JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE debate -
Thursday, 26 Apr 2012

Our Ocean Wealth: Discussion with Bord Iascaigh Mhara

Chairman: I welcome Mr. Jason Whooley, chief executive, Mr. Donal Maguire, aquaculture development manager and Ms Mairead Mallon, communications executive, of Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM. Thank you for coming before the committee this morning. Last month the Minister, Deputy Coveney, presented the Our Ocean Wealth plan to the committee. The plan is to explore the potential of Ireland’s vast marine resources. The committee is aware that BIM plays an important role in further developing the seafood industry under the plan. It is envisaged that the Our Ocean Wealth plan will be published by mid or late summer. We took the view that it is important for BIM to address the committee at this stage.

I must go through the protocol of privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are to give the committee. However, if you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in respect of a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise nor make charges against any persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call on Mr. Whooley to make his opening statement.

Mr. Jason Wholley

I thank the Chairman for giving us the opportunity to present to the committee. As the Chairman outlined, the Minister, Deputy Coveney was before the committee last month and briefed it on the new initiative, Our Ocean Wealth. We are focused on the seafood element of the initiative. It is evident to those of us in Bord Iascaigh Mhara, the seafood development agency, that this is a great opportunity to recognise the potential for Irish seafood at last. There is a significant, growing demand worldwide for seafood and I will outline this in more detail. There is a huge opportunity for the Irish seafood sector to play an increasingly important role in our economic development, especially in coastal constituencies where there is an absence of economic alternatives.

We try to focus on three strategic priorities to develop the seafood sector. First, to add value to our existing catches. Second, to scale up the Irish seafood sector to avail of the market opportunity. Third, the priority on which I wish to focus today, to try to increase the amount of our production coming from aquaculture or farmed fish. I intend to discuss a particular initiative, deep sea fish farming. This involves our growing the volume of product from our aquaculture sector. I understand my presentation has been circulated. There are many graphics in the presentation and this is deliberate because it is a new concept and much of it is visual. I will talk the committee through the presentation.

As with food in general, growing market opportunities come from the fact that the world population is growing. There are 7 billion people on the planet and this will rise to 9 billion by 2050. Whether they purchase computers, glasses, or microphones is open to question but, without question, they must eat and they will eat a considerable amount of seafood. Much of the consumption is driven by the growing middle class in the Asian-Pacific region. China is topical at present. The graph on display shows Chinese consumption. In 1995, consumption was 7 kg per head of population there. This will rise to 36 kg per head of population by 2020. Since there are 1.3 billion Chinese, this amounts to a considerable volume increase. I returned from a successful trade visit to China with the Minister, Deputy Coveney. The opportunities for Irish seafood there are immense. The scale of the market is huge as is the demand for protein. The protein of choice for many Chinese is seafood. This will create vast demand in the marketplace in the coming years.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO, based in Rome has examined this issue. It estimates that by 2030 the world will require an extra 42 million tonnes of seafood per annum to satisfy demand. The graph before the committee on slide No. 4 shows three colours. The reddish colour at the bottom of the chart shows that industrial fishing will not increase by 2030. Since the sector is constrained by quotas, wild capture fish will also remain static until 2030. The real growth and volume increase can only come from increased numbers of farmed fish. This is because there are no quota constraints and no impediments to individuals or countries getting involved in this area.

The next slide asks whether this presents Ireland with an opportunity to increase our farmed salmon production. The slide shows demand in four key markets, Europe, the United States of America, Russia and other markets. In the past ten years there has been considerable growth in the demand for salmon especially in Europe, which is considered to be a mature market. The market has been growing by 7% per annum each year for the past ten years. The Russian market for salmon is growing at 27% per annum. This growth and success story has continued in the first quarter of 2012. Considerable demand is developing for farmed salmon. The current size of the farmed salmon market is 2 million tonnes. In the coming seven or eight years it is estimated that the world will need an additional 1 million tonnes. We see this as a huge market-led opportunity.

The next slide shows world production at present. The various colours paint a rather depressing story from an Irish perspective. Norway leads the way and it has now broken through the 1 million tonne barrier. Scotland has produces approximately 160,000 tonnes and Chile will probably hit approximately 350,000 tonnes soon. Ireland is flat-lining at 15,000 tonnes per annum. This is shown by the green line at the bottom of the graph. Although there has been huge growth in the market demand and there is vast potential in the market in future, our farmed salmon industry has stagnated for the past decade while other sectors, especially elsewhere in Europe, have grown significantly.

The Minister, Deputy Coveney, has examined the matter closely and has taken this initiative with BIM to introduce what he is rightly terming a "game changer". The game changer is to try to get Irish salmon production on the global map and to try to ensure Ireland is competitive at an international level. The plan is to develop large scale salmon farms in remote and exposed locations off the Irish coast. We have the perfect environment for growing fish. The gulf stream and the environment in general are conducive to farmed fish as well as wild capture fish. We have the most productive fishing grounds and, consequently, the most productive farm fishing grounds, in Europe. The new approach involves BIM working with our colleagues in the Marine Institute to explore suitable locations along the Irish coast to develop farmed salmon production. To date our organisation has engaged in extensive public consultation prior to the licence application and as part of the environmental impact assessment process. We have developed a comprehensive environmental impact statement.

We recently applied to the Minister for a production licence. If we are successful in obtaining it we will hold it in trust for the State and then franchise it to a suitable commercial operator through a legally binding contract. This is completely different to what was undertaken historically in the aquaculture sector. The idea of a State organisation retaining and holding a licence is a new initiative and we believe it will have a very successful outcome.

Every one of the sites we propose will generate 15,000 tonnes of organic farmed salmon per annum. Even though the market for salmon is approximately 2 million tonnes per annum, the Irish production of 15,000 tonnes, approximately 90% of which is organic, enables us to position our product in a very profitable, high end niche segment in the marketplace. We can cannot compete on a commodity level because we do not have the scale. It is intended to increase organic production on the first site by 15,000 tonnes. Currently, that would have a market value of €100 million per annum, primarily for export. The total job creation potential for just one site is 500, 350 of which would be involved in production and processing and 150 would be directly employed.

All of those figures are fully verifiable on the basis of the existing production facilities we have. We are confident if we are successful in obtaining this license those figures are attainable. In terms of progress to date, one site off the Aran Islands in Galway Bay is under investigation. We have applied for a licence. We are currently looking at a second site off the Mayo coast and technical work should commence there in the next week to ten days. A third site in Donegal will be considered in 2012.

The presentation contains some images for those not familiar with salmon farming. They demonstrate that salmon farming is like an iceberg, where there is very little to be seen above the surface and the majority of work takes place below it. In terms of organic salmon farming, approximately 1% of what is in the cages is fish and 99% is water. There is a small concentration of fishing cages which is critical for us to obtain organic certification.

I want to focus on the Galway site, explain the type of work we have undertaken and the systematic process of elimination to arrive at the site. We put a grid map over the Aran Islands in Galway Bay which coverage 350 sq. km. Each of the boxes on the grid map in the presentation relates to 2.2 sq. km. We went through each square systematically to determine which were the most appropriate for growing salmon. We created a grid and scored each square along various criteria. We had to examine Natura and SAC areas and make sure they were not protected by SAC designation or future designation.

The physical characteristics were extremely important. We had to examine temperature, salinity and oxygen. We had to consider wave climate and whether it was possible to locate cages in a particular area. We used data. We have what is considered to be a very successful offshore farm operating Mayo for the past 20 years. It is the most exposed salmon farm in Europe. BIM established it 20 years ago and it has been operated by Marine Harvest for the past ten years. It is an Irish subsidiary of a Norwegian plc. It operates very successfully and the islanders in Clare Ireland derive a huge amount of employment and income from the facility.

We have done a lot of the baseline work and assessment based on what has already worked successfully. The wave climate could not, in any way, shape or form, be any more difficult or extreme than the climate we have experienced for ten years in Clare Island. That was the benchmark. We went through the data and examined 350 sq. km. We have been working with fishermen since 1952. We had to have a clear and solid understanding of what would impact on the fishing community.

We had extensive meetings with fishermen on an individual and collective basis in our offices in Galway. We met every fisherman operating in Galway Bay. We went to Rossaveal and met all of the co-operative members there. We met all of the islanders at several meetings on each of the islands as part of this process. We met the local community council in Rossaveal and had extensive consultation with it. It needs to be part of the process. All of this took place prior to completing the EIS. Their considerations were extremely important in advance of our making any decision. Community buy-in is critical to the process and will continue to be so.

