JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Tuesday, 19 Dec 2006

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

The purpose of the meeting is to consider COM (2005) 505, a proposal for a directive establishing a framework for Community action in the field of marine environmental policy, with representatives of the Departments of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Transport. I welcome Mr. Brendan Tuohy, Secretary General, Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, and the officials from the other Departments involved. Before asking Mr. Tuohy to begin his contribution, I advise everyone that we will hear a short presentation which will be followed by a question and answer session. Committee members are anxious for the meeting to conclude at 3.30 p.m. We are grateful to all of the officials for taking the time to attend, as we were anxious to dispose of this item before Christmas because we are due to hold public hearings on the proposed broadcasting legislation on 9, 10 and 11 January. If we have inconvenienced the officials in any way, we regret it very much.

I draw everybody's attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee which cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Furthermore, under the salient rulings of the Chair, members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I ask Mr. Tuohy to introduce the officials from the three Departments involved. We will then hear his presentation.

Mr. Brendan Tuohy

As members may be aware, Mr. Cecil Beamish is attending the Fisheries Council this week; he has not yet developed the gift of bi-location. I am accompanied by Mr. St. John O'Connor who was appointed principal officer recently. He will make the main presentation. I am also accompanied by Mr. Eugene Nixon from the Marine Institute, Mr. Martin Diskin from the Department of Transport, Mr. John Sadlier and Ms Renee Dempsey from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Also present are Mr. Terry McMahon, Marine Institute and Ms Helen O'Reilly and Mr. Des Moore, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Ms Joana Betson from the Department of Foreign Affairs is here as an observer.

As I am conscious of the time limitations, I will ask Mr. St. John O'Connor to commence the presentation, after which we will take questions.

Mr. St. John O’Connor

Earlier I circulated copies of the presentation which is designed to give members some background information on the directive and to identify some of the issues facing Ireland in implementing it. The second page shows the format of the presentation.

I will start with some summary slides dealing with the main issues arising from the directive. I will then outline the background to how the directive originated and highlight the existing measures in place to protect the marine environment. There is one slide indicating the progress of the directive through the environment working Council and a few dealing with a regional perspective, including Ireland's exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf and the proposed eco-regions. I will then elaborate on the implementation timetable, to put flesh on the bones of the briefing note we supplied to the committee yesterday. I will discuss the impact on the Department, identify some of the indicative costs that the Commission and the United Kingdom have identified and conclude with the main points of the presentation.

Turning to the third slide, the directive should be considered a framework directive with an overall goal of protecting and conserving the marine environment. It requires member states to develop strategies to manage their marine environment. To do this, they will have to co-operate and work on producing coherent marine strategies relating to eco-regions, of which there are 11. The ultimate aim of the directive is to produce good environmental status by 2021.

As members will be aware from the briefing material, the proposed directive is based on the sixth environmental action programme, adopted in 2002. The action programme was the result of a long and involved European consultation process which identified seven strands, of which the marine environment was one. The others were air quality, sustainable use of resources, waste prevention, recycling, pesticides, soil quality and the urban environment. Out of this environmental action programme the Commission produced a communication in 2005 on the thematic strategy for the protection and conservation of the marine environment, from which the draft marine strategy directive was produced. However, it should be seen in the wider context of an EU maritime policy, on which the Department is launching a national consultation process in January. The marine strategy directive represents an environmental pillar of this yet to be formed policy.

Slide No. 7 shows the main measures in place to protect the marine environment. I have highlighted the two measures on which the Department takes a lead role. That is not to say it does not play a role in the other measures and directives but it takes the lead role on those two. I will briefly mention later the strategic environmental assessment directive which the Department has implemented with regard to petroleum exploration.

Slide No. 8 shows the progress of the framework marine environment directive which has been negotiated through the environment working group. Political agreement on a Common Position was reached yesterday, with a Second Reading scheduled for Parliament in Q1 or Q2 of 2007. This would mean Second Reading agreement possibly by the end of Q2 but more likely conciliation in Q3 and Q4.

Slide No. 9 shows the proposed eco-regions. Most notably, regions E and K relate to Ireland. The Celtic Sea in region E is highlighted in yellow and region K, the north-east Atlantic, is highlighted in blue.

The next slide shows Ireland's exclusive economic zone and the delineation of Ireland's continental shelf. In slide No. 11 I have superimposed the latter two slides onto the proposed eco-regions. This highlights the substantial task ahead for Ireland in implementing the directive.

