there is a risk. The Senator used the words "hoovering" and "dumping", but I say there is a risk that species will be discarded. We identify the risk in that instance and target it, possibly by way of an Air Corps aircraft overfly, weather permitting, or a naval inspection. Those are the steps we can take and we do take them, where appropriate.

There are other steps we take after a vessel has left Irish waters. We have a very close working relationship with our Dutch counterparts. In general terms, the vessels about which we are talking are owned by Dutch multinational companies and fly the flag of various countries, including the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom and various other member states. The port state, the state in which they land fish, is the Netherlands; therefore, if we have a particular concern about what has been caught and logged in Irish waters, we request a flag or port state inspection of the quantities landed.

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

To clarify, they are self-declaring to the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

Every fishing vessel in Irish waters has to declare to us.

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

Yes, but because they are processing on board, they could fillet fish, put them in freezers and say they caught them outside Irish waters. Is that possible?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

They would have had to declare the catches to the coastal state in the waters of which they caught the fish. The flag state has the entire picture and knows which portion of the catch is attributable to each set of waters. The answer to the Senator's question is yes. There is a difficulty in that this creates a challenge for us in terms of compliance verification when we go on board if, say, on day one there is a ping on the system. It is day one for us, but for all we know it might be day five of a six weeks fishing trip for the vessel in question.

Dr. Susan Steele:

Mr. O'Mahony spoke about 14 inspections. Many vessels have permanent structures that make it very difficult for them to dump at sea and we continue to monitor them. We have taken successful cases on their ability to high grade on board and even though cases were appealed, the decisions were upheld. We are aware that every time vessels enter we will receive a huge number of calls and that those involved in the industry here is very concerned about them. We will continue to monitor them to assess the risk and work with the ports where they land fish to ensure everything is above board.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

It is reasonable to say we have devoted many resources to this area. We agree that there are risks and are not contending that point. We completely agree with those who are ringing the Senator to saying these vessels need to be looked at.

Dr. Susan Steele:

We have not been asked to comment on the Maritime Area and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill, but we have submitted some suggestions on the Sea Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction (Fixed Penalty Notice) Bill. We understand there will be further consultation later.

On how many prosecutions cases have gone to court and been won, the annual report lists each prosecution case. There are delays in the courts system. We prepare case files and submit them to the charging officer and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Roughly 80% of cases are still waiting to go to court. We are looking at other systems, for example, bringing some cases to the District Court, but because of the forfeiture system for gear, we end up in the Circuit Court and there are delays. We do not break down the cost of cases. When prepare a case file and submit it to a charging officer and the Director of Public Prosecutions, we have no awareness of the cost involved. I do not have statistics for the numbers of prosecutions we have lost. As every single case is listed in the annual report, I can give the figures included in it.

On whether Ireland is over-compliant and is there a much looser system in other countries, we have an extremely good working relationship with the regulators in other countries. Every country's regulatory system and how regulators act are examined by Commission inspectors. We are audited by them in many areas every year, as are the Spanish, French, the Dutch and every other member state. I do not believe there has been a relaxation in compliance in other countries. From the people I meet in each coastal state, there is determination to have a level playing field and to ensure the same rules are applied throughout Europe. A question was not raised about this area, but there is one issue about which we are very concerned and on which we have travelled to the Commission. When the points system was running, we applied points to foreign vessels, but the member states involved did not apply them to the licences of the foreign vessels. We are not content with this and will continue to make sure that if we apply points to a foreign vessel, they will be carried through to the licence. It is very important for the Irish industry that this happen.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

I wish to add a comment on the level of compliance in member states. One of the points we have consistently made around this table, that we make in our input to European processes and in our submissions on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy is that we are not told about this. We work in the areas of seafood safety and sea fisheries control. In the area of food safety, the audits of member states are published. If a member of the committee asks me if Spain is compliant, I can quote what is stated in the audit report of the Spanish food safety authority, but there is no such publication when it comes to sea fisheries control. We believe there should be such a publication as such transparency and ventilation would greatly help to counter the view expressed by members' constituents that there is not a level playing field when it comes to compliance. I would challenge the view that a perceived lower level of compliance is an argument in favour of less compliance. I would spin it around and say we all need to aim for compliance. Our version of a level playing field is one that includes compliance. We know when a member state has been subjected to punitive sanctions owning to non-compliance. For instance, Spain lost almost all of its mackerel quota for two years running in 2010 and 2011.

