Eamon Ryan (Dublin Bay South, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the Green Party, I very much support and commend Deputies Connolly and Pringle on using their time for this important debate and for seeking a united voice in the Chamber in respect of how we manage our marine environment and, in particular, seaweed on our coastal shores. This is a hugely important and useful allocation of time for this critical debate. It is correct that the debate to date has concentrated on two areas - Bantry Bay where a licence has issued and between counties Clare and Mayo for which 17 licences are in process. They have been stalled by the Minister to consider what is the best development approach.

I refer to the development in Bantry first. As Deputy Boyd Barrett said, the process started under my former party colleague, Mr. John Gormley, when he signed an initial consent to licensing. It was done at a time there was no objection or concern. A local company was looking for further development and, on the basis of the scientific advice at the time and with no objection from the local community, it was put forward. I accept and agree that there should have been better consultation. An EIS should have been stitched in at the start of the process and that leads me to agree with those who are calling on the Government to hold off on the Bantry Bay licence and ascertain whether that is the right approach.

My party colleague, Senator Grace O'Sullivan, has expertise and interest in the protection of the habitats on our shoreline and she has raised concerns. When kelp is cut at the lowest point it is attached to the sea bed, it might not regenerate. The monitoring approach agreed in 2016 provided for a baseline study and further studies to be carried out after three and five years. There is a concern that may be too late and the damage will be done. It is a precious environment not just because of the importance of kelp, but also of the other fauna, which impact on the life of the bay. The experience in Bantry should then inform what happens in Connemara, Clare and Donegal. The issue of licensing and how we arrange our foreshore is not only about seaweed. We have a massive problem with awarding foreshore licences for oysters and aquaculture developments. A swathe of large developments have been signed off in recent years in Donegal without an EIS. The management of foreshore licensing has to change.

Unfortunately, I had to attend a meeting of the Committee on Procedure which meant I was late for the debate but I have read the Minister of State's contribution with interest. Our use of seaweed will be developed in a sustainable way. As Deputy Ó Cuív asked, where is the balance between the interests of the processing companies and those working for them at local level? That is one of the key issues we need to get right. The Minister of State said there are 6,500 ownership rights in existence. That is probably a figure that is difficult to nail down. Ownership rights go back to our folklore tradition and to the heart of coastal communities

The Minister of State, Deputy English, states there are only 400 licences that may be actively managed. Any management of the seaweed systems must, in the first instance, be done in a way we are absolutely certain does not affect the long-term viability, sustainability or restoration of the most diverse bio-ecology in the sea area. The second requirement in order of prioritisation is that any management or processing of seaweeds should be done in a way that benefits the local community most and first. If that even runs foul of certain economic considerations - I am sure it would be much easier to put in a big machine and harvest it all in one go - we should side with protecting or encouraging local community involvement. In that process, perhaps we should be specific and forensic in terms of how seaweed is harvested and used because in those 500 or so species of seaweed on our shores, and in the evolution that is taking place in the scientific world that is showing a range of new applications of natural material in biomimicry or other mechanisms to provide medical, pharmaceutical or biomedical products, or, indeed, foodstuffs, we have a hugely valuable resource. It is about how we manage that forensically, treating this as something special rather than something that provides a quick-buck return where one gets in and gets out and harvests as much as one can in as cheap a way as possible. The latter is not the direction in which we should go.

This is a valuable debate, as I said, and Deputies Pringle and Connolly have done us much service. It is a pity that we cannot get agreement here. It seems, from what I have listened to, we will not get agreement across the House but that the motion will get the support of the majority in this House, and that is welcome. We have seen this on a number of occasions where we put Opposition motions that get the support of a majority in the House. What does that mean? Fianna Fáil may have an interest in that because it has a certain influence over the Government in its confidence and supply agreement. What does it mean when that party supports a motion in opposition which compels the Government to take certain actions?

This is an area where, more than anything else, it is possible for the Government to act. It is not without difficulty, particularly in Bantry, but what I have heard, from the Fianna Fáil Deputies here and from everyone else, is the clear intention and desire of this House to take the management of the seaweed resource in a different direction and to in some way start again and say that we need to manage this from an environmental perspective above anything else. Whatever the Government's position as expressed in the Minister of State's speech, we must seriously consider, if this motion is approved, what does it mean for the Government and what it then has to do.

See this speech in context