Slide No. 12 contains the implementation timetable. Member states have three years in which to transpose the directive. Four years from the entry into force of the directive, Ireland will need to produce a current environmental status and an impact of human activities thereon. Likewise, within the same timeframe — four years after the date of entry into force — Ireland will also need to identify good environmental status for the waters concerned. Within a further year, Ireland will need to identify a series of environmental targets and associated indicators associated with good environmental status.

I now turn to slide No. 13. Six years after the introduction of the directive, Ireland will need to have established a comprehensive monitoring programme. By 2016, Ireland will be required to develop a programme of measures that will either maintain good environmental status or bring those waters not so designated up to such a level. By 2018, Ireland is required to have implemented this programme of measures with the aim, by 2021, of having a good environmental status for our waters.

Slide No. 14 deals with the impact on the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. I do not propose to talk about the fisheries aspects too much. I have included two points and I understand that Dr. Beamish appeared before the committee last week. As regards coastal zone management, the directive will need to be included in the current coastal zone regulatory processes.

Slide No. 15 deals with the impact upon petroleum exploration. Petroleum exploration is currently regulated under OSPAR and national instruments. I touched briefly earlier on the fact that strategic environmental assessments are being implemented concerning petroleum exploration, the first of which was undertaken earlier this year. Another one will be undertaken next year. The work on strategic environmental assessments will feed into the initial assessment that is required four years after the implementation of the directive. Likewise, underwater noise is also being taken account of in the directive and will form a part of the strategic environmental assessments.

Slide No. 16 deals with indicative costs. The Commission was required to produce an impact assessment, which is has done. It has identified the establishment of a framework costing approximately €90 million, with a recurrent annual cost of €70 million. Alternatively, the UK carried out a partial regulatory impact assessment. Using the same methodology, it estimated a cost to the UK of €6 million with a recurrent annual cost of €4.5 million. However, using an alternative methodology, it was identified that the potential cost could be in the region of €37 million per year.

The successful implementation of the directive will require a close interdepartmental approach. Likewise, in the area of the Celtic Sea, in particular, close co-ordination with the UK will be required. Ireland will also be required to implement a public consultation on the monitoring programme and indicators, as well as the need to establish a comprehensive programme for the economic and social assessment implications.

Deputy Durkan

I have a quick question, Chairman, and will not delay the meeting. Slide No. 15 concerns the impact on petroleum exploration. Some assessments have already been carried out in the Slyne-Erris area. Is there any information on the assessments of spillage or pollution that might occur in or around drilling activities, given that this is likely to continue for some considerable time? If such information is available how does it compare with, for example, the North Sea drilling areas, which I presume are also subject to this directive? I realise that Norway is excluded, although there are parts of the North Sea that come under the EU directives. Have comparisons been made on the degree to which seismic activity associated with drilling has had an effect on marine life? To what extent have comparisons been made with areas that are not so affected and where no such activity is going on? Can that information be made available to us now? If not, could it be made available to us later?

Chairman

We will bank the questions.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

It is useful that we are discussing this matter following our discussion last week with Dr. Beamish, Lorcan Ó Cinnéide and Dr. Paul Connolly of the Marine Institute, on some of the latest developments in the fisheries area. Two thoughts came to me from last week's presentation, which obviously has significant implications for the development of the marine environment. First, there was a sense of some progress in the past year. That was witnessed by a couple of developments where the fishing organisations had come together in one representative group and by Lorcan Ó Cinnéide's honesty last week, in stating that in fisheries policy we cannot continue "building uncertainty upon uncertainty". That was a significant development in terms of a recognition among the fishing industry that what is happening at present is not sustainable. That, in a sense, echoed the useful work that Dr. Paul Connolly had done in this committee by being honest about the lack of certainty on catches or the effect on the marine environment.

Second, while I hate to put monetary values on natural systems, as the Marine Institute had come out with a figure of roughly 500 million on the estimated financial value on the fish caught every year here, and it is generally acknowledged that its figure is probably a fraction of the amount of fish landed, one could estimate a value of €2 billion on the catch landed. Given we know that almost half of the fish caught are thrown overboard dead anyway, maybe one could even increase the estimate to €4 billion as the true value if one wanted to put a financial value on a natural resource.

If a company with turnover of €4 billion a year was leaving this country, or was about to close down in five years as Lorcan Ó Cinnéide admitted was likely to happen unless we change direction, it would be at the top of our political agenda. Perhaps sometimes we do not put a value on natural systems, but it does not mean they do not possess a considerable value.

Having been positive in that sense, I wish to ask a couple of questions. I took from the point made by Mr. O'Connor that this proposal is stating that we should be moving towards integrated coastal zone management. I suppose I was disheartened that there was no sense in the recent latest legislation in that area, the Foyle and Carlingford Fisheries Bill which is going through the Dáil at present, that we were taking a broad integrated coastal zone management approach. Will this directive have an effect in that regard in ensuring that future development of coastal zone management is given a real lift?