Member states have been sanctioned. Ireland was at the latter stages of a potential sanction at the time of inception of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. That is one of the reasons we exist. The point I am making is that member states have been sanctioned and there are explicit provisions in that regard.

Dr. Susan Steele:

I would like to respond to Deputy Thomas Pringle's question about how many times there have been inspections at sea. As we said, they are limited by weather conditions and certain risk factors. The Deputy asked whether we should have a system for inspections. I assure him that we have such a system. We have an ability to bring a vessel into port. However, we cannot do this unless there is a risk basis in the same way there needs to be a reason to pull in and check a person who is driving along the road in a vehicle. We cannot just bring into port a vessel to have a look at what is on board. We have the ability to bring into port any vessel that is in our waters if we think there is a high risk.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about a vessel that may have caused criminal damage to a fisherman's gear? Would that not be something that would-----

Dr. Susan Steele:

That does not come within the remit of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. We would hear about such cases also. I know that the Deputy is referring to a case in which gear was torn through by an anchor. We have come across cases in which people were stealing lobsters from pots, for example. We always say that is a matter for the Garda and the Naval Service. Under the Sea-Fisheries and Maritime Jurisdiction Act 2006, we look after fisheries only, but we often direct and assist people in helping to make complaints about matters that do not fall within the remit of the authority.

I will go through all of the questions asked. We were asked whether there was an adequate exchange of information on other quotas. We will have to check. As the committee learned earlier, quotas in Ireland are signed per vessel. Other member states have transferable quotas and quotas can be transferred very easily. We have very good relationships with the fisheries monitoring centres and are able to check whether vessels have the quotas for which they are fishing. If there is an issue with this, we can look at it and find out what the position is. I will answer the question about whether we receive enough information by saying it is not automatic.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will give an obvious example. If the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority wants to inspect a Spanish vessel that comes into the port at Killybegs, can it contact the Spanish authorities to find out what its quota is?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

If a vessel comes into port with hake, ling and monkfish on board, we can contact the Spanish authorities to ascertain whether it has an authorisation that allows it to catch these species. However, with regard to the absolute quantity of fish, the authorisation is generally shared across and traded between a group of vessels. It is not the case that there is a hard cap per vessel.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Basically, there is no way of knowing.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

To answer the Deputy's question, there will not be a hard cap on quantity beyond which the vessel cannot go. That information is not available for each vessel. In fairness, the Spanish do not have it for each vessel either.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no way of knowing. The group of vessels might have a quota. Five vessels could be landing fish in Spain and one in Killybegs after going over quota. Those involved would be able to organise a transfer among themselves to sort it out.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

Yes. Our job is to make sure what is on board is logged. That information is then passed to the Spanish authorities in order that they can make a reckoning. Under the Common Fisheries Policy primacy in reckoning against national quota primarily lies with the flag state.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there really no way of knowing?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

There is no way for us to know, but we make sure what is on board is what is said to be on board.

