JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht

Aquaculture Industry: Presentations.

Chairman

I welcome the officials from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and all the other groups who have agreed to present be today and to make presentations to the joint committee. This will be a long session but we hope to finish by 5 p.m. I ask the presenters, including Dr. Beamish, to be brief, although I understand he may need 15-20 minutes to make his presentation which is much longer than would be normally allowed.

I draw attention to the fact that members of the joint committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. It is generally accepted that witnesses will have qualified privilege but the joint committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of a long standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or any official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I advise members of the joint committee that certain matters may be coming before the courts and could in the future be sub judice. I ask members to refrain from mentioning names in this instance.

Major concerns have been expressed concerning the impact of the aquaculture industry and its effect on the environment and related matters. This committee has decided to examine these concerns and to review the role of the State as it pertains to the industry and to the particular issues raised in a recent television documentary "Prime Time" programme. It would appear that some State agencies are at variance in their views of the industry and are, perhaps, working in conflict at the taxpayers' expense. It has been intimated that significant State resources are applied to conflicting objectives and this issue needs to be addressed. Perhaps it is time for the Central Fisheries Board and the Marine Institute to reach a common agenda on the whole area of fish farming research. It should be noted that there is a variance of opinion between the aquaculture industry, State agencies, scientists and others on the interpretation of scientific findings on sea lice infestation and its control, to mention only one issue.

The point has been made that the regulatory authorities are not policing the industry and that the regulations and licensing requirements are being blatantly ignored by industry practitioners. The concerns raised are serious and call into question the very functioning of the State agencies with regard to licensing procedures, law enforcement and environmental control. Perhaps the incidents postulated as causes of concern are isolated events and perhaps not. The joint committee will endeavour to achieve an understanding as to way forward which must, of necessity, mean conformity with the law and the streamlining of State effort towards a fair, rational and balanced objective approach to addressing the conflicts and concerns that appear to exist. In this regard, the joint committee will listen carefully to the contributions of those invited to appear before it and will pursue whatever other steps it considers necessary in its attempt to reach a consensus on the pertinent issues. The joint committee realises the aquaculture industry is worth €117.4 million to the Irish economy and employs significant numbers in the industry with salmon farm fishing accounting for €82 million per annum and shellfish €35.5 million per annum. It is important also to recognise the important contribution Údarás na Gaeltachta makes to funding the aquacultural industry in the Gaeltacht area and the joint committee may well decide to continue with its further presentations and issue findings in due course. We have endeavoured to invite a sample representative group of the different industries and if people have been excluded we may, in the future, decide to invite them in to make presentations.

I invite Dr. Beamish to introduce his colleagues and to make his presentation.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

I am Dr. Cecil Beamish from the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the assistant secretary responsible for the seafood and aqualture industries. I am accompanied by Mr. Joe Ryan, principal officer in the coastal zone management division which, among other issues, deals with aquaculture licensing, and Mr. Frank Sheridan, principal officer on the inland fisheries division which deals with the wild fisheries in the rivers, salmon and sea trout fisheries, in particular.

The Department is appreciative of the opportunity that has been given to it to make a presentation to the joint committee on the subject of aquaculture and on the particular issues of concern outlined by the Chairman in his opening statement.

Consideration of this issue is timely in view of the public comments made on the industry in recent months and the issues associated with the matters raised. We would like to set out the Department's views on where the industry stands at present, what its prospects are for the years ahead, and what must be done if optimum benefit is to be achieved from the industry's potential for further sustainable growth and development.

The experience with aquaculture worldwide over recent decades has been of considerable growth and development. Growth since 1990 is estimated to have been of the order of 10% per annum globally, on the basis of the data provided by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. This indicates that production, including aquatic plants, from aquaculture amounted to 45 million tonnes in 2000.

All the indications are that the industry will continue to expand and develop in the years and decades ahead, with this growth being driven, in particular, by increasing demand for fish when many wild fish stocks are under considerable pressure. The expectation also is that this growth and development will be underpinned by innovation and diversification. This is likely to involve, for example, new farming methods and technologies and moves into the cultivation of species that are not farmed at present.

The Irish experience has reflected the international pattern of expansion and diversification. As recently as 1979, annual output amounted to some 4,000 tonnes. By 2002, however, production had grown significantly to 62,000 tonnes, valued at €117 million, of which 90% was exported. This production was made up of 38,000 tonnes of shellfish valued at €35 million and 24,000 tonnes of finfish valued at €82 million. Production of Atlantic salmon alone was over 22,000 tonnes. Some 900 people are directly employed in the salmon farming industry, either full time or part-time, but in total 6,500 are dependent on the aquaculture industry for all or part of their income.

There are a limited number of countries in Europe engaged in salmon farming and salmon farming production and as a comparison, Norway, whose industry started at the same time as in Ireland, produced over 465,000 tonnes of Atlantic salmon in 2002 which was valued at €1,488 million. Over 19,000 are directly employed in the salmon industry in Norway with 86,000 either partially or totally dependent on the industry for their livelihood.

There has been also a marked change in the composition of the aquaculture industry's output in Ireland over the 30 year period. At the end of the 1970s, production was made up in large part of native oysters, bottom-cultivated mussels and trout. In the meantime, shellfish production has seen the emergence of rope cultivation of mussels and the cultivation of Pacific oysters. Finfish production now consists primarily of the farming of Atlantic salmon.

The growth of the industry has been significant and has brought about a situation in which it plays an important role in the economic life of many peripheral coastal communities. The development over this period was supported under the Operational Programme for Fisheries 1994-99 and is being supported under the national development plan, which made provision for over €30 million in European Union and Exchequer grant assistance for aquaculture development.

The main issue which stimulates debates on aquaculture is that of aquaculture and the environment. Aquaculture is a relatively new food production industry and, as such, it gives rise to significant threats and opportunities. Because it takes place as a shared activity in the marine and aquatic environments, it poses specific challenges for regulators, the industry itself and other stakeholders interested in these common resources. Much of the debate about aquaculture centres rightly on its potential impacts on the marine and aquatic environments, and I will seek to set out the various arrangements in place to address these issues.

Before outlining those arrangements, however, it might help to set a wider context for the committee and quote from a recent leading article in The Economist on the blue revolution - the promise of fish farming. The article states:

If modern agriculture were invented today, it probably wouldn't be allowed . . . all farming alters and sometimes damages the environment. Modern aquaculture has arrived at a time when environmental knowledge and concern has rarely been higher and when it must compete with tourism and home owners as well as environmentalists for access to the coast . . . There is no sense in expecting modern aquaculture to emerge immediately as a perfect food supply that pleases everyone from animal lovers and greens to economists and industrialists. The challenge will be to regulate it prudently and efficiently, not just in the rich world but in poor countries and eventually further out to sea.

In the coming decades, aquaculture will become a major if not the predominant source of marine food. If it is done well, it could help to balance global food supply and, through its substitute role for fishing activity in coastal areas, help the conservation of wild marine resources. For this benign scenario to be realised, there are significant challenges to be met, nationally and internationally, to ensure that any expansion in the aquaculture industry going forward does not give rise to unacceptable environmental impacts.

Achieving the potential of the aquaculture industry in Ireland requires that two inter-related challenges are met - first, competitive market challenges to generate high quality products in line with market demands and, second, environmental challenges which require that the industry minimises all environmental impacts going forward. Responsibility for ensuring the future successful growth and development of aquaculture lies first and foremost with the industry itself. This requires a strong ongoing commitment on its part to making the most of the available opportunities as well as a willingness to adapt and innovate in response to changing circumstances.

It is clear that the industry must be focused on international market requirements and gear itself to producing top quality output that will satisfy the demanding expectations of retailers and consumers and hold its own in very competitive international marketplaces. The industry must also be able to respond in a timely way to changing circumstances and requirements by being open to possibilities such as new production methods or diversification of production.

The State, through Bord Iascaigh Mhara, the Marine Institute and Údarás na Gaeltachta, has an important role to play in supporting and assisting the industry as it looks to grow and develop. This will be addressed in more detail in separate presentations to the committee by BIM.

It is even more critical, both for achieving the industry's potential and securing the future of existing operations, that the industry operates and develops on a sustainable basis and in accordance with high standards of environmental and ecological protection. The industry has a particular responsibility, given its position as a natural, resources based enterprise that needs a high quality environment, to ensure its business is carried on in accordance with appropriate environmental standards and in full compliance with all relevant statutory requirements. Failure to do so would, apart from the serious legal issues raised by any such failure, be detrimental to the industry's standing and prospects.

The State, and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources in particular, has an important role to play in determining where aquaculture development may take place and ensuring that appropriate conditions are laid down governing the operation of any aquaculture that is permitted. We exercise these responsibilities through the licensing of aquaculture operations and the monitoring and control of licensed operations.

Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt you, Dr. Beamish, but because of the time constraints, rather than reading out the document could you talk about the licensing system, the monitoring and control in your own words? We started a little late today because we had other important business to deal with in private session. Over the next three or four minutes could you summarise the presentation because members have questions to ask?

Dr. Beamish

The current licensing system was put in place by the Oireachtas in 1997 and detailed regulations for the licensing of the industry were finally agreed in November 1998. Prior to that we did not have an adequate legislative framework. In the period after 1998, much work has been done to have the industry operating within the licensing framework that was put in place in 1998. That framework was enhanced in 2000 by the development of a series of protocols which are adjoined to licences and establish additional commissionality to those licences. The licensing system has been evolving over the past four or five years and essentially has been moving to operate within that new licensing framework. I set out in the presentation what is involved in that licensing process.

We are now moving to the point where the industry is essentially licensed, operating and located within the licensing framework. We will now focus, and the committee is right to do so as well, on the issues that arise at this point in terms of performance within that licensing framework and the monitoring and control arrangements that apply therein. I emphasise that it is a relatively detailed licensing framework, with much pre-licensing environmental assessment, advice and so forth.

Monitoring and controls are carried out by the Department, with the assistance of the Marine Institute, to ensure that fish farming is carried on in accordance with the applicable standards and requirements.

On the issue of sea lice, the Marine Institute carries out 14 visits a year to each fish farm. The results of those visits are made available to each fish farmer and appropriate instruction is given arising from the results in terms of the appropriate action to be taken. This is done under a protocol which is a condition attached to the licence. The issues raised on the "Prime Time" programme are matters of concern to everybody involved in the industry but the committee will appreciate that to comment on specific matters under investigation currently may not be appropriate. I can go into that in more detail if the Chairman wishes.

In addition, a detailed review of procedures in place for the monitoring and control of aquaculture and marine finfish farming in particular has been initiated. The aim of the review is to ensure that appropriate, efficient and effective monitoring, control and enforcement processes are in place for all aspects of the industry. The review is being carried out by a unit established for that purpose and will be completed as a matter of priority.

In parallel with the review of monitoring and control arrangements, the Department is examining the overall structures for the delivery of regulatory services in respect of the aquaculture industry. This is in accordance with the commitment in the programme for Government to develop new devolved service structures to support the sustainable management, development and protection of the marine coastal zone and seafood resources. Proposals in this regard will be brought forward in the near future.

An issue which may be of concern to many people is that of waste disposal. To clarify, this is a food production industry which generates waste. It deals with live organisms and there are mortalities so there is a waste management issue in respect of this food industry. There is a clear and unambiguous obligation on all the fish farmers to have appropriate arrangements in place for dealing with waste generated by their businesses. These arrangements must be such as to ensure compliance with the EU regulations on disposal of animal by-products and related Irish legal provisions. Any departure from the appropriate standards and requirements is a serious matter and will be dealt with accordingly.

The Department is currently working with industry representatives and other public bodies in a group established to examine all issues relating to disposal of waste from fish farms. The Department will be pressing for the group to finish its work as quickly as possible and for recommendations aimed at ensuring practicality, efficiency and full compliance with the relevant legal provisions.

An issue which arose from the "Prime Time" programme and which has been a matter of public comment relates to the major fish mortalities which occurred in Donegal Bay from mid-summer onwards this year. The Minister asked the Marine Institute to carry out an investigation into those fish mortalities once they became apparent in June, and has subsequently broadened the scope of the investigation since it came to light that significant unreported mortalities had also been experienced at other fish farms along the western seaboard. That investigation is ongoing, and the Marine Institute representatives may speak further on it when they address the committee. In the circumstances it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the ongoing investigation.

On the issue of aquaculture and the wild fisheries, the committee will be aware that the relationship between finfish farming and wild salmon and trout fisheries has been the subject of debate over the years, with attention focused primarily on the alleged effects of sea lice from salmon farms on sea trout. Wild fisheries interests have ascribed the decline in sea trout numbers principally to infestation by sea lice from fish farms. The aquaculture industry, on the other hand, has contended that no causal linkage has been demonstrated and that there are many factors at play in the decline in sea trout numbers.

The Department, for its part, is committed to ensuring that the development and operation of the aquaculture industry takes place in a manner consistent with the conservation and protection of wild fisheries. It was for this reason that action was taken on a precautionary basis, in accordance with best environmental practice, to establish the national programme for sea lice monitoring and control referred to earlier. The programme requires that action be taken at farm level when lice levels are much lower than would be tolerated without treatment in other countries.

While the monitoring and control programme is well developed and allows remedial action to be prescribed at an early stage, if it appears that problems are emerging with lice levels, the systems and procedures will nevertheless be reviewed as part of the wider review of enforcement and control, with a view to ensuring that we have the best possible means of detection and control in the years ahead.

Wild fisheries interests also object to fish farms on the grounds of the alleged effects of escapes of farmed fish on wild stocks. As matters stand, however, there is a clear onus on fish farmers to take all appropriate measures to avoid escapes and to have effective plans in place for dealing with any escapes that may occur. The systems and procedures relating to escapes will also be examined in the overall review of enforcement and control arrangements. It is clear, therefore, that the Department is committed to ensuring that the aquaculture industry operates within a framework that safeguards wild fish stocks. The Department also has an extensive programme of action aimed directly at the conservation and protection of those stocks which I lay out in the presentation.

The aquaculture industry has the potential to build on the considerable growth and expansion that has taken place over recent years. It is essential that any development that takes place will be on a sustainable basis and be able to meet exacting environmental and ecological standards. The objective must be to have an environmentally friendly fish farming industry that operates in harmony with other marine and fisheries interests and provides sustainable, long-term employment in coastal communities. The Department will, in conjunction with the other public bodies concerned, ensure that appropriate assistance and advice are available in support of such development.

All necessary steps will also be taken to ensure that the systems and processes for licensing, monitoring and control are capable of ensuring the orderly development and operation of the industry. If the current reviews indicate that changes are required to legislation or procedures or practices, as the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, indicated recently to the Seanad, the necessary action will be taken without delay.

Chairman

Thank you, Dr. Beamish. I advised the committee that I met you yesterday to ask you to remain in the public gallery for the rest of the meeting and perhaps respond to any questions members might have at the end of the presentations. Is that acceptable?

Dr. Beamish

As I indicated, we would be prepared to stay and to come back, if the committee wishes, either today or at a future date.

Chairman

We have agreed that you might remain so that we can finish the proceedings today. I will call Deputies Coveney, O'Donovan, Broughan, Kelly, Ryan and McEllistrim in that order.

Deputy Coveney

I will try to be concise. The main reason we are here this afternoon is to consider the concerns raised in the recent "Prime Time" programme. We will discuss generally the aquaculture industry later and the way it is developing.

I am supportive of growth in the aquaculture industry but real concerns were raised in the "Prime Time" programme and in that regard I want to put some questions to Dr. Beamish. The two main concerns appear to be, first, the effect of lice infestation on wild fish stocks, primarily salmon and sea trout, and, second, fish mortality levels, their monitoring and enforcement surrounding the dumping of salmon both on the seabed and in illegal dumps in areas of the country. Is the Department satisfied that there are adequate enforcement levels in the industry when the rules are broken? There appears to be a number of investigations under way into mortality and lice infestation levels, and there is a general review also of regulations, monitoring and enforcement within the industry. When are we likely to see the results of those reviews? Is the Norwegian model mentioned in the presentation being examined? Norway has introduced regulations and if they are broken, there is serious sanction by way of fines for the people concerned. Does Dr. Beamish agree that there are many efficient and excellent fish farmers in the aquaculture industry but that a number of them have tarnished the reputation of the industry? It is for those people in particular that we need tougher regulations and enforcement.

