Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht

Aquaculture Industry: Discussion

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice)

Apologies have been received from Senator Paul Daly and Deputy Kehoe. Deputy Padraig Mac Lochlainn is substituting for Deputy Matt Carthy. I am substituting for the Chair, Deputy Jackie Cahill.

Before we begin, I remind members, witnesses and persons in the Public Gallery to turn off their mobile phones. The purpose of today's meeting is to examine the challenges facing the aquaculture industry.

Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses have full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's direction. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts. They may therefore consider it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses, outside the proceedings held by the committee, of any matter arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to utterances of members participating online in this committee meeting when their participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. There can be no assurances in the context of participation online from outside the parliamentary precincts. Members should be mindful of this when they are contributing.

At this session on the challenges to the aquaculture industry, the committee will hear from representatives of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA. I welcome Mr. Michael Molloy, chair of the IFA's aquaculture committee, Ms Catherine McManus, IFA aquaculture committee member, and Ms Teresa Morrissey, IFA aquaculture policy executive. I call on the witnesses to make their opening statements, and I will then call on members.

Mr. Michael Mulloy

I thank the committee for inviting IFA to address it today on the challenges facing the aquaculture sector. I am joined by Ms Teresa Morrissey and Ms Catherine McManus.

There is a critical need for a commitment from the Government to ensure the economic potential and sustainable future of the Irish aquaculture industry is realised. Immediate action to implement a functioning aquaculture licensing system must be a key priority for any future development of the Irish aquaculture industry, including appropriate legislative changes required to facilitate this. The full implementation of the aquaculture licensing review, published in 2017, must be prioritised and actioned to allow for effective implementation of the actions proposed in the draft seafood development programme 2021-27 and the draft national strategic plan for sustainable aquaculture development 2030. The Irish aquaculture sector needs the support of policy in order to achieve any realistic sustainable development so as to unlock any future potential of the Irish aquaculture industry.

Recommendations and priorities for development of sustainable aquaculture outlined in several Government policy documents. The Review of the Aquaculture Licensing Process, the National Strategic Plan for Sustainable Aquaculture Development, the Report of the Seafood Task Force - Navigating Change, and the A Programme for a Partnership Government speak of developing a thriving and dynamic Irish aquaculture sector not limited by quota. Production targets outlined in Ireland's Response the Commission's Green Paper on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy in 2013 will not be achieved. Aquaculture production has stagnated in recent years, with no significant increase in production figures despite EU and national policy objectives aiming to increase sustainable aquaculture development.

Targets to increase production and develop the Irish aquaculture industry have not been met. The target at the beginning of the previous European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF, programme 2015-21 was to increase production by 45,000 tonnes, from 36,000 tonnes in 2012 to a predicted 81,000 tonnes in 2023. By the end of 2018, production had decreased by 7,000 tonnes on 2012 levels, estimated at over €105 million in product value. By the end of 2020, Irish aquaculture production had further decreased in volume on 2012 levels, and for most of that period Irish aquaculture production remained static as opposed to increasing. The cumulative loss to the sector is estimated in excess of €570 million over the period at the prevailing in-year price.

Eligibility criteria for funding schemes under the previous EMFF operational programme was hindered by the fact that most of industry was ineligible for grant aid due to state aid rules related to aquaculture licensing, which was outside of the industry’s control. Given that this is the main financial source to ensure effective implementation of the common fisheries policy, CFP, available for the sustainable development of the aquaculture sector, it is imperative that access to the available funds are facilitated at every possible opportunity.

To give further context to the lost opportunity of Irish aquaculture over the period of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF, programme, as global aquaculture production grew by an average of 5.3 % per year in the period from 2001 to 2018, Ireland has not matched this trend in aquaculture production growth. Ireland has gone from having 5% of European aquaculture production 20 years ago to less than 2.5% currently. However, Ireland is now the most significant aquaculture producer in the EU since the departure of the UK after Brexit. Ireland accounts for over 24% of total EU organic aquaculture production across all species, with Irish organic salmon making up the majority of the production volume. This is despite Ireland’s overall aquaculture production, particularly salmon production, having being reduced in recent years.