Dr. Susan Steele:

We can use that information to make sure the group of vessels has not gone above its quota. We can help to ensure Spain is not going above its quota in Irish waters by ensuring what is logged is what is on board. I accept that there are huge risks and cannot say we are happy with it. A key point arises if a vessel does not land fish in Ireland. Approximately 70% of the fish caught in our waters, as a coastal state, are not being landed in Ireland. We are not able to see the logs after they leave Irish waters. This means that there are risks which we raise all the time. We are not sitting back and saying, "Look, this is fine." We are not happy with it and are actively looking to ensure at every single level and in every single forum that our marine resource which is the richest fishing ground in Europe is not being overfished in any way.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The lack of oversight feeds into the perception that there is over-regulation of Irish fishing vessels and the playing field is not level. We are relying on the Spanish authorities to follow up on what is and is not being caught. There is a natural tendency for us to inspect Irish vessels more closely because we know what the situation is in relation to them. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority will know exactly what quota an Irish vessel has and everything else about it, whereas it does not know what the position is on a Spanish or Dutch vessel because it is not receiving the information.

Dr. Susan Steele:

We definitely do not choose in that way. It is not an ease of inspection choice. Inspections are chosen on a risk and proportional basis. It has been suggested there is a higher risk that people might have landed more fish because Ireland has smaller quotas. That choice will be made in the case of very few vessels. The vast majority of those involved in fisheries are compliant and doing their best within the circumstances that prevail. That is what we want for all fisheries workers. If people are concerned about any case, there is a confidential line. Our door is always open and we act on any information we receive.

We were also asked whether penalty points were suspended, given that the new regulation was in effect. There is a new regulation in effect, but penalty points have not been suspended. We are waiting for the Government to appoint an adjudication officer and members of the points panel, but I am probably using the wrong language. Mr. O'Mahony will give the committee some more detail in that regard.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

The statutory instrument has been on the Statute Book since 1 March 2016. It requires nominees of the Minister for Defence and the Office of the Attorney General to be appointed to a points determination panel, with a nominee of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. To date, there have been no nominees from the other two agencies. The regulation also requires the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to appoint a fisheries adjudicator, but that appointment has not yet taken place. We have authority within the terms of the statutory instrument to pause implementation of the statutory instrument pending the nomination and appointment of these individuals. No points have been awarded or proposed under the statutory instrument.

Chairman:

How long have these positions been in place without being filled?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

The statutory instrument has been on the Statute Book since 1 March. I am not sure-----

Chairman:

Therefore, there is a gap in that nothing has happened since the beginning of March. Is that what Mr. O'Mahony is really saying?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

That is correct, yes.

Dr. Susan Steele:

A question was asked about the needs of the Chinese market with regard to cadmium levels in crabmeat. The role of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority in signing health certificates for third country non-EU markets has grown. With the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, we have to sign a health certificate for anything that is going to Russia or China. In this case, the certificate comes from China, the Chinese authorities write it and we sign our name to a number of attestations in it, one of which relates to the cadmium levels in crabmeat. The wording of the Chinese health certificate means that the levels of cadmium in brown and white crabmeat must be tested. When we test brown crabmeat, it is above the Chinese minimum level. The Chinese authorities have imposed a cadmium limit because they have had pollution problems in the past. Unfortunately, some people thought there was pollution in Irish waters. This would have been an issue in the United Kingdom also. We are working proactively with the industry on this issue. The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority genuinely believes we can have coastal communities full of jobs and seas full of fish. There is huge potential in the sea. We have travelled with the Minister to China to resolve this issue.

The Minister has spoken there at length about the issue. We have brought a group of Chinese import agents here to show them that the waters are clean and pure. We are hoping to come to a conclusion that they will look at the water testing and monitoring methods in Ireland rather than measuring the natural background level of crab. In the meantime, we have taken a proactive step in that if we sign the health certificates knowing the level is too high, we would be risking every single bit of Ireland's reputation. This is because what they are looking for when they get a Government agency to sign a health certificate is for us to say it is okay. We met the industry and, rather than have the Chinese close the market, we decided that we would proactively stop it. We are actively working to reopen that market and are confident that it will be, and that there will be a solution for the Irish industry. As those in the industry will be aware, we are positively and proactively working to get it resolved.