The committee can see that the systematic evaluation of the site included a Natura 2000 Aran Islands area which we could not go near. It is highlighted in white in the presentation. We examined the ferry traffic for July 2010, which was the busiest year. Ferry traffic from the various islands from the Clare coast and Galway mainland posed an obvious threat and we could not go near them.

We examined the satellite monitoring for vessels over 15 m. Every vessel over 50 m is obliged to carry a satellite monitoring device on board. We analysed three years' worth of data to determine where fishermen were fishing and where the most important facing grains were. We had to avoid, at all cost, those fishing grounds. We did extensive work with colleagues in the Marine Institute using its technology on the smart bay project in Galway Bay to determine wave height and the worst possibility from a storm prospectus to ensure the physical characteristics of the site were not excessive and were capable of holding salmon cages.

When we put everything together, the 350 sq. km area was narrowed down to a very small area. In the presentation two boxes on the map can be clearly seen. We believe they are suitable for salmon farming in the facility. They are biologically discreet production areas, which is in accordance with the best management practice around the world to ensure there is no possibility of cross-contamination between the two sites.

The actual footprint is considerably smaller. While a reasonably large area can potentially be licensed for salmon growing, the physical cages will take up a much smaller area and the moorings will be slightly larger than the cages. It will be a tightly defined area within Galway Bay. We have done a lot of work on whether the cages will have a visual impact. The second last slide demonstrates that from a departmental perspective there is a 4 km rule. This means the cages cannot be visible for 4 km from any fixed point. We have drawn 4 km circles around the cages to demonstrate that. This demonstrates that on a northerly site in Galway Bay it cannot be seen from any fixed point location on land. On the southerly site and in particular, the southerly element of the southerly site, these cages can be seen from a point in Inis Oírr. We carried out extensive mapping by placing big regatta buoys out there and we took a lot of photographs and carried out a visual impact assessment. We showed this to the local community and we are quite satisfied that there is a very low visible impact on this particular site.

In the next ten days we are beginning work on site number two off the Mayo coast. We have submitted our licence application for the Galway site and we hope a licensing decision will be made in the coming months. From our perspective we hope the decision will be favourable. In parallel, we are seeking suitable investors. I made a presentation at an investor conference in Norway last month which was attended by 560 seafood investors from 35 countries. Norway is at a completely different level to Ireland in its seafood sector development with a total of 17 seafood private limited corporations, PLCs, on the Norwegian Stock Exchange with sales of €4.3 billion last year. It is a very significant business in Norway.

BIM is happy to report that there are currently 15 serious expressions of interest in investing in this venture. Over the coming months we intend short-listing those investors and it is hoped to go to tender to contract a successful commercial operator in the next number of months, certainly before the end of the year. This is a very exciting opportunity. This project has a number of key characteristics. It is the first time the State has collaborated to the extent that we are now in a position to apply for a licence. It is the first time a semi-State organisation will retain a licence on behalf of the State. This is a great market opportunity and this will be filled by some member state or by the Norwegians or by Chile unless we act quickly. There are very few demand curves such as described in the submission to the committee for any protein product. The demand is phenomenal and it will only grow. In the present economic climate, BIM believes that there is a fantastic market opportunity to generate real jobs and employment and exports in coastal regions where there are few, if any, economic alternatives. We are very pleased with the progress on the project within a very short timeframe. We are very pleased with the level of support from the local communities. I acknowledge there are concerns but BIM is endeavouring to address those concerns in whatever manner possible. We are very confident, considering the level of interest shown by investors who may invest in this project and we believe there will be significant competition for this asset and for the franchise of this asset should we be successful in our licence application. I thank the Chairman and the committee members for this opportunity to make this presentation and I am happy to take any questions.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Whooley for his comprehensive outline of the plans.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh ár gcuairteoirí anseo ar maidin. Bhí mé in Inis Oírr an tseachtain seo caite. Tá contúirt ann go scoiltfidh sé seo an pobal, ach caithfear é sin a sheachaint. Tá sé thar a bheith tábhachtach nach mbeidh scoilt sa bpobal mar gheall ar an togra seo.

I have read the submission and listened carefully to Mr. Whooley. As I said in Irish, I was in Inis Oírr last week. This project has the potential to divide the community down the middle. One one hand, nobody will refuse 350 jobs if it is believed they are sustainable while on the other hand there is a serious concern that this project will affect other very important resources on the Aran Islands. It is interesting that Mr. Whooley refers to remote and exposed sites. We were having a joking conversation among ourselves as to what was meant by "remote" in this context. In my way of thinking, the site is not remote because it is very near to Inis Oírr and to County Clare. To people in Inis Oírr, Dublin is remote because remote is relative to where one stands or where one regards as a comfortable place to be. The site is not very exposed and I am advised by the islanders that the currents around the island will be nothing like the currents in Clare Island. Therefore, to describe the site as remote and exposed would not fit the description of Galway Bay because the very nature of the bay is that it is sheltered by the islands.

The next aspect of the presentation graphs which fascinate me is that, according to the graphs, in relative terms the growth in salmon production in Scotland is up a bit but one could not say that it constitutes inexorable growth all the time. I ask Mr. Whooley to explain why salmon farming is not growing in Scotland, which, in his definition, has much more remote areas than Ireland. With regard to Scotland, we must always bear in mind that 90% of the population live in the south of Scotland below a line just north of Glasgow and Edinburgh, with the northern area accounting for only 10% to 15% of the total population. The population of Ireland is not configured in that way.

As I said in a recent statement about fracking, people seem to think that if a project passes an environmental impact assessment - I have some comments in that regard - that the question of the impact is then sorted. In major projects such as this or as regards fracking and so on, there are much wider implications to be considered. In the case of the Aran Islands, for example, if compared with Clare Island, the Aran Islands, Inis Oírr in particular, has a significant tourist industry. One must consider how this project will impact on the tourism industry in Inis Oírr.

The second issue is the impact on the small type of fishing carried on by the Inis Oírr fishermen and the marketability of their products if it is known that there is a huge fish farm in the bay. They fish for lobsters and other fish and this is very sustainable fishing. What will be the impact on this activity? I accept that the environmental impact assessment either proves or disapproves any organic effect but marketability has nothing to do with facts because it is about perception. I will give a simple example. I remember when CJD, mad cow disease, broke out, there was no drop in beef consumption in this country because we are used to animals and most of us believed that we were not at any risk and at most, people stopped eating burgers. In Germany, there was the very same statistical risk but there was a 20% drop in consumption. My explanation for this difference is that the German consumers live in towns and cities, they regarded meat as a factory commodity produced on big farms and they perceived a risk. We knew we were not at risk because we see the cows in the field and we regard them as safe. The actual risk was not the problem with the CJD. The level of chance that any of us would ever contract CJD was much lower than the risk of being injured crossing the road. However, the market was scared and this had a significant impact. One of the issues that needs to be considered is the effect of the project on the perception of the west coast as being pristine clean and not having factory-type operations such as fish farm exploitation. We have always boasted that the lobsters, oysters, crabs and other fish, swim in unpolluted waters.

I suggest that BIM need to consider another important issue, the linguistic issue, for two reasons. Inis Oírr particularly is probably the most robust Irish-speaking community in the country. The young children all speak Irish. If a big wash of people come into the community that linguistic balance may be upset. It is also the biggest industry on the island, the biggest income earner for the people on the islands, when all is added up. Moreover, as we are all aware, the Irish language is in a very perilous state. In the context of the 20 year strategy to promote the language, one should not seek to kill it where it is strongest. Therefore, we must have a linguistic study of the possible impacts of the proposed development.

The delegates referred to a planned production of 15,000 tonnes per annum. What is the conversion rate of feed to fish? Is it 8:1, 10:1 or 5:1, for example?

Mr. Jason Whooley

It is approximately 1:1.

Chairman

I ask Deputy Ó Cuív to conclude as quickly as possible, as a vote has been called in the Dáil.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

What is produced per 1 kg of the feed that is placed in the cages?