Irish aquaculture production is very good value for the amount of licensed area currently in operation. The Business of Seafood 2021 report by An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, shows that 90 sq. km of licensed area yielded 38,000 tonnes worth €175 million in value to the Irish economy. The majority of that value, that is €109 million, came from Irish organic salmon. Irish aquaculture produce accounts for over 20% of the total Irish seafood exports from the three main export species, with more than 80% of this aquaculture produce being exported to the value of €150 million. The Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, estimates that Irish aquaculture could contribute more than €500 million in direct farm gate income and a further €500 million in ancillary activity, that is marine engineering and seafood processing, mostly generated from export trade. This value and volume of Irish aquaculture production could be significantly increased by optimising the existing licensed aquaculture space and allowing licence conditions to adapt to innovative and efficient aquaculture production systems. Most important, unlike targets and speculative statements on increasing aquaculture production of the past, we need to be more specific, ambitious, and realistic.

The Irish aquaculture industry provides essential support and employment opportunities for rural coastal communities with almost 2,000 direct jobs and over 16,000 indirect jobs in seafood processing and marine ancillary services sectors. With a multiplier effect average of 1.5, a sustainable Irish aquaculture industry has huge potential to create employment opportunities and further enhance coastal communities both through direct employment and indirect employment in marine industries and marine ancillary services.

With considerable investment in and appropriate legislative changes to the Irish aquaculture sector, there can be significant increases in direct and indirect employment, volume and value of aquaculture production. IFA Aquaculture believes in the future of rural coastal communities, and industries such as aquaculture are imperative for the vitality of these communities.

In short, we are lacking a coherent, realistic and ambitious policy for Irish aquaculture. The current policies and objectives in relation to aquaculture are non-binding and non-specific in terms of targets and are coupled with numerous policies and regulations that are not streamlined. There needs to be a realistic EU and national policy to develop the aquaculture sector that facilitates the sustainable development of Irish aquaculture.

IFA Aquaculture has the following recommendations. We recommend the implementation of the recommendations in the review of the Irish aquaculture licensing report. There are several issues in relation to the lack of progress on a number of the recommendations outlined in the review of the aquaculture licensing process, where the report concluded in 2017 that the aquaculture licensing system was in urgent need of reform. The report also explicitly states the Minister "will assign responsibility for recommendations, accountability and set milestones for delivery and identify the necessary resources to support the implementation process". The recommendations of the aquaculture licensing review need to be prioritised, resourced, and implemented urgently with greater stakeholder engagement regarding an implementation plan and realistic timelines for completion. This would include the re-establishment of the aquaculture licensing advisory committee, ALAC.

Recommendation 8.16 of the review of the aquaculture licensing process report recommended "work to commence immediately on the preparation of new aquaculture legislation". Since the report was published, a further number of EU and national legislative policies have been given effect, many mentioned previously in this statement. Most specifically, the recent marine planning and development management Bill could be viewed as a missed opportunity for Irish aquaculture reform, regulation and development management due the exclusion of the sector from the legislation. Aquaculture legislation, both primary and secondary, has been amended numerous times, in particular to give effect to EU environmental legislation, making it difficult to follow and establish the current status of various provisions.

Regarding the inclusion of aquaculture in the marine planning and development management Bill, IFA Aquaculture has serious concerns regarding the exclusion of aquaculture from this Bill. The national marine planning framework, NMPF, aims to introduce a single development management process for the maritime area for activities or developments. This is underpinned by legislation introduced in the form of the maritime area planning Bill which aims to establish a new regulatory body in the maritime area regulatory authority, MARA. This will not include aquaculture or fisheries, as they are not legislated for as part of the Bill. Aquaculture and fisheries must be included in associated national marine spatial planning legislation as it is essential for the fair and correct development management of the marine space.

A coherence of policies through the open method of co-ordination in relation to aquaculture continues to be absent. Alignment and coherence of aquaculture objectives with EU environmental regulations and directives is a key challenge and the level of coherence between different EU policies should be assessed on a sector-by-sector basis. The aquaculture sector complies with obligations, particularly environmental objectives, outlined in a number of policies and regulations i.e. the habitats directive; the birds directive; consolidated environmental impact assessment directive; marine strategy framework directive; marine spatial planning directive; water framework directive; and the Common Fisheries Policy.