Chairman

I will take questions from Deputy O'Donovan and then call on Dr. Beamish to reply. Will you be able to cope with a number of questions, Dr. Beamish?

Dr. Beamish

I do not know. I will try.

Chairman

I am sure my colleagues will refresh your memory.

Deputy O’Donovan

Like Deputy Coveney, I support, by and large, the aquaculture and mariculture industries. In my area, particularly south west Cork, many positive aspects of the industry can be seen in terms of mussel farming, salmon farming, etc., which are operated reasonably well.

I would like Dr. Beamish to comment on sanctions, which Deputy Coveney mentioned. On the revocation of licences, I am not clear whether there is a provision under the Act for a licence to be revoked, particularly in the case of illegal dumping. The Department and the other institutions of the State must come down heavily on the cowboys operating in finfish farming because the damage that a programme like "Prime Time" could cause to the finfish and aquaculture industries is tremendous. While I support Deputy Coveney's comment that, by and large, we have a vibrant industry which has great potential, one or two cowboys can do immense damage as evidenced by the negative publicity generated by the "Prime Time" programme.

On the question of coastal zone management, are adequate controls in place and is there sufficient support from the local authorities, be it Cork, Mayo or Donegal County Councils?

On the issue of dumping, when an emergency arises in terms of a disease ridden sea farm, be it trout, salmon or mussels, can the local authority come in and, with the other agencies, identify the problem and an area where the fish can be dumped? I doubt that is the case but perhaps Dr. Beamish can answer that question.

Prior to the 1997 Act - I am open to correction on this - the monitoring in particular and the licensing of fish farms was a fairly vague process. In 1981 and 1982, fish farming was virtually unknown. In that regard, how many of the existing fish farms are supported by an environmental impact study?

We know from the "Prime Time" programme that the political situation in Norway and the views of the marine experts and those involved in finfish farming are clear. They said recently that there is a linkage between lice infestation of the farmed trout and the wild salmon. That is a concern because the trout return in a shorter period but if the wild salmon are infested by lice and they go back out to sea, by the time they return the lice will have done irreparable damage. Will the industry here not accept now that there is a problem with lice infestation and that there is a connection between both these areas?

The other question that arises from the programme is the area of regulation and monitoring. I put it to the officials that adequate sanctions are not imposed on the cowboys who could destroy the whole industry. There are no monetary sanctions in place. Can somebody be brought to the local District Court or Circuit Court for this irresponsible approach to diseased fish? If sanctions are not in place, is it appropriate that new legislation to build on existing legislation be brought in for the sake of the future of the whole industry? The industry has a future but we would not want to see too many of the outbursts that occurred following the "Prime Time" programme again because that could do irreparable damage to the entire fish farming industry.

Dr. Beamish

I thank the Deputies for their questions. I will deal with the lice issue first. The lice issue was first examined in the early 1990s and the levels of lice found at that time on the developing fish farms were, by current standards, very high. The whole debate on the link between lice and sea trout and the impact of lice on salmon in fish farms emerged during the 1989-90 period when we saw the sea trout stocks collapse. The levels then were very high. In the period from 1993 onwards and as a result of work done and recommendations made in respect of sea trout, various initiatives were taken to begin a programme for the control of sea lice in salmon farms. That developed from 1998 with the putting in place of the new licensing system to the detailed protocol on sea lice monitoring and control, which is attached as a condition to any salmon farm licence. It is a requirement on the salmon farmer to abide by the conditions of the protocol. That is a State run monitoring system which puts obligations on the salmon farmer. It is carried out primarily by the Marine Institute which makes 14 visits a year to each finfish farm to monitor the levels of lice and, in the event that they go above trigger levels, requires a notice to treat and follow through action. That is an obligation on the licence holder and it is a condition of the licence to take that action. That is a State run system.

The levels of lice one is aiming at were progressively reduced. Initially the target was two lice per fish and if the level went above that at any time of the year one had to treat. The aim was to have the lowest possible level in the spring. When the protocol was introduced in 2000, the target was set at a lower level for the critical period of March, April and May - 0.3 for vigorous lice and 0.5 for mobile lice. This is a much lower level to be achieved by the salmon farmers.

That is a State run system and when it was adopted and put in place, Norway developed its system to a large extent out of that. The Norwegian system is not state run; it is a voluntary system in the sense that the monitoring is done by the salmon farmers themselves. They report to the state authorities who then carry out an audit function in that regard. The trigger levels are not as low. While I admit that the TV programme presented its system very well, if the committee members were to examine the level of reporting from different regions in Norway, and perhaps some of the agencies' representatives may talk more on that, they might get a different view on the Norwegian system.

Our system is a State system. The Marine Institute visits all the farms 14 times a year and those results are widely circulated to everybody. It is a highly transparent system. The results are posted on the website of the Marine Institute. They are available to everybody and the follow through actions are also clear.

If we look at 2002, which is the last full year for which we have lice information, in 87% of the inspections of salmon farms the farms were below the trigger levels. The trigger level does not mean that anybody has done anything wrong. It just means that the background density of lice has increased above the trigger level and the treatment must be carried out. Also in 2001 we had very low lice levels. It is true that in 2003 we have seen an increase in the lice levels which is in part being attributed to the few warmer winters we have experienced. Examining the effectiveness of the follow through actions by the licence holders once the notice of treatment is given had not been an issue for us in 2001-02. It is much more of an issue this year. We are willing to continue to build on that system if it is shown not to be working in certain instances. The industry is a young one and the regulatory framework is also relatively dynamic in developing but lice are a natural phenomenon. They have been around for millions of years. They are parasites on wild fish in the natural state, on many different species and on the farmed fish. There is always a background level of lice.

Deputy O'Donovan raised the question of the effect of lice on the wild stocks. There has been a strong debate on this issue over the years among the different scientific experts. There is always a lice reservoir in the background and some of the work done would suggest that returning wild salmon carry a certain background level of lice, which may be higher than the normal background level on farms.

At the outset the Chairman mentioned the debate on the science aspect and working at cross-purposes. The Department's view is that irrespective of the outcome of the debate on the link or non-link between the incidence of sea lice and sea trout decline and salmon farming a precautionary approach must be followed. The precautionary approach is that the sea lice levels in salmon farms must be kept at very low levels to ensure that a reservoir of lice does not build up, which would be detrimental to farm salmon and potentially detrimental to sea trout. Irrespective of the debate on the science - the protagonists in the debate all have strong views and that is fine, that is the nature of scientific debate - the outcome and the action required are largely the same, sea lice levels need to be kept low. The trigger level we seek under the lice monitoring system in the case of farmed salmon is, by historical standards, very low. If that level is achieved across the board, that would mean sea lice would not have a strong detrimental impact on wild resources.

In terms of public image, it is important for everybody that we do not send out the wrong messages about a food production industry. Sea lice is a natural background organism in the wild and its presence is not a public health issue. Its presence is not an issue about the quality of food or about its impact on the food produced; it is an animal health issue and one related to its impact on other wild resources in the marine environment.

Deputy Broughan

Dr. Beamish mentioned the "Blue Revolution", the subject of an interesting cover story in The Economist. It was an interesting overview of world acquaculture and the possibilities for our country to develop a sustainable industry. The sustainability of the industry is the key point on which the committee wants to focus as well as its development.

Dr. Beamish seems to be critical of industry in Norway. We noticed from a "Prime Time" programme that the Norwegians seem to have strict regulations on the siting of acquaculture - acquaculture was banned in some fjords because of inland fisheries and so on. Will Dr. Beamish comment on the position in Norway? The Norwegian industry is incredibly successful and far bigger than our industry.

Having regard to that "Prime Time" programme, can Dr. Beamish indicate the number of licences that have been revoked in the past five to ten years? Two Ministers, who were present in the Dáil the day following the broadcast of that "Prime Time" programme, could not tell us if there had ever been a prosecution in this area. As Deputy O'Donovan inquired, has there been a single prosecution in court of a grower or manager who damaged our coastal zone?

Serious allegations were made in that "Prime Time" programme against two fish growers, in particular, both of whom seem to be members of State boards. Has the Department asked either grower to step down from those boards for the duration of the investigation given that serious nature of the allegations?

Does Dr. Beamish believe we should opt for an independent licensing system outside the remit of the Department and under the remit of an independent regime and perhaps covered by new legislation? Dr. Beamish mentioned a trigger level for monitoring sea lice. Some of the literature available to the committee seems to indicate that the trigger level is too high and that it should be even lower in terms of inspections.

According to the aquaculture website magazine, there are more than 400 growers. We will hear from representatives of the industry shortly. Does the Department make certain requests or require certain insurance regulations to be in place to ensure that if people damage our environment they have pay back in terms of such damage?

Deputy Kelly

I welcome the officials from the Department. Is it correct that licences issued prior to the 1997 Act are not subject to the stringent conditions of the 1997 Act, such as the requirement to carry out an environmental impact study? Can the public appeal the granting of licences issued since 1997 and the renewal of licences granted prior to the 1997 Act?

Given that the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources promotes and regulates this industry, do the officials consider there is a conflict of interest in terms of those functions? All groups involved in an area will have different agendas, ideas, aims and objectives but they should try to work together and reach a compromise for the common good of the country. If Mr. Ryan was due to meet, say, representatives of fish farming groups and environmental groups and he then received a request for a meeting from, say, the Friends of Clew Bay, would he accede to that request?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I thank the officials from the Department for their contribution. I thought it had been said at an earlier meeting - I do not know if these officials were present - that, if papers were to be delivered, rather than officials reading them they should be delivered in advance and that would enable us to move directly to questions, which would result in a much tighter use of time. I hope the Department officials will note that for future presentations. The officials could send a presentation to the committee a day in advance of the meeting and when we meet we could then move directly to questions

Dr. Beamish mentioned a debate among scientists whether sea lice affect the wild salmon and wild sea trout. The scientists advising the Norwegian government believe that sea lice affect the sea trout and the wild salmon population. When Dr. Paddy Gargan was working for the Central Fisheries Board he indicated that he firmly believed that science showed that sea lice were a serious problem for sea trout and also possibly for salmon. What is the Department's view? Does it believe that sea lice have an adverse effect on sea trout in particular? Does it plan to carry out research, similar to that being undertaken by the Norwegian government, to ascertain if sea lice have an effect on the wild salmon?

Dr. Beamish said there is a follow through on monitoring sea lice. I opened a recent interim report from the Marine Institute data on a topical area, the Inver Bay area, which received a good deal of attention this summer. We expect sea lice levels to be below half of sea lice per fish, but last December the level recorded was six per fish on occasion. I am not pinpointing any one farm, but I note that in April a level of ten sea lice per fish was recorded, a level of 20 was recorded on 4 March and a level of 33 was recorded on 17 June. The incidence of higher levels of sea lice being found in fish may be due to climate change and warmer waters. We recommend a sea lice level of less than half a sea lice and egg per fish, but we have seen recorded repeated incidents of up to 20 or 40 sea lice per fish. What fines and sanctions does the Department impose in such cases? What follow through procedure has the Department put in place? Deputy Broughan asked what fines have been imposed? If fines are not imposed in such cases, what action does the Department take when it notes such a level of activity other than telling the operator that such an incidence of sea lice is a trigger for the operator to start using chemical treatment. What action is taken when there is a long-term pattern of a high incidence of sea lice found?

If the Department received reports from the public that a farm had dumped 50,000 fish under its nets and on contacting the operator concerned was told that all was well and there was no problem, and if there were repeated reports from the public that some 50,000 fish were dumped on the seabed in breach of all European and United Nations regulations and the Department found several months later that underneath that cage some tens of thousands of fish were dumped, what sanctions would it apply? What procedures would it follow to further that matter? Would it ask the Marine Institute to investigate the matter or would it act on its own behalf?

Chairman

I remind members that we are running late and I ask them to be brief. The Department officials will answer questions after presentations have been made. I ask members to desist from asking questions and we will be able to move on to the next presentation.

Deputy McEllistrim

I will be brief. Most of the points I wished to raise have been made and most of the questions I had have been answered and I will not reiterate them. I welcome the Department officials and thank them for their presentation. If the Norwegians and the Scots accept that lice on fish farms have devastated their sea trout and salmon stocks, why are we reluctant to accept that development? Why does there seem to be a problem in the Connemara region and not in my area of Kerry around Cromane or the River Feale? Why is there a problem in the Connemara region?

Senator Finucane

There are standards on ethics in politics. I asked the Minister in the Dáil what ethics apply to directors of companies such as the Marine Institute and Bord Iascaigh Mhara and why the Department has not taken action at this stage to suspend Mr. Carroll and Mr.Gallagher on the basis of the doubt that was cast in a programme. We are talking about the food industry.

I will rephrase my question. What Minister was responsible for appointing the people in question?

Chairman

The Deputy cannot ask that question because I will not allow an official who has no political mandate to answer such a question. Deputy Ferris or Deputy Morgan can put a proposal to the committee that the Minister should be invited to come before the committee to answer any of those political questions and the committee will consider such a proposal in the fullness of time.

Senator O’Meara

Surely the Minister who was in office is a matter of public record.

Chairman

I am trying to be fair. I will not allow any member to ask a political question of an official who cannot answer such a question. Such political questions will have to be reserved for the Minister. If the committee decides today to invite the Minister to appear before it to discuss fishing in the Irish Sea and so on, it can do so. I understand the Minister will appear before the committee shortly. We can make provision for that. I ask members to bear with me on this and not to pursue this line of questioning when what we are really concerned about is fish farming and its effects. This is matter on which many groups are making presentations.

I call Dr. Beamish to answer the questions which he considers are relevant to his Department and if he considers some of questions raised are not relevant to it, I ask him to state why. Following his reply I will ask him to withdraw and I will then invite the representatives of fisheries boards to come before the committee.

Dr. Beamish

In responding to Deputies, I am conscious that I have not responded to all questions raised by Deputies Coveney andO'Donovan. I will see what I can cover.

Will Dr. Beamish be able to respond to those questions at the end of this session? This session has taken more time than we expected as there were important questions to be answered?

With the permission of members, I will invite representatives of the Central Fisheries Board, the Northern Fisheries Board and the Western Fisheries Board to appear before the committee. I will also invite representatives of the Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers and the Irish salmon growers representative from the IFA to appear before the committee. We will hear those presentations and then allow members to put their questions. I ask the representatives of BIM and the Marine Institute to be patient.

I ask the representatives from the Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers to take their place next to us. The representatives from the Irish salmon growers' section of the IFA are also with us. I do not want to give the impression that we are rushing the presentations. I would like to hear everyone's presentation but we may not conclude today. We are constrained by the fact that members must attend the business in the Dáil. It is not a reflection on any presentations.

I ask each delegation to be brief. Five minutes will be allocated to the Central Fisheries Board on behalf of the three fisheries boards. We will take a five minute presentation from the Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers and also from the Irish salmon growers section of the IFA. I will then ask members to ask individual questions. Contrary to what Mr. Duffy said on RTE in recent days, the members have been working extremely hard to prepare for this meeting today. I ask Mr. O'Connor to make his presentation.

Mr. John O’Connor

We have divided the presentation between the four of us who represent different aspects of the industry.

Chairman

I ask members to be extremely brief because we may have to come back to this issue. I draw the attention of the three groups from the Central Fisheries Board, the Western Regional Fisheries Board and the Northern Regional Fisheries Board, the representatives from the Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers and the representatives from the Irish salmon growers' section of the IFA to the fact that members have absolute privilege, but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. It is generally accepted that witnesses have qualified privilege, but the committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask Mr. O'Connor to make his presentation.

Mr. J. O’Connor

I thank you, Chairman, for giving us the opportunity to make a presentation to this important committee. I am accompanied by Dr. Paddy Gargan, a senior research officer in the Central Fisheries Board, Mr. Michael Kennedy, chief executive of the Western Regional Fisheries Board, and Dr. Greg Forde, assistant chief executive of the Western Regional Fisheries Board but who is representing the Northern Regional Fisheries Board today because its representatives are unavailable. In light of time constraints, we have reduced our presentation by half. Dr. Gargan and I will make the presentation.