Mr. Jason Whooley

Approximately 0.8 kg comes out the far side in terms of fish. It is very efficient, much more so than any other protein type.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Does that include the-----

Chairman

I will return to Deputy Ó Cuív after the suspension.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

With the Chairman's permission, I will use the remaining time. What is Mr. Whooley's estimate of the tonnage of feed that will wind up at the bottom of the sea? Will he define "organic"? What is the situation in regard to the problems with sea lice that have arisen in the past? People out in Aran are very puzzled by the prediction that 350 jobs will be created. They are wondering what types of jobs they will be or what wages will be involved. It would be helpful to know the figures in terms of how many it is envisaged will be feeding the fish and so on. Will Mr. Whooley give us a breakdown of the types of jobs that will be created? If we have that information we can figure out the wages ourselves. That was a major consideration in Inis Óirr the other night.

Will there be an exclusion zone around the fish farm? How large is the fish farm on Clare Island in comparison with the facility that is proposed? The delegates referred to production of 15,000 tonnes in this instance - how much does the facility on Clare Island put out?

Mr. Jason Whooley

It produces 4,000 tonnes.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I am almost finished, Chairman.

Chairman

I must suspend the meeting presently.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I will conclude when we return.

Chairman

If the Deputy has one more point to make he may do so now.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I have more than one point to make. The Chairman gave a great deal of time to individual members yesterday to raise the plight of post offices in their constituencies.

Chairman

Absolutely. In fairness, I have never curtailed any member.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

No, to be fair, the Chairman has not. I will resume when we return.

Chairman

The meeting is suspended until after the Dáil division.

Sitting suspended at 11.15 a.m. and resumed at 11.40 a.m.

Chairman

Deputy Ó Cuív was in possession before the Vote in the Chamber.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Mr. Whooley referred to a commercial rate of 1.2: 1. That would mean that the feed for 4,000 tons of salmon in Clare Island would be 4,800 tons in total. Will Mr. Whooley get certified confirmation of that consumption figure from Marine Harvest in Clare Island? There is nothing like the practical experiment because there are those who believe the figure is much higher, for example 3:1 or 4:1 because of the amount of feed that escapes into the bottom of the sea. The best way to find out is to apply the theory in practice. It would be very useful to have certified figures on feed usage and the tonnage of salmon produced from that feed usage.

Other issues have been raised by islanders, some in favour and some against. It is a pity that the Deputies from County Donegal are not here, most islanders would prefer a sustainable way of exploiting wild salmon than farmed salmon. The Senator from Donegal is even closer to them. Táim cinnte go ndeireann muintir Árainn Mhór gurb é an rud atá uathu ná go mbeadh deis acu dul ag iascach an bhradáin fiáin ar bhealach atá inmharthanach. It would be fair to say that the people of Aran Mór have made it clear that they want to fish for wild salmon in a sustainable way, as was allowed in Canada, where they were allowed to fish wild salmon in a sustainable way. Their preference is for a sustainable industry, which it would be if it is done properly. They was an automatic salmon catcher in Cong when the monks were there and there is still salmon in that part of the world. It is sustainable.

Members of the public raised an issue about BIM with me. What is at issue is that BIM can apply to the Department for a licence, however if it fails, it can appeal that decision by a mechanism in the Department. Am I correct in saying there is a board in the Department that hears the appeals?

Mr. Jason Whooley

It is an independent board.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I am not saying the board is not independent. I am saying it is under the aegis of the Department.

Mr. Jason Whooley

The process - - - - -

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

The point is very important because perception is key. With the Minister making very clear statements that he is in favour of this fish farm, there are people who feel, whether rightly or wrongly, that the die is cast from the Department's point of view. I am warning Mr. Whooley of the dangers that are coming down the line, I am warning him about what people are saying. If Mr. Whooley wants to progress his project, he must hear what people are saying. The people of Connemara raise a number of issues against fish farming. There was a number of fish farms in Connemara in the 1980s and 1990s. It was a high risk industry with a high level of business failure and all that was left was a residue at the bottom of the sea. Their point is that such an industry is like a big tide, it creates a significant number of jobs for a short period, the company then goes bust and all the jobs are gone. They need long-term sustainable jobs. The people on the ground are very sceptical about the sustainability of large scale fish farming - and the Scottish figures point to this - because of their very unhappy history with job losses in this industry, which has coloured their views.

I have a number of question on the meetings that BIM has had with the angling interests. The organisation SOS, Save Our Salmon, ran a massive campaign around Galway Bay, in which it raised concerns about fish farming. Have the representatives of BIM met members of this organisation?

The islanders all agree that if the State gets involved in this investment, it should put in the pier. A Government that thinks it can locate a fish farm in Galway Bay without building a pier in Inis Oírr is barking up the wrong tree. What the islanders want, ahead of everything else because their industry depends on it, is a safe berth in Inis Oírr. The previous Government built piers in most of the islands, but there was one job left to do, the smallest of all the piers, and it would cost between €7 million to €8 million to build a safe pier in Inis Oírr. The previous Government spent €40 million in the provision of a pier in Árainn Mhór/Inis Mhór and €60 million in such a provision on Inis Meáin.

I went out to the island by boat. There were two people on the boat and I had to run down the gangway and hope it would not end up in the sea to get on the boat. The minute I disembarked, the boat headed back to Rossaveal. Anybody who thinks they will do anything around the Aran Islands without that pier does not understand the dynamic on the ground. I have no doubt but that the islanders made it abundantly clear that this was their number one priority. Egress and access is absolutely vital to them. The people who operate the boats to the Aran Islands live on the island. In other words the boat usually stays on the island overnight, but when the boat must return to Rossaveal, they have to stay away from home that night. They are very concerned about this issue from the point of view of safety, bringing goods to the island, tourism and sustaining human life.

I suggest we consider inviting representatives of the community from County Clare,the Aran islands - particularly Inisheer, angling interests, comharchumann Iascairí Gaillimh agus Árainn Teoranta to a discussion to hear their views.

Mr. Whooley said he met the fishermen. I presume that was Comharchumann Iascairí Gaillimh agus Árainn.

Mr. Jason Whooley

We met all the fishermen. We met the Galway Bay Inshore Fishermen's Association; the Rossaveal Fishermen's organisation group; the Galway and Aran Co-operatives. We had two public meeting on Inisheer and a public meeting on Inis Meáin and Inishmore.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Comharchumann Iascairí Gaillimh agus Árainn is a great organisation, but there are no trawlers on Inis Meáin and Inis Oírr for historic reasons as they did not have the piers to keep the trawlers. When one is talking to Comharchumann Iascairí Gaillimh agus Árainn, one is talking to people a long way from this, so they would only be concerned about trawling beds. They do not have the same problems and this would not have a significant impact on them. Mr. Whooley should be made aware of that . Beidh mé in Árainn anocht. I will be in Aran tonight and I hope to go to Inis Meáin next week and as I said, I was in Inis Oírr this week. I do not have a fixed view but I have hard questions to which I want answers, as a great deal of information in the presentation was quite facile. l have not formed a view, but already strong views for and against are forming on the islands. Even those for the project have many questions they want answered. We do not want to repeat previous mistakes made with large projects where people thought the lure of a nominal number of jobs unspecified in terms of wages and so on would automatically mean everyone would trip over saying yes, no questions asked, but do what one wants. People are very discerning now, they examine everything in detail. Their main comment when asked is that there are many potential downsides to the project. The experience of fish farming in cages in the west has been short term jobs in return for very low wages. That is a major issue everywhere when people speak about a new explosion of fish farming in the west. I have no particular view on the matter because I have not had enough time to examine all the issues. I hope I have reflected some of the serious concerns that have been raised with me on the ground and I look forward to getting the answers. There is a saying, festina linte - hasten slowly. I reiterate that anybody or any government who thinks there would be a welcome for any project on Inis Oírr until the pier is built on that island knows nothing about Inis Oírr.