Irish Aquaculture operators and their businesses will no longer be profitable unless there are significant supports during this time of crisis to assist with spiralling input costs. Earlier this year the European Commission activated a crisis mechanism of the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, EMFAF, to enable member states to grant financial compensation to aquaculture operators for income foregone and additional costs due to the current market disruption. The EMFAF crisis mechanism is a temporary measure and applies retrospectively as of 24 February 2022 and will be in place until the end of the year. IFA Aquaculture is calling on the Government to consider these funding mechanisms made available by the European Commission to assist Irish aquaculture operators affected by these severe cost increases. This must be done without delay.

In conclusion, it is now critical that a single piece of legislation is brought forward to implement and underpin appropriate aquaculture policy and to bring together all the existing primary, secondary and amended legislation in one single provision. In summary, if the objectives and specific actions outlined in the Seafood Development Programme 2021-2027, the national strategic plan for sustainable aquaculture and the Report of the Seafood Task Force are to be most effective for the sustainable development of the aquaculture industry, an immediate effort must be made to reform, modernise, and improve the aquaculture licensing system. Reducing the administrative burden and having an efficient, transparent aquaculture licensing system is of benefit to regulators, the industry, and aquaculture stakeholders alike. That concludes our opening statement.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice)

I thank Mr. Mulloy for the very comprehensive submission. I will open the discussion to the floor. Deputy Mac Lochlainn has indicated first and I invite him to ask his questions.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I thank Mr. Mulloy for his presentation and also Ms McManus and Ms Morrissey for being here.

Looking through the data Mr. Mulloy presented comparing Ireland's aquaculture production with other European countries, in 2017 Ireland produced 20,305 tonnes of aquaculture and that is down to 14,000 tonnes in 2020.

That is a very significant decline. If we look at other European countries, Norway, with a population not significantly higher than Ireland's, produces 1.5 million tonnes compared with 14,000 tonnes here. Iceland stands out as it produced a similar amount of tonnage in 2017 but by 2020, the figure doubled to 40,000 tonnes. While Ireland's tonnage decreased from 20,000 to 14,000, Iceland's tonnage increased from around the same figure to 40,000. It is a dramatic picture. If we take the 2017 figures, production declined in very few European countries, so it really stands out. The comparisons with Norway and Iceland in particular are alarming in terms of the potential aquaculture has for costal communities. I have seen it in my home county of Donegal with a company now called Mowi, previously known as Marine Harvest. Ms McManus is the leading light in the company in Ireland.

What is going wrong? In the previous Dáil, the agriculture committee engaged with the then Minister and his Department officials and asked for the implementation of the independent agriculture report. One of the major issues then was resourcing the agriculture appeals process. Just to be clear, the Oireachtas believes that every citizen has a right to object to a planning application. However, it should be done in a timely fashion. If aquaculture or seafood companies are being asked to go out to Asia, for example, to find new markets and create new jobs in Ireland, those new markets need to know there is a sustainable product and that its delivery and pipeline will be sustained over a period of time.

My apologies for giving a commentary rather than asking questions. I did not intend to do that but the statistics are very stark. The good news story, which is to be welcomed, is in the organic area. It would be good to talk about why that has been a success and what we need to do to maintain that success. There are positives in this story but unfortunately it is a negative story overall in terms of the capacity. Iceland and Norway produce 1.5 million tonnes and 40,000 tonnes, respectively, whereas the most recent figures for Ireland show we are down to 14,000 tonnes.

What can the Government do to turn this around to support the sustainable development of the industry? Why were the production targets that were set not achieved? How can we facilitate finfish aquaculture development? What should we do regarding the divergence between the targets and what is actually being delivered? My questions are linked.

Mr. Michael Mulloy

I thank the Deputy. To respond, most of the statistics he referred to are in the finfish sector. Shellfish is another important sector. These documents are from the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers, FEAP, which represents finfish growers.

Ms McManus is probably more qualified to discuss the possible reasons for the divergence between actual production and targeted production.

Ms Catherine McManus

I will comment on the stagnation or decline in production, in finfish in particular, in Ireland over the past 20 or even 30 years. The industry was faced with the challenge of old licences. Many of the finfish licences under which the industry currently operates were granted in the 1980s and 1990s. This industry is very dynamic, quick to adapt and innovative. In the past 20 to 30 years, the methods of production have changed, with the focus now more on sustainable production. We have learned very quickly. Norway has been the leader in that and we have learned from our neighbours. The investment and support of Norwegian industry are what have kept the finfish sector alive in Ireland.