Chairman

I thank the delegation.

Dr. Paddy Gargan

Our main role is our statutory responsibility. The country is divided into seven regional fisheries boards and a Central Fisheries Board, which is the co-ordinating body. Under our statutory responsibility, we have responsibility for the management, protection, development, conservation and promotion of all inland fisheries, including salmon and sea trout. We had a role in aquaculture regulation prior to the 1997 Act.

Our main concern revolved around the increase in aquaculture in the mid to late 1980s and the collapse in sea trout fisheries. The map shows the approximate location of the tonnage of farm salmon being produced. There is a concentration of sea trout fisheries in the Connemara region. We were concerned in the late 1980s when our sea trout stocks collapsed, which appeared to be closely associated with the development of salmon aquaculture. We had long-term records from 1974 in Connemara and they showed that the sea trout catches collapsed. The average catch in those angling fisheries was approximately 10,000 fish. They completely collapsed in the late 1980s and they have not recovered since. There were a number of small cases where certain places recovered in certain years, but not in others. We have a well documented collapse in our stocks, which is our main concern.

This collapse was associated with sea trout coming back prematurely with lice. The sea trout normally go out in spring and come back in July or August. However, they were coming back within days or even a week covered in lice. We had stock collapses which only occurred in salmon farming areas. Some of the lice infestations were up to 200 or 300 in each fish. We believe the lice emanated from marine salmon farms. It was stated that lice are a background parasite and that is true. However, there are only 100 or 200 wild fish in some of the bays in Connemara while there are one million or two million farm fish in some bays. They are being produced in the farms and they are getting into the estuaries where they are intercepted by the wild sea trout. They are either dying at sea or coming back heavily liced.

We have looked at 56 rivers around the country over ten years, but we have only recorded high lice levels close to the salmon farming areas, mostly within 30 kilometres. We have monitored traps on fisheries in the west and we have looked at marine survival. It has been extremely poor in almost all years. Marine survival approached normality in one year when the salmon farms were fallow in those bays. We have also shown in certain fisheries that it is possible to have recovery and we associated that with improved lice control in Killary Harbour. We also looked at a range of issues which might have caused problems for sea trout, such as commercial exploitation, predation, food chain problems, forestry, overgrazing, disease, stress and fresh water, but they were all eliminated. Lice was still the issue to be resolved.

The sea trout review group met last year and it concluded that sea trout rod catches had collapsed. It stated that urgent remedial action was required if these sea trout were not to be lost. We have been proactive in this area. We have stocked more than five million sea trout in a tourism angling programme and we have carried out habitat rehabilitation. Capture and release have been compulsory since 1990 and there has not been any commercial fishing for sea trout. Sanctuary areas have been established and we have installed traps and counters, but we have not seen a recovery in sea trout stocks.

The same problem has occurred in Scotland and Norway. I spoke to the Scottish authorities in recent days and they are now satisfied with the link between sea lice from salmon farms and wild fisheries and sea trout. They are now currently discussing the relocation of farms in Scotland. The scientific evidence from Ireland, Scotland and Norway indicates that sea lice emanating from marine salmon farms are causing lice infestation and death of sea trout in bays with salmon aquaculture.

Mr. J. O’Connor

I will complete the presentation. We have set out our concerns. However, we are paid not only to set out our concerns but to provide solutions. My board, with our colleagues in the regional fisheries boards, have developed an action plan not just for the future of sea trout but also to deal with the interaction between sea trout and salmon farms. It is an action plan for the sustainable management and development of salmon aquaculture and sea trout fisheries. What do we propose to do in that plan? As regards wild fisheries, we are prepared to invest our money in ensuring that we have better data collection and better information on the catches and escapement. We are also prepared to invest money in instream rehabilitation in the important fisheries in the west where the catch has gone from approximately 12,000 fish per year to a few hundred per year. Where there are a few wild sea trout left, we are prepared to work on the streams to ensure they are given every opportunity to develop. Where stocks are at a critically low level, we are prepared to invest in stock enhancement. That is where we are prepared to give our commitment.

As regards the salmon farms, there is no point investing money in stocking juvenile sea trout which will go down to the estuaries where they will be devoured by sea lice. That would not represent best use of taxpayers money. It has happened already and we do not want it repeated. We want close to zero ovigerous lice levels on salmon farms over the February to May period. The biggest issue for us is to manage the lice levels on the farms and to keep them as close as possible to zero between February and May. That is the period when sea trout move from fresh water to salt water and when they are most vulnerable. There are other actions in our plan, such as single bay management and fallowing. I have already circulated the plan to members of the committee.

If the issue is that simple to resolve, why has it not already happened? It is a developing industry, although it has been here for more than 25 years. That industry will be here in the future. We are not trying to get rid of fish farming. As Dr. Beamish said, there is a shortage of fish worldwide for the consumer, which means fish farming will develop but we want it to develop in a harmonious and sustainable way in the long-term. Why have we not managed to do that up to now? There is inconsistent compliance with the levels of lice. People may ask why the fish are not treated in the critical period to get rid of the lice. I have heard people say that perhaps it is expensive to do that. If that is the case, my board and the regional fisheries boards would support the industry in its efforts to get additional resources and support from the State or the EU to ensure they are treated. It is one thing to determine the level of lice one can accept in terms of salmon production on farms, but it is another thing to determine the level of lice that can be tolerated in terms of managing the wild fisheries. There might be a lack of commitment in that area.

I have heard rumours - I am not an expert in this area because aquaculture is not my field - that market forces may be a factor. Perhaps the difficulties in the marketplace are placing some fish farmers under pressure. If that is a short-term issue, we can look at it. However, we cannot work in the long-term on the basis that the industry is under pressure, therefore, it cannot address the environmental issues. A number of members have expressed our concerns in that regard.

As regards sanctions, there is no doubt that the Marine Institute is doing a good job in terms of monitoring and it must be applauded for that. However, the issue of sanctions must be considered. That point was well made by members.

Another issue is the relocation of farms. Technology has moved on since the early years of the industry. Perhaps we should look at moving farms further away from estuaries. It is one thing to try to justify our position before this committee but if we waste money on investment in sea trout when the lice levels on farms are not properly managed, I could find myself before another Dáil committee justifying the value provided for taxpayers money.

No. I was concerned about the danger of overstating the position, which I do not want to do. We did not think this up last night. We have discussed this issue at board meetings of the Central Fisheries Board and we have discussed it at chief executive level within the eight fisheries boards. We are concerned that we are reaching the stage where sea trout are coming close to being an endangered species, which is frightening. We want a new vision. We do not want to fight or argue with anyone and we do not want to waste energy. Dr. Beamish mentioned that. We need a new model. We have a new model which we would like to debate. The issue requires leadership.

You, Chairman, mentioned different agencies within the same ministry, which are paid from the same purse, expressing different views. State boards must work together. I would not confine it to the two boards mentioned, namely, my own and the Marine Institute. We have a great personal relationship. However, BIM and the other fisheries boards must also work closely together to deliver this plan. We have the statistics. There were approximately 12,000 sea trout in Connemara each year between 1974 and 1989. However, that has collapsed. We must address that issue.

Chairman

We will take questions later. I assure you that once the committee has digested the transcripts of today's proceedings, we will come back to this issue in the new year. We are tied up until the end of the year. I welcome Mr. Carr and his colleagues from the Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers and I ask him to make a presentation.

Mr. Noel Carr

I am accompanied by Mr. John Mulcahy from Save the Swilly, Mr. PaddyHopkins from Friends of Clew Bay and Mr. Tony Morrison from FISSTA and the Buncrana Anglers Association. The federation represents 91 clubs throughout the country. We have continuously campaigned to try to make progress on this issue. We thank the committee for the invitation to address it.

Chairman

You have five minutes. Did you circulate a copy of your presentation?

Mr. Carr

We did.

Ireland has experienced the equivalent of ethnic cleansing of our wild fish stocks over the past 20 years. There are many reasons for that. The federation or FISSTA, together with like minded organisations around the country, has expressed opinions on all these factors at various times. This committee will hear a variety of views on the disturbing matters highlighted in the recent "Prime Time" programme. We commend "Prime Time" on its excellent programme. We do not believe the programme found unique situations, namely, one or two bad apples. Specific issues are endemic throughout the industry and they pose a real and increasing environmental threat. If lessons are learned from these revelations, goodwill will follow. We hope and trust that the wake-up call is heard and understood. It is not an exaggeration to state that the survival of Ireland's wild sea trout and salmon will depend on the actions taken by our legislators.

Although FISSTA has several concerns about the salmon farming industry, two of which were highlighted by "Prime Time", along with the legal disposal of mortalities, were the sea lice emanating from the salmon farms and the lack of regulatory enforcement within the industry. I will deal briefly with the sea lice. Commercial fishing, angling, sailing and other uses of our coastal waters are not intruders into the delicate balance of this public resource. We and other traditional users have seen a dramatic decline in populations of sea trout and salmon in Irish waters since the arrival of salmon farming. This connection is not a coincidence. Sea lice affect salmonid species, which include both sea trout and salmon. As regards sea trout, Dr. Paddy Gargan, whom the committee has already heard, said on "Prime Time" that there is not any doubt that salmon farms producing sea lice are major contributing factors to the sea trout collapse. Mr. Michael Kennedy from the Western Regional Fisheries Board testified to that cause of sea trout decline. He said they had considered everything, such as forestry, overgrazing and angling, but it all came down to sea lice emanating from salmon farms. These are people who have had experience throughout the industry for many years. It is important to repeat it, although I am sure members saw the programme.

Ireland has not published similar studies so the industry and the State agencies fall back on the notion that there is not enough evidence to link declines in salmon stocks as well as sea trout with sea lice infestation from salmon farms. Attempts to undermine the scientific evidence linking the proximity of marine salmon farms to declines in sea trout stocks have been a preoccupation of the aquaculture industry and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. However, despite independent reports which discredit the sea lice monitoring and sea trout and sea lice databases, a review of the databases by the Marine Institute, the Central Fisheries Board and the Salmon Research Agency published in 2001 reaffirmed that while it was possible to show high and low mean lice levels on sea trout at sites close to fish farms, high lice levels were not recorded distant from fish farms. Until research on migratory salmon is available, surely the experience elsewhere should be our guide.

Norway could hardly be described as anti-fish farming, yet the Government and the industry there have moved on from the debate about linkage. They have accepted it and have made judgments about the solutions to the problem. Even Norwegian scientists make the point that there will probably be continuing impacts on wild fish from the development of the salmon farming industry. The question of how much of the wild fish sector the country is willing to sacrifice in favour of aquaculture is a political one. Is Ireland willing to stand over the annihilation of salmon and sea trout populations? This is a political question for us, just as it is a political question for Norway. The difference here is that the debate cannot take place unless and until it is accepted, as Dr. Gargan said, that salmon farms producing sea lice are the major contributory factor to sea trout collapse.

During the "Prime Time" programme a representative from BIM referred to the precautionary principle. It is worth being clear about the precautionary principle. The 1982 United Nations resolution is unequivocal. It states that activities which are likely to pose a significant risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination and that their proponents shall demonstrate that any expected benefits outweigh potential damage to nature. Where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed. Our experience over the past decade in trying to combat the sea lice problem in Irish waters suggests that at best the adverse effects on wild fish from sea lice emanating from salmon farms are not fully understood. We cannot move our wild fish rivers. However, we can and should move the salmon cages far enough from these rivers so that they do not cause any more harm.

As regards sustainability, Dr. Ken Whelan of the Marine Institute stated on the "Prime Time" documentary that the salmon farming industry must be based on sustainability. Sustainable development was defined by the EU Brundtland Commission in 1987 as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs. It is time to stop deluding ourselves that the way in which the aquaculture industry is being licensed, practised and regulated in Ireland meets any reasonable definition of sustainability. Sustainability must be reflected as being not only economically sustainable but also environmentally sustainable. That will happen only when the industry and its regulators accept that salmon farming, as it is currently being practised in many areas, is causing serious damage to its surrounding environment and to the survival of wild salmon and sea trout stocks.

Ireland likes to present its farm salmon industry as a cut above the competitors in terms of quality. That image is supposedly based on the industry's strict regulatory environment, but that emperor does not have any clothes. In Norway it has been accepted that there is a direct link between marine salmon farms and increases in sea lice which, in turn, have caused dramatic declines in sea trout and salmon stocks. In Ireland fisheries and scientists have also recognised the link between the decline in wild fish stocks and the infestation of sea lice from salmon farms.

In Norway fish farmers accept their obligations to control sea lice. Many bays and fjords formally designated for salmon farming have been closed to aquaculture to allow the revival of the wild species. That included relocating several farms. In addition, there are strict regulations and heavy fines for failure to comply with the strict sea lice controls. One Norwegian fish farmer told the RTE interviewer he would be bankrupt before many days passed if he had to pay the fines imposed for failure to comply with the country's regulations.

Chairman

Perhaps Mr. Carr you could summarise the points. Has your organisation any views rather than giving us the views expressed by Dr. Whelan or the Norwegian person?

Mr. Carr

It is now time for a review. While we do not want to put the development of salmon farming on hold while we conduct our own research, why are we prepared to continue to risk the existence of Irish wild salmon when we have already brought our sea trout to the point of extinction? What is the justification for the political cover being given to this gaping hole in the preservation of our heritage? The Irish salmon farming industry is aiming to double production over the next five years. At a time when the farm salmon industry is under huge pressure from oversupply and depressed prices, surely we are reassessing our blinkered commitment to the expansion of this industry. If the research shows there are not any problems, what has been lost? However, if, like Norway discovered when it conducted its research, the existence of the wild salmonid species is in jeopardy from the existing structure of salmon farming, do we not have a responsibility to introduce radical measures to prevent that happening?

I am accompanied by Mr. Damien Ó Ceallacháin, a fish farmer from Connemara, Dr. Brendan O'Connor from Aqua-Fact, an environmental consultancy, Dr. Neil Bass, an environmental expert from Watermark, and Mr. Richie Flynn, executive secretary of the Irish Salmon Growers Association. I thank the Deputies and Senators for inviting us here today.

The central issue today is the regulation of our industry. We want to ensure that aquaculture is sustainable and that there is conservation. We would like to spend a day with the committee as there is a lot of information and the committee needs to understand the industry's promise and how important it is to the coastal communities in which we operate. The committee and all our adversaries have an open invitation to visit our farms.

Ireland's salmon industry is small relative to those in other countries. Hence our future as a business lies in competing on the basis of premium products in niche markets. We cannot compete with Norway and Scotland on the basis of cost. Therefore, quality, food safety, hygiene standards, traceability and transparency are critical to our mode of operation. This is where a good regulatory framework strengthens our business strategy. However, this is not just about policing - it is about understanding and managing the resource. Such regulation, which we would welcome and on which we work with the Department, needs to be firm, consistent, fair, responsive and, above all, based on knowledge.

I refer to lice levels on which we seem to be over-concentrating. Getting lice levels down does not necessarily mean more treatments or more chemicals. It may mean more sites for salmon farms to operate and it may mean greater flexibility in terms of how such sites are operated. That is what I mean when I emphasise the issue of understanding.

Regulation must enable us to compete on an international basis. If I have one message as chairman of the Irish Salmon Growers Association, it is that we strive for excellence in regulation but by a Department which understands us a little better than it does at the moment in order to strike a better balance between regulation and development and thereby promote a healthy industry.

Mr. Richie Flynn

It is difficult to describe an industry in five minutes but, as Mr. Feenstra said, I hope the committee will take the opportunity to see our operations because then it will really understand them. Other speakers have said - it is worth noting - that Irish production is low compared to other countries. We had the same production as Chile in 1984 but it is now producing close to 400,000 tonnes. Areas such as the Faroe Islands and the Shetland Islands, places that have populations smaller than most Irish counties, are producing 45,000 tonnes and 50,000 tonnes, respectively. That is what we are up against in terms of our production of 20,000 tonnes.

