Written answers

Tuesday, 21 November 2006

Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

Aquaculture Development

9:00 am

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 409: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the reason, on the basis of scientific evidence available to him, no spatfall occurred in Killary Harbour in 2006; if his attention has been drawn to the serious implications of this for mussel farming in the bay; if his attention has further been drawn to the incidence of no spatfall in 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39186/06]

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 410: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the tonnage of mussel harvested in Killary Harbour for each of the past ten years; the average undersize of mussel and extent of undersize mussel each year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39188/06]

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 411: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the value of mussel harvests in Killary Harbour for each of the past ten years; the main markets for harvested mussels from Killary Harbour; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39189/06]

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 412: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if, in respect of the co-ordinator to the local aquaculture management systems, he is satisfied that this system operates to best benefit in the case of Killary Harbour; if his attention has been drawn to a proposal put forward by a group of sixteen licensed mussel farmers in Killary Harbour that in order for the CLAMS system to operate to best benefit, he should appoint an independent, skilled and experienced mediator who could hear submissions from all mussel farmers involved and prepare fair but inclusive proposals for working agreements for the future in view of the different business perspectives that exist among licensed mussel holders in the harbour; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39190/06]

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 413: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his projections for mussel harvesting in respect of Killary Harbour for the next five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39191/06]

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 415: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the extent of phyto-plankton entering Killary Harbour on the basis of scientific evidence and analysis available to him; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that mussel growth to maturity has slowed from 18 months to 36 months on many of the mussel fields licensed for that purpose; his views on whether this is mainly due to lack of phyto-plankton for mussel spat for growth; if he will comment on the seriousness of the situation arising from the lack of phyto-plankton in Killary Harbour; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39193/06]

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 416: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he will instruct a scientific based report to be carried out on the potential for mussel farming in Killary Harbour over the next five years; if his attention has been drawn to the difficulties currently being incurred in growing mussel stock to maturity; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39194/06]

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 417: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if he has received a request for a meeting with him from licensed holders in Killary Harbour who request that in order for the CLAMS system to operate to best benefit, that an experienced and capable mediator be appointed to bring the CLAMS system to its best operational standard in view of the different business perspectives that exist within the bay; when he proposes to arrange and agree such a meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39195/06]

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 419: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the compensation paid in 2001 in respect of natural disruptions to aquaculture and mussel farming in Killary Harbour; the levels of payment made to each licensed holder; the reason no licensed mussel holder from County Mayo received compensation; if the farmers involved from County Mayo lodged applications; if they were informed of such a compensation scheme being available and the appropriate dates for application for such compensation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39197/06]

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 420: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his proposals to deal with the provision of spat for mussel growing to licensed mussel farmers in Killary Harbour in view of the failure and non-spatfall in 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39198/06]

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 421: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources his projected tonnage at best capacity for mussel growth in Killary Harbour for the next five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39199/06]

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 422: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the number of occasions that BIM officials have visited Killary Harbour and have interviewed all active mussel farmers in the bay in respect of their standard of work, quality of product and marketing techniques; the proposals he has to further enhance mussel product from Killary Harbour for the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39200/06]

Photo of Noel DempseyNoel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 409 to 413, inclusive, 415 to 417, inclusive, and 419 to 422, inclusive, together.

The Co-ordinated Local Aquaculture Management Systems (CLAMS) process is a nationwide initiative, to facilitate the management and the development of aquaculture, by local stakeholders, in bays and inshore waters throughout Ireland. BIM provide assistance to individual CLAMS groups to support them in their role. I am fully supportive of the CLAMS initiatives around the coast, which are a valuable tool in the local management of aquaculture. As the CLAMS are local management structures, the proposals referred to by the Deputy, are a matter for the Killary CLAMS group.