Deputy Martin Ferris

I thank the delegates for their presentations. I approach this issue in as positive a way as possible, knowing full well the position in coastal communities arising from the lack of jobs, high unemployment and the collapse of much of the fishing sector. I would argue that the taking away of a salmon industry from people involved in drift netting down through the years put extra pressure on other sectors such as those involved in gill netting or lobster crayfish. I am conscious of the pain and hurt suffered by coastal communities and small fishing villages on the west coast in particular. I am trying to look at this issue in a positive way but I need reassurances as a director representative. I do not buy-in to the idea that there will be enormous benefits for coastal communities because if one studies the aquacultural side, the benefits have not been great. In fact many involved in the natural fishing sector would say it has affected their economy in respect of prices and so on, for example, gigas oysters and mussels. Many sectors of the industry have collapsed from a price point of view and coupled with fuel and insurance costs has increased the depressed nature of the sector. However, we are where we are and we have to move on. I would be concerned for the host communities if the project proceeds, how well it is received, the effects on those communities, and the benefits, if any. Perhaps the delegates would elaborate on the benefits to host communities. When it is proposed to bring an enterprise, such as this, to an area, consequential benefits mean it can be more acceptable. I qualify that on the understanding that all the environmental aspects have not been compromised. I am concerned also about the proposed location of the project as I understand it is to be located on lobster fishing ground. What about gill netting ground?

Mr. Jason Whooley

We sat down in our Galway office with 35 inshore fishermen from Galway Bay at the first meeting. We went through the co-ordinates extensively with them. They requested we move in certain directions to ensure it had minimal impact on the fishing grounds. We are only too aware of the difference between a trawler, a gill netter, a potter and the various types of potting. We know that language very well and spoke extensively with all the interested parties and are confident this is not situated in prime fishing ground.

Chairman

I have given everybody a chance. To get the questions answered it would be better if we could get them together.

Deputy Martin Ferris

If that concern is alleviated to the satisfaction of those involved, it would be helpful from a community perspective. I am concerned also about cross contamination. An analogy can be made between this type of fishing comparative to GM in the agricultural sector. It is important to satisfy people on that issue.

The natural salmon industry was good while allowed to continue and was beneficial to coastal communities. What is left is the draftsman at the mouths of rivers out of Galway Bay and so on and if people are still involved I hope they have been met. What is the depth of water envisaged for the location of the project?

Chairman

Will the Deputy please continue? I want to get all the questions first.

Deputy Martin Ferris

What is the position in regard to the current and the possibility of escapes from the hatcheries and the consequences of same? The delegates have identified three areas, Donegal, Mayo and Galway. Is it envisaged that the project will spread along the coast? Would it have an adverse impact on any section of the local economy? For example, if there were draftsmen in the area will it have an impact on their market? If those issues can be satisfied, I foresee an argument for the world market expanding and, if so, we should be part of servicing that world market expansion.

I have one other question in regard to the overall national benefit. What will be the national benefit to the people if the project is licensed exclusively in the ownership of a private international company and makes a profit for its own benefit? It was mentioned there would be roughly 300 jobs. I take it that is 300 jobs per site. Three hundred jobs would be welcome - 100 jobs would be welcome in the circumstances. What jobs will be available for the local communities? Are there specialist jobs for people with technical abilities and so on? I would appreciate answers to those questions.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

I thank the witnesses for the presentation. I will not go back over what was expressed by other members about local community concerns over the project, other than to say that they are vitally important. They should be given the utmost consideration in developing this project. We must learn how to consult with communities to ensure that such projects will not impact detrimentally on them. Communities must be fully involved with the process the whole way through so as to have the greatest community buy-in as possible.

The franchise that was mentioned will be tendered for. The franchise itself will be an asset that belongs to the State. Will there be a financial return to the State from that asset in terms of a rental agreement? As regards the tendering process, it is vitally important that issues of concern to the local community, particularly concerning jobs, must be considered. Whoever is successful in getting the project should provide as much local job creation as possible, as well as dealing with the pier for access. That will be vitally important for community acceptance of the project.

I know that cages off Killybegs, that were previously operated as a fish farm, were leased to another company's operation for a number of years. They basically transferred the salmon from cages to their processing facility which was along the coast and, therefore, there was little actual benefit. When the fishermen were operating previously, they would have created 35 to 40 jobs in the local processing sector but those jobs were not there during that period. I am concerned that some such arrangement would develop through this franchise, which would be detrimental to the local community. It would also be detrimental to the local community's buy-in to the project. That matter should be addressed in the tendering process, so that not only would the most financially advantageous tender be accepted, but also the one that provides the biggest community involvement.

I wish to ask about aquaculture in general around the coast. While these projects and proposals are interesting, and the model to be worked out in Galway will be important for the proposals to be developed later in Donegal, there is a lot of potential for aquaculture around our coastline. This is affected by the Natura 2000 designations, which include an ongoing, tortuous environmental assessment procedure. Only four out of 90 bays have been assessed so far, although there is much job-creation potential that could be addressed quickly. It might encourage people to examine aquaculture, particularly in the shellfish sector, so I wonder what BIM's views are on that. Can we get shellfish designated as not having the environmental impact like other aquaculture sectors, which might also fast-track the licensing process?

Deputy Noel Harrington

I welcome Mr. Whooley and his team and thank them for the presentation. What he has pointed out to the committee is not the first aquaculture farm in the country, although one might think it was. One might think it was ground-breaking technology or something that came from a different planet which is going to happen in the Aran Islands, although we do not know what the consequences are because no research has been done. This is a new approach to aquaculture and how its regulation will be handled in an effort to maximise this country's potential to tap into a worldwide demand for Irish salmon. We can choose to do nothing, as we have done for the last ten or 20 years. In that case, there will be an ad hoc system of applications and licensing, with controversies, poor consultation and a fragmented aquaculture industry in future.

We are dealing with aquaculture licences off the south-west coast, which could possibly provide 500 to 1,000 tonnes of salmon per annum, but which are mired in controversy. We can continue like that or we can choose to take BIM's new approach, through the Department, towards consolidation, consultation, licensing, ownership, tendering and addressing market issues. We have the potential to fulfil those requirements and as a by-product we might just provide a few jobs.

I cannot fathom how the issue has arisen over whether the jobs are English-speaking or Irish-speaking ones. I find it amazing how that has come into the argument.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuiv

No, I am sorry.

Chairman

Please, Deputy.

Deputy Noel Harrington

Nobody interrupted you.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuiv

On a point of correction, I made no reference to English-speaking jobs or Irish-speaking jobs.

Chairman

Deputy Harrington without interruption.

Deputy Noel Harrington

Deputy Ó Cuív said it was a potential threat to the Irish-speaking industry in the Aran Islands.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuiv

That is the potential, yes.

Deputy Noel Harrington

It may be a salmon or a bradán, but this is about jobs and the potential for an aquaculture industry. Of course, people will be concerned about issues, including consultation. We can continue to adopt the same approach as before, with potential sites - both suitable and unsuitable - being applied for by industrial entrepreneurs up and down the west coast. That will continue to happen and has happened for the last 30 years. Some 25 years ago, I recall the ESB was involved in an enterprise outside my own backdoor. They handled it very poorly.

I am aware to two sites now where the standard has completely changed. The regulations have been tightened up. From what I hear, people working on those sites and those living nearby, are quite satisfied with them. Some 1,000 tonnes of salmon per annum are directly responsible for 40 jobs, not to mind other jobs such as diving, servicing boats and smoking salmon. Irish smoked salmon is a highly desirable product in the global market.

We could continue in the same way, with an ad hoc, fragmented aquaculture industry that will produce ten to 15,000 tonnes of salmon per annum. Or we can aspire to a potential over the next five to ten years for increasing our production by a factor of seven to ten. No one is suggesting that we will go to over 1 million tonnes, as Norway has, but it is not that daft an idea. The Norwegians have pristine waters and fjords. I do not hear much controversy about the 1 million tonnes of salmon that Norway is producing for the global market. Do we have to bring in the Norwegian Minister for fisheries to reassure us that the industry can work? Have we any confidence in our own people and fishing industry to do this for ourselves? We can do it modestly, producing 350 jobs as outlined. These would be direct jobs to service the fish farm, processing and added jobs in smoking salmon, packaging and marketing. These are direct jobs.