We have been stuck with these very old licences granted at a time when many of the European environmental directives and objectives were not established. Many were granted when we did not even have designated areas of conservation or special protection areas. None of these were in existence in Ireland at the time. Since the late 1990s, we have new environmental legislation and industry must comply with it. Another point to be made about the old licences is that there is no uniformity in how they were described or the conditions attached to them. They could vary from site to site or from county to county. Old technology such as the use of wooden pens was prescribed in some licences and we know we could never survive with that condition nowadays. In other cases, the prescribed numbers of fish, the ages of fish and the maximum amount that could be harvested. When these conditions were all put together, none of it made sense environmentally. The industries had to dial back production to comply with European legislation and directives.

The other issue we have had to deal with is that most of the production in Ireland - more than 80% - is exported. We are competing on global markets with our neighbours, including Scotland, the Faroe Islands, which are smaller than Ireland but have more production, and Norway, and even with Canada, Chile and other such countries. As a result of their more progressive licensing systems, they can produce more fish sustainably, at a lower cost, than we can in Ireland.

The Irish industry had to adapt very quickly and find a niche, which is where the organic story comes in. Clew Bay was where organic farming, particularly of salmon, started way back in the 1990s. The Irish were the pioneers of organic salmon production globally. We should have continued to lead the way but because of the licensing system and lack of progression with it, and the old licences we had been left with, we stagnated. One of the cornerstones of organic principles is lower stocking intensity. We had to make do with old licences within very confined foreshore areas. At the same time, we had to reinvent ourselves to try to make a margin elsewhere. This is where the whole organic production came in. We then had 100% of the industry producing to organic principles and that gave us a competitive edge over Norway, Scotland and so on. That has now been eroded because the other countries see what Ireland has done and they are doing it at a lower cost than us now. This is a huge threat. What is behind that is that the licensing system in Ireland has not kept pace with the development of the industry along sustainability principles. That is where we are at.

Regarding the length of time it takes to get a licence in Ireland, the entire industry applied for renewal of its old licences over many years and they have still not been reviewed. We have also applied for licences to be reviewed with modern conditions included. We want to operate to a maximum available biomass which the site or water body has been scientifically shown it can cope with quite healthily. This has been a slow process. It has definitely sped up over the past two years but it is complicated because the finfish industry requires environmental impact assessment reports to support these revisions of licences. These are complicated detailed documents requiring the input of many experts such as archeologists, marine biologists and oceanographers. A lot of effort, expense and time goes into preparing these documents. We cannot just whip them out or produce them in a short space of time. This has been a concern.

In our experience, it takes at least 11 years to get a brand-new licence for a site. The Deputy can do the sums but in those 11 years, the rest of the European industry will be racing ahead and filling the gaps Ireland cannot fill, particularly in the organic sphere.

The Irish industry has paved the way for the marketing of organic salmon. We have put in a lot of effort with the support of Bord Bia, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and others to market Irish organic fish and shellfish abroad. Now other countries are coming in on the coat tails of the efforts made by our sector so we are losing ground and we appeal to the powers that be to implement the suggested reforms in the review of the aquaculture licensing process. I think there are about 30 recommendations in that. We need to see all of these implemented and we need legislative reform. It is very important. Otherwise we will just not be in position in another ten years. We will not be able to compete on cost, particularly these days when we are faced with soaring energy costs. Even our feed costs have gone up by about 30%. Feed alone makes up about 50% of our overall production costs. On top of all of that, it is a business for which you need deep pockets because for the technology and infrastructure needed to set up a modest farm, you are talking about at least €6 million or €7 million just to establish and equip a site. On top of all of that, you need all the ancillary equipment, boats, craft and so on. It is technology-intensive. We also rely on good people on the coast - people who want to live on the western seaboard - and this is getting more and more difficult due to cost of living reasons. All sectors face difficulties recruiting people. We have a good and sustainable way of life that is certainly very compatible with the west coast of Ireland in terms of crofting, small farmers and the seafaring aspect of the coast line and we do not want to lose it because it would be very difficult to get that back.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

In its presentation, the IFA dealt with the fact that it is dealing with so many European directives. There was that missed opportunity in terms of the Marine Planning and Development Management Bill. We will now see the establishment of the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA - "mara" being the Irish word for the sea. I would like to get a flavour of why it is so essential for legislation and a framework for the industry.

