Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

As a resource, seaweed has been available to communities living along the coast for many years. It has recently caught the attention of the Government because Údarás na Gaeltachta wanted to sell its seaweed processing plant to a Canadian company. In recent times, there came to be a lot of focus on it when the Canadians were happy to buy the plant provided they could have access to the resource growing along the coast. The resource that had been left to the coastal communities to look after suddenly had a commercial value so it had to be taken from those in order that it might be made available to the Canadians and any company that would have making money at the heart of its interests. They certainly do not have the interests of the local community at heart, except where it can help them to make a profit.

The purpose of this motion is to try to put the local community and harvesters, rather than the operations of private companies, at the heart of the matter. Never did the residents of the western seaboard believe that their harvesting of seaweed would be of interest to multinational companies, leading to a situation whereby they will now be sacrificed in order that the companies can have unfettered access to the resource. Instead of finding a solution that meets the needs of the community which harvests the seaweed as well as the companies that want to benefit from the product they harvest, the Government wants to give the resource in its entirety to the companies. For the past number of years, the issuing of licences to companies has been in limbo because the Government discovered that, according to Land Registry documents relating to their properties, many people living along the western seaboard have the right to harvest seaweed. This makes the transfer of rights to the seaweed companies difficult for the moment.

Our motion calls for the publication of a national strategy that would look at the potential of the seaweed industry, focusing particularly on the harvesters and the need to benefit local rural communities, suspend the granting of licences pending the publication of the strategy, move the licensing procedure to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and ensure that traditional harvesters are looked after and protected under any new regime. Some people might wonder why the licensing procedure should be moved the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is simply because the Department has responsibility for the marine. It is vital for the future that we have one Department that deals with marine matters. The reality is that we will not have a Department with responsibility solely for the marine on this Government's watch.

To highlight the futility of the current situation, the marine co-ordination group, which has looked after marine matters for the last several years, has nine Departments sitting on it plus the Attorney General. It may as well be the Cabinet. Some people would see this as being a sign of the importance of the resource but in Irish Government circles, it is a way of ensuring that nothing happens because no-one will take ownership and drive the group.

It will also be argued that because of environmental conditions attached to harvesting seaweed, individuals will not be able to apply because the cost is too much for them. As a result, only companies would have the necessary resources to apply for a licence. However, I believe this can be done without imposing a cost on the individual harvester. The State can adopt the same strategy that is being used in the Natura bays, where the State itself carries out the environmental surveys and sets the conservation objectives. The harvester then shows how he or she can apply them. This is an alternative to having the harvester carry out all of the studies. It is also more environmentally sound, because the State, rather than the harvester, takes responsibility for the protection of the environment.

In reality, the natural harvesting of seaweed that is carried out in Ireland is similar to farming and cutting hay. What is the environmental impact of those activities? In fact, traditional harvesters cut the seaweed manually, which is a more sustainable use of the resource than companies' use of mechanical extraction methods.

The Government's response to our motion is interesting. It is trying to paddle both canoes but it can be seen that the Government is coming down on the side of the companies. Should we be surprised, given what Deputy Connolly has outlined concerning our oil, gas and fisheries, that the Government would come down on the side of the companies? The Government recognises the role of both traditional harvesters and companies in the seaweed sector. The Minister of State has said he is working to bring clarity to the issue for companies and for harvesters. This did not arise until the companies wanted to get control of the resource themselves. The Government now intends to make everything all right for them.

Given that the company actually uses a system of harvesting that has a greater impact on the growing of seaweed, one wonders what this is really about. Is it about protecting a resource for the future or making a resource available for private companies to use as they like? Is it enough for local communities to work for the company at its whim, harvesting their resource, or should the company have to build a relationship with the community in order for it to make its resource available to that company?

That might seem a subtle difference but I believe it is very important because it comes down to where ownership of the resource lies and who has to be negotiated with in order to use it. The State has a duty to manage the resource on behalf of the people and that includes the people who harvest it. Multinational companies have the right to negotiate for the use of the resource, respecting the rights of the community and the State. If multinationals make an agreeable deal, so be it, but the power stays with us. That is vitally important and must be reflected at all stages.

The use of seaweed is vitally important for rural communities. It is interesting to note that the traditional use of seaweed has a low-value return, with the resource being used for low-value products such as animal feeds and fertiliser. The highest-value products, representing 30% of the value, come from just 1% of the resource. This is a very interesting figure, and shows there is huge potential for growth in this sector. This growth should benefit the local harvesters as much as multinational corporations. Local harvesters working with seaweed processors, large or small, can benefit local communities. This would ensure that this industry can benefit all our communities rather than just multinational corporations.

Interestingly, this never featured on the radar of officialdom in Ireland and local communities were allowed to work away until someone else saw the value of seaweed. Now, rather than ensure that the value is realised for the communities the harvesters live in, there is an attempt to realise that value for multinational corporations. It is clear that rural Ireland and our coastal communities will be left as they are until the products that they use can be shown to have a value to multinationals. Perhaps that is the lesson that we in rural communities will have to learn. We must make sure that our resources are protected now, before the Government realises they have a value and moves to make them available to multinational corporations throughout the country. Those corporations will access the value and we will not benefit at all.

See this speech in context