I refer to what we have achieved. It is important to understand that without the aquaculture industry's existence in the west for the last 20 years, it would have meant a €1 billion loss in revenue to coastal areas. That is the amount of money we generated up to the end of 2002. We have successfully reared from egg to table over 100 million fish. The fish processing sector, which is a highly labour intensive industry, now relies on our fish for its supply. One in every three fish produced in Ireland comes from a farm. The Fanad Peninsula, south Connemara, Clare Island and west Cork are places with few other industrial prospects. We are using the natural resources available to us, the land, the sea, the fish and the fishmeal which comes through Killybegs, and putting them together to create jobs along with the skills of people in those areas which are primarily concerned with farming and fishing. We have succeeded in protecting not only the Irish language in places like south Connemara, but a certain way of life. I believe Mr. Damien Ó Ceallacháin will go into that in a little more detail later.

We have a marketing challenge. We rely on a premium quality brand for Irish salmon and on traceability and transparency being at the core of that. Compliance with regulations is one of our main selling points. I believe that was raised by a number of Senators in a recent debate on aquaculture in the Seanad. We have a scarce and unique product in what has turned into a commodity market. The way we differentiate our product is through achieving high standards. Ours was the first food product in the country to achieve the environmental management award, ISO 14001, and the quality award, EN 45011, and the first Irish fish product in the world to achieve organic certification. Organic fish farming now accounts for 20% of Irish production and it is growing.

There has been much talk about the industry and the environment. However, the environment is our business. The water and the environment in which we farm are our most precious natural resources. If anything goes wrong, we are like the canary in the mine shaft - we are the first to notice. That is why we put so much investment into being part of international networks on oil pollution and so on. The aquaculture industry has had to take the Government to the European Court of Justice over the protection of shellfish waters and it won. When our fish are put to sea as young smolts from fresh water, they are certified as free of sea lice and disease. That is important. We are not putting diseased fish to sea, but disease and sea lice are there and that is the challenge those small fish meet when they go to sea. Our philosophy has always been that prevention is better than cure. That is what we have been teaching the rest of the salmon farming world. We invented the concept of fallowing sites - of giving sites a break, so that one breaks the sea lice and the disease life cycle without using chemicals, treatments or medicines. That is important to us and it is now standard practice in Ireland and has become standard practice elsewhere after people came to Ireland to see how we did it.

Vaccination and low stocking density are other areas. There has been much talk about Norway. The population of Norway is the same as Ireland's but in Norway, the salmon farming industry is worth the same as the beef industry is to Ireland. The Norwegian Government has a proactive policy towards coastal areas. The population of Oslo has not increased in 20 years because it has kept people working along the coast using aquaculture as one of the main ways to do that. When we go to Brussels to fight on market issues, we do not meet Norwegian officials - we meet the Prime Minister of Norway fighting on behalf of the industry.

The Norwegian sea lice control programme is a watered down version of the Irish programme, and the Marine Institute can explain that in more detail later. Unlike in Ireland where there is mandatory reporting, it is voluntary in Norway where farmers count their own lice. In Ireland, State officials count lice at random on farms 14 times a year. In some areas in Norway, compliance among farmers is as low as 25%. Higher levels of sea lice are found in Norway than in Ireland. I believe Deputy Ryan was reading from the wrong column when he pointed to levels of 20 and 40. They are mobile lice. The lice which are regulated are the female ovigerous lice. In Norway, seven to 12 ovigerous lice have been reported. That is extremely high. Contrary to recent statements made on "Prime Time", the Norwegian industry did a great public relations job for itself when it stated that there were fines and prosecutions. There has not been a single fine or prosecution in Norway for breaches of sea lice.

Chairman

I thank you for your presentation. The three groups will not be able to interact with each other and will answer questions put through the Chair by members. We will take the two fishing groups first and will take the Irish Salmon Growers Association separately.

Deputy Coveney

On behalf of the committee, I wish to establish something for practical reasons. There has been much talk about lice numbers and mean or average figures per fish. Dr. Gargan has put much work into this area. Is the problem the number or the average number of lice per fish in a fish farm or is it the number of lice in a bay or an inlet? We have seen massive growth in the Irish industry, although, as has been pointed out by the industry, it is nothing like the type of growth in other countries. However, the growth rate between 1979 and today has been dramatic. Is the issue the number or the average or mean number of lice per fish or is it the number of lice in a bay or harbour? Although one may reduce the mean, or even halve it, if one increases the number of fish in a bay by 4,000% or 5,000%, lice activity in that bay will increase dramatically despite the fact the mean, or the average, per fish examined has come down. I would like that question answered because it is an important one.

My other question seeks to establish the facts on Norway. A number of people seem to think Norway has the new vision or the solution while others do not. Will Dr. Gargan give us the facts? Is there a fines system in Norway? Is it being used? Is there a voluntary system of reporting? That would seem farcical. If one is being asked to report the number of lice per fish voluntarily, obviously one will not do so if one is subject to a fine. I would like the factual position on the system in Norway.

Chairman

I ask Dr. Gargan to bank those questions. I am conscious that other members have offered. I will call Deputy McEllistrim and then Dr. Gargan can deal with the questions.

Deputy McEllistrim

I welcome the delegations and thank them for their presentations. Mr. O'Connor of the Central Fisheries Board referred to its action plan. What does the board need to ensure its action plan is implemented? I take the opportunity to thank him for the Indecon report which he sent us during the summer because it has implications for sea trout as well as salmon. What is happening with this report? It would be good if Mr. O'Connor could speak to the committee on that report in more detail on another occasion.

Dr. Gargan

One of the issues we have raised over many years was that raised by Deputy Coveney on a total bay cap. For instance, if there is a farm in one bay with 100,000 fish, its obligation is to keep its lice level below that 0.5 female lice per fish. If the next bay has two million fish, it is required to only keep the lice level below 0.5. Obviously, the potential for lice getting on to wild fish is much greater where farmed fish are ten or 20 times more prevalent. We have been calling for a total bay cap for over ten years - not simply a level on fish. If one is farming in a bay, there should be a total bay cap on the lice production allowed in that bay.

The second question related to Norway. I am not fully au fait in that regard. I am more in contact with the wild fishery scientists in Norway. I believe the system is voluntary and I am not fully aware of the sanctions. The one issue I have discussed recently with Norwegian scientists is relocation. They have started to relocate farms away from wild rivers. They are taking it seriously and are moving farms because of their experiences. As I mentioned, that is starting to happen in Scotland.

Mr. J. O’Connor

We put the plan together with our colleagues in the regional boards. As I said earlier - I think the Deputy touched on this - there is no point in different State agencies going off in different directions. We should all work together. We are all paid from the same purse. I would like to sit down with the other agencies under the auspices of my colleagues in the Department to work on this plan. There is no point having a plan which is just my one. The plan must be realisable and realistic. With the greatest respect, Chairman, I would like the committee to take an interest in the implementation of the plan - in other words, there should be regular reporting on the implementation of an agreed plan. There are many issues and difficulties between agencies should not be one. That should be addressed initially.

The Indecon report was an independent report commissioned by the Central Fisheries Board. It is a significant report. At the request of the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, who has responsibility for inland fisheries, I took that report to all the regions and have met all the regional fisheries boards. I have discussed it with local groups, including local fishermen and anglers, and I have taken a bit of stick here and there. There is much support for the document. We are doing an analysis of the responses we got back and I will present them to the Minister of State. I believe we received approximately 350 responses, copies of which I have forwarded to the Minister of State. The Indecon report is important for sea trout and I would be delighted to appear before the committee again to talk about that report in greater detail.

Chairman

Thank you, Mr. O'Connor. I hope the Marine Institute will take up his invitation and that we will find common ground and have a common policy on scientific matters. I, and the committee, will be interested to hear what it has to say in the next session.

Senator Finucane

Mr. Carr's presentation states "Dr. Paddy Gargan then of the Central Fisheries Board". Can I assume Dr. Gargan has formally transferred to the Marine Institute?

Dr. Gargan

Not yet.

Senator Finucane

Okay. I hope Dr. Gargan has the same independence of thought when he goes to the Marine Institute as he had at the Central Fisheries Board in respect of that programme. Dr. Beamish said there was not a problem with sea lice in 2001 and 2002 but that there is a problem in 2003 maybe because of the mild water. Mr. Carr quoted the chairman of the Northern Regional Fisheries Board. He said Mr. Harry Lloyd said that problem has existed for a number of years and that he has raised the matter with the Department several times, yet to his knowledge nothing has happened in response to the disclosures and that no fines have been exacted in Ireland and there is no pressure to comply. He was referring to the ongoing problem of sea lice in the Donegal area over many years. If he has notified the Department of this through the regional fisheries boards, how can Dr.Beamish say there was not a problem in 2001 and 2002 and that there is a problem in 2003? Maybe I am naive and perhaps somebody will outline whether there is an inconsistency with the information or what happens in the Department when the chairman of a regional fisheries board takes an issue seriously and reports back to base. Does anything happen?

Chairman

We will bank that question. I call Deputy O'Donovan, my colleague from west Cork.

Deputy O’Donovan

What is the view of the Central Fisheries Board and the regional boards on the status and future of the traditional salmon fishermen along our coastline? There are curtailments and so on. Some people say they should be bought out, although I have an open mind on that. Although they did not create a lice problem and pollute our rivers and lakes, they believe their future is threatened. Their numbers are decreasing and they face restricted working hours and so on.

If fish farms could be moved, is there scientific evidence, such as that in Norway, to show it would help the sea lice problem and the problems with the estuaries and streams where there are traditional spawning grounds for wild salmon, etc? Salmon is probably less endangered but there is considerable concern that wild sea trout is in danger. Are we losing the battle in respect of wild sea trout? When I was a child, there were wild corncrakes in west Cork but they were wiped out by agriculture. Are we fighting a losing battle as far as sea trout and, to a lesser extent, wild salmon are concerned?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

It is sometimes difficult to know whether we are talking about mobile or egg bearing lice. I take the industry representative's point on that. I was referring to the Marine Institute's document on lice levels this year, particularly for Inver Bay, to take one example. On 27 May, there were levels of 40. Maybe the Central Fisheries Board can clear that up. In its presentation, it states that on 27 May in Inver Bay, lice levels were ten times the protocol. Will it explain which protocol and about what type of lice we are talking? Maybe we can use that as a base level rather than me trying to quote from scientific evidence. Can Dr. Gargan give us more details on the recent Scottish research from which he quoted? What did it show and who carried it out?

Deputy Broughan

I wish to ask the Central Fisheries Board about the point my colleague, Senator Finucane, made. Has there been an attempt to effectively silence the Central Fisheries Board on the transfer of scientific staff to the Marine Institute so that the fisheries boards will not have the independent scientific arm they had up to now? Will development officers for inland fisheries remain with the Central Fisheries Board and the boards? Is the key scientific arm of the board being neutered? Is the board being silenced?

I refer to the board's 2001 report and lice infestation. The report seemed to say that, in effect, the trigger levels are still too high and that the board is looking for 0 to 0.3 ovigerous lice levels. Should a much more rigorous trigger level be set? I compliment the board on such a vigorous presentation. I also compliment the Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers. I wish to ask FISSTA about some of the issues which have been raised. At Estimates' time there always seems to be a major shortfall in funding for the restoration and development of river systems in which its members are involved. Does FISSTA have any comments to make on that this year? Are there ways Government could support FISSTA as regards stocking and other procedures? Last year a Minister promised approximately €1 million for the River Robe but it was not delivered. Is there any way we could help?

Deputy Ferris

Given the presentations to which I have listened on the massive decline in trout and salmon stocks, would it be fair to say the location of farmed salmon is a major contributor to the decline of the natural wild stocks? Would it also be fair to say that the traditional fishermen, the draft net and the drift net fishermen, are being unjustly penalised accordingly? Mr. O'Connor may be able to enlighten me on whether there is a limit to what one may produce on procuring a farm salmon licence. How does that factor into the production? If there is a limit, are people abusing what they are allowed to produce?

Mr. Carr

Deputy Broughan raised the funding issue. We still look forward to the €24 million. There was criticism in May last year at the announcement of the €24 million which was going to go into the pool enhancement in the salmon habitat development programmes. It has been sidelined for the time being. Some €24 million was going to be invested over a five year period; £19 million had been invested over the previous five years. We are still looking for investment. It all goes through the central board and the regional boards to instream development programmes and there have, as yet, to be any substantial amounts allocated.

Mr. J. O’Connor

I will take some questions while Dr. Gargan will take others. On the question of the salmon drift net fishermen, the inshore fishermen, in one way, it is a debate for another day in terms of the Indecon report but I will not avoid the question. The Indecon report states - my board agrees with it - that there is not a case to end all commercial salmon fishing at the moment. It also suggests that we should look at the economic imperative - at where we want to go in the future with salmon. It states that anything we do on economic grounds should be voluntary and that there should be consultation. It also recommends compensation. I believe buy-out was mentioned. While it is a separate debate I do not think there is a threat to inshore fishermen. These are traditional fishermen with a tradition going back a couple of hundred years. It is a different type of fishery to, say, a tuna fishery, which has only been developed in recent years, and to other sea fisheries. It is a particular fishery. There may be cases where people want to get out of that fishery as stocks are decreasing about which there is no doubt. While the quota has not been set for next year, on the basis of what we know so far, I expect the quotas will probably be somewhat less next year. I do not know if that answers the question.

Deputy Broughan asked about the science unit of the fisheries board. I wish to make it clear that it has not been silenced nor has there been an attempt to silence it. I believe Dr. Beamish made the point that we are all allowed to present our cases here. However, the board had a serious issue and I believe, or I hope, it has been resolved. There was a proposal that the board's research and development people be transferred from the Central Fisheries Board to the Marine Institute. That would devastate the board and it would be bad for the industry because at the end of the day, the board does not matter in that it is about an industry. That was the response we got from the industry. Representations from the industry were made to the Minister and others and I discussed it with the Minister, the Secretary General of the Department and other senior civil servants. The vibes I am getting back - I have not been told officially yet - are that there is an appreciation of the issue. Having said that and in line with what I said earlier about agencies working together, there is no doubt that agencies like the board and the Marine Institute need to work more closely together. We work closely together in many areas but maybe we should share some facilities, such as research and laboratory facilities. I hope the difficulty is over because it is a serious issue for us.

Deputy Ferris asked about the location of salmon farms. Dr. Gargan is the expert on that but as chief executive officer, I am convinced there is a link and Dr. Gargan will speak about that. On the question of fishermen being penalised because of the difficulty, the answer to it must be "yes". I was asked by a member of the Cabinet to meet a number of fishermen from Connemara this morning. I met them along with some of my colleagues from the Western Regional Fisheries Board. Those fishermen have serious issues. The commercial sea trout fishery in Connemara has been closed for ten years. Those fishermen, and not only the commercial people, have lost out significantly there. In Deputy Ferris's and Deputy McEllistrim's constituency, of which I know a little, there has been a good run of salmon and sea trout in recent years. There are not fish farms there. Our research has shown that where fish farms are well managed, there is not a problem but where lice levels in fish farms are not well managed in the critical period between February and May, there is a problem and we have the evidence to show that.

Licences are not my area. I believe Mr. Ryan will be able to deal with that.

Senator Finucane

I wish to ask about Mr. Lloyd's point about presenting information and Dr. Beamish saying there was not a problem in 2001 and 2002.

Mr. J. O’Connor

I do not want to do a Pontius Pilate but I will hand that question over to Dr. Gargan.

Dr. Gargan

Mr. Lloyd said there was a problem with sea trout in Donegal rivers in recent years. We monitor up to 20 rivers each year and we have found high lice levels in Donegal for the last number of years. The Donegal rivers, the Eaney, the Esk and the Cranna, have had among the highest lice infested sea trout in the last number of years.

A member asked are we losing the battle with sea trout. To put it in perspective, in some of the fisheries in the west, where we have 4,000 or 6,000 juvenile fish going to sea, we get a total return of 20, 30 or 60 sea trout - survival is less than 1%. You get 4,000 to 6,000 going out and 20, 30 or 60, or perhaps up to 80 or 90, coming back. That is the problem we are facing, a collapse in the stock. In most years survival is 1% or 2% when it should be over 20%.

The issue of the lice levels in Donegal was raised. Part of the presentation one of my colleagues was going to make about Donegal did raise this issue. The ovigerous lice levels in March, for instance, were four times the protocol, in April the levels were 13 times the protocol, in May ten times and in June seven times. Ten times 0.5 would mean there would have been five ovigerous lice on the farms.