Ms Teresa Morrissey

To give some background, marine spatial planning is under a European directive. It is essential and we have now implemented it in Ireland. We were one of the first to have a national marine planning framework and national legislation underpinning that. The complexity in terms of MARA and what it means not just for aquaculture but fisheries, although we are the only licensed activity on the foreshore that will be affected by this, is that we are not legislated for. We were excluded from the marine spatial planning legislation. We are included in the national marine planning framework in that aquaculture and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine have to sign up to the policies, principles and objectives of the national marine planning framework but the legislation underpinning that, which means you must adhere to it, excludes aquaculture. Those policies and principles are really ineffective and meaningless in terms of aquaculture if they are not underpinned by legislation, which they are not. What this essentially means is that we are excluded from MARA, which will be established next year. This is a real concern because we do not know where that will leave aquaculture when it comes to access to space, the marine spatial plan and the planning process when it comes to the marine space because we were separated from that process. We will see offshore wind and other industries being developed and managed by one singular body and rightly so. Everything you read about marine spatial planning and the national marine planning framework will tell you that it is a one-stop-shop - a single point for regulation across the marine space - but this is simply not true because it does not include the two main seafood industries, namely, fisheries and aquaculture, so that is a concern.

That aside, in terms of legislation for aquaculture, we are legislated for under a number of amendments in the Fisheries Act that make it quite cumbersome to understand what the legislation and regulation around aquaculture is. Quite unusually, in many places where I speak, and I am a member of the marine spatial planning advisory group, I am one of the few lobbyists looking for more regulation for our sector. That is essentially what we are looking for. We are looking for more regulation because we are not satisfied with the regulation we have. We cannot stand over it as an industry. The State is only able to stand over it, which causes issues with stakeholders looking in and members of the public who quite rightly are entitled to see what the process around aquaculture licensing and the production thereof is. It makes it quite difficult for us even to stand over it because the regulatory system is so broken. It needs reform because it is essential for our sustainable development. The draft national strategic plan for aquaculture is under public consultation until the end of this month. That is our main policy document until 2030. For the guts of the next ten years, that will be our main policy document. Much of the direction of travel and recommendations in that strategy, which will be funded mainly by the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, simply cannot be implemented without sufficient legislative reform. If the legislation is not there to underpin the strategy in that, some of it simply cannot happen so it is vital that we have that reform. One of the recommendations in that strategy involves reviewing the legislation and not to start that review until 2025. The review for aquaculture licensing was 2017 and now we are taking the legislation in 2025. We really need to see urgency from the Department and the Government on this issue. Otherwise a lot of the very good progress that can be made from the aquaculture industry simply will not be made.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

From the heart of the midlands, this meeting has been very educational because, obviously, we do not have many fish farms. Deputy Ring will be delighted to hear that I did holiday in Mayo this year and my youngest daughter saw a fish farm for the first time and thought it was a water park so it goes to show how unobtrusive it is and how aquaculture has evolved and managed to present itself.

I know we spoke about Norway and Iceland, which seem to be the runaway success stories in this industry. Is there a tapering off across Europe if I look at the figures from 2017 to 2022? Is Europe as a whole losing pace compared to Iceland and Norway in terms of production? What happened in Ireland in 2017 such that there was a massive drop from 20,000 to 13,000 tonnes? This probably leads on to my next question. Ms McManus said that the set-up cost for a fish farm is €6 million. Could she give us an overview of who the players in this field are? Are we talking about one company or two or three companies driving the market or are we talking about community operations? Could Ms McManus paint a picture regarding who is involved in this sector?

Could she also tell us more about the number of operators and the number of people employed in the industry? I am sure it is the way it is presented but I am struggling with it. The sector has had to scale back its costs. Has Ms McManus seen a drop off in the numbers of people employed in the sector?

Ms McManus rightly said that Norway and the Faroe Islands are replicating what we are doing. This happens in every business. Someone copies a successful model. However, these countries have also done something such that they are able to scale up their operations. What are they doing that the EU and Ireland in particular need to do?

