I thank the Chairman for inviting us to appear before the committee. We have been asked to give members a presentation on the proposal by the Dublin Port Company to create additional capacity at the port. In particular, we have been asked to deal with the proposed reclamation of 21 hectares as part of the proposal and the environmental issues that arise from such reclamation.
The sole objective of the Dublin Port Company is to fulfil its statutory obligations to facilitate trade at the port and to do so in a sustainable and efficient manner. Dublin Port is suffering from serious capacity constraints and this problem will become acute in 2007. The port urgently needs extra deep water capacity but our expansion options are limited and we have little time in which to achieve our objectives. The proposal for additional facilities at the north eastern part of the port includes the reclamation of 21 hectares and must be viewed in the light of the aforementioned constraints.
As the facilitator of trade, the company has sought to meet the extra demand for capacity at the port within the timescale required and in the most environmentally sustainable way. None of the critics of this much-needed facility has suggested any realistic alternative which will meet the national demand. If the port that handles over half of Ireland's foreign trade is unnecessarily constrained, the negative impact on the economy will be enormous. It will impact on our national competitiveness, lead to higher prices for consumers, adversely affect the availability of many goods and deter foreign direct investment. These are serious consequences that must be factored into any discussion on the future of Dublin Port. In advancing our proposals we have done our utmost to limit the environmental impact. Our proposal addresses local issues while meeting our wider obligations.
Irish ports have acted as facilitators of our economic boom and have struggled to keep pace with major increases in imports and exports. At present, over 99% of Irish foreign trade comes through our ports. The operation of efficient and competitive ports is central to the effective operation of the economy. It enables exporters to ensure their products reach their destinations in a timely and cost effective manner. It also assists importers in the fast and cost effective delivery of raw materials and consumer goods.
Dublin Port has recorded growth of over 20% in the last four years. In 2004 it handled over 25 million tonnes, which is almost a fourfold increase on the tonnage handled in 1992. Significant investment has taken place to maximise the efficiency of our existing land in order to deal with the growing economy and the increased volume of traffic. More than €136 million has been invested in infrastructural improvements since 1997. We have seen growth across the full range of the port's operations, including freight, tourism, vehicle throughput and cruise visits. This year, for example, the increase in cruise liners visiting Dublin Port will generate at least €50 million for the local economy.
Dublin Port has experienced such high levels of growth because importers and exporters prefer to move their goods through the port. Most of our customers are local, with 75% located within 80 km of Dublin Port. The port is highly competitive. This competitiveness has been achieved by encouraging competition among the stevedore companies and between competing scheduled services as well as by reducing our cost base to become price competitive vis-a-vis national and international standards. Increasingly, we need to accommodate new developments in shipping. The trend in international shipping is towards larger vessels, which by their nature require deeper and longer berths. As an international trading nation, we need the facilities to accommodate the larger, more efficient vessels. Otherwise, importers and exporters will have to utilise a less efficient means of trading goods, which will have cost implications for the economy and for consumers.
On the basis of our current and projected throughput, Dublin Port will reach operational capacity in 2007. Put simply, by the end of that year Dublin Port will not have the facilities to deal with the volume of business generated by our customers. This is not scaremongering but a fact. In April of this year the Irish Exporters Association published a report which carried an even bleaker assessment of the port's capacity constraints than we have determined. The report asserts, "Port congestion will prove to be the single biggest challenge facing the Irish export industry over the coming years." It further states that "backlogged exports, inefficient road haulage and disgruntled customers will inevitably constrain exports to 0% growth unless we see urgent action in terms of port development."
Irish exporters are looking at only one side of the equation — the export of goods. The other side of the equation is the importing of goods, to which capacity constraints equally apply. The range of consumer goods coming through our ports is very broad and includes food, wine, cars, white goods, clothing, furniture and so on. The effective and efficient operation of Dublin Port is an issue for Irish consumers who are seeking low prices and wider choice and our proposal to provide additional capacity at the port must be examined in this light.
The proposal advanced by the Dublin Port Company is designed to generate additional capacity to service future growth and is a modest one. It involves the reclamation of 21 hectares along the eastern edge of the northern part of the port in order to develop additional roll-on, roll-off and load-on, load-off trade berthing facilities. The proposal involves the construction of a rock bund along the northern and eastern edge of the existing port reclamation, together with the reclamation of a new area of approximately 600 m by 350 m. A new quay wall will be constructed along the southern and eastern edge of the proposed reclamation, as well as ramps and other structures associated with the provision of berthing facilities. The proposal involves the provision of landscaping on the northern part of the proposed reclamation area and appropriate planting similar to that successfully carried out at other parts of the boundary of the port.
The proposal advanced by Dublin Port Company is the only viable option to deal with the problems of capacity at Dublin Port within the relevant timescale. Some critics have suggested alternative options which the company has considered to determine if they present a viable solution to the problems now faced at the port. Regrettably, these alternative options fall far short of dealing with the capacity problems at the port. I will deal with each of the suggested alternatives in sequence.
It has been argued that we could make better use of the existing land at the port. Critics have claimed that we make poor use of the 260 hectares at Dublin Port and, in particular, of the oil tank storage facilities there. However, much of the land at Dublin Port is held by tenants under long leases. While Dublin Port Company may be the nominal owner of the port, we have very little control over the leases and activities of the tenants in the port. We have engaged in a process of gaining control of some of the land within the port as leases expire, but this is costly, slow and often difficult. Even if we managed to recover significant portions of land from existing tenants, we would still have the problem that much of the land of the port area is remote from the deep sea berths that are so urgently needed. In so far as possible, the company currently has access and control over all available deep berths and quay wall facilities within the port and we simply need more of them. We have made proposals to Government regarding changing the situation on long leases to tenants at the port to facilitate the recovery of more land and we await a response in this regard.