The next question was about the Scottish experience. They manage salmon farms in Scotland somewhat differently than Ireland in that they put in the small salmon in year one and do not put in any more fish until those fish come out in the second year, therefore every second year there are only small fish and big fish. The scientists simply looked in those bays for sea lice. They could not find any sea lice in those bays in the first year when only the small salmon were there. They concluded either that the numbers of wild fish were so low they were not producing lice or that the small fish going in for the first time did not have lice, which is the case.

In the second year of production, when these fish are getting to be two, three and four kilos going to the market, they found massive levels of sea lice. They found that only every second year when the fish in the farms are large. They concluded, therefore, that the lice from the farms in Scotland are causing the problem because in years when the farms only have smolts they cannot find lice in the bays. When that research was presented to ICES this year, they made the link and they are now considering the relocation of farms. The position is different in Ireland because we have small fish and large fish in the bays, although separated, at the same time.

There was another question about protocol levels. Our experience has been that when, in some years, lice levels are well under control, as some of the members have said, we have not experienced a problem with sea trout. In one year, in one bay the lice level was 0.02 during the critical period and we did not get lice infestation on the sea trout and we had a good survival rate.

We do believe that the current protocol levels are too high. If we could get them down to 0.02 or to much lower levels, we would not have a problem. We are keen to ensure that they are as close to zero as possible for that critical period because when the sea trout go to sea they are very vulnerable because they are physiologically changing. They are coping with the salt water and when they get hit with the lice, they are not able to cope.

How can I put it? I suppose the honest answer is that it is better if a particular agency has a particular remit. For example, the remit of my board and all the regional fishery boards is wild fish - straight down the middle - and you can see the great performance in terms of the wider environmental monitoring and management by the fishery boards as opposed, for example, to the local authorities who must bring in industry to a local area and at the same time manage the environment.

A body like BIM has a clear remit in the development of aquaculture. We might not always agree with them -

Chairman

Mr. O'Connor, my question relates to the committee's remit today, which is fish farming. I am just asking for your views on the three part question I asked because my colleague, Deputy Broughan, asked similar questions earlier to the Department officials. Would you have a view?

Mr. J. O’Connor

I suppose I would, Chairman. My view is that it would be best for the industry if different elements of the job were under different management. That would be good.

Chairman

That answers our question. Mr. Carr, would you have any views on that three part question?

Mr. Carr

Perhaps John Mulcahy would answer.

Who are the two experts?

Mr. Feenstra

Dr. Brendan O'Connor and Neil Bass, who actually was on the original sea trout working group and would be delighted to answer questions on sea lice.

Deputy Kelly

Ireland relies heavily on salmon fishing, as we have been told recently. Why has the industry been so slow to bring in new species for farming in Ireland? What is the industry doing about the disposal of dead fish? What are the expected mortalities in a normal year and what were they this year? What needs to be done to examine and deal with the causes of higher mortalities?

How will your organisation deal with fish farmers who have total disregard for the environment? Is your organisation prepared to deal firmly with them, even if it means expelling them from membership?

Dumping of fish on the seabed is completely irresponsible. Can your organisation stop it? Does your organisation have environmental guidelines for its members?

Chairman

For the moment we will bank those questions, Mr. Flynn, until Deputy Ryan has asked his questions. For the record, Mr. Flynn and I are not related.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I am glad the industry brought a few experts because there were a few good questions asked which they will need to answer.

Earlier there was a quote taken directly from The Economist leader article, I think called “The Blue Revolution”. I want to put to the industry a quote from later in the same editorial and ask for a response. A later section in the editorial states that there are serious questions to be asked about a sector of the fish farming. It quotes Professor Daniel Pauly of the University of British Columbia, one of the world’s most respected fisheries biologists, who argues that there are good and bad forms of aquaculture and that the good forms include plant eating fish such as talapia - which I have never eaten - but also filter feeding creatures such as scallops, mussels and oysters. Professor Pauly further argues that salmon and sea bass are the bad guys fed on wild fish caught in the ocean and that if this kind of farming - which is widespread, according to The Economist, in the developed world - becomes popular elsewhere, it may aggravate, not diminish, pressure on the marine environment and on the world supply of fish. Given that comment and the concerns that some environmentalists would have about the sustainability of a form of fish farming where you must feed roughly four pounds of wild fish to get one pound of salmon at the other end, from where does the industry think the feed will come for the development of salmon farming if it is to expand in the way the Department set out earlier?

My second question arises from the Central Fisheries Board's interesting map showing where the various different thousands of tonnes of fish are being developed at present. If the view - which I believe is that of the industry, the Department, the Marine Institute and BIM - is that the industry will double, where will that doubling occur? Where will we get the next 20,000 tonnes of fish? Will it be located on the edge of the same basic river systems or will it be at locations around Ireland?

There are one or two other questions. Why have there been such dramatic increases in sea lice levels this year, particularly in the north-west where the levels are 50% above the recommended levels? Would they be willing, in terms of looking at new enforcement regimes, to accept the imposition of fines for farmers seen to be consistently above such levels?

Chairman

We will take those questions first and then we will come to the other members' questions.

Mr. Flynn

I will take most of those questions. Deputy Kelly asked why the industry has been so slow to invest in new species. The industry in Ireland is quite small. We have invested in new species - in fact, turbot farming is now a reality in Connemara and that is a very exciting project - along with other types of flat fish. In the shellfish aquaculture new species such as abalone urchins are being tried out as well. There is certainly market demand for fish farmed cod and haddock products, but with a large wild stock still available the consistency of that demand is something we are unsure of.

The other point is that to get into new species one must have quite a lot of money and an infrastructure which is in place already. It has been shown time and again that to get into new species such as cod or halibut, the existing industry has to be profitable and going very well in order to diversify, and unfortunately we have not been in that position over the past two years due to low prices and competition from Norway.

The second question is a good one, that is, what are we doing about the disposal of dead fish? The by-products, that is, dead fish and offal from processing, from our industry amounts to about 2,000 tonnes a year. That is what we would expect from an industry of just over 20,000. That is about10%, which is much lower per animal, for instance, than cattle farming or any other type of farming. It is small in comparison with other areas. For instance, last year 48,000 tonnes of carcases of dead cattle were produced in Ireland. In a way, where we produce it is a difficulty because we are located in remote areas like north Donegal, Connemara, west Cork, etc., and very far from disposal centres. The three rendering plants which take our material are hundreds of miles away in Meath, Cavan and Tipperary and we have a problem in that regard.

Chairman

Do they render animal by-products too?

Mr. Flynn

They do.

Chairman

Those plants would be as far from the areas you mentioned as from the farmer in Castletownbere.

Mr. Flynn

Mr. Flynn

I will take those questions.

Basically, there is a body of thought which holds that fish which eat plants are better than fish which eat other fish. In the Irish industry 100% of the raw fish materials used to manufacture fishmeal in Ireland are caught in the surrounding seas. They are caught from stocks which are sustainable, predominantly in the north Atlantic. The vast majority of what we use in the fishmeal in our industry, to feed our fish, is made from trimmings and offcuts of mackerel and herring, processed and destined for human consumption. Stocks of both north Atlantic mackerel and herring are within sustainable biological limits as defined by ICES and the FAO. We believe we are not damaging any wild fish stocks. I cannot speak for huge industries in Norway and Chile, where maybe stocks closer to those countries are under pressure. An idea was floated within the NDP that we were going to double production but the industry has a slightly different view. We see much more gradual production and next year we see ourselves producing 15,000 tonnes rather than 22,000 tonnes. We are not going to reach 40,000 tonnes of production in this country for some time to come. If I had time I would show the committee that we will concentrate on making more money from the 20,000 tonnes of fish we are producing now rather than just producing a hell of a lot more fish for the sake of it. That is not our strategy.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

And on the fines?

Mr. Flynn

Regarding fines, in cases of consistent breaches it was explained earlier that there is no limit but there are trigger levels. In terms of the effect of the farm, a fine on the farm would have far less effect than that of the sea lice. One loses more money by having sea lice on the farm because one has much lower production. Sea lice reduce growth and salmon farming is all about getting as much out of one's fish as possible. One will lose more money through having sea lice than through fines on the farms themselves. Are farmers to be fined for their cattle having TB or parasites? Those parasites are in the environment. We want to see low levels of lice.

Deputy Coveney

In relation to the last point, I am not sure if it is fair to compare this with the diseases a farm animal may get. The whole point behind imposing fines in certain cases is that we are affecting another industry and another stock which need protection. It is not that we want to impose more misery on a fish farmer who is having problems with sea lice. Does Mr. Flynn accept there is a need for the carrot and stick approach, given a carrot exists? The Marine Institute seems to be getting a lot of praise all round for their inspections and 14 times a year seems very impressive. If people are persistently not making an effort to reduce lice levels for whatever reason, some form of stick needs to be introduced. That is my only point on this issue. I have one or two other questions.

Chairman

For this group?

Deputy Coveney

Absolutely. I would like to hear from the experts on sea lice levels. What is practical and achievable for the industry, particularly in the spring period? We have heard talk about a target of zero sea lice in the spring. Is that totally unrealistic? What is acceptable for the industry and what can be achieved through reasonable expense and use of chemicals? If 20% of fish farmers are operating on an organic basic, what is reasonable and achievable in that area?

What are the delegation's views on setting bay cap figures? Dr. Gargan spoke earlier about the need to set tonnage figures within certain bays. Is that a realistic regulatory solution which the industry could accept? If so, at what levels are we looking? We cannot compare the bays in Ireland with fjords in Norway which can be a hundred times bigger. Are fish prices set by Norway, by and large, because of the quantities it produces? I understand there are no restrictions in bringing Norwegian foreign salmon into Ireland. Is that having a significant impact on our industry and putting its members under pressure as a result?

Deputy O’Donovan

Does the Irish salmon farming representative group feel it is appropriate that finfish farming should expand and develop at the expense of either wild salmon or wild trout? I am very concerned that 1% of wild trout are returning, which basically means they are almost extinct. Is the group concerned about the impact on tourism, given the traditional value of angling to the country? If what we saw on "Prime Time" was to recur even once it would be far too much, but what about the impact on nature generally? Our generation has an obligation to consider what will be left for the generation to follow and surely wild trout must be protected. The delegation responded to the issue of relocating fish farms, which should be considered.

In relation to temperatures and the fact that the occurrence of lice is more obvious off Mayo and Donegal, I am not an expert but I understand that the waters of the south coast, off Cork and Kerry, are four degrees warmer than in the north, so the reverse should be the case. The problem of lice should be more concentrated in Bantry Bay than off the northern coast because one has warmer climates and the Gulf Stream which increases the temperature. However, the reverse applies. According to those monitoring the situation, sea lice are more prevalent in the north. If we are being honest with ourselves, however, is it because of the over-concentration of fish farms in narrow, shallow estuaries off the west and northern coasts? We have had no problems with this in Bantry Bay where there are three farms in a bay 16 miles long and eight miles wide, with water 250 feet deep in the centre channel.

Chairman

Shellfish?

Deputy O’Donovan

No, salmon. I am leaving the mussels out of it. I have been criticised before for being a supporter of aquaculture and mariculture, which I confess I am. At the same time, we have a duty to get the bottom of these problems and sea lice are not a major problem in Bantry Bay, according to those monitoring it, or in Kenmare, which is a major tourist destination next door to Bantry. We have heard here of the terrible problem of sea lice and we are talking about solutions and sanctions, yet I know a character who got seven days in jail for poaching one wild salmon. He did not pollute the river. We heard a speaker say earlier that there is potential for securing commercial salmon fishing but there is not, because the noose is being tightened on the neck of this sector every year. Those involved will either have to be bought out or will be told to forget about fishing. I am concerned about many interests involved here.

Deputy O’Donovan

We had it in west Cork.

Deputy Broughan

You had it and he took the money away from Bantry Bay.

Chairman

Deputy Broughan, please focus on the issue.

Deputy Broughan

I am focusing on the issue of coastal zone management. This is disappointing because, like all Deputies, we like to see Ireland's industry doing well. Someone told us in a previous briefing - while we were all supposed to be on holidays, by the way - that we were almost one to one, with farmed fish and the sea fisheries almost being equal. We have received additional information today but going back to The Economist editorial, the time will come when we will depend on FISSTA for our supply of fish. Does the delegation accept that how its industry manages the environment is critical? For a normal fish farmer, is there a problem with residues of fish feed, faeces and so on underneath the cages? Are there problems with methane and hydrogen sulphide as well as other emissions? I welcome the comments on the fallowing sites but is there also a case for the industry accepting the comments of the fisheries board and other on generational locations for salmon?

Mr. Flynn

I will let Dr. O'Connor answer the sea lice question. We have been asked what we want in terms of regulation, an issue raised by several Deputies and Senators. What we want is firm and fair regulation which must be responsive to our needs. We are in a changing environment and market and if we need to change what we are doing we need a regulatory system which can run with us, not take up to nine years to grant a licence. That is no way to run a business. We want that regulation to be based on in-depth knowledge of the industry.

We have to remain competitive so yes, we want a firm and fair regulatory system. As to who does it, we do not care so long as it can be seen to benefit us and the environment in general. That is our view.

The committee will get more information on the monitoring of the seabed and other issues from the Marine Institute when it comes in, as that is the body which does the monitoring.

Dr. B. O’Connor

Deputy Coveney asked about sea lice levels. It has been said before and it is worth saying again that sea lice and salmon and sea lice and sea trout have been interacting for millions of years. If one tries the concept of having zero lice on a farm at any one stage one faces the immediate problem of having to deal with the background level of lice; one has to face the reality that one can never have a salmon farm that will not be affected by sea lice. The sea lice are naturally in the water column. They come in when the fish come back from their feeding out at sea, as the adult fish have lice on them. The larvae fall off the female lice and infect the farmed fish, which are a perfect location in which the parasite can be very successful, as the parasite has a host which is in great numbers and very close together, enabling the louse to transfer very effectively.

Nonetheless, it is in the industry's interest to maintain levels of lice on fish which are as low as possible for the obvious reasons outlined by Mr. Flynn. If I were asked for a figure, perhaps one female louse per fish is a practical figure. That leads on to the next issue - can one come up with a figure for how many tonnes of salmon to have in any one bay? Yes, we can do that, though we are getting into a technical area. I am happy to discuss it but if the committee prefers I can come back to talk independently about what can be done. Basically, one figures out how far the water will travel from the farm in the length of time the larvae can live. The larvae do not have a source of food built into them as genetically they are born without food. They must succeed in reaching a fish in a certain period of time or they die, which is simple to understand. We can work out the current speed in any bay to be promoted - in the south-west, west or north-west - and then we can make predictions as to how far the larvae will travel. It is practical to be able to come up with a plan which can state that x tonnes of fish, based on female louse producing larvae, is the appropriate figure for a particular bay.

Deputy O'Donovan asked about the levels of lice in 2003 and he might be interested to know that the water off his coast, off Cape Clear, is the coldest water in Ireland. There is a very unusual situation there in that it is very close to deep water and one gets an upwelling of cold water around Cape Clear. Surprisingly, it is the coldest place in Ireland for water and is unique in that regard. There are other such places off the coast but that is the biggest upwelling event in Ireland to give rise to cold waters.

Deputy O’Donovan

I find it hard to believe that.

Dr. B. O’Connor

It is a scientific fact and I deal in facts.

Chairman

By engaging with the Deputy, Dr. O'Connor has started them all off. He should engage with the Chair.

Dr. B. O’Connor

My apologies. Members will be well aware that last summer was quite warm. Summer air temperatures maintained seawater temperatures at a level I have seen only once before, in 1994. We had water temperatures down to about 25 metres off the west coast at 16 degrees, which is very unusual. That might have been a cause of the increase in lice numbers.

Chairman

I thank the Central Fisheries Board, the Northern Fisheries Board, the Western Fisheries Board, the Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers and the Irish salmon growers' representatives of the IFA. If we decide to continue with this matter in the new year I would be delighted if the delegations would accept an invitation to appear before us again for further clarity.

Sitting suspended at 5.35 p.m. and resumed at 5.40 p.m.