My final question is on licensing. I was horrified to hear that it could take 11 years and a €6 million start-up cost to get a licence. Ms Morrissey will probably be able to answer that. On the regulatory authority, is it an issue that there are serial objectors in this matter, is it an environmental issue or is it tactical by others not necessarily in the industry, but rivals? What is the motivation for these objections and for hindering? I would like to thank the witnesses. It has been very educational and I hope they will educate me further with their answers.

Mr. Michael Mulloy

We will split this one for the responses to the Deputy.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Share the love.

Mr. Michael Mulloy

I thank the Deputy for his very interesting questions. There is a lot information required there. I cannot say that we will have all of the information to respond to the Deputy's inquiries, but I am sure they can be-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice)

Whatever Mr. Mulloy does not have, he can forward it to the clerk of the committee and it will be forwarded to the members.

Mr. Michael Mulloy

The Deputy asked about the European production, which is an interesting question. Aquaculture is both shellfish and finfish. Finfish is the most valuable species harvested. Shellfish, by volume, is the biggest industry. Shellfish value to volume is lower than that of salmon. In the EU context, with the departure of Great Britain, Ireland is the biggest producer of Atlantic salmon. Obviously, Norway and Iceland are not in the EU.

European shellfish production has flatlined. There are lots of reasons for that. Some are put down to global warming, others to water quality. Ireland has a great opportunity to improve its production of shellfish in particular and finfish because it is perceived as a very clean area to operate with low industry and generally good water quality and good environmental standards. We in the industry would see that we are missing out on a huge opportunity there. In Europe, they have older, traditional industries, but they have generally matured. That is the most accurate summary I can give.

On the salmon production drop and employment figures, I think Ms McManus will be able to discuss why, in 2017, there was a drop in the production of salmon while Ms Morrissey can address the other question.

Ms Catherine McManus

I can address the drop in production. By 2017, the entire salmon industry had gone organic. Conversion to organic farming takes time and in our case, we took it farm by farm. It takes three years to grow salmon, so it is quite a long production time; that is our conversion period. That explains it. From 2017 on, 100% of the industry was operating according to organic principles and selling as organic Irish salmon.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

On that, disregarding the three years, should there be a relative ramping up of those figures from the three-year lifespan, or have they flatlined again?

Ms Catherine McManus

That will stay more or less as it is, because we are still operating with the same old licences. The licence is not just confined to or does not just stipulate how many fish you should have in the water; it also limits the amount of foreshore that you can occupy. As we stock our fish at half the density of production of Scotland, Norway or the Faroe Islands, for example, we have to do half the volume in the same space we are licensed for. We would like to spread out more to double our production across a bigger area. It is really to do with space. We are limited by acreage and that is why the licences need to be completely reviewed and reformed in order that we can operate on a maximum allowable biomass, MAB, basis.

There are four to five main operators in the industry. It started back in the late 1970s and early 1980s with a number of small operators or individual entrepreneurs who took a risk to set up either trout or salmon farms. As time went on and the industry moved from inshore production to more nearshore production, they realised that to stay at sea and to keep their crop at sea, they would have to invest in serious technology. This is where the Norwegians came in. The company I work for was formerly called Fanad Fisheries. It joined up with a company called Mowi ASA in Norway at the time in the 1980s to bring in new technology and expertise, particularly in breeding. That is how the relationship began. The Norwegians are significant investors in the industry in Ireland. It is capital intensive and not for the faint-hearted. It has gone from a small, family operation to something much bigger. The farms that were licensed over the years have more or less consolidated into four main companies.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Are those companies Irish-owned?

Ms Catherine McManus

In our case, we are Norwegian-owned, but it is completely staffed by Irish people and has Irish management; it always has been.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

What about the other three?

Ms Catherine McManus

It is the same for the other three.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

They are Norwegian-owned and Irish-managed.

Ms Catherine McManus

No, one of them is a family-owned operation that has interests in other fishery sectors.

Mr. Michael Mulloy

There are Irish shareholders.

Ms Catherine McManus

Yes, there are Irish shareholders.

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Did the Deputy want to discuss the organic model in greater depth?

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I would like to know about the learnings from Norway regarding how they managed to scale up.