I come from an area of the country where one offshore job accounts for five onshore ones, yet we skip over that as if it does not happen. The problem is, however, that we cannot get any more jobs in that sector because it is capped. Therefore we will have to look elsewhere, but the tone of the meeting so far has been that we should not look somewhere else and rather leave things as they are. Things will evolve, however, but not in a cohesive, co-ordinated manner as has been proposed this morning. More consultation has taken place on this particular site than any other. In many cases, the first people hear about an application for a 1,000-tonne or 2,000-tonne aquaculture farm is when a scoping report is published. In such circumstances, there is a perception that decisions have already been taken. The message that should be emphasised today is that a new approach is being taken. The results of the consultation process should be allowed to emerge. So much stuff is being thrown up. The regrettable decision to ban driftnet fishing for salmon has been mentioned. The issue of lobster fishing has been addressed. Issues like the Irish language, tourism and the visual impact have also been raised. This is a positive story. It should be regarded as a new approach. I accept there are concerns that need to be addressed. This is the first time in 30 years that there has been a meaningful, cohesive, co-ordinated and serious approach to the development of the aquaculture industry. If we do not accept it, we will have to keep going the same way, which would be unacceptable.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill

I thank the representatives of Bord Iascaigh Mhara for giving us an opportunity to discuss this major new initiative in the development of salmon farming off our coast. This issue has arisen in the context of the Food Harvest 2020 report, which suggested that we could expand our production of food from its current level, which feeds 35 million people, to a level that would feed up to 50 million by 2020. It is a question of how we get there. It is obvious that a great deal of excellent work is being done on the agriculture side. On the fish side, we would hope that all the fish we export would come from the sea naturally. Obviously, that is not the case. It is right that we have to embrace the development of aquaculture throughout the world.

We are considering the development of a single salmon farm off the coast of County Galway. The farm in question would double, in effect, the amount of farmed salmon that is produced in this country. It is only right and fair that people would ask questions because it is a major departure. I understand that approximately ten salmon farms are planned along the coast. The witnesses mentioned the farms that are planned in counties Mayo and Donegal. They have massive potential for the economy and the country. They also have massive implications for the local communities where they are planned. As an economy, we have to embrace and possibly surpass the targets set out in the Food Harvest 2020 report. That will be a major step in the right direction.

Deputy Ó Cuív raised a number of local issues in relation to the farm in Connemara. Perhaps the representatives of Bord Iascaigh Mhara can give us a breakdown of the 350 jobs that have been mentioned. Those jobs will be important regardless of where those who are employed come from. I expect that level of employment to be replicated at the other farms. Can the witnesses give us some indication of the positions of the Mayo and Donegal projects at the moment? What sites are being considered as part of the scoping process?

The experience of the fish farming industry in Norway has been well documented. There have been major problems with sea lice in Norway since the inception of fish farming in that country, and particularly since the expansion of the industry. The Norwegian authorities have endeavoured to deal with some of those problems. It appears from articles I have read that this issue has developed extensively as the industry has developed. Has research been done on what would happen if a similar industry were to be developed off the coast of Ireland? Has a body of information on the potential sea lice implications of this project been tabulated?

Other issues that relate to fish farming, such as disease and disease control, arise in this context. We need to think about the interaction between farmed and wild fish if cages break down and farmed salmon break out. For example, they would compete with and mate with wild Atlantic salmon, which would have disease implications for the local salmon population. The proposed production facility will be able to produce 15,000 tonnes of organic certified salmon each year. There must be an expectation that some salmon will leave the cages because breakage issues will inevitably arise. I would like to hear the witnesses' thoughts on the obvious local consequences of that.

Oddly enough, the number of wild fish that will need to be caught in order to feed the salmon is greater than the number of salmon that will be produced. I do not agree with the theory that the farming of salmon in fish farms off the coast or anywhere else does not affect the stock of wild fish in any way. I appreciate that the wild fish in question cannot be used for human consumption. We are killing more species to feed the salmon that are farmed. I have read some material on this matter.

An excellent facility, which employs many people, is being operated by Marine Harvest in my own county. I am aware that concerns were expressed about that facility when it was being developed by Fanad Fisheries. I am too young to remember that, but Deputy McHugh might remember it because he is much older than me. There is no doubt that it has been a great source of local jobs and has been of benefit to the local economy. The people who work there are excellent.

It is obvious that all the preparatory work is being done by officials in the Department and Bord Iascaigh Mhara. They are sowing the seed, doing the research, doing the scoping and looking for planning permission. Am I correct in my understanding that the successful bidder will be asked to design, build and operate the facility? Perhaps the witnesses can explain that. If a company from Scandinavia or anywhere else in the world - it will be by e-tender - comes to Connemara to design, build and operate this facility, how will it interact with the local community? I am often fearful when major multinational companies come to an area to design, build and operate a facility. The company in question, with the best intentions, will obviously want to make a profit, repay its loans and pay the dividend back to the State. How will it interact with the local community? Will it take the concerns of that community into consideration? I would like to hear the witnesses' thoughts on that.

Concern has been expressed by the Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers. I am sure Bord Iascaigh Mhara has heard from the federation. Perhaps we should consider inviting representatives of the federation to attend a meeting of the joint committee to discuss some of their fears. I will not elaborate on the concerns in question. That is the main thrust of what I have to say.

Has there been any consultation in counties Mayo and Donegal about the proposed farms in those areas, which I mentioned earlier? Perhaps it is too early. Many people in my constituency have raised questions about the plans that were released through media sources, etc. The local people need to be consulted before any development work is done. Those involved need to sit down with the people of islands like Arranmore, Gola and Tory, where these farms will be located. They have to meet the local people first as part of an open and transparent process of public consultation. I am not sure if such meetings took place in Connemara. That may have happened. It has to be done.

It was a major mistake to bring commercial salmon fishing to an end. I appreciate that there was scientific evidence to back it up. My view is that in the case of the islands off the coast of Connemara, such as Inis Meáin, or any of the islands of the coast of west Donegal, commercial salmon fishing should be reopened. I am not sure whether Bord Iascaigh Mhara has any particular view on the matter. It may be outside its remit. I would like to hear the witnesses' views.

I would like to raise a final matter that relates to projects of this nature. Have there been or are there plans in Mayo and Donegal to have meaningful consultation with Oireachtas Members, county councillors and members of the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta? I know from sitting on the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta that there was no consultation, or very little, with it on the Connemara project. The Irish language very much enters the equation. It enters it in Donegal in respect of the marine harvest project because substantial funds have been given to it by Údarás na Gaeltachta, the State agency for economic, social and linguistic development in Gaeltacht areas. The project is based in the Connemara Gaeltacht. If State funding for such a project is not channelled through the IDA, it is channelled through Údarás na Gaeltachta via the IDA. The Irish language does enter the debate, therefore. The company operators do not have to have Irish. In so far as it is possible, every opportunity should be given to local people to gain employment in such projects.

Deputy Joe McHugh

I welcome the delegates and congratulate them on their work. They have been very proactive in this area and in others. Other works are ongoing. The delegates have been showing the lead. They are tapping into a sense of enthusiasm on the part of the Minister. The Minister has a vision and an appetite to try something new. There is no point underestimating the ambitious nature of the project in question. It does not tick all the boxes from an industry perspective in regard to cost-benefit analysis because there will be extra transportation costs involved. Extra costs will be incurred the farther out to sea one goes. The project is very ambitious and the industry knows this. I congratulate those involved on their work.

The alarming figure that stands out regarding supply is that we are producing 12,000 tonnes of salmon per annum while Scotland produces 150,000 and Norway produces 1 million. While we have trade missions to China and there is demand, supply presents the underlying challenge. Today in Brussels, staff from the Irish salmon industry are offering their product, but the problem they encounter is supply. I will receive a similar narrative from the industry this year stating demand was at its maximum level two or three hours into a trade show. That is the real challenge. If we are to put the best foot forward, we must consider how we can get an adequate supply within the environmental and sustainability structures that Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Department are taking into consideration. This is against the backdrop of the marine harvest project, for example, waiting for more than 20 years to obtain approval for a licence. The legacy on salmon farming is grim, to say the least. We are not present to talk about legacy issues but it must be stated that waiting 20 years for a licence dampens enthusiasm and motivation within the industry. The real challenge concerns how to move on from this.

Let me refer to an interjection by Deputy Ó Cuív. I am sorry I came in late but hope I am picking him up right in believing he is calling for a language impact study on the effect on the islands. With regard to the consultation mentioned by Senator Ó Domhnaill, the first step taken was consultation. The islands were included and this is very important. It is correct that this must happen in Gola and off the coast of Mayo, and we must continue on that track. With regard to how the project will affect the Irish language, a language impact study is a totally unnecessary exercise. It is an exercise in holding up things and filibustering. When one consults a community, it raises its concerns. With all due respect to Deputy Ó Cuív, a language impact study into producing salmon off the west coast just holds up things. The population along the west coast, from teenagers to people in their 40s, is heading to places such as Canada and Australia, and we are trying to bring jobs to the area.