Chairman

I welcome the representatives of BIM, Mr. Donal Maguire and Mr. Peter Marshall, and apologise for keeping them so late. I hope their stay has been worthwhile. I welcome the representatives from the Marine Institute, Mr. Micheál Ó Cinnéide, Dr. Ken Whelan, Dr. Peter Heffernan and Ms Fiona Geoghegan. I welcome back Dr. Cecil Beamish, Mr. Joe Ryan and Mr. Frank Sheridan from the Department.

I wish to draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. It is generally accepted that witnesses would have qualified privilege but the committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. I remind members of the long standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I propose that Mr. Maguire and Mr. Marshall make their presentation on behalf of BIM. I regret that the time is limited. I am now under a tremendous time constraint because of the business of the House. We will go directly to representatives of the Marine Institute for their presentation, following there will be questions to representatives of both organisations. We will conclude with Dr. Beamish and his officials.

Mr. Donal Maguire

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to address them. It has been a most informative debate. I think I will be able to go through my presentation quickly because much of the ground has already been covered by other speakers.

BIM, as the agency with responsibility for development of the aquaculture sector, under the aegis of the Department, together with their colleagues in Údarás na Gaeltachta, have attempted to ensure that everything we do in the aquaculture industry is couched in sustainability. I was pleased Mr. Carr quoted the Brundtland report where the definition of sustainability is the one we would also use. The Commission recently published a very important paper regarding sustainability in the aquaculture industry. It endorsed this approach and suggested the aquaculture industry generally was an exemplary industry in terms of sustainability.

The aquaculture industry in Ireland is not just about salmon farming. It is also about mussel farming, both off ropes and off the bottom, farming of oysters and a number of other novel species. It is a mixed industry to do with both finfish and shellfish. While I will confine my remarks largely to salmon, I want to pick up on the remark about farming of new species. There are a number of exciting new species under culture. Mr. Flynn referred to turbot. There is farming of abalone, seahorses, urchins and a whole lot of other new species the development of which we are assisting. The industry will not just be about salmon farming.

One must look at sustainability as a three-legged stool. It has three domains - the social domain, economic domain and the environmental domain. One cannot view any of them in isolation. We have attempted to take these three together in terms of how we would oversee or assist with the development of the aquaculture industry. It is the interaction of these domains which is important. They must interact in an appropriate way so that there is good governance between the environmental domain and the needs of the economic domain. If there is properly resourced development in order to get the right social outcome and the right socio-economics, then we will achieve sustainability. The important issue is to achieve a real degree of sustainability based on these three concepts.

In terms of the social domain and the salmon industry, if one runs the ruler across Irish salmon farming and if one looks at it in terms of its impact on the rural economy, the first column applies to those directly employed, the second to those direct and induced and the third to those either partially or wholly dependent on the industry. These figures were quoted earlier by Dr. Beamish. This industry affects many people. If we look at where we expect to see it go over the next few years in the current development framework of the NDP, we hope to see it come back to this level of statistic where up to 9,000 to 10,000 people around the coastline will be affected.

The important issue is where these jobs are. The little red dots on the map indicate where aquaculture is in Ireland and salmon farming follows that pattern very well. I draw members' attention to the red brick coloured areas, areas of maximum deprivation in Ireland such as Donegal, the south-west and Galway where there is salmon farming and aquaculture. Where the jobs are is where there is maximum deprivation. Aquaculture, and salmon farming in particular, is an excellent industry at targeting deprivation and getting sustainable industry into these areas.

Much was mentioned about the quality system and the marketing approach towards Irish salmon. Irish salmon was the first food product in the Irish marketplace to achieve the European norm 45011 under the Irish quality salmon scheme. This prestigious mark is very difficult to achieve. My colleague, Mr. Marshall, is the managing director of the independent company which runs the scheme and ensures it is robust and completely independent. BIM, in conjunction with the industry, has recently taken the IQS, a mark for wholesalers, to consumer recognition levels through the equality seafood programme. This was recently done in the Irish Seafood Expo and it is now being brought down to store level. Members may recall seeing photographs of the Minister and Senator Quinn who recently launched the quality seafood programme.

The salmon farming industry has a very valuable role to play in terms of the social domain. I have dealt with employment in terms of the economic domain. The industry has been a very good wealth creator from the point of view of public investment. For every euro invested in the industry over the past 20 years, it consistently throws back to the Irish economy approximately €2.76. It has been a very good return on investment from that point of view, bearing in mind that the State invests in capital investment at quite a low rate and individual private investors must take most of the financial risks.

The green bars indicate the level of output from the industry. The white line is the level of value. As farmers have said, 2003 will for the first time in many years see a serious dip in output from the industry, including a dip in value, as a result of the events in Inver Bay and higher than normal mortalities. However, we hope that situation will be reversed, that there will be two static years, followed by a growth in production in line with the national development plan, which Mr. Flynn has wisely cautioned may or may not happen. BIM hopes the increased prices which we now see in the marketplace will reignite production and bring the production level back to what is currently planned in the national development plan, which is an output of approximately 38,000 tonnes. This is not a doubling but it is a serious increase. This does not mean there will be twice as many fish. It means that virtually the same number of fish will be grown to a larger average size. The industry has traditionally suffered from selling small fish which are non-profitable. We hope much the same number of fish will be put to sea, grown to a larger average weight and achieving a higher average price. There is currently almost this amount of licensed capacity in the system. The question was raised where these farms would be situated. They will be situated largely where they are already. It requires very few extra farm sites to achieve this level of output.

There is a very large potential in the aquaculture and salmon industry generally. If we can get it up to a reasonable level of output, there will be a big value-added sector which will generate further employment and further wealth. In terms of the environmental domain - possibly the most controversial of the areas raised this afternoon - the industry must bear in mind that it must make sustainable use of the natural resources, engage in top quality environmental management systems and there must be a fair share from the State foreshore between all the stakeholders, including aquaculturalists and salmon farmers.

As most of these issues have been thoroughly ventilated, there is no point going into them in detail. The issue of fish stock has been well dealt with. The Irish salmon farming industry in particular is sustainable in regard to the use of fishmeal and fish oils. The question of pollution and damage to wild fisheries has been well ventilated. I am sure my colleagues in the institute will deal further with the issue. Aquaculture and tourism can certainly live together, and there are many examples.

It is worth noting that the aquaculture industry and salmon farmers have engaged in the co-ordinated local aquaculture management systems, CLAMS. That voluntary process is a forerunner to coastal zone management. To answer the question on coastal zone management, the farmers, together with the State, BIM, the Marine Institute, Údarás na Gaeltachta and the Department have been very proactive in this regard. Recently the Irish aquaculture industry, particularly salmon farmers, have signed up to eco packs. This is a commitment to get involved in high class environmental management systems as quickly as possible. It should also be noted that the leading salmon farm company, Marine Harvest Ireland Limited, was the first food producer in the country to win an ISO 14001 award, which is a very impressive achievement for a primary food producer. The practice of environmental management systems is well established in the aquaculture industry.

There is a picture of Killary Harbour. The little white dot in the middle is the Connemara Lady, an aqua-tourism vessel which carried approximately 14,000 people last year. The major attractions were the fish farms and fjord. It is a small example of how aquaculture and aqua-tourism can live together.

I was going to comment on the "Prime Time" programme but it has been well dealt with at this stage. BIM was a major contributor to the programme and provided a lot of information to the team. It felt that while the final programme covered valuable issues from the point of view of regulation and illegal dumping, which cannot be condoned, it was unfair in suggesting that the Norwegian system for regulating lice was better than the Irish system. This is not the case. BIM made a complaint and had a meeting with RTE. However, we are awaiting a response.

Chairman

We will take a few questions on that issue. How do buyers rate the Irish farmed salmon? Did BIM make any recommendations to the industry following the "Prime Time" programme? Has there been any feedback from the public as a result of the programme? Has it damaged Ireland or consumer confidence in the farm product? As Ireland's fish marketing body abroad, does BIM have confidence in the fish farming industry? Mr. Maguire referred to co-existence and co-location. Is the industry being developed at the expense of the angling industry as suggested today? We would like BIM's perspective given that it is the agency charged with the responsibility of promoting Irish exports.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I want to see as much aquacultural development as possible, particularly in the western peripheral regions where employment is badly needed. In terms of the balance struck, there are approximately 70 people employed in the aquaculture business in Kilkieran Bay. I can also think of Ballinahinch Castle and other fishery hotels where over 100 people are employed full time. Their employment depends on the survival of the sea trout and salmon fishery industries. Has the loss of the sea trout industry in the western Connemara area in particular threatened these jobs and have we got the balance right? There appears to be a scientific row going on on air between BIM and other representatives from Central Fisheries Board on whether sea lice are having an effect on the sea trout population. I vaguely recall the point being made that sea lice did not affect the sea trout population.

Senator Finucane

It is no longer an issue.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Why is the science provided by the Central Fisheries Board no longer an issue, or incorrect, or is sea lice a threat to sea trout, whatever about salmon?

Deputy O’Donovan

On the "Prime Time" programme, is it being suggested that they picked all the rotten apples and did not look at the salient features of the whole industry? I would like to compliment BIM for the work it has done in promoting shellfish and the mariculture industry. In my area some excellent products have won awards.

Mr. Maguire referred to the social, economic and environmental domains. I accept the benefit of the social domain to rural communities where there is population decline and I accept the views on the economic domain. Would Mr. Maguire accept that the environmental impact of the "Prime Time" programme, which is one of the most popular and widely listened to programme in Ireland, has been a shattering blow to the fin fish industry in this country? How can we row back and correct the damage that has been done? There is no point saying damage has not been done. Those who say otherwise are misleading everyone. Damage has been done and I would like to see the matter rectified. By and large, I am a supporter of the aquaculture and mariculture industry. However, we must take action where damage has been done.

Deputy Coveney

I welcome the delegation. Perhaps Mr. Maguire will shed some light on a recent political decision to remove part of the marketing division from BIM and transfer it to Bord Bia. Will this have a negative impact on the aquaculture industry and our ability to market seafood generally within Ireland and abroad? While Mr. Maguire may not be able to offer a political view, perhaps he will give me factual statistics on the impact of the decision.

I am intrigued at Mr. Maguire's comments on the size of fish. Within the fish farming industry have we been producing fish that is too small? Why is this the case? Significant research has been carried out by a number of State bodies, so surely this has been common knowledge for some time. Why are we producing fish which is too small? Perhaps I am missing something, but it appears an obvious question to ask.

Will Mr. Maguire accept there is an image problem for the aquaculture industry from a fish farming and salmon farming point of view? Clearly there is an image problem among the public which may wane in time. However, there is a responsibility to try to respond to the concerns raised in the "Prime Time" programme. From BIM's point of view, should legislators take a stricter approach to enforcement and sanctions in regard to the lice issues and illegal dumping?

Chairman

Perhaps Mr. Maguire will answer these questions. Senators Finucane and Deputy Broughan will ask questions afterwards.

Mr. Maguire

With regard to the quality and reputation of Irish salmon, it is fair to say it is a unique product because of how it is farmed. We farm in much higher energy sites and as a result we have a lower fat and higher protein animal. It is distinctly different and is in demand in the international marketplace, particularly when it is backed up by the European norm quality assurance scheme, and about which the SSAI and others have been very complimentary. In that sense the product is in demand and we have a great story to tell because it is uniquely Irish. As the ISGA said, one of the upsides of a different production will be that what is scarce is beautiful and what is scarce is valuable, and we will probably see a niche market value on Irish salmon.

They are promoting you all the time. You are one of their favourite sons.

Mr. Maguire

On the overall damage to the image of the aquaculture industry, this has been an ongoing problem. There have been issues where, due to misinformation, legitimate concerns and possibly poor communication on the part of the industry and to some extent on the part of the State, it has been a rough ride. Although the processes now in place will take some time, they will bear great fruit. I am thinking in particular about the CLAMS process. This is a particularly good local process which will bring a lot of local information and reassurance to communities around the various bays where there is an aquaculture industry. This will bear fruit in time and people will be able to see what the industry is about. It is a very open and transparent process which allows for a great deal of consultation. Together with this, the eco system will have a big impact. Over time, if we can get evidence of good compliance levels and good communications through the CLAMS process for the industry on the ground, that image will be slowly turned around and the good sides of the industry will emerge.

On BIM's marketing division, it would be better if I do not say too much about that issue. Perhaps Cecil will deal with the issue later. It is more a matter for the Department than for BIM.

Deputy Coveney

I take it if you were in support of the move you would have approved it.

Mr. Maguire

My personal opinion is that it would be a retrograde step for the aquaculture and seafood industries.

On the question of fish being small, traditionally the Irish industry has sold its fish at a much lower average weight of approximately 2.2 kilos in comparison the Norwegian or Scottish industries. This has a number of negative effects. First, one must farm too many fish to get the same amount of tonnage. Second, these fish are very expensive from a unit cost production point of view. One would think that as a smaller fish would cost more to make one would be paid more for it in the marketplace. This is not the case; one is paid less for it. This is a double whammy whereby one has a small fish for which one is paid less and it costs more to produce. The reason fish have been smaller is that there have been difficulties in getting access to sites. The size of juveniles going to sea has been too small. This has changed as better technology has been introduced to the fresh water side of the business. It is a necessary development in the Irish industry for competitiveness to get a much larger average weight of fish. If we get up to the average weight of the Norwegians, which is approximately 4.5 kilo, we would have twice the level of production from the same numbers of animals in the sea. It is quite feasible to achieve this.

The final question related to our views on sanctions. There should be a carrot and stick approach. The stick must come from regulation. Everyone accepts there are issues which can be addressed in regard to the regulatory system. On the carrot aspect, the quality scheme IQS and QSP has shown itself to be very robust. People have been ejected from it when problems were found. Being a part of that quality scheme generates a major premium in the marketplace. There is a major carrot for people to stay within the scheme. In order to say within the scheme they must show the highest levels of compliance.

Senator Finucane

While Mr. Maguire might have reservations about certain aspects of the "Prime Time" programme, it might do a service to the industry because we would not be discussing the issue as comprehensively as we are today but for the programme. When we discuss such issues, including recently in the Seanad, we do so by way of statements. This has been a useful exercise in putting together the jigsaw. I hope members on the other side will listen to the constructive contributions made.

There are three arms of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources here today - BIM, the Marine Institute and the Central Fisheries Board. I am sure these organisations are interested in their own areas, including the development of the industry, but I find it hard to reconcile their comments on sea lice. Dr. Gargan from the Central Fisheries Board said on "Prime Time" there is no doubt salmon farms producing sea lice are the major contributory reason for the collapse of the sea trout industry while Dr. Whelan said on the same programme that there is no problem with sea lice and Mr. Maguire said it is no longer an issue. This is what was said on the programme by people who are supposed to be experts in these different areas, people who have PhDs while we are lay people. It is very difficult for lay people to understand or reconcile what is going on. The fisheries board presented data proving the high sea lice levels on an ongoing basis in a lough in Donegal.

I do not understand the problem with sea lice on the basis of conflicting information. Everyone appears to accept that the sea trout industry is declining each year. I find it difficult to reconcile the views in favour of aquaculture and angling. It has been said this will happen again at the locations referred to. I find it difficult to understand how the two industries can be married unless the aquaculture industry gets its act in order. Perhaps Mr. Maguire will help me out as to how we can restore the sea trout industry.

My second question is for Mr. Marshall. I know that the IFQC's quality mark and standards is a good thing to have but is it dependent on the quality of the salmon or does it depend on the producer? For example, "Prime Time" conducted a probe into the unorthodox practice of dumping. If he felt that was happening would a quality mark be removed? This matter has nothing to do with salmon produced for the consumer but it affects good management and practices.

Deputy Broughan

I thank BIM for its presentation. The CLAMS process was referred to. It operates in a limited number of areas but how would it evolve? Should it become a statutory process? Earlier the Bantry Bay charter was referred to.

I presume that when a new fish farm is being established there is an environmental impact statement produced before a foreshore or aquaculture licence is granted. How extensive is this process? Is there a cost benefit analysis? You say €1 produces €2.76 which is very valuable to the economy. Today we have heard some of the problems. Is there a downside to this scheme?

