Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to this committee. This means that a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at the committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at my direction as Chair. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by the witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from these proceedings.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. We may have members joining us from time to time on Microsoft Teams.

I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to the constitutional requirement to be present on the Leinster House campus. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. I ask any members who are joining us via Microsoft Teams that, prior to making their contribution, they confirm that they are on the grounds of Leinster House. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction that I make.

As everyone knows, the agenda for today's meeting is aquaculture licensing. We have quite a number of witnesses. They are all very welcome. I will go through the witnesses in a moment, but just to explain the format of the meeting, because of the number of witnesses we have representing four different organisations, I will ask that one person on behalf of each organisation give a two-minute overview of their opening statement. The opening statements have been circulated to members who will have read and be aware of them. Then we will go to questions and answers. Members will have ten minutes each, in which they can put their questions and it also has to include the answer. It is for each member to manage his or her own time. If people are waffling or going off the point, it is for members to bring them back and let them know or move on to the next person they wish to question.

The committee will hear from the following witnesses: representing the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine we have Ms Sinéad McSherry, assistant secretary, Ms Suzanne Brennan, principal officer, and Mr. Brian Batt, head of aquaculture and foreshore management division; representing the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board we have Dr. Shane McCarthy, chair, Mr Michael Mulloy, board member, and Ms Mary Hegarty, technical adviser; representing Bord Iascaigh Mhara we have Mr. Richard Donnelly, director of development and innovation services and interim CEO, and Mr. Rory Campbell, director of seafood technical services; representing the Marine Institute we have Mr. Glenn Nolan, director of marine environment and food safety services, and Mr. Frank Kane, team leader in aquaculture advice and benthic ecology; and representing IFA Aquaculture we have Mr. Finian O’Sullivan, chairperson, and Ms Teresa Morrissey, aquaculture policy executive. I will go in the order that I read out the witnesses. I ask the Department witnesses to give a two-minute summary of their opening statement.

I thank the Cathaoirleach. I am joined today by my colleagues, Mr. Brian Batt, who is the head of the aquaculture and foreshore management division, and Ms Suzanne Brennan, who is the head of marine programmes.

In our opening statement, we set out briefly the legal basis for the requirement of an aquaculture licence, being the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997, the Foreshore Act 1933 and all applicable EU legislation. It goes into the requirement for scientific and technical advisers as well as the interactions with statutory consultees. The timeframe for processing aquaculture licences varies on a number of factors, including their location, the species, the scale and intensity of the production, the statutory status of the sites and, again, the Acts primarily in relation to being in a special area of conservation, SAC, or special protection area, SPA, and the potential visual impact. The Department must take full account of all the scientific and technical advice in addition to all the issues identified during public and statutory consultation in advance of recommending a determination to the Minister. In relation to factors that can further impact on the time taken for an application to be concluded, there is the requirement for an appropriate assessment and, in some cases, an environmental impact assessment report.

In relation to a backlog, which is an issue this committee has looked at before, the commonly known birds case, which was a European Court of Justice, ECJ, judgment against Ireland in 2007 for breaches of the birds and habitats directives, led to a large amount of work to be executed by the various stakeholders in relation to Natura 2000 areas.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, is the competent authority for this and was setting conservation objectives. It also had to identify the scientific interest to be protected in each of the relevant sites. It was incumbent on us to ensure that the appropriate assessments were undertaken, and the requirements of the legislation were being met.

Since 2012, approximately 1,300 licence applications have been determined. There are a small number of long-standing applications specifically in relation to finfish, and the Department continues to work closely with the relevant applicants and our scientific and technical advisers with a view to progressing those to conclusion. As licences are valid for a ten-year period, licences granted since 2012 are now coming due for renewal, and the requirement upon us is for those to be fully assessed again in line with the relevant legislation.

The Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board, ALAB, is a non-commercial, semi-State body established in June 1998 under the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997, dealing with appeals against decisions of the Minister for agriculture, fisheries and the marine relating to aquaculture licences. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Minister on an aquaculture licence application, or by the revocation or amendment of an aquaculture licence, may make an appeal within one month of publication in the case of a decision or of notification in the case of a revocation. In line with its legislative mandate, ALAB ensures that all determinations adhere to the 1997 Act and prevailing environmental standards.

ALAB's operational focus remains the timely delivery of high-quality decisions underpinned by a robust framework of independence and transparency. Ensuring that the appeals are determined in line with the relevant legal requirements of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act is one of the key priorities, as is ensuring full compliance with EU environmental directives and that all determinations strictly adhere to obligations mandated by key EU legislation, including the habitats and birds directives, the water framework directive, the marine strategy framework directive and requirements for environmental impact assessments and appropriate assessments. Adherence to these complex legislative requirements has significantly increased the complexity of the appeals determination process, where ALAB is prioritising effective management of this complexity to maintain legal compliance. A key goal is to process appeals as expeditiously as possible, addressing the extended timeframe currently required due to the complex environmental standards.

I am joined today by Ms Hegarty, a technical adviser to the board, and by fellow board member, Mr. Mulloy. I last appeared before the committee at my confirmation hearing last June and have been chairing since that date.

I thank the committee. I am joined today by Mr. Campbell, our director of strategic technical services.

Bord Iascaigh Mhara, BIM, is not the competent authority responsible for issuing aquaculture licences. BIM's role is to support, enable and develop the sector, working alongside producers and relevant authorities to address the challenges facing the sector. At a local level, BIM provides practical, hands-on licensing support to aquaculture producers through its network of regional development officers. These officers act as a first point of contact for businesses seeking guidance on new licence applications, licensing renewals and reviews.