In the past, decisions were not made as we called for reports to examine this and that. If there is one thing that gets under the skin of the people, it is bureaucracy, including red tape, passing the buck and not being able to make a decision. I may sound a wee bit vexed when I raise this issue. I acknowledge and feel strongly that we must work within the environmental constraints and bear in mind sustainability but producing a language impact study on the production of salmon, which would provide jobs off the west coast, is nothing short of a disgrace.

Chairman

Questions have been posed to Mr. Whooley and his colleagues on the presentation today. Other issues have been raised and concerns have been raised in respect of them. Mr. Whooley is not in a position to answer on the different points raised by the members. I ask that members give him a chance to respond on the issues raised regarding the process and presentation. If Deputies and Senators wish to debate wider issues, they may do so on another day. I will not allow that debate to occur today. I want to have a discussion on the document before us and the issues in respect thereof raised by the members. I call Mr. Whooley.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

May I clarify my remarks?

Chairman

Very quickly.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

When the delegates are addressing our issues, they ought to be aware of what I have said. I made two points.

Chairman

The delegates are aware of both sides of the debate.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I will make the matter absolutely clear.

Chairman

Very quickly.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

There is a very large industry in the Aran Islands based on the Irish language. I refer to both ordinary tourism and the specialist language industry that has significant, long-term employment prospects, particularly for Inis Oírr. The issue is quite simple.

Chairman

I have been fair to the Deputy.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

If one creates 100 jobs in a community of 300, one will - this is why we curtailed housing estates in Connemara - change overnight the linguistic balance of that community. The community in question is probably the strongest Gaeltacht community I know, be it on the mainland or on an island. When the Government formed, it was committed to the Straitéis 20 Bliain don Ghaeilge. Whether Deputy McHugh likes it or not, the Minister responsible for the Irish language will have to consider this.

Chairman

I said we would not have a debate on this.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Could I make one point?

Chairman

Please, Deputy. We are well aware of the points that have been raised.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Could I ask just one specific question?

Chairman

The questions have been asked and I will allow supplementary questions. I now ask Mr. Whooley to respond to the questions raised.

Mr. Jason Whooley

I thank the Chairman. This is quite an emotive issue so I hope I cover all the questions. I will share the duty for responding with my colleague Mr. Maguire. My invitation to attend at this meeting was very specific in that I was asked for a short ten-minute presentation on what is a very large topic. I can talk happily for hours with individual Deputies outside this forum if they have specific questions they want answered. We have no intention of curtailing the information, and I apologise if it appeared facile. It is a very big topic to build into just ten minutes of a presentation.

Chairman

I would like to verify that. The agreement from the committee was to invite the representatives to make a presentation to us against the backdrop of Our Ocean Wealth. I said at the outset that we considered it important to hear the thoughts, proposals and ideas of BIM in view of the fact that this was to be published by the middle of July or the end of the summer. That was the context of our request for BIM to make a presentation and discuss this aspect of Our Ocean Wealth. We have been dealing as a committee with other parts of it, and it is not all under the remit of this committee - there are aspects to do with other areas, including energy. We wanted to discuss it from the point of view of BIM's area of interest and expertise, and we did ask for a brief overview.

Mr. Jason Whooley

I wanted to put it in context. I will attempt to answer all of the questions, but we are more than happy to address them individually at any stage. We have an open and transparent process. We have done that with the communities involved and we are more than happy to do it with the committee. Members should feel free at any stage after this meeting to talk to us directly.

A question was asked about the remoteness of the site. The issue is not Galway remoteness versus Dublin remoteness. From a salmon farming perspective, this is considered to be an extremely remote site. In Norway, for example, all of the sites are in fjords and are very sheltered. This site is 15 km from mainland Galway and four km from Inis Oírr. That is extremely remote from a fish farming or salmon farming perspective, and it is in that context that we are talking about remoteness.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

How far is it from Clare?

Mr. Jason Whooley

About 8 km.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

It is nearer to Clare than to Galway.

Chairman

The map showed the nearest point was Inis Oírr. It was quite obvious. Even I could see it.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Yes, but the map showed that the furthest point was Galway and that Clare was nearer than Galway. I just want to confirm that.

Mr. Jason Whooley

With regard to a lack of progression in Scotland, at the moment Scotland is in the middle of a very aggressive expansion in fish farming. Reference was made to historical fish farming practices and the historical fish farming environment in which there was a lack of long-term job sustainability. The market situation has changed the dynamic for salmon farming. There is now recognition worldwide that there is a massive and growing demand. Back in 1965, salmon was not on the list of the top five species consumed by the Japanese, who have a huge appetite for fish. It is now number one and is fast becoming the number one species around the world. That is changing the dynamic and the characteristics of the supply of the product. We are feeding into that vein of market demand. Scotland and Norway are doing exactly the same thing. The big challenge in Norway is to break through the 1 million ton barrier. That is the pressure Norwegians are applying to their government. The pressure in Scotland is for new sites. In the last month, expansions worth £80 million have been announced by two Scottish companies. It is happening there as well. Maybe, to an extent, the graphs are misleading because they are historical. Looking forward, everyone is going in the same direction.

With regard to our interaction with fishermen in Inis Oírr, we have had public meetings there at which they have raised concerns about tides and currents. We deployed data loggers in the water for months to definitively determine currents and tidal conditions, which were fed into a computer model and refined. We are confident that the scientific information we have will stand up. That has been provided by the Marine Institute, which is recognised for its scientific competence not just nationally, but internationally. We are not experts in that area but, from a Government perspective, we are relying on the scientific community in Ireland, who are the experts. That is what is really useful about this project: it is a joined-up, State-led initiative.

Deputy Ó Cuív spoke about the licensing process and whether the Minister is in favour of the project. The Minister has been clear that he supports the concept of deep-sea salmon farming; he has not spoken specifically about this project. That is a completely separate issue. He is absolutely clear that he in favour of deep-sea salmon farming.

I mentioned historical practices. I absolutely acknowledge that some historical practices in this industry - going back ten to 20 years - are not something to be proud of. However, the current operators in Ireland are world-class and are getting a price premium for their product internationally. The commodity price for salmon - because it is a commodity - has fallen by as much as 45% in a 12-month period, but the price for organic Irish salmon has not changed. Deputy McHugh is absolutely right: the biggest problem for Irish companies attending the world's largest seafood trade show in Brussels this week is that they will not have sufficient product. In what is bordering on a world depression, a sector that cannot supply the market is completely unheard of. That is exactly where we are in terms of farmed salmon, particularly organic farmed salmon. We cannot supply the demand that is there currently.

Other issues mentioned include the question of whether the jobs involved are short term. On the contrary, we believe these will be long-term sustainable jobs. That long-term sustainability from an employment perspective comes from utilisation of a renewable natural resource that is there on our doorstep, allied to a growing world demand. There is a €55 billion market for seafood in Europe alone, and 70% of that seafood is currently imported from outside Europe. As affluence levels increase across the Asia-Pacific region in particular, the demand for seafood will rise and there will be an opportunity for Irish seafood. What we are trying to address in this project is the supply issue and the positioning of Irish seafood as a player in that international marketplace.

Deputy Ferris talked about how we engage with local communities. BIM has been in existence since 1952, and we have always prided ourselves on being close to the fishing industry and to local communities. We have tried to maintain that in our communications to date, and we have worked very hard and spent a lot of time meeting with representatives of those communities, whether at individual level or at public meetings. We will continue this over the next number of months, particularly in the Galway region. It is not our intention, in any shape or form, to jeopardise our relationship with those communities. We talked about a brand for seafood. We in BIM, as an organisation and as individuals, have a brand and reputation that we fully intend to uphold as our role in this project progresses. What is unique about this project is this: if we become licence holders, we can have a commercial contract with a third party, and as part of that commercial contract, we can have clauses or conditions that build in local community support. We can be the facilitator for community support. For example, there is no reason we cannot have an element of financing, built into an annual fee that a third party may pay to us, that we can put towards inshore fisheries development in local communities, for example, in lobster V-notching or scallop restocking. There is no reason we, as owners of a licence, could not have that built into a contractual arrangement. It could not be built into a licensing arrangement. That is an important facilitation role that we can play as an organisation, and we intend to do so. This will not be a case of a large company coming in and dictating to local communities. We will have a role in this process.

