Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies Pringle and Connolly for tabling this motion. I also commend the groups from Bantry, Conamara and elsewhere who have been campaigning for some considerable time on this issue.

Their efforts have helped bring this debate into the Dáil and forced the entire political system to take the matter seriously and to address their concerns.

The motion put forward by Deputies Pringle and Connolly is very reasonable. I do not see why the Government feels the need to put forward an amendment and it should reconsider that seriously. The motion seeks to protect the traditional seaweed harvesters, communities and industries in these areas. It seeks to protect the biodiversity of the marine environment to ensure that other traditional and local industries are not undermined or damaged. It is not saying that it does not recognise the value of this natural resource or the potential to develop it in a way that can be beneficial economically, socially and on all sorts of levels. However, it provides that any development of the resource must take place on a sustainable basis that will not negatively impact on traditional seaweed harvesters or damage the environment, local communities and existing industries. That is a very reasonable request. Why is the Government putting forward an amendment to the motion?

The motion indicates that there are deep concerns about the licensing approach to date, particularly arising from the licence that was issued in Bantry, County Cork - west Cork, I should say. There are concerns about the manner in which that licence was granted, without proper environmental impact assessment. In my opinion, it is in breach of the Aarhus Convention. A development of this scale is in breach of that convention if there is not a proper environmental impact assessment or the proper consultation. There was no advertisement in a national newspaper. There was a miserable little advertisement in a local newspaper. That is in breach of the law. We successfully forced Providence Resources to withdraw its foreshore licence for putting an oil rig in the bay off Dún Laoghaire precisely on the basis that it had carried out a Mickey Mouse, not-serious consultation and knew it would lose a case under the Aarhus Convention. The Government and the Minister of State's Department should suspend that licence immediately because, in any reasonable person's opinion, it is in breach of the requirements of the Aarhus Convention.

It is disappointing and very surprising that the former Minister, John Gormley, was the one who issued this licence. That is not an excuse for the Government not to suspend the licence now. It should also refuse to issue any further licences for harvesting of this nature until we are certain doing so will not have adverse impacts on the groups, the marine environment and even on the climate.

An analogy has already been drawn between this matter and the bad experience we have had of fishing, whereby big multinational interests have come in and just sweep up the fish with all the damage to local fishing industries. I will provide another analogy, which arises out of the name of the Bantry group. What is seaweed? It is the forests of the sea. The Minister of State should think about the significance of that on all sorts of levels. We made a bags of forestry in this country. The approach was to cut it down for short-term profit regardless of the long-term consequences for the environment, traditional industries, small producers and so on.

Small and traditional producers almost instinctively understand about sustainable management and development when it comes to these things. Their livelihoods are tied up with the sustainable development and management of the resources, whereas big corporate interests that come in just think about how they can make some money out of it. They do not feel the impacts on the community, the local environment, the local marine environment, biodiversity, or any of the other potential inadvertent consequences. They do not care about them and do not feel them. They just make money out of it. We should not be giving licences to these people until all potential negative impacts have been fully assessed and we are absolutely certain the development of this resource will ensure the protection of traditional interests, local communities and, critically, the environment.

What potential impact could the mechanical harvesting of the sea's forests have on climate change? Has that been assessed? To my mind, the value of having properly managed seaweed forest resources in terms of carbon capture and so on is vital. That does not mean we cannot harvest it, just as we can harvest trees. We have to do so sustainably, not through clearfell, gutting forests and landscapes and creating dead zones. We do not grow the proper species or harvest the trees in a sustainable manner and this does immense damage to the environment, local economies, biodiversity and so on. We have created enough dead zones through the mismanagement of forests and fishing. Let us not do the same to another natural resource by licensing it off to multinational or corporate interests that just see it as an opportunity for profit.

I commend Deputies Connolly and Pringle and the communities that are fighting on this. The Government should withdraw its amendment. There is nothing objectionable in the motion for those who are interested in the sustainable development and management of our seaweed resources and the protection of the communities, traditional harvesters and other industries that could be impacted.

See this speech in context