Mussel cultivation has emerged as one of the most valuable sectors of the aquaculture industry in recent years. In order to ensure the continued success and sustainability of the sector, it is necessary that the capabilities of our bays for shellfish aquaculture be established. This is why I have instructed BIM, through the Aquaculture Forum, to undertake Carrying Capacity studies in the main shellfish growing bays around the coast. Killary harbour has been prioritised as one of the pilot locations for this undertaking. This work will identify the obstacles at local level (such as the availability of phyto-plankton and crop density levels) that may be impacting on mussel farming in this bay and provide a practical and scientific basis for recommendations on how they should be tackled. It is not possible to make an accurate projection for the "best capacity" output from Killary for the next five years on the basis of current information. The findings of the pilot carrying capacity study should help inform future planning.

The question of the availability/occurrence of mussel spat is a wider question and is an issue faced by operators nationally. Mussel seed is a naturally occurring, wild resource which is also transient and unpredictable. While considerable research has been carried out by the Marine Institute into mussel seed, much remains to be done before a greater understanding has been achieved of the life cycle of the mussel and before it would be at all possible to predict its occurrence. For these reasons, it is critical to manage fishing for mussel seed so as to protect against over exploitation of the resource. The success of mussel spat collection for farming, in a given season, is dependent on many factors including; timing of deployment of collectors, tidal conditions, weather patterns, and salinity. All of these parameters can affect the distribution of mussel larvae in a bay, which in turn can affect settlement. The failure of the spat collection effort experienced by the farmers in Killary Harbour in 2006 is I am advised, purely a natural phenomenon, which has occurred in the past both in Killary and elsewhere from time to time. There are strategies that the Killary farmers can pursue to mitigate the 2006 spat failure such as buying in seed from producers in other bays, collecting rock seed and grading and thinning their existing stocks and then repacking the small mussels to boost output. I would urge the Killary farmers to engage with their local BIM area officer and with their CLAMS group with a view towards developing a cooperative strategy to deal with this challenge.

I am aware that certain operators have been experiencing a slow-down in the rate of growth of their crops in recent times. The issue of improving growth rates for all of the mussel farmers in Killary is a complicated one. Not only does it depend on the amount of phytoplankton in the bay but also on nutrients from other sources such as fresh water runoff into the lough. In addition the number and positioning of longlines in a bay as well as the stocking density used on those lines and the method of cultivation are also crucial factors. I am aware through the work of the Killary and other CLAMS groups that BIM has been working with farmers to demonstrate the benefit of changing husbandry practices and reducing the density of mussels on particular longlines thus improving growth rates. The outcome of the pilot carrying capacity study in Killary should provide important information to inform future arrangements.

During the last three months of 2005, as part of a major review of the rope mussel sector, BIM staff visited all the significant rope mussel production areas in the country, including Killary, and in each area most (but not all) of the individual farms were visited. Very detailed data was collected in each area for comparison purposes and much of the analysis of this data was showcased at the recent rope mussel workshop held in Bantry on the 16th of November. Due to limitations on staff resources BIM is not in a position to visit every mussel farm every year. BIM does however visit any farm that it is involved with in respect of grant aid or development projects. In this respect it would be safe to say the Killary based mussel farmers have had more visits from BIM staff than any other area in the country over the last three years because of the level of activity in the bay.

The main markets for harvested rope mussels are in France, Spain and Italy. The size of harvested mussels is decided by the needs of the markets in Europe. The Belgian markets generally require mussels of 65mm+ with the French, Dutch and German markets requiring a mussel of a smaller size, in the 45mm size range. However should the market preference change in the future, the harvest size would meet the demand. There are no size regulations applicable to rope cultivated mussels. Whilst the tonnages of mussels produced by the Irish mussel industry are monitored, no systematic data regarding the average individual size of mussels sold from year to year is collected form Killary or any other production area. The producers respond to market demand and the characteristics of the particular crop the have to hand. There are no legal minimum size regulations applicable to harvesting rope cultivated mussels. The volume and value for the rope mussel industry in Killary is given below.