Support extends beyond administrative queries to include assistance with site layout optimisation, operational planning and alignment with environmental regulatory requirements. BIM works closely with the marine engineering department and the aquaculture foreshore management division to resolve any issues, provide clarifications and support producers through the licensing process. BIM also supports producer participation in the co-ordinated local aquaculture management systems, CLAMS, and special unified marking systems, SUMS, both of which play an important role in spatial planning, navigational safety, visual impact reduction and stakeholder engagement, factors that are increasingly relevant in the licensing process. In parallel, BIM helps producers align grant applications, capital investment plans and compliance obligations with licence conditions, ensuring that public investment supports long-term regulatory compliance and sustainability.

In summary, BIM’s role in relation to aquaculture licensing is enabling, rather than regulatory, through direct producer supports, technical evidence provision, strategic engagement and capacity building. BIM helps to reduce licence-related barriers and support informed decision making.

BIM wants to see an aquaculture sector that is sustainable economically, socially and environmentally and that remains viable in the short, medium and long term.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the invitation to attend. I am joined by Mr. Kane, who is team lead for licensing and policy advice at the institute. We work in support of the statutory remit of our agency.

The Marine Institute Act 1991 established the Marine Institute as the State agency responsible for undertaking, co-ordinating, promoting and assisting in marine research and development and also providing services related to marine research and development that promote economic development, create employment and protect the marine environment. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the important work that the Marine Institute undertakes and our scientific work that advises the aquaculture licensing process. This work is consistent with the institute’s broad statutory role, which is to provide the scientific evidence and technical expertise that can underpin policy decisions and robust management of marine resources. Our work across several key areas can ensure that aquaculture licensing decisions are informed by robust data and sound science.

The Marine Institute’s contribution is about providing the evidence base, by means of data collection, analysis and expert advice, necessary to ensure that aquaculture licensing decisions are well informed and consistent with relevant environmental legislation. Our written submission further elaborates on the key areas of Marine Institute activity that advise the aquaculture licensing process. Mr. Kane and I will be happy to take any questions on our work.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach. As part of our presentation at the previous session, we explained the economic and social benefits of aquaculture to our remote, rural and coastal regions. The challenges are not in the level of ambition we in IFA Aquaculture possess but in the inability to implement that ambition. That blockage invariably comes back to the State's difficulty with issuing licences in a timely fashion. The Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997, and its subsequent amending Acts, which give effect to various EU environmental directives, are now outdated and notwithstanding the proposed amendments the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine has in the pipeline we feel a complete overhaul of the legislation is necessary. Our assertion that the existing Act is not fit for purpose is supported in the report of the independent review group on the aquaculture licensing process from back in 2017 and also comments made in a recent licence appeal decision in September 2025 that described the current licence conditions in the appeal determination as inappropriate, outdated, inconsistent with best practice and not commercially viable. The determination also concluded there is a recognised need to update licence conditions and that there are significant delays in the licensing system. It is critical that a single Bill to implement and underpin appropriate aquaculture policy and bring together all the existing primary, secondary and amended legislation in a single provision be brought forward. This must be a national priority for the Minister and his Department officials.

The Irish aquaculture sector believes meaningful aquaculture licensing reform must deliver legislative reform and consolidation, modernisation of the licensing system, with 20-year licences, clear timelines and certainty for licence determinations and resources such as staffing and expertise for appropriate assessments and environmental assessment work. Improved access to funding despite licensing delays is needed as well. We in IFA Aquaculture also examined the validity of a plan-led approach to licensing. We understand the enormity of the task in hand but the status quo cannot prevail. By acknowledging the difficulties before us we will take the first steps towards rectifying the situation we find ourselves in. We welcome the committee's engagement on this issue and look forward to questions.

I thank Mr. O'Sullivan. We will go to questions and answers for Members.

I thank the witnesses for attending. A number of years ago, I was provided with data on the scale of the aquaculture industry in Ireland compared with that of nearby countries. An example I have referenced many times in this regard is the Faroe Islands.

The Faroe Islands have a population of just over 50,000. I am from the Inishowen Peninsula which has a population of around 40,000. The Faroe Islands has a much larger aquaculture industry than the entire State we live in. The size of Scotland's industry is a multiple of ours. I do not need to reference Norway, which has the same population as Ireland. I appreciate it is not like for like but the issue is the time it takes to make a decision here. We have to be mindful that in all these instances people have the right to object, as they do in the planning system on land. That is right and proper and there should be full adherence to environmental regulations. None of that is disputed. The issue is the length of time it takes.

I want to probe this. In the first round, my questions will be for the Department, after which I will ask the Marine Institute questions. The Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, referred to the drafting of a work plan with timelines to address delays in the licensing system and expedite it. Will Ms McSherry take me through where the Department is at on its work plan, with clear timelines setting out how long it will take to make a decision on, for example, a particular bay and appropriate assessment?

I thank the Deputy. I am not clear what forum the Minister of State made those comments in. What we can speak to this morning is the work the division is doing on the prioritisation of particular bays to try to secure a licensing process that is as rapid as possible. Equally, the timelines can vary for a number of reasons, including the environmental piece. I will ask Mr. Batt to speak to that in more detail. The work plan that Mr. Batt and the Marine Institute are working on together is designed to accelerate as much as possible those licensing decisions. Unfortunately, it is not straightforward in every instance.

As Ms McSherry touched on, we cannot give definitive timelines for the process at the moment because there are so many different factors that can affect a bay. In the Department, we are trying to process applications as quickly as possible. We acknowledge it is taking too long. We have a very good working relationship with the Marine Institute. We meet regularly to assess what bays can move forward and how we prioritise our work. The Marine Institute will speak on this. It has a heavy workload. Resourcing is an issue across the board. To try to alleviate some of this, the Department has started using externally contracted ecological consultants to process some of the appropriate assessment screenings and appropriate assessment reports that are required for licensing decisions. The Marine Institute has new posts coming online to try to speed these things up as well.

While I do not have anything further to add to the comments by the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, I am aware that he is minded to take a bigger picture look at what we are doing and, as the Deputy said, put timelines on it, similar to those in place in the planning process. I do not have further information on that.