Ms Catherine McManus

The key difference with Norway is it blessed with a coastline that is very deep; its fjords can be up to 500 m deep. The Irish coastline is much shallower. We operate on sites 20 to 30 m deep and, therefore, we are restricted in how far we can go down. The Norwegian licensing system is more efficient and swifter. It is like a planning application in Ireland; that is how quickly they can turn it over. They also reward good performance in their licensing system. If someone can demonstrate, through monitoring, that he or she is not impacting on the environment, he or she can perhaps apply for an increase in his or her licence. It is a positive feedback system and it is much faster - months, as opposed to years - for a licence to be granted.

In Europe, including Scotland, production of finfish is growing in those countries.

Deputy Michael Ring

I compliment the witnesses. I was at another meeting so I was not able to get in at the beginning. I read the submission and I must compliment the three witnesses on their contribution and their ability to answer questions.

I have three questions. One relates to grant aid. Will the witnesses explain why their industry is not able to draw down grant aid because of State aid rules? On licences, is the industry having discussions with the Department? Is the Department actually engaging with them? 2017 is a long time ago. It has been five years and nothing happening. Why is the Department not engaging with them?

This is not an easy industry. Ms McManus spelt it out very well. It requires a big investment involving a big risk and people in the past that took that risk. In some cases they were successful; in others they were not. The industry means a lot of hard work and it is very difficult. The companies probably do not get the reward they deserve. I am disappointed that after the licensing review the Department even at this stage has done nothing in the past few years. I would like to know how the committee could help. Could we bring departmental officials before us along with the witnesses to see what can be done to speed this up? Are the officials engaging with the witnesses?

Some of the other questions I wanted to ask have been asked. I am sure the industry could create a lot more jobs if the structure and the licensing were not so difficult. It has been difficult over the past few years. I know that something needs to be done.

Mr. Michael Mulloy

I thank the Deputy. The licensing system basically fell foul of the ECJ in the 1990s in that the directives we referred to in our submission were not being properly implemented by the State

Special areas of conservation, SACs, especially marine areas, were designated and the objectives of those were never fully investigated. The assessments were never carried out. The European Court of Justice ruled that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine could no longer issue aquaculture licences in those areas, even where there were existing farms. That meant that people who were in business, like me - I have been a mussel farmer for 40 years, as the Deputy knows; I am from his constituency - had aquaculture licences dating from the 1980s and we could not renew them in the 1990s. We were operating without a proper licence for about 15 years. We were treated under section 19(a), which was a provision in the Act that an operator could continue to operate pending a renewal. However, in that intervening time, despite the fact that European money was available to support and stimulate aquaculture, we could not avail of that money. It was not available to an operation that was not fully licensed, and the majority of the shellfish industry was not fully licensed at that time. That hindered our development in a big way, as the Deputy can imagine. Ms Morrissey is in discussion with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and she will update the committee on the status of that.

Ms Teresa Morrissey

It is still the case that we cannot access grant aid for finfish and will not be able to access grant aid in the next funding programme as it stands. That is a decision of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, rather than a directive from Europe. If an operator is covered under section 19(4)(a), as it is called, that is, if a business's licence is awaiting renewal, which all finfish licences and some shellfish licences currently are, it is not eligible for grant aid for anything. That has been the case for a good two thirds or three quarters of the seven-year life of the last funding programme under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, EMFF. None of the aquaculture sector could access-----

Deputy Michael Ring

That is an Irish Government decision, not a European one.

Ms Teresa Morrissey

Yes, the EMFF does not stipulate that. Once a business has applied to renew its licence after a ten-year term, those licences are deemed valid in that they are awaiting renewal. There is a massive delay on renewals that is not the fault of the industry. Appropriate assessments have to be done, and rightly so, for SACs and so forth. We have no issue with that. However, the decision not to grant aid is purely a decision of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is not a decision of the European Commission even though it involves European funds.

As regards engaging with the Department and its officials, they are engaging with us now. Engagement has greatly improved. There was probably a difficult period for a number of years where very little meaningful engagement took place. A basic level of engagement did occur but we have certainly improved our relationships and I am happy to say engagement has improved, particularly over the past 12 months. However, we would like to see a lot more action and the Deputy's suggestion that Department officials be invited to the committee to examine how best we could move forward would be helpful.

