Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 5 May 2021
47. Deputy Holly Cairns asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage the supports put in place for inshore fishers whose livelihood are impacted by the different stages of the preparation and construction of offshore renewable energy projects. [23006/21]
View answer62. Deputy Holly Cairns asked the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage if a response will be provided to the request by organisations (details supplied) for formal guidelines and structures to enable developers to interact with inshore fishers concerning offshore renewable energy projects, including an independent arbitrator to resolve potential conflicts. [23005/21]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 47 and 62 together.
I note the concerns outlined by NIFA and NIFO, particularly in relation to the potential impacts on their livelihood as a result of Off Shore Renewable (ORE) developments. Specifically, I am acutely aware of the issue of diverse levels and standards of communications between the fisheries and ORE industries, having first been raised by members of the fisheries community at a National Marine Planning Framework (NMPF) public consultation meeting in Arklow held on 10 February 2020, which was one of a number of NMPF public consultation events held by the Department during 2019 and early 2020.
To directly address these concerns, and also with the wider aim of promoting constructive engagement and consultation between the fisheries community and the ORE industry, I have instructed my Department officials to commence the formation of a Seafood/ORE working group, with the initial aim of agreeing a communications protocol between these two strategically important Marine sectors.
During the last 6 months of 2020, and including the early months of this year, constructive discussions and consultations on the draft terms of reference have been held between my Department, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications and other relevant public sector bodies, and are expected to be finalised in the coming weeks. Advice on International best practice has also been sought from, and consulted on, with neighbouring Maritime jurisdictions with experience in Fisheries/ORE Industry liaison.
Unfortunately, the commencement of this group has been delayed due to a number of factors, including Covid-related restrictions and the prioritisation of the finalisation process of the NMPF, and the Maritime Area Planning Bill, but my Department intends to commence the Seafood/ORE working group before the end of Q2 2021. Representatives of NIFA and NIFO will be invited to participate in the working group, and I look forward to their constructive input.
It is the intention that the proposed Seafood/ORE group will, in time, address issues such as dislocation, co-existence, the impact of developments (including exploration of development sites) and the formalising of a consultation/engagement process.
My Department has not yet formulated a definitive position with regard to the issue of the appointment of an independent arbitrator, as suggested by NIFA and NIFO, but is giving further consideration to the points raised in those public submissions as the NMPF moves toward the Implementation stages. My Department will also be informed by the reports and suggested outcomes of the Seafood/ORE working group. I do not wish to pre-empt the outcomes of any working group discussions on this point, and so there are no plans in place to appoint an arbitrator. Given their functional remit over fisheries and offshore renewables policy respectively, I will also consult with my colleagues the Ministers for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and Environment, Climate and Communications, should the need arise.
Notwithstanding the inception of the aforementioned group, and any formal consultation or engagement guidelines that may be subsequently developed by that group, my Department has worked across Government and with marine stakeholders to ensure the interests and rights of the fisheries community are clearly stated and represented in the Fisheries policy approach of the draft NMPF, in a way that complements other areas of fisheries management. Fisheries Policy 1 states that;
‘’Proposals that may have significant adverse impacts on access for existing fishing activities, must demonstrate that they will, in order of preference: a) avoid, b) minimise, or c) mitigate such impacts.
If it is not possible to mitigate significant adverse impacts on fishing activity, the public benefits for proceeding with the proposal that outweigh the significant adverse impacts on existing activities must be demonstrated.’’
While Fisheries Policy 5 states;
‘’Where significant impact upon fishing activity is identified, a Fisheries Management and Mitigation Strategy should be prepared by the proposer of development or use, in consultation with local fishing interests (and other interests as appropriate) in the development of the Strategy. All efforts should be made to agree the Strategy with those interests. Those interests should also undertake to engage with the proposer and provide best available, transparent and accurate information and data in a timely manner to help complete the Strategy. The Strategy should be drawn up as part of the discharge of conditions of permissions granted.
The content of the Strategy should be relevant to the particular circumstances and could include:
- An assessment of the potential impact of the development or use on the affected fishery or fisheries, both in socio-economic terms and in terms of environmental sustainability. This assessment should include consideration of any impact upon cultural identity within fishing communities.
- A recognition that the disruption to existing fishing opportunities/activity should be minimised as far as possible. Demonstration of the public benefit(s) that outweigh the significant impacts identified.
- Reasonable measures to mitigate any constraints which the proposed development or use may place on existing or proposed fishing activity.
- Reasonable measures to mitigate any potential impacts on sustainability of fish stocks (e.g. impacts on spawning grounds or areas of fish or shellfish abundance) and any socio-economic impacts.
Where it does not prove possible to agree the Strategy with all interests:
- divergent views and the reasons for any divergence of views between the parties should be fully explained in the Strategy and dissenting views should be given a platform within the Strategy to make their case.
- where divergent views are identified, relevant public authorities should be engaged to identify informal and formal steps designed to enable proposal(s) to progress.’’
Fisheries groups were represented on the Marine Spatial Planning Advisory group, which played an important role in informing the development of the Plan. These policies are due to come in to effect on the adoption of the NMPF in Q2 2021, and clearly indicate that developers cannot proceed with operations without due consideration for the impact of their activities on other marine users, with particular regard to the Fisheries community. The way in which Fisheries Policy 5 will be implemented will be a subject for consideration at the Seafood/ORE working group.