We have not discussed in depth the use of medicines in fish farming. There are concerns. For example, we are constantly talking about Norway. Again, returning to the Blue Revolution, it was striking how continents like China and countries like Vietnam produced massive development in aquaculture. British Columbia is another area that has a long experience of aquaculture. What type of controls on the use of medicines do they have? I notice it was alleged that the use of medicines was a myth. If the use of medicines is extensive why would there be significant fish mortalities? It is alleged to take place in County Donegal. What is the ultimate impact of the problem?

We have only a limited amount of time to examine the sector but the delegation has the expertise. Senator Finucane is correct to say that without the RTE programme we would not have asked to meet representatives of this industry so soon. Another problem is that the Oireachtas has poor resources to invigilate. This is the other side of last week's debate. It seems clear in literature we have read that there is a causal connection with sea lice. We should accept the fact, move on and let us see what we can do for the future of the industry.

Mr. Peter Marshall

The IFQC welcomes the opportunity to talk about the Irish quality salmon scheme because it is a success story. It has competency, integrity and teeth. We were not approached by "Prime Time" when it was researching its programme.

I shall give a little background information on how the standard evolved because it is wholly encompassing. It does not just look at the organoleptic qualities of fish. It examines a number of things, particularly how quality would be perceived.

The standard was developed under the chair of the Consumers Association of Ireland. Its committee was comprised of the Food Safety Authority, Safe Food, Food Safety Promotion Board, retailers, the Marine Institute, the industry, BIM and many others who contributed to the standard. It has been non-existent for three years. Its been externally accredited by the Irish National Accreditation Board. It has been benchmarked by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service and has met the requirements of the international standard EN 450011 which leads the way in the Irish food industry. While everybody talked about going for it, the aquaculture industry got it. The IFQC has no political affiliations with the industry and, therefore, is truly independent. That is part of our accreditation.

We cannot simply say that there is no recovery where there are salmon farms.

A question was asked about medicines. Almost none is used in the salmon farm industry due to a vaccination programme and better health practices. We can demonstrate this by the use of anti-microbials. Medicines are used for the treatment of sea lice but apart from that a minimal level is used.

Senator Finucane

Is Ivermactin added to fishfeed to treat sea lice?

Mr. Maguire

It is not really used any more. A compound called Slice is added to treat sea lice. Earlier I qualified my remarks by saying that other than the medicines used for the treatment of sea lice, there are virtually no medicines used in the industry.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Maguire and Mr.Marshall for coming here. If we have further questions or want an issue clarified my clerk will contact them. I welcome a delegation from the Marine Institute. Dr. Heffernan may introduce his colleagues and make his presentation. We are glad the delegation was present for all of the meeting.

Mr. Marshall

May I leave my seat?

Chairman

It might be safer. If you leave you cannot be asked more questions.

Dr. Peter Heffernan

I am accompanied by Dr. Ken Whelan, Dr. Dave Jackson, Micheál ÓCinnéide and Ms Fiona Geoghegan. I invited them along so that we can answer scientific questions in detail.

I am sure the Chairman is aware that this committee is responsible for the largest resource our nation possesses. It is responsible for 220 million acres of land and opportunity. Until recently Ireland was good at treating it as an invisible resource.

Assessments carried out by my institute in the 1990s showed that our resource conservatively represented 3% of GNP and contributes €1.2 billion per annum to our economy, three times what the State and its statistics would have captured for it up until then. Knowledge about the marine resource and conflict resolution - one of the issues to the forefront of the committee's deliberations today - will be a key in Ireland unlocking its potential.

Our resource represents a wide diversity of businesses and opportunities. For example, marine food spans everything from fishing to aquaculture and new industries associated with seaweed. We also have water based tourism and leisure which includes angling, water sports and a strong growth in the global sector. Marine technologies are a fundamental necessity to help us answer the difficult science questions associated with our development opportunities in all of these areas while keeping our eco-system balanced. The environment links every one of those pearls in Ireland's necklace of opportunity.

Recently we got a brilliant example of the power of the environment. A large oil platform was scientifically approved for dumping but the same afternoon the UK Prime Minister, in Westminster, defended the policy. European consumers would not accept the decision and at 5 p.m. the company concerned reversed its policy because it was losing at the petrol pumps all around Europe. That is the power of the environment in today's world. Even the largest global operators cannot ignore it.

Our marine resource was conservatively estimated to be worth €1.2 billion. It can offer us many opportunities for growth in the types of industries, products and services that will sustain this country long after a mobile international company leaves our shores.

The Marine Institute was established in 1991 as a national research and development agency and it has a wide role to play in our marine resource. We have a seamless link to regulatory authorities but we do not regulate. We support regulation by providing independent scientific services across the marine spectrum. These are not neutered services but quite independent.

We support the marine sector through research, technology development and innovation without bias. We also support an environmental balance and its achievement through policy and management by the provision of world class scientific advice. A knowledge of Ireland's resources, and gaining more, is fundamental to transforming a potential into a reality.

Ten years ago Ireland did not have the ability to travel more than 12 miles from its shore. Now our authority extends over 400 miles to the west into the Atlantic Ocean. Until 1998 we were limited to 30 hours at sea. International countries spent more than ten times the Irish investment to learn about our resources. We are no longer in that position. Recently, through successive Administrations, there has been an expanded investment in marine infrastructure to empower this nation and help it gather resources and knowledge. The Celtic Voyager and Celtic Explorer were provided. In a time when public projects are being criticised for being over budget and late I can confirm that both of those projects were delivered on time and within budget.

Chairman

I ask Dr. Heffernan to confine his comments to the issues we are discussing today. We shall invite the institute back again to discuss other issues.

Dr. Heffernan

The institute's role started with the formulation of the aquaculture protocols and we provided scientific advice for their establishment. The committee has already heard a lot about them. We also conduct programmes on sea lice monitoring and fish health. I am pleased to hear that the committee already knows that they are world class. The representatives from a variety of organisations present have already said so.

We audit the reports on the Benthic protocols and water quality protocols. We provide the transparent results to all stakeholders. We are also heavily involved in the development of management systems at a local level from single bay management through to co-ordinated local aquaculture management systems.

Sea lice are the common enemy of all of the players around this table and affect wild fishing, angling and sea farming industries. Ireland was the first country to introduce an integrated monitoring and control programme. It remains the only one to have a national inspection programme where all sites are inspected by an independent Government agency. We have been and are being copied by almost every nation that grows salmon. Results are reported to all stakeholders monthly. When lice levels exceed a pre-set treatment level the regulatory authority is advised and notice to treat is provided to the farms concerned. Everybody present is by now aware of the detail and intensity of the inspection programme.

It is very important to recognise that the target levels in Ireland are the lowest in the world. There are two sides to this debate. We can have a blame game debate on where the lice comes from or we can have a constructive management mechanism that controls the threat of an outbreak. For almost a decade Ireland has adopted a precautionary approach and set the lowest limits in Europe so that if there is an outbreak it will not have an impact. That is the protocol to which the industry must adhere and it is independently verified. Deputies can quote lice levels to us today because their data were independently gathered, reported and made available to all stakeholders in a transparent fashion. Successive Administrations have adopted a precautionary approach which was implemented by the Department to try to regulate the issue.

On a point of clarification, I heard salmon and trout being mixed up and regarded as a threat to sea trout. At the moment there is no scientific evidence to suggest that wild salmon stocks are being threatened by lice levels. We know because, in contrast to every other marine organism that is harvested or eaten, Ireland gathers and assesses 100,000 salmon out of an estimated population of 0.5 million that return to our shores every year. This means that 20% of the salmon population here is sampled.

Every politician knows that MRBI results are based on a sample of 1,000 voters from around the country. That is only 0.00028% of a population of four million. In contrast, 20% of the salmon population is examined. Any fisherman or wild fishing administration around the world would give their eye teeth to sample that amount. Therefore, we can be very definitive about the threat posed to wild salmon in Ireland. Sea lice are not putting wild fishing interests or harvesting out of business.

Man can have a severe impact on the marine environment and vice versa. Part of the service provided by us is measuring their interaction. I only have to cite the challenge of naturally occurring phytoplankton in Bantry, an area that Deputy O'Donovan knows well. An entire industry or bay can be closed down by nature. If anybody doubts the transparency and independence of these results I can tell them that we have borne the brunt of a very frustrated industry for many years.

We operate the monitoring services on fish health for the State. It is a national screening programme where the national reference laboratory and diagnostic services are provided through the aquaculture and wild salmon sectors. We provide advice to Government and the EU, at the highest levels, when they are framing national and EU policies on fish health. Similarly, we report on the seabed and the impact fish farming has on it. The institute audits protocol reports and then prepares reports for the Department and the farm in question.

Again, we need to get the environmental equation right. When this is achieved under protocol Ireland will have an excellent product and the environment will be protected. We do the national screening programme for residues in farmed fish under the Department of Agriculture and Food and with the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, supporting quality and getting food safety ensured. Our testing methods in these areas are not good because we say they are good but because they are independently audited by the Irish National Accreditation Board. We have been successful in rapidly expanding the suite of tests provided to the State. They are internationally accredited and compared with laboratories throughout Europe.

We work closely on the shellfish monitoring programme. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland is the regulatory authority. We provide the most intensive biotoxin screening programme in Europe and we have set ourselves a target to be the best in the northern hemisphere in that area. We have invested great effort, in partnership with other agencies, in developing communications so that these services and results are available on websites, can be sent to people directly by text message and are transparent and available to all. Again, we are supporting quality and ensuring food safety.

Ireland's marine resource can be the basis of many industries. Let me confine my focus to the matters at hand. The opportunities for partnership have been mentioned. In the area of conflict resolution between farming and angling interests in 1998 the Marine Institute, together with the Central Fisheries Board and the Salmon Research Agency, put forward a comprehensive programme of research that could focus on solution finding. In September of this year I sat down with the Central Fisheries Board, the regional fisheries boards in the north and west and experts from the Marine Institute to identify areas where we could build partnerships between the conflicting groups. It is recognised worldwide that when there is a conflict - there has been conflict regarding sea lice for a number of years - people must meet in the middle. The protocols are strong enough to minimise the risk and State agencies can provide a valuable service as a catalyst for change and partnership.

I will be happy to entertain detailed questions and will invite my colleagues to assist me in that.

Chairman

Dr. Heffernan, you mentioned conflicts. When State officials, such as the officials of the Central Fisheries Board, the regional fisheries board and the Marine Institute, cannot reach common ground on necessary issues it is clear that something is wrong and needs to be put right. I was delighted to hear representatives of the Central Fisheries Board say they are willing to work to find common ground and arrive at an acceptable protocol for coexistence for wild salmon stocks, fish stocks and farmed fish stocks. Am I correct in saying the Marine Institute is funded by the Exchequer and does it also receive funding from the fish farm industry?

Dr. Heffernan

We all agree that lice is an enemy and we are all party to the protocols being established. Some may emphasise the need to lower or tweak the protocols but that is a detail. The protocols can ensure a balance with nature and with other interests. As we go forward there is no conflict or separation. I would place an emphasis on conflict resolution and building partnership.

Chairman

You have said that lice are no threat to wild salmon stocks. The Central Fisheries Board, which is a State agency, takes a different view. This committee would recommend that as State agencies the Marine Institute and the Central Fisheries Board should get together and sort this problem out.

The "Prime Time" programme appeared to have a negative effect. Does Dr. Heffernan consider it a blip on an otherwise healthy marine industry?

We have heard about the sea lice problem. Does the Marine Institute have evidence of over-concentration of fin fish farming, particularly in the west and north-west? Might it be a contributory factor? There was once an over-development of the mussel industry in a particular area of Bantry Bay, for example, but when the mussel farms were moved apart and taken further up the bay the problem was resolved. The red tide problem was mentioned earlier. Dr. Heffernan said it is possible to close a bay or part of a bay while a specific problem was dealt with. It would be possible to close Kenmare estuary or Roaring Water Bay, for example. Could a similar system be operated for fin fish farming? Could an order be made restricting development in a particular area for a month or two until lice have been cleared or brought under control?

On the evidence of fishermen off the south-west coast, I am inclined to agree that the number of wild salmon was up last year. Does Dr.Heffernan see the current situation as a threat to commercial fishing by traditional fishermen? Every year their fishing days and the number of nets they can put out are further restricted. They tell me they are being squeezed out of existence. Does Dr. Heffernan have a view on this?

I have been seeking a debate on the aquaculture and mariculture industry for 15 months. I am delighted it has happened.

Chairman

This is the busiest committee in the House. This is only one side of our business.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I am glad that my request of a year ago to put aquaculture on our work programme is bearing fruit, as well as the "Prime Time" programme.

Is Dr. Heffernan aware of the work done by Dr. Malcolm MacGarvin who issued a report to the World Wildlife Fund in Scotland highlighting a serious problem he believes exists regarding nutrient pollution and partly concerning salmon farming? He estimates that approximately 1,000 tonnes of nitrogen pollution is coming from the aqualculture industry and about 250 tonnes of phosphorus. The phosphorus pollution is relative to a population of 1.9 million and the nitrogen pollution to a population of about 650,000. This man is an eminent scientist who has advised the European Commission on this issue. He is warning that this nutrient pollution may be the factor behind some of the massive fish kills we saw in Scotland and in Ireland this summer. The combination of higher water temperatures and higher nutrient levels is leading to possible toxic balloons and he warns about that. Does Dr.Heffernan have a fear about growth in the Irish aquaculture industry, whether to bigger fish or more fish? Could these nutrient issues have an effect and be the reason for some of the large fish kills we have seen?

I take Dr. Heffernan's point that 20% of 100,000 fish is a massive sample. However, the "Prime Time" programme showed the Norwegian Government sampling fish going out having come through the fish farms, and finding significant lice and high mortalities. Maybe we are sampling all the healthy fish that come back and missing the fish going out. Has Dr. Heffernan thought about sampling the fish going out which may never return to be doubly sure that the lice problem is not a major factor in the decline of salmon?

We have already referred to the incident in Inver Bay in 2002. I understand that officials from an idependent private company, Aqua-Fact, and not the Marine Institute were involved in detailed investigations of that. Why was the Marine Institute not involved more extensively and directly in that? What was the Marine Institute's involvement?

The Marine Institute has received A pluses for its monitoring system. What is Dr. Heffernan's view about the enforcement system in reaction to the institute's monitoring?

Deputy Broughan

I thank Dr. Heffernan for his impressive presentation. His last slide says, "Let's go for it". He urges us to turn Ireland's marine potential into reality. It is heartening to hear such a progressive approach from a State agency. However, the institute must cope with the fact that the monitoring system is so recent. The benthic monitoring protocol, for example, only dates from 2001 and we have very little experience of how to assess the problem of normal effluence and pollution from fish farms within hundreds of metres of a particular site. It is extraordinary to contrast the reports from the Central Fisheries Board with what Dr. Heffernan is telling us now. Someone is not giving us the full story. I cannot understand how two agencies can give the committee diametrically opposed views on the sea lice issue. One agency says Scotland and Norway have a particular connection and the other says this is not the case. I accept that there are other issues regarding the licensing of wild salmon fishing. These were mentioned by another Deputy and we will deal with them another day.

We have heard that treatment has been suggested when sea lice have occurred at 20 times the acceptable level. Has the damage not already been done by that stage?

I applaud Dr. Heffernan for his heartening contribution and I applaud the Marine Institute for the work it is doing. However, I still have grave doubts about some of the issues because the scientific evidence seems to be so recent. As Dr. Heffernan himself has said, we have only recently discovered this huge resource and, with the launch of the two research vessels two years ago, decided to do something about it. Should we not be careful about making fundamental judgments until we start to look after this vast territory as our native land.

Chairman

I remind members to be brief. I notice the press have left. Maybe they are not working overtime tonight although members are. I thank members for their contributions. Other Deputies will have an opportunity to contribute when Dr. Heffernan has answered this group of questions.

Dr. Heffernan

I will invite Dr. Whelan and Dr. Jackson, our resident experts on lice, to deal with questions. I do not see a great divergence between the agencies on the issue of lice. All agencies agree that lice is a common enemy. For the last decade we have taken the precautionary approach at an administrative level that lice could be a problem. If there was conclusive and irrefutable scientific evidence that salmon farms caused lice on sea trout the protocols would not change and the protocol mechanism would still be the same. The debate would hinge on the minutiae of the difference between 0.3, 0.25 or 0.4. The precautionary approach the State has imposed for a number of years would de facto be the basis for managing the issue.