I have submitted parliamentary questions over the last while. There are 569 licence applications currently awaiting determination, of which 353 are awaiting an appropriate assessment from the Marine Institute. This means half of all current licence applications are outstanding. In 2025, a total of ten licence applications were determined by the Minister. I do not need to spell out that we are in disaster territory if we continue at that pace. When will the Marine Institute have a work plan with clear timelines? Does it need additional resources and staff? My understanding is that there are licences that have been waiting for ten years. Bord Iascaigh Mhara will work with Bord Bia and the Minister and go out on a trade mission to an Asian country with a massive potential market but how can we expect our seafood companies to do business if they do not know they will have a licence?

How on earth can we expect our seafood companies to do business if they do not know they are going to have licences, which means that they do not have pipelines? This is the issue. I am very conscious of the responsibility the Marine Institute has to ensure that environmental regulations are adhered to, particularly in the context of us having been taken to task in the past. We must have timelines, however. To my simple mind, if the institute cannot meet the timelines and cannot define them, it needs more resources. The committee needs to know that and then it can make the case for additional resources for institute. I am not looking to swamp people who are already busy, but if it needs more resources and if certain expertise is missing, we need to know that. I ask Dr. Nolan to outline why it takes so long, what resources the institute has, what resources are missing and when can we get to the point of having an action plan with timelines in order that we can have certainty on these matters.

The resourcing side of things has changed considerably in the past four or five years. In 2020, there was one full-time equivalent working on the aquaculture licensing process within the Marine Institute. We are now at five, and we will soon be at six or seven full-time equivalents working in this area. That should enable us to have a workstreams on shellfish and finfish applications that operate in parallel, which should speed up the throughput of licences.

I do not share the Deputy's view that we have no plan. We work very closely with the Departments with the AFMD division within the Departments where prioritisation takes place. In addition, we work to the Departments' priorities. They change for various reasons. If, for example, submissions are incomplete, it means the work potentially shifts to other applications. If we have to seek additional information from applicants, that can slow the process down.

We have seen a major step-up in the resources available to this. We are on the cusp of seeing much more significant throughput of applications on licences because we have been able to bring in very capable people with the skills required to further these licence applications. As Mr. Batt has pointed out, we meet with the Departments separately in respect of shellfish, finfish and foreshore licensing at least once a month. That allows us to continually prioritise and plan in order to make sure that the throughput is as efficient as it can be.

Like any State agency or Department, we can always use more resources. The key thing to point out, however, is that the level of resourcing has increased over the past four or five years to deal with what we acknowledge is a very pressing issue.

How long does it take to do an appropriate assessment for a bay? How long should it take?

I might defer to my colleague Mr. Kane on the timing because he is more involved in the day-to-day work in that regard.

It is probably overly simplistic to put a timeline on it in that if we are doing an appropriate assessment for a single shellfish farm in a bay, it does not take as much time as if we are doing somewhere like Bantry Bay, where there 17 or 18 licences. It is also subject to the number of Natura sites involved. It is quite complex. I am reluctant to put a timeline on it because somebody will take that timeline as being written in stone. It is something that changes quite a bit. One of the challenges we have had was the ruling from the European Court of Justice in 2009 and building up the baseline information to allow us to do appropriate assessments. It has been a significant factor throughout the whole process to have the information needed to successfully carry out appropriate assessments and make decisions.

We are all within the European Union. I heard a story not so long ago that it took six months to get a licence in a particular European member state, and they felt that was a long time. Is there an issue with resources? We are all under the same European regulations and we are all under the same European sky. What is happening here? Why are other member states able to do this within a reasonable timeframe?

I do not have that information. I do not know.

I will revisit it later in the next round.

We will probably have a second round of questions and answers for each member. We will move on to Deputy Whitmore.

I thank the witnesses for coming. There is huge potential in aquaculture for rural communities and it is very important for employment in some rural communities. I used to work on salmon farms many years ago. Indeed, I have worked on an Atlantic halibut farm. I do not know whether we have ever looked at those. It is important that when we do it, we do it properly and that there is an environmental standard, which we meet, but that it is also done in as efficient a way as possible for the producers so there is certainty and clarity for them as well. I have a number of questions about this.

I am curious because at one stage perhaps 20 salmon farms were operating without a licence. Are any operating without a licence at the moment? I am not sure who is best placed to answer that.

We have 29 finfish renewals on hand, but they are operating under section 19A(4) of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997. They are allowed to operate under the conditions of their expired licences until the renewal is determined.

Okay. There are 29 fish farms, primarily salmon farms.

Yes.

I imagine they are all salmon farms. Are they?

To the best of my knowledge, they are all salmon farms.

How long have they been operating without a licence?

For a number of years. I cannot tell the Deputy off the top of my head, but some of these operators have been availing of section 19A(4) for 15 years and longer.

In 2021, some research was done on this by thejournal.ie and it stated at the time that there were 22 salmon farms operating with expired licences and without environmental impact assessments. That number has gone up. There are now 29. At that time, eight of the 22 farms had been operating for between ten and 15 years. Mr. Batt is not in a position to provide any information about how long these farms have been doing so. It is quite serious to have a salmon farm, which may or may not be operated very well, operating without a licence for ten, 15 or 20 years. That is quite incredible. Does Mr. Batt have that information to hand?

I can get the exact figures for the Deputy of the different lengths of time for the 29 renewals we are processing. However, they have a legal basis under which to operate under section 19A(4) of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997. Those 29 renewals are all moving through the environmental impact assessment and other appropriate assessment processes. Some are almost finalised now. They have been operating without these assessments, but the renewal decisions we put to the Minister starting this year will have undergone the assessments.

If Mr. Batt could get that information, it would be useful. Does he know how many of these salmon farms are international farms? A Norwegian company has a considerable amount of the market here. Of the 29 farms, how many are owned by Mowi?