Deputy Flaherty mentioned job creation. We are directly responsible for about 2,000 jobs. That number could be significantly higher if the licensing issue were ironed out and if policy and regulatory reform were brought about. We could create jobs directly and indirectly. The seafood task force report was published last year as a result of the Brexit for fisheries to see how best we can move forward with the Irish seafood industry. Aquaculture's involvement in the seafood task force involved examining how best aquaculture can alleviate and take up some of the pressures that will arise from the loss of jobs and the displacement of jobs, especially indirect employment, as a result of the Brexit fisheries deal. Aquaculture can make up that shortfall by providing employment in marine engineering, seafood processing, and providing the product for seafood processing that will be lost because of the lost quota in fisheries as a result of Brexit. That was our input to the seafood task force and a number of recommendations were included that relate to job creation in the seafood industry. Aquaculture is the only other seafood producing industry aside from fisheries, which obviously brings fish into the ports and, as we know, has lost some of its quota. As I said, the national strategic plan will not happen unless the regulatory reform is brought about. We will not be able to create those jobs. There is a lot of very positive speak in the seafood task force report, but it will not happen unless it is brought about.

Mr. Michael Mulloy

To complete the answer to Deputy Ring's question about the status of the aquaculture licensing review report, it is not really fair to say nothing has happened. The backlog of shellfish licences has been dealt with. It could be argued that was the low-hanging fruit and that was dealt with at the expense of the finfish industry. Obviously, the licence applications and determinations for finfish are severely more complicated than shellfish licences. We have a situation where a lot of shellfish licences have been issued, which is a good thing. We welcome it, obviously. However, unfortunately no finfish licences have been determined, bar one, but that is under appeal, or rather is beyond appeal. It is being judicially reviewed.

Deputy Flaherty spoke about the tactical motivation for objectors. We have a problem in that if we were to streamline and improve the process, we could improve the image of the whole industry. If the licensing process was more transparent, people would feel that we were dealing on a fairer playing pitch. At the moment the public consultation process is poor. Adverts are put in local newspapers, often at the end of the year when they want to complete the body of work and people's eyes are off the ball, and before they know it, a fish farm is happening and nobody knows about it. Part of the licensing review report encourages the practice of pre-planning, which is an obvious and accepted part of the planning process. We want Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, to take on a role in the pre-planning process so that the local aquaculture officers around the coast can help applicants make an appropriate application in consultation with the other stakeholders in their immediate vicinity.

Deputy Michael Ring

As regards the work schedule, will we be able to invite the Department to the committee? It is an important industry that needs support. I am disappointed to hear that state aid has been blocked by the State because of issues with licences. Something needs to be done to resolve that. If the industry can create more jobs and bring more people into the industry, then it should be entitled to get whatever grant aid is available, particularly when it is European grant aid. The industry should be able to get that. I hope we can bring the officials before the committee. Industry and the Department need to work together, but if they are not sitting down and talking, it cannot happen. However, I am glad to hear things are getting better over the past year.

My final question relates to objectors. I agree with Deputy Mac Lochlainn that people are entitled to object, but as with An Bord Pleanála and everything else, a time structure needs to be imposed on objections. It is not acceptable to have things drawn out for years. It is time the legislation changes to deal with it.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice)

I think most Deputies would support what Deputy Ring has said. If he or his staff sends an email to the clerk to suggest inviting the Department to the committee, it can be put on the work schedule with the agreement of the members.

Deputy Michael Ring

I thank the Chair.

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht - Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022

Aquaculture Industry: Discussion

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Ms Catherine McManus

Ms Teresa Morrissey

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Ms Catherine McManus

Ms Catherine McManus

Ms Catherine McManus

Ms Catherine McManus

Ms Catherine McManus

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Ms Catherine McManus

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Ms Catherine McManus

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Ms Teresa Morrissey

Ms Teresa Morrissey

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Ms Teresa Morrissey

Ms Teresa Morrissey

Ms Teresa Morrissey

Ms Teresa Morrissey

Ms Teresa Morrissey

Ms Catherine McManus

Ms Catherine McManus

Ms Teresa Morrissey

Ms Catherine McManus

Ms Catherine McManus

Ms Catherine McManus

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Mr. Michael Mulloy

Ms Teresa Morrissey

Ms Teresa Morrissey

Clerk to the Committee

Clerk to the Committee

Clerk to the Committee

Clerk to the Committee

Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 Sep 2022