YearLocationHarvested QuantityValue at First Sale
(MT)
1995Killary Harbour452240,107
1996Killary Harbour630246,964
1997Killary Harbour805306,641
1998Killary Harbour1,010542,178
1999Killary Harbour821312,736
2000Killary Harbour24662,471
2001Killary Harbour475296,935
2002Killary Harbour1,170767,593
2003Killary Harbour1,136896,372
2004Killary Harbour1,4191,110,453
2005Killary Harbour1,7031,297,386
Exports to EU
YearBayExport volumeExport value
t
2002Killary380223,773
2003Killary212172,952
2004Killary444352,200

The exceptional frequency of detection of naturally occurring bio-toxins in shellfish growing waters in 1999 and 2000 led to prolonged closures for shellfish harvesting, of many premier shellfish growing areas, resulting in lost crops and financial difficulties throughout the shellfish farming sector. The rope mussel production sector was particularly badly affected.

Following representations by industry to the Minister for the Marine and a preliminary assessment by BIM of estimated losses, funding of €3.174m was made available to the shellfish production sector under the Shellfish Remedial Package. The aim of the scheme was to assist growers to overcome the difficulties of prolonged closures due to bio-toxins. The scheme provided financial aid to assist producers with a once-off environmental clean-up of redundant stock and to restore and secure production capability for the future. The scheme applied to losses of stock, which was mature and ready for harvest in the period 1 May to 31 December 2000. It should be noted that the Scheme was not devised to provide compensation to individual growers but rather to provide assistance to promote the restocking of affected farms on the basis of applications received from these farmers.

This national scheme was announced in Budget 2001 and launched in Bantry on 12 January 2001 and was launched by the Minister of State at the Department and received wide media coverage in both the national and local press and on radio and television. The practice of launching schemes with media coverage and advertising such schemes in local press is a standard practice followed by BIM.

Administration of the scheme was delegated to BIM who dealt with matters such as publicity, the application process and the assessment of applications received in accordance with agreed criteria. Details regarding the objectives of the scheme and how to apply were advertised by BIM in the Kerryman and Connaught Tribune of 19 January 2001 and the Southern Star of 20 January 2001. Details were also published in BIM's Administration of the scheme was delegated to BIM who dealt with matters such as publicity, the application process and the assessment of applications received in accordance with agreed criteria. Details were also published in BIM's Aquaculture Newsletter No 36 and Aquaculture Ireland. The Irish Shellfish Association was involved with BIM in negotiations with regards to the Scheme.

A total of 80 applications were received by BIM. Having assessed all applications in accordance with the criteria of the scheme, funding was approved in respect of 43 applications. The broad geographical spread of applications provides evidence that applications were received from all over the country and that the scheme was very well known to the mussel industry. Given its responsibility for the administration of public funds, it was not the policy of BIM, nor would it have been appropriate for BIM, to solicit individual applications under the Scheme.

There were seven Killary-based beneficiaries. Of these seven, five were members of the Killary Co-op at the time of the Scheme. It should be noted that the Killary Coop is comprised of members with addresses in both Co Galway and Co Mayo. BIM is not aware as to the reasons why a number of the mussel farmers in Killary failed to make applications to the scheme in time to be considered eligible for payment. BIM did not exclude any eligible applicant from the Scheme. All valid applications received, were processed in strict accordance with the criteria laid down for the operation of the scheme. A number of mussel farmers from Killary did lodge applications well after the closing date, and BIM did deal with them as sympathetically as possible. However it was not possible to make payments to these applicants as the fund for the scheme was fully spent dealing with the claims of eligible applicants; leaving no monies available to deal with late applications.

Photo of Enda KennyEnda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 414: To ask the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources if all of the available designated area for mussel farming is currently taken up by licensed holders; the number of licensed holders who actually use the licence allocated to them as distinct from having leased on their licence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39192/06]

Photo of Noel DempseyNoel Dempsey (Meath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997, as amended, allows for applications to be made for the cultivation of mussels at any location on the foreshore. Such applications are, of course, subject to statutory criteria and public policy.

Aquaculture licences may be granted to individual persons, partnerships, co-operative societies or companies. There is no obstacle to a licensee employing a third party to operate the licence. My Department does not maintain statistics on such third party arrangements as the licensee remains responsible, in the first instance, for ensuring that the aquaculture is carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.