The next question is on oyster dredging and the Swilly inspection. As for whether it is an IFI licence, I am sorry but I have no awareness of this issue. Apologies, I will hand over to Mr. Micheál O'Mahony. I do not if he has an awareness there.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

There is a feral fishery in Swilly. Essentially, it is farmed oysters gone wild. I use the word "feral" pointedly. The IFI has, as far as I am aware, from previous old by-laws-----

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The 1956 Act.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

-----a role in issuing licences for wild oyster harvesting. They issue a licence to allow people into the harvesting business in this area.

I can confirm that we do the inspections in conjunction with IFI. In general terms, it is their boat, and our officers and their officers on one boat conducting these inspections in this area.

I do not know the exact answer to the Deputy's direct question as to whether we verify that the licensee is on board the vessel. I am not that au faitwith our operating procedures in that fishery. I can find out.

Dr. Susan Steele:

I will elaborate on our environmental remit. We were asked whether we are the EPA of the high seas. It is a wonderful question. In our role, we are not the EPA of the high seas.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are they the pirates of the Caribbean?

Dr. Susan Steele:

We are the guardians of the fish and the shellfish, and the seafood safety, and the reputation of Ireland. We cover a lot but, unfortunately, not that role. If there is a designated shellfish area, we would work with the Marine Institute in designating shellfish areas, in taking the shellfish samples and in taking water samples.

As to whether we go after the person who lowers the quality of the water in the area, that does not come under our remit. I will hand over to Mr. O'Mahony, if he wants to elaborate.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

Senator Mulherin's question probably purveys two of our areas. To follow that thread, I refer to our role as regards the monitoring of shellfish areas. First, they are classified shellfish areas. There is a shellfish waters directive and there are the food safety areas. For us, it is a classified area. We classify them on a microbiological basis. In general terms, it is a question of how clean is the water. They get graded A, B or C.

When we have downgrading of an area, we inform the coastal area local authority of any downgradings we have. Every year, we classify the areas. If an area goes from B to C or from A to B, we will let the relevant coastal local authorities know. We inform them and we meet and talk with them. We send the same list to the EPA and let it know what is happening. We have a fairly good dialogue there.

As for whether we go after the polluters, that is not our role. Our role is to classify, and we extend that as far as we can to inform the relevant regulators in the area.

There is a reciprocal relationship whereby if a local authority has, for example, a storm water overflow, it will inform us of that so that we might enhance our monitoring around that storm water overflow as well. Therefore, there is a bit of a reciprocal relationship there. The direct answer to the question is, "No". We do not go after the would-be polluter.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who is the prosecuting authority? Is it the EPA?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

I cannot speak for the EPA but in general terms, the primacy would be with the local authority.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What if the local authority is the polluter?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

The EPA then has a role over the local authority.

Dr. Susan Steele:

I am sorry, we will not comment on it because it is outside our remit.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority's water quality testing in the designated areas, for example, designated shellfish areas pursuant to the shellfish directive, because of storm water and because for the most part these treatment systems are under the control of the local authority, has Mr. O'Mahony encountered water quality diminution?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

We have a classification system which looks at monthly samples for a three-year window, and we stand back and look at those 36 samples and ask what is the general status in that area. That is one action we take. If we have a downgrading, as I have already described, we follow-up there.

If, during that three years, it is normally level - that is, if it is normally 200, 200 - and then it is 3,000, we call that a spike or an out-of-class result. We conduct a specific follow-up of that in so far as we can to try to figure out why it happened. There might have been very heavy rainfall on that day. There might have been a particular peak in slurry spreading. There might have been a storm water overflow from a waste water treatment plan. We try to see if we can figure out what caused that spike and whether it is part of the normal part of that bay or an anomalous result that does not represent those waters. We have an out-of-class follow-up but it does not extend as far as prosecuting the polluter.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority identify areas, towns or regions where this problem has occurred along the coast?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

Not really, no.