I will ask my colleague Mr. Maguire to deal with the technical questions.

Mr. Donal Maguire

A number of common issues were raised by the Senators and Deputies, particularly that of the potential environmental impact of the farm. Deputy Ó Cuív asked about feed conversion and usage. He asked specifically about the amount of feed required to produce 15,000 tonnes of salmon. When this farm is at full production and farming 15,000 tonnes of fish per annum, it would require 18,000 tonnes of salmon feed to achieve that. Deputy Ó Cuív raised questions on the feed conversion ratio. Salmon feed is the most expensive animal feed in the world. It is a high quality product comprising fish meal, fish oil and non-GMO cereal products, which are all top class and very expensive ingredients. Any salmon farmer who is not producing at an efficient feed conversion ratio will not stay in business. More than 50% of the cost of a kilogramme of salmon is spent on the feed, so an enormous amount of effort is put into the control of the feeding process to ensure wastage is maintained at an absolute minimum. Otherwise the farm would not be profitable.

We must remember that fish, and salmon in particular, are cold blooded species. They are extremely efficient converters. If one were to take the ingredients that make up fish feed and feed them to other species, one would need to know the conversion rate in order to be in business. Cattle convert them at 8:1 or the more efficient pig, will at best convert them at 4:1. If one is to use these materials to generate edible proteins for humans, the best species to feed them to is fish. Senator Ó Domhnaill made a good point on the overall position vis-à-vis using fish meal to feed other fish and how that relates to aquaculture and salmon farming. It is true that salmon farming is not a process that will feed the world, it produces a high value species. Having said that, in the totality of world fin fish aquaculture, much of which is grass-fed fish, carp, the by-products of processing their heads and frames go to make fish meal. At present aquaculture is contributing to the overall fish meal supply in the world. Taking all the farmed fin fish together, they create more edible protein for humans than are used. Salmon farming converts at a factor of 1.2:1 so in comparison to some of the other species, it is not quite as efficient but is a very high value species. What it comes down to is the ingredients of salmon feed are a very good use of a natural resource that up to now was used for other animal feeds that convert at a highly inefficient rate. I now refer to the graph in Mr. Whooley’s presentation on world industrial fisheries. Those fisheries have been stable for 30 years. Before there was salmon farming the same amount of industrial fish were caught as are caught now, but the best use of that material is to put it into aquaculture. Before this it was used for all types of industrial processes and for feeding less efficient warm blooded animals. We must bear in mind also that the diet of farmed salmon has evolved enormously in the past 20 years. Twenty years ago farmed salmon were fed a diet of between 60% and 70% fish meal but progressively this has been shrunk to allow the industry expand with the available supply of fish meal. Technology has kept up with this. The other important point is that when one puts the salmon feed in the water, the fish eat it. Thankfully because they are so efficient, most of that feed gets turned into salmon, but there is some waste. There is soluble waste, which is normally in the form of ammonia and some solid waste in the form of fish faeces and a very small amount of wasted pellets. Even with the best management in the world, there is a small amount of waste pellets. We must be open and up-front about that. This information has been carefully modelled and put forward in the environmental impact statement, EIS. We can show quite conclusively that even farms that produce 15,000 tonnes of salmon per annum will have no appreciable impact on the environment around Inis Oírr or in Galway Bay. We can prove this in a way that is not dangerous. This farm will not go from zero to 15,000 tons on day one. As the Deputy wisely observed it will be a case of festina lente. It will start at a much more modest level and will build up production. No commercial company will go into unknown sites and try to go immediately to maximum production. It will take up to five or six years to build up the production level. Every single year, the seabed underneath the cages must be tested very rigorously and reports must be sent to the Department. We will see in advance if a problem is likely. There is every opportunity to ensure that what has been modelled turns out to be what actually happens. When we have the opportunity to display what is in the EIS we can show very clearly there will be no seriously problematic issues in regard to waste and that on a feed conversion ratio, it is a very positive way to use natural resources.

Deputy Ó Cuív referred to his worries that all that remained from a failed fish farm was the impact on the seabed. One of the beauties of salmon farming is that it leaves no impact. Twelve months after a salmon farm has been removed from any area, assuming all the cages and anything visible has been taken away, there is no evidence of its impact. The seabed underneath the cages is exactly the same as it was before there was ever a salmon farm there. We have a great deal of research to show this is the case. It is not a form of activity that leaves a lasting environmental legacy. It does not and we have evidence to show that.

People were concerned about the interaction of farmed fish with wild fish, in particular with wild salmonids and the issue of sea lice. This has been a vexed question for salmon farming. The Irish Marine Institute has done significant work on this and conducted a ten year study, which has just been published. It involved 350,000 fish in eight locations all around the coast and it shows that sea lice are not an issue with marine survival of salmon. A more recent paper, and some members may be aware of it, from Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, seems to say something different. Actually it does not. If one takes the results from IFI and put them together with the raw data from the Irish Marine Institute, it shows exactly the same thing. Whatever else is causing the problem with marine survival of Irish salmon, it is not sea lice. We can say that quite definitively. We can also say that Ireland operates the strictest lice control programme on its salmon farms anywhere in the world. It is independently monitored by the State, which rigorously enforces extremely low levels of lice infestations on the farms. It has teeth. Just recently salmon farmers were forced into early harvesting to remove fish because they could not readily control the sea lice infestation before the critical period when sea trout and wild salmon smolts would migrate. This was a precautionary measure. This matter is completely managed. Unfortunately the angling interests have formed another view, which is very difficult. The facts and science are not being readily taken on board. The Irish Marine Institute will make the scientific point very clearly. It is worth observing that if one thinks of the angling community as salmon conservators, the largest number of wild salmon are caught by anglers. There is in a sense a conflict in their position.

Another issue raised by members was the number of escapes and the possibility that there could be genetic interaction between the farmed salmon and the wild salmon populations. The record in Ireland with regard to escapes is superb. We have no legacy of escapes up to now. We must ensure that stays the same and that the farms sites are located and constructed so that any risk is carefully controlled. Two things are worth pointing out. The farmed salmon is exactly the same fish as a wild salmon. It is the same species. It is a wild Atlantic salmon and seven generations later it is still an Atlantic salmon. It is quite theoretical as to whether there is a big issue. Apart from that, every effort will be made to ensure there will be no interaction. To do that, we will build into our agreement with the operator of the farm, a really stringent set of conditions that forces them to use the highest quality equipment, to maintain it to the highest standard and to ensure it is specified and certified by independent engineers to be able to withstand the conditions on that site. We have borne this in mind and this is set out in the EIS.

The figure of 350 jobs was mentioned - which impacts very strongly on what Deputy Ó Cuív's point - as the number directly employed in the fish farm. Sixty five people would be the portion of that figure who would be employed on the caged sea farms in Galway Bay. Thirty five people or so would be involved in fresh water production to generate the juveniles, which brings the number employed up to 100. Approximately 180 people will be involved in packing, processing and harvesting the fish. Another 70 people will be involved in transportation, both bringing the juveniles and the feed to the sites, and bringing the 15,000 tonnes of production to the marketplace. There will also be people involved in sales and marketing.

Marine Harvest Ireland produces about 12,000 tonnes and employs nearly 300 people. Some 15,000 tonnes of salmon will generate that amount of employment. As we said, the other 150 indirect jobs are related to marine maintenance, net manufacturing, the manufacturing of cages and ancillary services. This amount of fish generates a lot of other economic activity around it.

With regard to the linguistic issue, I spent nearly 15 years running salmon farms in the western isles of Scotland where Scots Gaelic is the native language. The area is separated from Ireland by water. Scots Gaelic was the lingua franca of the farms and will be the lingua franca of this farm if it goes ahead. The people who work on the farm will be islanders. People will not be brought in from outside Connemara and Donegal to work on the boat and cages. Local people are needed.

I understand Deputy Ó Cuív's concerns but in this case it will not be a serious issue because we will need to draw 65 people from three islands. Some will probably be drawn from the mainland. All of them will, presumably, have Irish as their first language. I imagine if one visited the farm on any given day and listened to the radio chatter between the boats, one would find it will all be as Gaeilge.

There were a couple of comments on the salmon farming industry in Connemara and Kilkieran and the interaction of BIM with Údarás na Gaeltachta. We consulted quite closely at technical and operational levels with it but not at board level. BIM has a memorandum of understanding with it to provide all the technical support services for its aquaculture activities. We are interacting tightly with it.