Off the top of my head, I think it is 70%, but-----

Is Mr. Batt at all concerned that we have had a number of reports stating that, looking at the licence conditions and how the regulation of farms occurs, the regulations in Ireland are much weaker than they are in Norway? Therefore, there is a business benefit for Norwegian companies to operate here, because they are not held to the same standard as they are in their country.

The Department is aware that some of the conditions in the existing licences are out of date. They are not enforceable. We will have different terms and conditions in the renewed licences. I acknowledge the weaknesses in the current licences that were issued 15 or 20 years ago, but we are looking at it as we come to issue new licences.

Mr. Batt thinks that will be strengthened and the inequity will be balanced out.

Yes.

I am just curious, as it has been a long time since I looked into this area. When a farm has been issued a licence, what kind of monitoring happens to ensure compliance?

Finfish farms are subject to an annual inspection by the Department's marine engineering division.

Is that notified? If it is annual, they know when to expect it.

We publish them and the Marine Institute has a sea lice monitoring programme that is also publicly available.

Can I just get this straight? Every year, on roughly the same day, someone will look at the farms.

One of the things they look at, I would imagine, would be sea lice infestation. Is there not a risk they would have been treated prior to the inspection? If I was farming, I would treat them before any inspection. Is that not a risk?

As Mr. Batt has spoken to in regard to the previous conditions assigned to licences, I wish to acknowledge that all our farms are operating to organic standards and are independently assessed with respect to that standard. As Mr. Batt said, each of the farms is inspected on an annual basis. I do not believe it is the same day every year but I will come back to the Deputy.

It would be the same time in the cycle I would imagine because of the very defined seasonals.

The marine engineers will do clusters at a time but it is important to note that we also have the Department's veterinary inspectors visiting the farms. There is the sea lice monitoring protocol, on which I will defer to the Marine Institute to speak to at length. That is on a monthly basis and there are various other issues or reporting that is done to ensure the health of the animals. In regard to the standards they have, they all operate to organic standards with an independent assessment. They have their annual inspection from the Department. They have their monthly sea lice protocol. There are a lot of fish health guidelines issued by the MI but I will defer to it on the detail of that.

Before we move on to the Marine Institute, that is obviously in regard to fish health but, from the environmental perspective, is there monitoring of the sediment?

Benthic monitoring is in place.

That happens as well.

Yes.

Okay. Who does that? Is that the Marine Institute?

There are several protocols in place. One is for sea lice but there are others for, as was said, sediment benthic monitoring, and for water column monitoring in the vicinity of the site and adjacent to the site. Those protocols are well established. All the applicants are aware that they are the protocols they have to use. They have been developed by scientific experts in the institute and based on international best practice. The institute also carries out its own surveys in the vicinity of some of these aquaculture sites on a cyclical basis. A combination of those things gives us a sense of the overall health on a farm and in the vicinity of that farm.

Is that information publicly available?

It is. The sea lice information, for example, is on the dashboard of a website one can visit and on which of the sea lice counts can be seen. For the monitoring reports, in principle, they can be in the public domain but I do not think they are on a website the same way sea lice is. They are available if necessary.

I had a look at the Marine Institute. There is the aquaculture information management system, AQUAMIS. It is an app or something like that which gives the locations of the different farms. I did not see any extra information about the reporting on individual farms, or that water column reporting or whatever. If possible, we need to be moving towards a more public and simple way of finding out this information in order that one does not have to go to multiple sites.

What is the mortality rate on salmon farms in Ireland? The witnesses do not know the average. In Norway it is approximately 15% and it is around the same in Scotland but I have seen reports that Ireland is 40%. I do not know if that is true or not. Can anyone here can speak to the mortality rate?

I cannot say definitively what the average mortality rate is other than to say it is covered under fish health. Animal health law covers the reporting of unexplained mortality and there is a certain threshold, which is 2%.

Okay. Above 2%, they have to explain-----

It has to be reported. If it is not explained, it has to be reported to the Marine Institute.

Okay.

That is monitored. On the fish health side of things, the Department carries out veterinary inspections on an annual basis, sometimes on a twice-annual basis. In the case of mortality, if it was unexplained, a veterinary inspector would be sent out to investigate. That does happen if it is reported to the Marine Institute but I could not say what the average is.

As I was preparing for this meeting, I saw that the US has now refused to import salmon from Ireland because of the concerns about the conditions and the impact on wildlife. Has that actually happened? I think it was due to come in on 1 January.

I can come back in on that. That came in on 1 January. We have sought clarification that this should not be the case. Ireland has been singled out as the only country in the world that cannot export organic salmon into the United States.

The reason was mainly around wildlife concerns that do not in fact arise. We do not seek to cull seals at all. There are no licences issued. There has not been a licence issued ever, I think. I might not be 100% correct about that, but certainly none have been issued in the past 20 years. We are looking for clarification that this will be rectified.

What would the US market be worth? I am just wondering how much of an impact this is having.

The market is relatively small by comparison with the salmon export market overall. It would represent less than 2%, but it is important to some of our organic smoked salmon exporters.

Our guests believe this is going to be resolved.

To give some context to this, the national marine service of the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, has implemented what is known as the Marine Mammal Protection Act. It came into force on 1 January. Basically, there are import provisions that require the harvesting nations to maintain a regulatory programme to address the intentional or incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals in their export fisheries. I believe that is what Ms Morrissey was referring to. In Ireland, the statutory instruments of the NPWS provide for individuals to seek a licence in respect of dealing with nuisance seals. That involves extant legislation, and that was an issue that NOAA took with Ireland Inc. We have dealt with those concerned. We have dealt with the NPWS and we have attestations from it on the lack of execution of the licences in relation to seals. We hope that issue will be resolved very shortly. We feel it could have been resolved in a shorter timescale but the government shutdown in the US meant we could not actually engage with anybody on that side.

Is there any timescale for dealing with this, or any indication? It would be useful if exporters were aware of it.