Dr. Susan Steele:

We are aware of where the samples are. The samples are from a sampling point. One can see the results at that sampling point, if there is a peak or out-of-range result. The sampling results are all published and there is no issue there.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If a member of the public wanted to know about sampling in which the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is engaged, can he or she go the authority's website?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

We publish the collated outcome, rather than the individual data, on our website. The classifications, A, B or C, are all published on our website.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would it identify an area?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

Absolutely.

Dr. Susan Steele:

The sampling would.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

There are approximately 70 or 80 areas classified by us in the country. Each of those is given a designator, A, B or C, with A being the best, C being the worst and B being in the middle.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am trying to get at something here. There can be different pollutants and different causes but I am referring specifically to waste water treatment plants or sewage treatment plants which are along the coast or which possibly are non-existent because there is only primary treatment of effluent. In general, has Mr. O'Mahony encountered this as a recurring problem, a problem that he has identified of that type of pollution or causing problems within water?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

We measure one parameter only, which is, E. coli in the shellfish flesh. The answer is, "Yes". We have areas that are recurrently problematic, which get classified as B or C, and we have areas that are recurrently good, which get classified as A. One can see those on our website.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are those results being caused by towns and sewage treatment plants or lack thereof as opposed to some other reasons?

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

The E. coli in the water can come from animals or from humans.

Dr. Susan Steele:

E. coli is not differentiated. One might end up sometimes with a result that could have a very high E. coli in it but it could be from a run-off from a mountain where there is a lot of animals.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I get that, but I also understand from the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority's activity that it is also identifying the cause of the pollution at the time that has caused this.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

No, we are attempting to identify the cause of spikes. The normal background is normal background and that is not something we attempt to identify the cause of. I think that is what the Senator is asking me.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am merely trying to know are there towns and villages along the coast where the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is having this problem because there are not proper facilities. I am aware of two such towns and I am merely wondering how widespread the issue is. Wearing another hat, this is an issue that we require the likes of Irish Water to tackle. I am merely wondering how prevalent it is. I am aware of two towns where, I am informed, there is a problem.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

There are shellfish waters that we classify, which have problematic microbiological results. Can we say to the Senator that they are because of incomplete treatment of human sewage in those areas?

No, we cannot. What I can do is think of examples where we had particularly poor results and saw dramatic and even exponential improvements following the installation of secondary and tertiary treatment in those areas. We definitely have concrete examples of those.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is basically answering the question.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

It is answering indirectly.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously, one has to have some conurbation to have these treatment plants.

Dr. Susan Steele:

We will not go into the detail of it now, but we would be very happy to sit down and talk to the Senator about it and we would be really happy to go through results and show her around the coast. I do not want to set out a generality on this or that because it has to do with the specific results and what is there. It is a matter of public record. The testing is done with public money and we would welcome talking to the Senator about what is there.

Mr. Micheál O'Mahony:

In general terms, it is very difficult to achieve strong statements of absolute causality. The E. coli can come from animals or humans.

Chairman:

Does Dr. Steele want to conclude? I think she has answered most of the questions.

Dr. Susan Steele:

I hope I have got to all of the questions. We welcome being here. The Marine Institute invited the committee to two events, but we do not have any big events coming up, I am afraid.

Chairman:

Dr. Steele has already invited Senator Mulherin.

Dr. Susan Steele:

However, if there are any issues on which the committee would like to follow up, we believe communication is key in compliance and understand that people will often speak to the committee. We just want the committee to know that the line of communication is always open. We can all work together towards a compliant industry.

Chairman:

I thank the witnesses for being very patient with us today. It has been a long evening. I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee and presenting an educational view. I come from County Carlow which does not have a great deal of water around it, thankfully. From that point of view, it has been an education. I am delighted that the witnesses came before us. It has been a very useful meeting with the three delegations.

The joint committee adjourned at 9.15 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 November 2016.