It seems that fisheries is one of the main areas. Dr. Connolly of the Marine Institute stated that consideration is now being given to moving towards what he called ocean management rather than fisheries management. Will this directive set out specific ocean management policies that will then determine fisheries policies? In other words, are we stating that this directive and its priorities come ahead of fisheries policies or energy exploration policies? I am interested to know where this framework directive fits in, and whether it will have real force in requiring us to amend fisheries or exploration policies.

The following questions are more specific. I noted the prospect that our own sector, the Celtic Sea sector, will require a budget of some €70 million a year to manage and some 97 people. Given that we are right in the centre of that eco-region, is there any proposal from the Government to locate such an administrative and management operation in Ireland?

My last question relates to cetaceans — whales, dolphins and other species — and sharks. Their presence is a good barometer of our ocean's health. If one considers what is occurring at the top of the food chain, it is an easy way to assess what is happening elsewhere. Are there any specific measures regarding protection or monitoring in respect of such large mammalian and shark species?

Chairman

We will bank the questions. The relevant experts may provide answers when all members have had an opportunity to pose questions.

Deputy Perry

The document with which we were presented is very good. Deputy Eamon Ryan referred to the recurrent annual costs of €70 million and a once-off cost of €90 million in respect of establishing a framework. When one considers that €70 million represents 50% of the existing budget, it is obvious that a major commitment would be required. The timescale will run to 2021 at the latest. What amount of money will be spent in the next five years in respect of this framework directive and the autonomy given to each member state to implement it? Are there plans to implement any aspects of it in next year's budget? If so, what would be the envisaged allocation? In the Estimate agreed a number of weeks ago, an allocation of funding was not made in respect of this matter. Would implementation of the directive be included under the national development plan?

Senator Kenneally

Reference was made to each marine region or sub-region. Is Ireland perceived as a single marine region or as a sub-region? If the former is the case, what are the sub-regions? Perhaps one of our guests could expand on that matter. In the part of the presentation relating to indicative costs, it is stated that an additional 97 persons will be required per region. Does this mean that an extra 97 people will have to be employed? Who will be responsible for appointing these individuals and to whom will they report? Will they report to the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the new body that is being established or some other agency?

Chairman

Before enlargement, Ireland had 16% of all EU waters. Since enlargement, it now has 10% to 11% of all such waters. Is Mr. Tuohy stating that, as a result of the size of the area of waters involved, we can manage with an a budget of €70 million and an additional 100 staff?

Mr. Tuohy

I will answer some of the questions and refer the others to my colleagues.

On Deputy Durkan's question regarding the impact on petroleum exploration, I did not bring the relevant information with me. Rather than trying to explain the position now, I will make the information available to the committee and if members want us to come before them again in the new year, we will do so.

On Deputy Eamon Ryan's comments, we are also extremely supportive of the future bodies coming together. Dr. Cecil Beamish is heading the team with the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, in Brussels. I will not deal today with the Deputy's remarks regarding the fishing aspect.

The Deputy also referred to coastal zone management and the Foyle-Carlingford issue. Matters relating to coastal zones and foreshores have become huge in scope. Five to seven years ago there were approximately 200 foreshore licences. In the past five years, however, applications were made in respect of 700 such licences. Approximately two thirds of the population lives within ten miles of the coast. As a result, there has been an increasing interest in our coasts.

By modern standards, we do not really have an effective system for dealing with environmental issues relating to the coast. There is a process in place but we are of the opinion that there is room for improvement. On behalf of the State, and with the Department for Finance, we own the foreshore, as defined in legislation. If one wants to build a wind farm or whatever and one wants to obtain a foreshore licence, one must apply to the Department and the Minister. There is a consultation process involved and environmental impact assessments, etc., must be carried out. The decision is also taken by the Minister.

As already stated, there is an issue in the context of the system reaching modern standards. Looking to the future, we see a need for a system similar to that currently in place in respect of planning. Members will be aware that the most recent planning Act contains a provision in respect of our foreshores and the role of local authorities in connection therewith. There was, therefore, some recognition that this is becoming a matter of increasing concern. The Department recognises the need to examine and change that to bring it in line with the broader planning approach.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

A report on sea and coastal zone management was published in 1997 and legislation was promised in 2002, which did not proceed.