It is a critical issue for exporters. Colleagues from BIM have referred to the amount of the product, but it is a high-value product. As soon as possible is our timeframe but, again, we need the interaction with NOAA. It is facilitated through the Commission because it is a trade issue between the two blocs.

I thank everybody for coming in today. If we get this right, it will have huge potential, especially for rural counties all around Ireland.

Roughly what would the timeframe be if I applied for a licence today? I realise I cannot be given a precise answer. Would it be one year, two years or more?

I did an exercise on this, having watched the committee’s hearing in November on how long it would take. It is impossible to give a definitive answer but the average time over the past five years from the date of application to the date of determination by the Department has been 3.9 years. Therefore, we are talking about just less than four years. A particular bay may have issues but determinations have taken an average of 3.9 years in the past five years.

Are there different criteria for, say, salmon and shellfish? Can they be in one bay? Is there a special area?

The key difference is that the finfish applications would require environmental impact assessments and shellfish applications would not. There is an added layer of complexity to the finfish applications.

Do the finfish applications take longer?

They have to undergo an extra assessment.

Does Mr. Batt know offhand how many licence applications are pending?

We ran these figures last week, so they are slightly different from those Deputy Mac Lochlainn got in the answer to the parliamentary question. We have 562 applications on hand. These cover shellfish, finfish and land-based aquaculture.

My next question is for the IFA. Taking out the timeframe, what specific changes could we make that would help along the way?

On the changes we would recommend, resources have been mentioned by the Department and the Marine Institute. Dr. Nolan did say resources were being improved. That was a blockage which slowed up the process for the last number of years. Appropriate assessments are only one aspect of it but it went from one person dealing with it a few years ago and there is a possibility that there will be five or six this year. Hopefully that will speed up the whole process of appropriate assessments.

Ms Morrissey is saying “Clarity” to me. Clear timelines are on the clarity side of things. The Senator asked the question of how long it would take. That is basically our problem in the industry. The industry is going backwards rather than forwards because there is no clarity as to how long anything will take. The process of getting to a determination is one thing and then the appeal process is another. There are resources problems there as well. After that there are resource problems in the High Court were there is judicial review. The whole process is dragged out to the bitter end and it takes years. I heard Mr. Batt say the average is 3.9 years but in reality if you go through the list, a lot of licences take an awful lot longer. That is the difficulty of the industry. It goes back to whether we want an industry or not. We have to find ways to deal with that. I heard Deputy Whitmore talking about the environment and so on. We are all concerned about the environment, of course, and things have to be done right and be monitored afterwards and so on but, again, that process needs to be done quicker and robustly enough that it stands.

It says here in the opening statement that Ireland has a great reputation for environmentally friendly aquaculture. Is that something we can build on? I know from hearing about fish that goes away from around Ireland that we are seen to have a lovely green product and it is top-class fish which goes from Ireland. That is something we need to be championing. These fish are getting the best of care. They are top quality leaving our factories and shores. I know BIM does a lot of promotion and so on but this is something that we might enhance moving forward.

It is scientifically proven that shellfish farming has a positive effect on the environment for the most part. It helps with remediation in the water by gathering up phosphates and nitrogens and so on. So does seaweed because it absorbs all that. When they are grown together in bays, seaweeds, algae, shellfish and finfish have synergies between them and they help with the environmental problems people see in farming.

We talk a lot about salmon but the fact is 70% of salmon consumed in the world is farmed salmon, so that says something. There is a need for production of more protein in the world. Global warming is having its effect on producing proteins on land and at sea. There are detractors against fish farming but, on balance, it has a lot going for it. Even the carbon footprint of salmon is quite small at 4 kg of CO2. We have good quality and we have good opportunities because we have the coastline. The other thing to consider is that wild fish stocks are in decline. We see that from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES, report on mackerel and the cutbacks there.

That protein and son on needs to be replaced in a world that has a growing population. We have a lot going for us. We could probably sell our industry a bit better but it is about trying to get time to do everything. The whole licensing thing depresses the whole industry because it takes so long.

I have one other question. How come it takes so long for foreshore licences? A couple of people who contacted me since I came in here said they are it for years and they are getting nowhere. Why should it take so long? Can the Department give me an average of how long it should take to get a foreshore licence? Should it be two years or three years? I know Mr. Batt is probably answering the same question again but it is holding up a lot of activity around the shores.

It is important to know the type of foreshore licence the Senator is referring to because within the remit of the Department, we deal with foreshore licences to accompany aquaculture licences. In terms of firstly recognising the consent for the aquaculture, the foreshore then comes into play. The other piece we undertake the consenting for are the foreshore licences directly related to fishing activity. If there are other foreshore licences that are required, they are probably the marine area consents the county councils need or other private individuals need. They are dealt with in the Marine Area Regulatory Authority. I cannot speak to them; I can only speak to the ones on aquaculture.

On the foreshore consenting, following a court case about three years ago, it is now determined once the aquaculture license is determined. If you have the consent for the activity, we then determine the consent for the occupation of the foreshore for aquaculture. However, in and around certain small piers and harbours where it is specifically to support the fishing industry, we will do the foreshore consenting. All other foreshore consenting is not for this Department.

I thank all the witnesses for coming in. I will go straight to the Department. Reforms included in the aquaculture licensing review in 2017, such as a 20-year licensing term, would make a massive improvement to the system. Why were these recommendations from the review not implemented? My second question relates to another part of this. Will these recommendations be included in the upcoming fisheries amendment Bill, which will aim to update, modernise and streamline aquaculture licensing in the State? Will the Department tell us about its progress and where the Bill is currently at?

On the recommendations from the 2017 review, it is something we discuss with the IFA aquaculture on a regular basis when we meet with it. We broadly agree that we have 20 of the 31 actioned at this stage. Four of these are still considered in progress and seven are not actioned or no longer relevant because of the passage of time. That is a broad overview of where are at with the recommendations from the review. Specifically, the 20-year licensing recommendation is one that is considered in progress because we have not actioned that. The Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, has publicly said he is supportive of it. The industry is supportive as it would provide certainty to the industry. From an administrative point of view, it would make sense as well.