With the Chairman's permission, I ask Dr. Ken Whelan to deal with some of the detailed questions on sea lice.

Dr. Ken Whelan

I am delighted to have the opportunity to try to clarify some of the issues which have arisen. I do not blame any of the members for being confused. If I were in their place I would be confused too.

The mortalities took place in June 2002. By the time our divers had gone back this year to look at the site the seabed had recovered to its normal state. It would have had an impact at the time but we do not think it was a significant contributory factor to the events of this year.

Dr. Heffernan

The Deputy has raised important points. The first expression of a bloom would be in the phytoplankton community in the food chain. There is no evidence of phytoplankton blooms in the bay area to support the impact on mortalities in the area we are talking about. The contribution of nutrients from the land base in Ireland and in Irish coastal estuaries would dwarf the nutrient derived from fish farming.

Deputy Ryan raised an important question about the competition for lipids or fish oils. While aquaculture is a growing consumer of that it is, on a global scale, dwarfed three times by the consumption in pig and poultry farming. Besides, in nature, fish eating fish oil is more natural than pigs and poultry eating fish oil.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

My last question was to ask Dr. Heffernan if he thinks the sanctions element of the monitoring process are strong enough.

Deputy Coveney

We are in an evolving situation. As the Department reported earlier, this year has presented more challenges in the area of sea lice. I understand the Department is actively reviewing all procedures and measures to see if they are appropriate. The industry representatives have stated clearly that firm, fair, transparent and responsive methods of regulation are required and requested. I am no more qualified to comment than they.

Chairman

I remind members that Private Members' Business has begun. You may wish to go and attack the Government and vote at 8.30 p.m.

Deputy Coveney

Industry representatives have said they are happy to see firm and fair regulations being put in place. However, they also reject the concept of sanctions. We must examine the question of how the sanctions would be introduced. They need to be applied fairly.

I congratulate the Marine Institute on its monitoring. Everyone is agreed that the institutute is doing a good job in this area. Fourteen inspections per site each year is impressive.

After hearing much discussion we have established a number of facts. First, when lice levels are above trigger levels they cause serious problems for sea trout. If this is so, what does the Marine Institute, as the body with the most resources and knowledge in this area, propose that we do about the sea lice problem? Are we proposing bay cap figures of the number of fish per harbour area as we discussed earlier? Are there parts of the country which are farmed too intensively and, if so, does the institute propose that fish farms be relocated to bays which have spare capacity? We are seeking expert advice from you on how to deal with these problems. We are all agreed that sea trout is being adversely affected.

What percentage of inspections to date this year have shown farms are above trigger levels? In other words, is it normal for farms to be above the sea trigger level and, if so, how far above it are they? Is it possible to operate a more intensive approach to lice control at certain times of year, such as in the spring? Does that happen? It would seem obvious that inspections be done at that time of year.

Senator Finucane

I welcome the briefing documentation and in particular the various fact sheets which are very interesting. Does the Marine Institute make a major contribution to environmental impact statements? What contribution is made by the regional fisheries boards in that regard? To what degree does the institute reconcile that given that the regional fisheries boards are, naturally, concerned with wild fish and that the aquaculture sector wants to establish its project? How sincere are the expressions of the regional fisheries boards on the environmental impact assessments? Are those in the aquaculture sector seen in a poor light if they object given their concern in relation to impact on sea trout?

Mention was made earlier of Kilkieran Bay. Are you, despite what Mr. Maguire said earilier, restricted to certain bays and might you encounter further ramifications in existing bays given their nature? Would there come a point when enough is enough? I imagine the regional fisheries boards are often put in an invidious position from the point of view of the promoter and their thinking, which is borne out by facts, of the decline in wild sea trout.

Dr. Heffernan

I will invite my colleagues to deal with some of the detail.

Chairman

It is getting late so perhaps you could be precise with the answers.

Dr. Heffernan

The committee belies the public perception that politicians do not work hard.

The question of overall carrying capacity has arisen many times. With increasing knowledge about marine resource and the oceanography of the coastal area and about the protocol systems as we observe them year to year, we will shortly reach a point where we will be able to be more definitive in advice in terms of carrying capacity in particular areas. The licensing mechanism deals with EIAs and EISs and my colleague will deal with that point.

I would proffer the opinion, in the interest of conflict resolution, that one of the most effective, natural remedies and mechanisms is fallowing which was pioneered in Ireland. In all these areas, Deputies and Senators should be under no illusion in this regard - Ireland is at the forefront in the management mechanism it has developed through 20 plus years of conflict. That is the reason our people are invited to the east and west coast of the US. It is also the reason we have given advice to the Norwegians. Space is a crucial ingredient in fallowing. There have been instances where tonnage has been permitted but the space has not. There must be a meeting of minds where people agree they are going in the direction of controlling lice living together. Allowing space for the CLAMS and fallowing practises by all involved is a crucial and most important ingredient in getting the balance right. Allowing space for the fallowing of a farm can be an extremely powerful mechanism in controlling disease, lice and environmental impact. Our grandfathers were aware of that when working in agriculture.

Mr. Ó Cinnéide

The Marine Institute's role in EIAs is relatively limited in that we have four members on the aquaculture licence advisory committee chaired by the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. When applications are made for new finfish farming developments, the promoter is obliged to carry out an EIS. We help to provide the headings under which that document should be compiled. The assessment is then undertaken by an independent company. When submitted, it is assessed by each of the four members from the Marine Institute who then advise the Department of how we see the EIS. It is sometimes returned. We do the same for other seabed developments such as the Marine Licence Vetting Committee in regard to foreshore applications. We do not undertake EIAs. We are not objectors; we are assessors on behalf of the Department.

On carrying capacity, it is fair to say we need to do more work in that regard. That has been requested by a number of agencies. It is correct to say that we are now gathering information. We have surveyed many bays in the last three years on behalf of Dúchas. With that type of information, we will be able to do more work on carrying capacity. Just two months ago, we published a report on aquaculture and carrying capacity in Mulroy Bay. We will be happy to provide the committee with a copy of the report which showed, in summary, that it would be prudent to not consider expansion of finfish farming in certain parts of that bay because of oxygen limitation at certain times of the year. Shellfish is a more sustainable industry in that it does not require feed but it does require raw material such as phytoplankton and chlorophyll and so on. We estimate that it could be at some times of the year close to its maximum of 48% of the available food source where shellfish is used. Therefore, we again advise prudence in relation to shellfish capacity. That type of exercise has not been done on a national scale. We agree it is a necessary item of work for the future.

Dr. Heffernan

The question of how we resolve sea trout population difficulties was also asked and Ken Whelan will offer his opinion in that regard.

Dr. Whelan

It is our belief and the belief of all the published science to which I referred earlier that where one has high levels of lice there is a higher risk in terms of fish resident in a particular bay or those moving slowly through it. Deputy Coveney also asked about bay cap. That is an important point and is one on which I published a paper many years ago. There is a balance to be struck here. One section of this debate has not yet been aired, the area of therapeutants. We have to strike a very delicate balance in our advice in that very often people's reaction to a problem is to treat it with medicines. We hear pharmacists complaining about this. Putting in more medicine and trying to reduce the levels of sea lice in that way would simply mean we run two risks, producing more therapeutants which will end up in the water and building up resistance in the lice. We must strike a balance between what is achievable and what is environmentally acceptable. We examined this carefully in the context of drawing up the protocols in 2000. The figures we gave are not random. They were examined in the context of what we honestly believed would produce a precautionary basis for managing salmonids. I assure the committee those figures are sufficient to deal with potential problems in terms of salmon and sea trout. At the end of the day, they have to be applied and rigorously followed.

I agree with members that this has been a useful and fruitful meeting. I would ask that the committee not request us to produce a lengthy report. We are currently engaged in umpteen reviews. This is an extremely busy time of the year for us in terms of wild fish. I am sure the committee will hear more in that regard in future meetings on other aspects of fisheries.

I would like to clarify a point about sea lice so that we do not add any more confusion to the debate. Senator Finucane mentioned, when responding to the central board, that I said there was no problem with sea lice.

Senator Finucane

I said there was no problem in 2001 and 2002 but that you had mentioned there was a problem in 2003.

Dr. Beamish

What I was seeking to convey was that in May 2000 we introduced the protocol and attached it to the licences after the critical period in 2000. As Dr. Whelan said, the system seemed to work well in 2001. In 2002, 87% of inspections showed lice levels below the trigger level. There did not appear to be a widespread problem then in terms of responses to notice of treatment. I am reflecting now on how the system operated.

Questions have arisen this year. We are currently engaged in a review of control practices and procedures; how the follow through on monitoring and enforcement is working in the system introduced in mid-2000. It is not that there may or not be a problem with lice, it is just that the system appeared to be working better and problems are now arising.

The Chairman asked if the Marine Institute is the regulator in this regard. It is more of a nuance than that as the system is a little more seamless. The Marine Institute monitors and issues the notice to treatment, an instruction to the operator to treat. That is not just an advisory throwaway entity; it is an obligation on the operator to comply with the protocol. The notice to treatment is, in effect, part of the judgment on whether a person is complying with the protocol and the licence conditions. That then ultimately feeds back.

We have held discussions this year with the Marine Institute on whether it feels it is getting an adequate response to notice to treatment and the point at which the Department would need to take further action. All of that information is feeding into the review.

Chairman

Is there a need for the Department to examine policy issues in terms of an inspectorate to oversee the industry as a whole and a prosecution body to deal with breaches? Is there a need to provide clear lines of regulation and authority to different bodies?

Dr. Beamish

On whether there is a conflict of interest between the Department in having a development responsibility and an inspection enforcement responsibility, there is a little more to it than that. BIM is a legally independent agency of the Department charged with developed responsibility. The Department provides funding for BIM and as a corporate governance sets the policy and so forth for it. The Marine Institute has the same legal relationship but it is a monitoring body and, at a certain point, monitoring greys into enforcement. The Department is the licenser and ultimately the enforcer of those licences.

If the committee feels that set of relationships gives rise to conflicts of interest or feels they do not work as well as they might in terms of enforcement, I must point out that all those arguments are equally applicable to wild sea fisheries where the Department has all those functions, equally mixed up and also as responsibility as the enforcement body. If we are in favour of strong enforcement on the aquaculture side, we must be in favour of enforcement on the sea fish side also because there are equally pressing environmental issues there. We are open minded in this regard.

The Department and the Minister are examining the overall structures for the delivery of regulatory services in respect of the aquaculture industry in accordance with the commitment in the programme for Government to develop new devolved service structures to support the sustainable management and development sector.

Chairman

How far advanced is the overhaul of the regulatory system?

Dr. Beamish

It is not an overhaul of the regulatory system. Whatever comes of the debate, the protocol and precautionary approach, things built up over ten or 12 years since the sea trout collapse in 1989, will remain.

We are looking at organisational structures. Deputies raised the issue of BIM marketing. There appears to be a strong resistance to even looking at whether there is a better formulation of structures that might be more beneficial to food marketing from Ireland. An overall government examination is currently taking place on structures for food marketing. I presume the same principles apply. If we wish to review existing structures, we will have to review them for the purposes of better service delivery, more efficiency and more targeting. The matter is being examined and the Minister will, in due course, come forward with proposals on this.

Chairman

We will have to come back to this matter another day. It is also, perhaps, a matter for discussion with the Minister.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Dr. Beamish seemed to imply that if we had strict enforcement in regard to aquaculture we would also be required to have strict enforcement in the area of wild fish. I would be surprised if anyone disagreed with that. I would have thought there was support for strong enforcement in both areas. I get the sense that the two are integrated. The sea trout population is suffering from a lack of enforcement in the aquaculture area.

Deputy Coveney

It is my understanding that there is strong enforcement at times in the sea fisheries sector with people being fined for breaches of regulations and so on. No such sanctions exist for the aquaculture sector. We have yet to hear of any form of sanction in that area other than revocation of licence and that sanction has never been used. We are questioning whether it is appropriate to introduce a level of fine in this area to ensure a person does not lose his or her licence.

Is everybody operating under the same licensing system? Are fish farmers who obtained licences pre-1997 operating under the same licensing rules as those who obtained licences since then?

Deputy Broughan

I thank all who attended the meeting. It has been a very interesting day. The general public will remain fearful that a cosy relationship exists between the industry and its regulator. That is something that should be addressed irrespective of the amount of work the Department - I know it is a small Department - covers. We have been promised the necessary legislation for the past six or seven years. I know there are political issues involved but there must be some way of examining these types of issues.

Dr. Beamish

I did not answer the matter relating to board members because the Chair indicated I should not do so. It is difficult to outline our position in that we cannot prejudice cases or go into detail on any individual case. Whether the enforcement system is working is not something we can get into here.

On control and enforcement in aquaculture and wild fisheries, from an organisational perspective if one feels there is an overriding conflict of interests in terms of the Department having an enforcement role, presumably one would feel the same from a point of principle in terms of wild fisheries because the same issues arise. That is not to comment on the effectiveness or otherwise of the exercise. If one takes that in principle there is a conflict of interest there, presumably one also thinks that about wild fisheries where the same locus of responsibility lies.

On the question of pre-1997 licences, they stand on their own terms. They normally have a ten year life span and when they come up for review the new protocols are attached. They then operate under the terms and conditions of the protocol.

Deputy Coveney

Those given licences in 1996 may well be operating under different licence terms for another three years.

Dr. Beamish

The licence will operate under its own terms for its lifespan.

Chairman

Being the committee responsible for monitoring the Department will be returning to this subject. I do not want Dr. Beamish to take it that this is the end of the discussion. We hope you will come back, having listened to all the presentations today and with your new review of the regulations, with more information to reassure us we are policing the growth of this industry.

I thank everybody for their attendance. Members will be aware Ms Etain Doyle, chairperson of the Commission for Communications Regulation announced her decision to retire from the commission in early 2004. As Chairman of this committee, I thank her for her assistance and co-operation during the past year. It has been a pleasure to work with her and we wish her well in her future career.

Deputy Coveney

Ms Doyle has done a considerable amount of work while involved with ComReg in the mobile sector and in the roll-out of broadband in particular. She has played a major part in getting that issue, of fundamental importance to the Irish economy, rolling. It is unfortunate, given her experience, she has decided not to stand again for the position. I, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, wish her well in whatever she chooses to do next.

Deputy Broughan

On behalf of the Labour Party, I share the sentiments expressed. We were always impressed with Ms Doyle's contributions to this committee. The area in question is a little like the one we have been discussing today. While I would like to see a much stronger regulator, Ms Doyle led the way in the telecommunications area.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

On behalf of the Green Party, I would also like to send our best wishes to Ms Doyle. I found her to be an excellent person to work with in that she was professional and informative in her presentations to this committee. She will be a loss to ComReg. I hope her successor lives up to her reputation.

The joint committee adjourned at 7.40 p.m.sine die.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht - Wednesday, 5 Nov 2003

Aquaculture Industry: Presentations.

Dr. Cecil Beamish

Dr. Beamish

Dr. Beamish

Dr. Beamish

Dr. Beamish

Dr. Beamish

Dr. Beamish

Dr. Beamish

Dr. Beamish

Dr. Beamish

Dr. Beamish

Dr. Beamish

Dr. Beamish

Dr. Paddy Gargan

Mr. Noel Carr

Mr. Carr

Mr. Carr

Mr. Carr

Mr. Carr

Mr. Carr

Mr. Feenstra

Mr. Richie Flynn

Dr. Gargan

Dr. Gargan

Mr. Carr

Dr. Gargan

Dr. Gargan

Mr. Carr

Mr. Carr

Mr. Carr

Mr. Carr

Mr. Carr

Mr. Feenstra

Mr. Feenstra

Mr. Flynn

Mr. Flynn

Mr. Flynn

Mr. Flynn

Mr. Flynn

Mr. Flynn

Mr. Flynn

Mr. Flynn

Mr. Flynn

Mr. Flynn

Mr. Flynn

JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Nov 2003