Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jun 1996

Vol. 466 No. 4

Written Answers. - County Mayo Tourism Industry.

Séamus Hughes

Question:

283 Mr. Hughes asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications his views on whether the tourism industry in County Mayo can be further developed, particularly in the Westport-Louisburgh area, in view of proposals to carry out prospecting for gold and, if proven viable, mining in that area; and would he have any concerns in light of the above. [11718/96]

Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. Lowry)

There is no reason prospecting for any mineral should impact, either positively or negatively, on the tourism industry. The Deputy will be aware, from replies to previous questions on this subject, that there has been prospecting in the area of south west Mayo continuously for the last ten years. I have no indication that there has been any effect on the tourism industry because of this and, if prospecting is carried out in accordance with the licence conditions and guidelines issued by my Department, there is no reason why there should be any impact. The licences issued cover all minerals and not just gold as implied by the Deputy's question.

In the event that commercial quantities of minerals of any kind are discovered, it will then be a matter for the licence holders to make application for planning permission and a licence from the Environmental Protection Agency after having first carried out an environmental impact study. In the event that planning permission and the necessary licence from the Environmental Protection Agency are granted I would then have to issue a State mining facility before mining could commence.

Mining, if allowed, would certainly impact on both the tourism industry and the general environment, including habitats. These impacts could be of a positive nature. The impacts would also be short-term in that the standard terms of a modern State mining facility require full rehabilitation of the site when mining is completed. Financial conditions to ensure that this obligation is met usually from part of the conditions attached to planning permission.

While mining, if carried out in an inappropriate manner, can be harmful, there is evidence from near and far of positive impacts of mining on both the tourism industry and the environment. I will mention but two instances here but, if the Deputy wishes, I will furnish him with details of others.

In the first instance I will draw on the experience from the worked out Que River mine in Tasmania which borders on the Cradle Mountain — Lake St. Clair National Park. This mine was a 3 million tonne outcropping polymetalic sulphide ore body which was mined in the period 1980 to 1990 and produced mainly lead and zine. Mining was mostly underground. The outcropping sulphides had oxidised and previously leached naturally to a sufficient extent to make the river uninhabitable for some fish. When rehabilitation is complete the river water quality will be better than it has been for millennia. Total rehabilitation will be required prior to lease surrender being accepted by Mineral Resources Tasmania.

The second instance is closer to home, in the Dolgellau region of north Wales, where a small mine is continuing to produce rare Welsh gold which is historically associated with the Celtic tradition. The mining company supports a total of four interrelated but individual profit centres comprising the Gwynfynydd mine, a jewellery manufacturing division, a retailing centre in Dolgellau where the Welsh gold jewellery is sold and a tourism operation within the Snowdonia National Park which offers organised tours of the mine. Before the mine was reopened in August 1992, settling tanks were constructed to ensure that the quality of the water discharged into the river Mawddach was to a standard acceptable to the National Rivers Authority. For environmental and security reasons, the mill attached to the mine is sited underground. Nearly 9,000 tourists visited the mine in the year to August 1994 and that number is expected to double by the end of the current year. The state receives a mineral royalty of 4 per cent of gross sales from this development plus a tourist royalty which is dependent on the number of visitors to the mine. In addition to those directly employed in the mine there is the benefit of value added in the local fabrication workshops and tourism industries.

I mention these two examples to show that different types of mineralisation have different effects but that they need not necessarily be harmful effects. Both examples exist within or adjacent to national park areas, both have either maintained or improved the environment and both have increased the tourist potential of the area. The examples could also be the case in Ireland but the point to be taken from them is that each proposed mining development must be considered on its merits having regard to the minerals to be extracted, the method of extraction required in the light of geological and other considerations, as well as the potential for impact, harmful or otherwise, on the environment and the tourism industry.

It is unreal and unacceptable to take a rigid anti-mining stance without having first considered all the implications of each proposed development. The country cannot afford a blanket "either-or" approach to mining and other interests and the regions cannot afford such an approach. We must not have mining at any price but we must have responsible mining.