For a bit of historical context on that, when the terms of aquaculture licences were being established, there was a push for three-year licences from certain ENGOs that wanted a shorter term. The legislation allows for 20-year licences. The Department went with 10 years as a middle of the road solution. The 20-year licensing will certainly require a strengthened post-licensing monitoring compliance function. That would have significant resource implications because that monitoring compliance is not there at present, particularly for the shellfish industry. It is important to note as well that any move towards a 20-year licensing term will be strongly resisted by non-industry interests, I expect. It is certainly something the Department has on its radar but it will not be without its challenges when we move into that space.

On the second question about the legislative amendments we are working on, and I am sorry I cannot remember the exact question, but the primary focus of our legislative amendment is to repeal section 19A(4) of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act. The timeline of that is we have heads of a Bill drafted and we are hoping to have a memo going to Government before the end of quarter 1 for permission to draft the Bill. That is the most of an update I can give on the progress of that Bill.

I would like to ask Ms Morrissey my next question because I think I asked this question before. What changes would the Irish Farmers' Association look at for a model they could see that would help us going forward? Has Ms Morrissey seen a model in place that she would see as the way forward?

We are looking to reform the entire licensing system and, at the same time, we are acknowledging the fact that we have to get through a backlog that is building up in licences. It seems that, with resources and the best will in the world, the two things are probably not possible at the same time.

To answer the Deputy's question, some of my European counterparts operate under the same European legislation as we do. The likes of Greece, Denmark and Portugal, certainly Greece and Denmark, have a single aquaculture Act that deals with just aquaculture legislation under a single Act. Alongside that they have a one-stop shop for everything to do with the aquaculture licensing system, from the foreshore to the actual licence to the monitoring and compliance and everything in between. They will tell me that it is not perfect and that it is not quick enough for them. From talking to them and from getting their feedback, it certainly would be more than sufficient and good enough for us considering where we are at and the length of time it takes.

I agree with what Mr. Batt said about the 20-year licence. The reason we mention the 20-year licence, and I am aware that it is allowed for in the current legislation, is that it would give that certainty to the industry. We do not want a 20-year licence that does not have sufficient and robust monitoring and compliance underpinning it. Again, that requires resources, planning and more expertise in the system, which we already know is a difficulty.

It is about that one-stop shop. We have a fragmented process where we probably have too many different parts. A lot of people have spoken about it and the length of time it takes to get a licence. To us in the industry it is about the length of time it takes to get a licence. For example, if I do not have a licence or if my licence has not been renewed, it is not sufficient for me. If my licence conditions are ten or 15 years out of date and I am currently operating under licensed conditions that restrict what it is that I want to do to progress my business, I am not that bothered where in the process it is. If it is with the Department, in the appeals board or in the courts, I still do not have my licence because it has not necessarily been determined. It may be determined by the Department, but that can be appealed into the licensing appeals board, and while that is fine, every stage of the process takes too long and every stage of the process is under-resourced. If we are looking for the two things at the same time, I know that is a big ask, but as Mr. O'Sullivan has alluded to, we have to start somewhere. Clarity on timelines is something that possibly could be given fairly quickly to the industry as some bit of certainty. It is a great frustration in the industry that we have no clue how long it might take for the renewal of a licence. We have certain bays waiting years for the renewal of shellfish licences and that really is not sufficient.

Ms Morrissey feels that, with the licensing issue, the industry has not gone anywhere near its potential and it is costing communities in terms of jobs and people having left the industry generationally.

On top of that, we are in the phase at the moment where, for example, Mr. O'Sullivan is one generation of shellfish producer and - Mr. O'Sullivan can comment on this - we are moving into the next generation of shellfish producer. It is very difficult to encourage the next generation and give them some sort of hope and certainty in order that they can see a future in this industry when you are waiting years to get a licence renewed. That would be for a ten-year licence, if only the ten-year licence and the system worked perfectly.

However, sometimes you can be halfway through the licence term by the time you get your renewal. You might have to start thinking about your renewal in half the time of the ten-year period again. It is very difficult, notwithstanding, and we completely acknowledge, all the different assessments that have to occur, such as the environmental assessment, the appropriate assessment and the monitoring of compliance that has to go with that, which is all extremely important. We are one of the few food-producing sectors that want more regulation, not less, and more monitoring and compliance with that. We want a system we can all stand over that is robust enough for us to say we have monitoring compliance for everything, and we do, but it is not visible enough and could be better.

Just on the licence renewal, I gave the example the last day, and I do not like cutting across my DAFM friends, but I will take Bantry Bay, our licences were up for renewal in January 2023. We started that process in 2022 and we are going into 2026 now. It has a distance to go yet. If you have a young fella looking at that, which is about four or five years into the new process and we do not know if the actual licences will date back to January 2023 or if they will date from the time it is issued, it is perception. Again, if you want to come up with some kind of scheme where you need funding from banks, they are not going to buy into the kind of stuff because it is not clear to them. You cannot lay out a grand story for them. That is why we are looking at the 20-year licence. At least then you have a longer time to tell and to implement your story before you start focusing on renewals again. It is all that kind of stuff.

Ms Morrissey spoke about the whole system of renewals being reformed and becoming clear, whereby if your licence was up in 2030, you would start the process in 2029 and whether you were going to say yea or nay on 2030, but of course there is no guarantee you will get your licence. You could be curtailed again. That is why young people have difficulty. I was lucky my own son got involved in the industry and there are a few more producers around the country where their sons have also got involved. They could see we survived and were able to build our businesses, and we have a good business.

There are many ways to go in agriculture and algae growing and stuff like that to be made into medicines and that. There are little niche opportunities there for people to go into and for youngsters to get involved, but they have to be more sure their businesses are going to be licensed to operate. It is all that kind of stuff, if that makes any sense.