Mr. Touhy

There is no legislation on our stocks. The division is new and it is being decentralised to Clonakilty. We are in the process of a major changeover with most of the marine personnel moving to Clonakilty. Foreshore and coastal zoning is part of a new division and a number of its staff are in Clonakilty. UCC has a coastal research body, the Glucksman centre, in Haulbowline and our new division has been working with the centre to build up capacity in these areas. The issue is on our agenda but it is tied into the transfer and establishment of the new unit in Cork. The issue will come up over the next few years and it is staring us in the face as it comes down the line. However, I will come back to the Deputy on it, if he wishes.

A number of members raised the issue of the eco-regions and Mr. O'Connor can go through the detail. In essence, the total figures are mentioned in the proposal. A total of 97 staff will be deployed per region and Ireland is not a region on its own. There are three regions and 11 sub-regions, with Ireland being part of a region. Our land base is approximately 84,000 sq. km. and the economic zone is approximately 620,000 sq. km. We have applied to the UN through different batches for recognition of an extended continental shelf, which would extend the zone to more than 850,000 sq. km. The entire extension may not be granted but that would represent a significant increase of almost one third. Within the economic zone, we have control over the water and the sea bed but, outside it, we only control the sea bed under international law, which raises other issues.

I made a presentation to the Committee of Public Accounts earlier this year and I referred to the south east and the Celtic Sea area, which is not in dispute, but the French, the British and others are disputing the Hatton-Rockall area and the potential remains that we will acquire a sizeable additional sea bed area in the zone. The current figure of 11% could well increase during this process by 12% or 13%. That is a significant element of the European sea bed space and is not to be sniffed at. If committee members would like us to brief them in the new year, we would be happy to do that or we can forward the UN submission, which makes for interesting reading. It was the first time in the history of the State that we acquired additional space.

Deputy Perry referred to the allocations. While the directive was passed by the Council yesterday and there is political agreement, it must return to the European Parliament for further debate. The directive, therefore, will probably not be implemented until the summer at the earliest and that is optimistic. There is sufficient funding in our budget to kick-start its provisions next year but, throughout the system, it cannot be done on a zero sum game. It is not the case that there are people floating around the system available to do additional work. This directive is demanding and it will put a requirement on the resources of all the Departments and agencies involved.

Mr. O’Connor

There are three main regions and 11 proposed sub-regions. The budget is approximately €6 million per year which is the initial estimate based on United Kingdom figures for Ireland for the sub-region.

Senator Kenneally

Given that the 97 people in question are part of a sub-region, to whom do they report? Who employs them? Are they employed by the Commission?

Mr. O’Connor

It would be the responsibility of each member state to set up a strategy and to decide that issue.

Mr. Tuohy

We will need to work very closely with the UK on this matter. According to the directive, it is the responsibility of each member state. In response to Deputy Eamon Ryan's comments about location, our own people will be involved and they will certainly be based in Ireland. I would not underestimate the amount of work needed as it is a very significant piece of work.

Mr. Eugene Nixon

On the question of marine mammals, the draft directive requires that the strategies apply the ecosystem-based approach. This requires the carrying out of an assessment to define good environmental status and the establishment of a monitoring programme. The characteristics to be included in determining that monitoring programme include marine mammals, sea birds and special habitats. This directive proposes a complete approach based on the ecosystem.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

This ecosystem-based approach in fisheries and other areas has been discussed for some time. Will this directive supersede or reframe the fisheries policy? No one could argue that the current fisheries policy meets an ecosystem approach.

Mr. John Sadlier

The ecosystem-based approach is a requirement in the strategies to be developed and with the aim of meeting good environmental status. This is binding on member states. It is an EU competency rather than a member state competency. It is an issue that is outside the responsibility of member states.

Mr. Tuohy

I think the Deputy is asking whether the EU will be bound by the directive. While there is a requirement on member states, there is no requirement on the EU itself.

Mr. Sadlier

The implementation of the directive in any member state or any part of a member state, is completely the responsibility of the member state concerned. It is black and white. The Commission does not have responsibility in that regard except that it has the right to approve or reject certain plans and strategies brought forward by member states, if those member states measures do not comply with the directive. The obligations are on member states.

A key element of this and other directives is the need for co-ordination to ensure that all the different authorities and players involved co-ordinate their efforts so that we are not all operating in our separate little black boxes. This is a continuation or an extension of what is already being done in the context of the water framework directive which relates to fresh and coastal waters where the issue of co-ordination is the key point. The proposed directive is virtually a mirror image for the marine area of what has already been adopted and is being implemented under the water framework directive which deals with the land area and fresh and coastal waters. The Department has some experience now of developing a very high degree of co-ordination and co-operation between the different Departments and the different public authorities, including North-South co-operation and co-operation with the UK on the marine. The process has been firmly set in motion by the Department.