Critics have also argued that Dublin Port could address the current shortfall in deep berths by using other berths throughout the port. Some have even suggested that we should use North Wall and Sir John Rogerson's Quay to facilitate freight. These two locations are not practical, however, and would take core port activities outside the main port area, with all the associated traffic, storage and safety implications.
One other obvious option would be to dredge deeper water berths in the Tolka estuary so that larger vessels could discharge their cargo at deep water berths directly facing the current shoreline of Clontarf and Fairview. This would help the port to gain access to deep water berths without the need for land reclamation. However, the environmental impact of expanding such operations on the north side of the port, fronting on to Clontarf and Fairview, would be very serious and far in excess of any negative implications of the current modest reclamation proposal.
Relocation of the port is another option, with particular attention drawn to the development proposal of Drogheda Port Company at Bremore. The development proposal at Bremore may present a longer-term possibility to assist in alleviating congestion at Dublin Port, but does not present a short-term solution. I have no doubt, for instance, that the Drogheda Port proposal for Bremore will encounter even more green field planning and environmental objections than those experienced by the Dublin Port development proposal. The development of such an additional port north of Dublin would also involve considerable additional infrastructural costs and it is likely that it would be many years before it was fully operational. Regrettably, the imminent capacity constraints at Dublin Port will occur far sooner than any alternative or complementary port facilities can become operational. Members should also note that developing a port facility at Bremore or elsewhere, either to complement or as an alternative to Dublin Port, ignores one key fact, namely, that while Government policy recognises that Dublin Port has a national role, over 50% of imports in Dublin Port remain within the M50. In fact, over 75% of imports remain within 80 km of the port. Seeking to defer the development of additional capacity at Dublin Port by relying on alternative port proposals will not increase capacity within the timescale required.
Environmental issues have also been raised by our critics. In 2002 the company submitted an environmental impact statement, EIS, to the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, assessing the environmental impact of the proposed development at Dublin Port. The EIS was prepared by Pasford Haskoning Environment and reviewed the various reclamation and infill options. It examined the impact of the proposed reclamation across a range of different categories, including the impact on flora and fauna, people, amenities, water and hydrodynamics and the consequences for air and noise. The EIS found that while there may be some potential for adverse impacts during the construction phase of the reclamation, successful implementation of mitigation measures could reduce the impacts to either minor or negligible levels. It also found that any of the possible adverse impacts would be reduced in scale during the construction phase through the careful timing and completion of different stages of the works. In particular, the EIS found that the proposed development would have no impact on the tidal regime or on recreational amenities. The EIS also found that, following construction, the most significant impacts arising from the operation of the proposed reclamation site would be those associated with traffic increases. However, the construction and commissioning of the new Dublin Port tunnel is expected to address any adverse traffic impact. The EIS concluded that the proposed reclamation scheme will provide the facilities needed to cope with current and future port requirements but with lower environmental impacts in comparison to the alternative options.
Some people have criticised the EIS because it was commissioned by Dublin Port Company but this is unfair to the leading experts retained by the company. The best way of assessing the claims and counter claims relating to the proposed reclamation project is to allow the matter to be considered by the relevant independent authorities. It is up to them to make an assessment of the merits of our proposal.
Dublin Port Company has no control over the issue of the extension of the special protection area, SPA, for Dublin Bay. It is a matter for the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. In line with other parties interested in the future of Dublin Bay, and in the context of our statutory responsibilities for the port, we have had contact with the NPWS on issues relating to the SPA. We have made our views known at different times and are entitled to do so but the question of the designation of a specific area as an SPA is a matter exclusively for the Department and the NPWS. Our key focus has been on dealing with the operational capacity issues affecting the port in a sustainable and ecologically sound manner. We have been a good neighbour to the SPA. For example, we have undertaken a habitat creation project for the tern colony at the ESB jetty. The condition of Dublin Bay is very good for birds compared to other European port environments.
Members should be aware that there are a number of stages that Dublin Port Company has to complete before any proposed development can take place. Each of these stages provides for public consultation, including an oral hearing and an independent verification of the proposal. Given the imminence of the capacity constraints, we hope that we can progress to these various stages at the earliest opportunity.
The question of whether Dublin Port Company is allowed to develop additional deep water facilities at Dublin Bay is not a matter for the company. We have set out the reasons why the development is required, the absence of any feasible alternative proposal and the consequences for the national economy of our failure to secure additional capacity. We have tried to do this in the most environmentally sustainable manner possible and to engage with and address concerns raised by objectors to the proposals. A balance must be struck between the needs of an economy which is heavily dependent on efficient and competitive port facilities with sufficient capacity and the needs and requirements of Dublin Bay, its users and adjoining residents. We believe our proposal achieves the balance required and ensures that Dublin Port can secure additional capacity while minimising any adverse environmental impacts. However, we recognise that the decision to proceed with the development is not for Dublin Port Company but for others to make. I urge those who dismiss or criticise our proposal to suggest a realistic and viable alternative, given the major national issues involved. Finally, I invite members of the committee to visit Dublin Port to assess the impact of the development and the concerns to which I have referred.