Ms Morrissey made a point about the transposing of European directive and international law and how that has an impact across different countries, and she referred to Greece. Does the Department know why that is? What have those countries done differently from us to enable them to have a system that produces quicker decisions?

I will start by saying the same EU regulations apply across the Community, which is fine, and they are transposed nationally. The biggest issue for us in aquaculture licensing is the majority of the activity is in designated Natura 2000 sites, those being special areas of conservation or special protected areas, SPAs. Each of those have particular designations by the NPWS of issues you have to be aware of, to protect and not interfere with. In each of the different countries, whether the activity is within or without a Natura site is probably your first question. Is the higher level of environmental compliance applied to where you are applying for your licence? That is the first thing. Not all European states have designated the same waters everywhere, whereas in Ireland most of the waters around the coast have been designated as Natura sites.

Next, you move to the type of species and what it is you are assessing in terms of aquaculture.

It has been spoken to previously here that the level of assessment required to operate an intensive fin fish farm is much higher than the level of assessment required to operative an extensive farming operation like shellfish, which consists primarily of oysters and mussels.

Going back to the Deputy’s question, Mr. Batt will speak in more detail about the transposition of the legislation but the first point is that when it comes to those particular regulations, the competent authority in Ireland is not our Department; it is the Department of housing. How the legislation is transposed and how Ireland Inc. replied to the birds case and the negative finding is where we are now in relation to licensing and the pathway that we were obliged to carry out regarding the assessments for each of the licences.

The Deputy asked about the comparison with countries and what happens in different places. There is some work being done by BIM, but equally we issued a call for evidence to look at what happens in other countries. Portugal is often cited as a country we should look at as a comparator. It operates a plan-led approach to its agriculture. It will assess the carrying capacity of a whole area of space and then you can license within that as opposed to where we have to do the carrying capacity of the bay - that is the scientific advice that we get but that is my layman version of it – and then decide what farming can happen in that bay and accumulate all the licences on that basis. There is research being done both through BIM and the research call that issued from the Marine Institute on our behalf. There are different factors to be taken into account regarding the spatial location of the farm. Not everything is the same. What are the designations of the piece of foreshore and what conservation objectives are we trying to reach? I will leave it Mr. Batt but that is just the high-level piece. It is similar. The regulation is the same but its application all depends on why you are trying to do it, what you are trying to do on it and what species are involved.

To add to what Ms McSherry said, and BIM might be able to give us a bit of detail, there is a mapping of aquaculture consenting processes that BIM is looking at doing so that we get an idea of what other countries are doing with regard to their aquaculture consenting because we do not have that detail. We have high-level figures that countries can do this in six months but we do not know exactly what their legislative framework is or what exactly is being determined in six months. There is a bit of work being done on that. I know the committee was keen to hear what is happening in other EU member states.

Broadly, the Commission carried out a mid-term review of agriculture plans. The report showed that the time required for processing aquaculture licences has generally increased in several countries. Ms Morrissey touched on it. It is something that other European countries are struggling with as well. Getting sight of the breakdown of what other countries are doing is a step we have to take.

Going back to Ms McSherry’s answer, one of the concerns that comes to mind is that we are expected to increase to 30% the proportion of our waters that are protected. I imagine that could increase the number of delays in licences for those areas as well. The witnesses referenced the Portuguese model. Does that infer that we are looking at something comparable?

To take the Deputy’s second question first, we are looking at it to see what they are doing right and whether there is something we can learn from it. That is something we should be doing. That is the reference to that.

In respect of the designation of marine protected areas, which I think is where the Deputy’s first question was going, again, to be clear, the relevant Department for marine protected areas is the Department of the environment. Our position is that it is not necessarily a harmful impact on a piece of sea to have an aquaculture operation like shellfish, mussels or whatever. Once the conservation objectives of an area of ground are determined, then it can be seen what is permitted within that. The Marine Institute works with us on its assessments. For example, if there is a maerl bed in an area, a trestle bed cannot be put on top of it. It has to be protected. We take measures like that as it is. All SACs and SPAs will form part of that 30%. That is what we understand.

As those conservation objectives are identified, we then have to see what we can do to successfully operate within the measures that have to be taken to achieve those conservation objectives.

On the assessment of applications, the Department's opening statement said that it involves consultation with a wide range of scientific and technical advisers. Is that all from within the Marine Institute?

Our scientific adviser is the Marine Institute. We have our own engineering division that does the physical layout and looks at the impact on the visual aspects, the amenities and access to the site. We also have to consult a wide variety of statutory bodies whether it is the Maritime Area Regulatory Authority, MARA, the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the Department of Transport - there is a list of them. I just cannot recall them all at the moment. They all have to be consulted on the determination of a licence.

BIM in its contribution said it contributes "technical expertise, sectoral insight and operational experience to support the delivery of a more efficient ... licensing framework". Is that ad hoc or is that formalised?

It would depend on each situation. We would have the regional development officers working in each of those bays, so as the requirements go through, we would work on that. Referring to it as ad hoc is probably not the way it is. We actually do have a process and each of those regional officers can give that service in the local area, so they are actually working with them, and they would probably also be working on other projects with the client.

Does BIM's support to the industry in terms of the licensing process extend to seaweed as well?

It does with farmed seaweed.

The point was made by the IFA that this is a deterrent to investment in innovation. Would that be Mr. Donnelly's own experience?

There has been a significant investment in the industry. For instance, if we just look at the oyster industry, it is now up to €50 million in exports per year. That has required a lot of investment by the local operator there whether it is in trestles or tanks and things like that. There has, therefore, been significant investment there and it has been very profitable for a number of operators.

Would Mr. Donnelly not share the sense that the complexity of the licensing process is a deterrent to investment or a deterrent generally?

There are many issues in terms of investment. Obviously, licensing and uncertainty in that for any investor can have issues. In general, however, it is just one of the components.