Deputy Perry

Will there be support for the developing industries within the trade to implement this measure? Apart from the annual cost of €70 million, obviously the associated costs will have an impact, as did measures such as the water directive and the nitrates directive. Will there be buy-out or credit options for those who will avail of this scheme? Who will make the assessment in 2021? Will the EU conduct an external evaluation to ascertain Ireland's performance or will the assessments be made by the members states themselves? Who will perform due diligence subsequently in this regard?

Mr. Sadlier

Monitoring must be carried out by the member state itself.

Deputy Perry

Will independent audits or once-off audits take place? Might unannounced audits be carried out to double check compliance?

Mr. Sadlier

Monitoring is a very extensive and scientific process. However, I do not believe there are doubts about verification and do not believe it to be a problematic issue.

At present, it is impossible to outline the measures themselves as this is only a proposed framework directive, which imposes obligations on member states to establish a framework and the following process. First, one must carry out an initial assessment of the state of one's marine waters. Second, one must set up a monitoring programme to monitor ongoing changes. Third, one must develop objectives as to what one wishes to achieve and a programme of measures must then be developed.

The development of such a programme of measures required to achieve our objectives will not take place for some time — one is talking in terms of 2016. Of course, the development of a programme of measures must be the subject of regulatory impact assessment. I refer to issues such as the likely impact, who will be obliged to carry the costs and what will be the benefits. The assessment will be made at that point. As for who will be obliged to carry the cost of such measures, there will be a range of measures in the public and private sector that will affect many industries and the Government will be obliged to make a decision at that point as to the extent to which any form of State aid should be provided.

However, an important additional point is that the directive has an in-built requirement to have regard to anything that involves disproportionate costs. The directive aims to achieve good environmental status by 2021. However, if this timeframe or its full achievement by that date can be shown to be significantly excessively expensive, the directive will accommodate it. It has sufficient flexibility to allow disproportionate costs to be avoided by, for example, providing a longer timeframe or something similar.

Deputy Perry

With regard to the staffing requirement, when does Mr. Sadlier expect to receive the intake of 97 staff? Will 97 employees be employed immediately or does this refer to a timescale over the different phases of the project?

Mr. Sadlier

I am certain that whatever staff will be needed for this measure will be phased in over a number of years. Not everyone will be needed immediately on a particular date. However, as the various tasks begin, the requisite staff will be identified.

In respect of the water framework directive, many of the required initial tasks will be, in the main, once-off. Hence, one will not be necessarily obliged to engage full-time staff. One will be able to contract out much of the work to consultancies or whatever. Such contractors can be given specific tasks to be done within a particular required timeframe. Consequently, this will not necessarily involve major permanent posts.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Sadlier. The joint committee will hear a final comment from Mr. Tuohy.

Mr. Tuohy

I wish to provide clarification regarding Deputy Eamon Ryan's comments. At present, the member states have a specific obligation under the directive as drafted. The Deputy raised an issue in this regard. As fisheries is a Commission competence, it is not bound by this in the same way as are member states. While we would expect the Commission to take it into consideration, to answer the Deputy's question specifically, it is not covered in the same manner as are member states.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Tuohy and the officials from the other Departments for appearing before the committee. I wish them a happy Christmas and a prosperous new year. I ask that they say a prayer for me and other committee members who will stand for election when the Taoiseach blows the whistle. We look forward to meeting our guests again after the general election.

Mr. Tuohy

Will we then address the Chairman as Minister?

Senator Kenneally

Do not encourage him.

Deputy Durkan

I can assure the witnesses that the thought has crossed his mind. One would not need to be psychic to know.

Chairman

Will Mr. Tuohy give his mother my best regards this Christmas and ask her to give me her No. 1 vote? I wish the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas, the clerk to the committee and the editorial staff a happy Christmas and thank them for their help during the year.

Mr. Tuohy

On behalf of the Department, the Minister and the Minister of State, I thank the committee. It has been an interesting and stimulating year working with the committee. While it is not short of producing reports, we appreciate this engagement. I wish everyone, including the clerk, Mr. Ronan Lenihan, and the staff a happy Christmas.

Deputy Perry

I wish to join the Chairman in thanking the clerk and the team, who have done outstanding work. The level of work done by the committee is extraordinary. I thank the Secretary General and all of his Department's staff because the committee's meetings mirror the work done by the Department, which has been beneficial in concentrating attention in this regard. I wish them well. I hope that all of the committee members will be re-elected.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.20 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 10 January 2007.