This plan is also part of a bigger plan to try to regenerate the industry in Kilkieran and its environs. I accept what the Deputy said about the history being unfortunate but a lot of it has resulted from a lack of good management practice and a poor layout of farms which ended up cross contaminating one another, fragmenting and creating different problems. We are working very closely with Údarás na Gaeltachta on a complete revision of the set-up. The Galway Bay farm would interact directly with the plant. There would be a coherent set of operations, all of which will contribute extra tonnage and jobs to the area. The farm will have an extremely beneficial effect on regenerating fish farming in Kilkieran.

Deputy Ferris asked a number of specific questions. The depth of water is about 40 meters. Water movement is about 0.5 knots at the peak of the tide and perhaps slightly more on big tides. I addressed the issue of escapes to which he referred.

Mr. Jason Whooley

Deputy Pringle referred to the franchise and e-tender. He is correct. Consideration will not be exclusively based on the highest price. The contribution and plan for the local community will be extremely important considerations when evaluating it, as well as what business plan is put forward as part of the bid. Senator Ó Domhnaill referred to timelines for Mayo and Donegal. He is absolutely correct. We have no intention of doing any development work without talking to communities first. That is exactly what we did in Galway and it is the best approach for Mayo and Donegal. We will probably do something in regard to consultation in Mayo before the end of the year.

We are more than happy to brief the board of Údarás or any other group in Galway at any stage and have a question and answer session. That goes for any group, be it political, local stakeholders or industry. We have no difficulty discussing the project with people who are for or against it.

Chairman

I thank the delegates. I ask members to be concise when asking supplementary questions. We need to proceed as efficiently as possible.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuiv

Has the delegation had a meeting and discussed the issue with the Minister of State with responsibility for the Gaeltacht and Islands? Why was there no consultation in Galway? No briefing was given to elected public representatives in the region, namely county councillors, Deputies, Senators and Údarás na Gaeltachta?

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill

I forgot to ask a question regarding genetically modified salmon. There are developments in other parts of the world. Is anything being built in the contracts, if awarded, to a company? What length of time does the contract last for? Is it for 20 or 30 years? Is anything being built in to ensure in ten, 15 or 20 years time GM salmon does not become an issue?

Deputy Martin Ferris

Who determines the conditions that can be built into the contract which will be beneficial to the host communities?

Mr. Jason Whooley

We did not meet the Minister of State with responsibility for the Gaeltacht and Islands. We met county councillors in Connemara in the past month and had an extensive briefing with them. We have met and briefed Deputies and Senators from all parties in the region. They heard what was happening and requested meetings. If there are people we have inadvertently omitted as part of this consultation process it has not been intentional and we are more than happy to address that in the next week if necessary.

The length of time of the contract is to be decided. There will be specific break clauses in the contract if we feel people are not adhering to their end of the bargain. On who determines what is the contract, the local community development clauses will be operated by us in close consultation with the local community and its needs. Concerns will be fed into bodies such as us, as facilitators, and we will be able to dictate certain terms and conditions.

Deputy Martin Ferris

Will the additions to the contract which will be of benefit to the local community be decided after consultation?

Mr. Jason Whooley

Yes. For example, we have already heard from some local communities that an expanded lobster V-notching programme would be of value to them. We are the organisation which administers the lobster V-notching scheme, therefore it is easy to tick that box. The local community would will put forward other initiatives and we will seek to address them as part of the contract.

Mr. Donal Maguire

Senator Ó Domhnaill is correct in noting that GMO technology has been touted for salmon farming. Globally, nobody in the salmon farming business has embraced it. No GM salmon are being grown anywhere in the world. The intention is to have the farm organic certified. I apologise to Deputy Ó Cuív; he asked about organic certification. Under organic certification it will never be allowed to have any kind of genetic modification in the ingredients of the salmon feed or the animals.

With regard to organic certification, it is a European standard which has many various issues in the freshwater rearing stage and sea farming stage that set it apart from conventional salmon farming. We expect and will require the operator to seek organic certification to the European standard which BIM administers in Ireland.

One other issue raised by Senator Ó Domhnaill is design and build. There will be relatively little room for extensive changes on the part of the franchise operator. The type and layout of cages, style of operation and all of the health and safety elements are all set out in the environmental impact statement and will be included in the terms and conditions of the aquaculture license and contract. We will of course allow a company to operate its business from a commercial point of view. However, community relations, specification and quality of equipment and operations will be terms and conditions of the contract or the aquaculture licence.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

On the question of organic certification, the issue that is normally raised is the use of chemicals to control disease and sea lice. Does organic certification allow chemicals to be used? That is normally the argument.

Mr. Donal Maguire

All of the fish in the sea in this farm will have been vaccinated for the common diseases of fish and fresh water. This is a trend in salmon farming and is allowed under organic certification. The use of antibiotics is virtually discontinued in modern salmon farming. In certain circumstances, treatments can be used to deal with sea lice infestation. They are permitted, when strictly controlled, under organic certification and everything must be certified and controlled by a vet. The possible impact of the treatment on the receiving environment is carefully modelled in the environmental impact study. The matter has been fully dealt with and no difficulty or issue will arise.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I have an open mind on this project. Putting one's head in the sand and not asking the awkward questions that communities are asking is the quickest way of ensuring nothing gets off the ground. If people try to avoid the awkward questions that will inevitably be asked, this project will never get off the ground. I have been very impressed with the answers provided, which have addressed some of the issues raised with me. One of the problems in Ireland is that we do not look at the wider community impact for major projects. People put their hands across their eyes and say that it does not matter. If people go down that route, there are many ways within the State to obstruct progress. I have an open mind and I am neither for nor against it until I have weighed up the evidence. The witnesses have cleared up many of the issues I was asked about on Inis Oírr. I refer to national and local issues because some local issues are also national issues.

Unlike Deputy McHugh, I have experience of this worldwide and I will be in Cambridge next week to talk about the Irish language. The Irish language is a resource that has a global impact because it is unique to this island. Anyone who dismisses it does not understand the world academic interest in our language-----

Chairman

I asked that we talk about sea fishing. Mr. Maguire gave his experience of working in the islands off Scotland. I thank Mr. Whooley, Ms Mallon and Mr. Maguire for attending the committee meeting and giving us their comprehensive vision of how to progress. I am mindful of the second last point Deputy Ó Cuív made. We should not be afraid to embrace change and progress but this approach is community focused. The questions probing this point prove it is the case. We have done extensive work, with tremendous co-operation among all members, on our offshore oil and gas resources. We bemoan the fact that this country does not have the capacity or resources to develop the required level of expertise without having to bring in industry as co-partners. In this case, between the witnesses, the Marine Institute, other experts and the lessons of history, we have the capacity to look forward to when we can control the licences. We would love to have the same capacity in offshore oil and gas.

When we discussed Food Harvest 2020, one of the challenges was to meet greenhouse gases emissions targets. Agriculture will show a spike and we will seek a derogation because we are an onshore food basket. We will argue that it is not a fair equation, even considering food conversion efficiencies and the more efficient production of food. We will say that we cannot curtail our potential to produce food simply because of a statistic when we do not have heavy industry.

In the context of food production, we must examine the background for the aquaculture plan as part of our ocean wealth potential. We must examine the big picture. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív is correct to say that one cannot put one's head in the sand. The questions and answers given in this exercise prove that the witnesses have not put their heads in the sand. I strongly commend this initiative.

Members are articulating concerns expressed by local communities. Ongoing communication is needed and there is an obligation on public representatives and the industry to ensure knowledge is transmitted. It never helps if there is a legacy of jobs lost and a lack of environmental concern. We must embrace the jar as half full rather than saying that what we had before was half empty. I thank the witnesses and the members. I was anxious not to stray into other areas. I make no apologies for stopping members straying into a debate that we could have without the witnesses present.

Mr. Maguire's experience in Scotland is helpful in respect of concerns about language. It also addressed the question of who gets the jobs by pointing out that jobs tend to be local. It might also inadvertently deal with local infrastructure issues. If we need people locally for jobs, we must be able to bring them in and out. In one answer, Mr. Maguire answered many of the concerns. He is a resident of Wicklow so he is inspired without knowing it.

Next week we will discuss CAP reform with MEPs and departmental officials.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 May 2012.