In terms of the appeals board, Mr. Donnelly has given the data on the number of appeals. We do not know what that is relative to the number of applications. Is there an annual proportionality in terms of the number of applications that would be appealed? Obviously, last year there was a significantly high number.

A site may have a number of appeals. For example, there is one site we are dealing with at the moment that would have 147 appeals relating to the one site. Therefore, the number of sites that are on hand at the moment is seven whereas the number of appeals that are on hand is 187. Some, or the vast majority, of the 187 appeals relate to one site in particular.

The final question on that is in the experience of appeals. Is it mainly where a licence has been granted that an appeal has been made against that decision?

It can either be where a licence has been granted-----

Or refused.

-----or refused or where there are conditions.

However, obviously, that one then will free some other front. That is where a licence has been granted.

Yes, on the 147.

I thank the witnesses.

Go raibh maith agat, a Theachta. I will put a number of questions myself. Picking up where Deputy Connolly left off with the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board, I commend the representatives. Looking at the figures here, it is very clear that there was a high of 131 back in 2020, but they have been doggedly bringing that number down year on year to the point last year, and I would imagine this is a bone of some frustration, where it was down to two outstanding appeals and then 185 came in. I take the point that many of them relate to the same site. From Dr. McCarthy's point of view, is there a way that they can be cleared quicker? What is the process through which ALAB adjudicates on those appeals?

The appeals are dealt with as de novo hearings. They are looked at afresh. There are, of course, technical issues that can arise when such a process is undertaken. The data that might have been relied on may have become out of date.

There might be gaps in the data available in the file and the whole process would have to be looked afresh in a defensible way. It is about the technical assessments and making sure all the directives and legislation in the area have been actively engaged with and followed to make sure we are making a defensible decision. It is in the processes to get it up to where the board can make a decision that delays can occur in our process.

Would it be fair to say it is generally a desk-based exercise? ALAB reviews the existing documentation, notwithstanding, as Dr. McCarthy said, that something might be out of date, or is there an onus on the appellant to submit additional or new information? Does de novo mean to start from scratch in that way or is it that the board looks at it afresh?

I will ask Ms Hegarty to deal with the delays that occur from the receipt of the appeal until it gets to the board.

As Dr. McCarthy explained, because we are looking at the appeals afresh or de novo, we must address all the aspects of the licensing process. We have to look at requirements under section 61 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act as well as, as has been mentioned, requirements under the environmental impact assessment directive and the habitats directive. Recently, we have also been asking applicants for reports on the water framework directive and the marine strategy framework directive, so we are covering a broad scope of environmental legislation. We take the position of putting the onus on the applicant and ask for everything in one go. In addition, ALAB is obliged to take on board any procedural changes that arise from any national or EU case law. In particular, this has caused procedural changes in carrying out screening for appropriate assessments, so there can be delays from that.

I thank Ms Hegarty. As I said, we were so close to getting to zero last year, but these things happen.

I have a question for the IFA. It published a comprehensive analysis of the aquaculture licensing regime in 2023 and has been looking at Greece, Denmark and other countries. Does the IFA think the industry here would benefit from a single consolidated Act or from the one-stop shop model it mentioned was in operation in other countries? Would that be worth exploring? If so, what ideas does the IFA have?

The IFA aquaculture committee will be aware from colleagues on the agriculture side of the IFA that many farmers have benefited in the past from the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, and benefit now from agri-climate rural environment scheme, ACRES, to carry out environmental work on their farms. Given there are environmental benefits to having shellfish farms, that operators take on huge risks with their investment and that issues upstream coming into an estuary can cause issues, is there an argument to be made for such a scheme for the aquaculture sector?

I thank the Deputy. A one-stop shop would certainly be a major improvement. As the Deputy said, we are answerable to far too many systems, and the previous speaker from ALAB outlined that people have to start the process all over again if they end up in an appeals process, as many of our licence applications do. I am not saying a one-stop shop would solve the appeals problem, but it would be a major improvement. On top of that, a single aquaculture Act would be needed to support that.

As I said previously, monitoring and compliance would have to be built into that single aquaculture Act, which would have to be robust and sufficient to withstand that. I imagine certainty around timelines would have to be built into such legislation because that is a big part of our problem, as Mr. O'Sullivan said, around investment and certainty for the next generation to get involved in the sector.

Regarding the Cathaoirleach's suggestion of a scheme similar to GLAS or ACRES in the agriculture sector, something like that would definitely be welcome in the aquaculture sector because of the ecosystem services, particularly on the shellfish side, but also in seaweeds and somewhat in finfish. They could be incentivised. With carbon sequestration in shellfish, we are recipients of upstream issues as shellfish filter the water. We have to deal with any issues that come into the bay and we do deal with them, sometimes at a great cost to the industry, particularly in the oyster sector.

Oysters are typically eaten raw. We have to deal with them and they are dealt with from a food safety regulatory point of view. However, if there was an incentive to encourage producers to keep doing what they are already doing, in terms of environmental benefits and ecosystem services, it would be welcome.

My next question is for the Marine Institute. It relates to something Ms McSherry mentioned earlier, that a plan-led approach is utilised in other countries for the carrying capacity of various bays. To what extent is there additional capacity around Ireland's coast for a significant increase in aquaculture activity? Is there data to support that? Is there a ballpark figure for how much more the industry can expand in a sustainable way?

I thank the Cathaoirleach. On the plan-led approach, Ms McSherry mentioned earlier that there is a project on the plan-led approach that I hope will soon be supported, which is a feasibility study. It is effectively the way the offshore renewable energy people are approaching the designation of space for offshore renewable energy. The hope is that this feasibility study will look at something similar for aquaculture. The challenge is that it is not a blank sheet of paper. We are not starting with an empty ocean. There are lots of activities in the ocean already. As regards carrying capacity, individual studies have been done on individual bays to see whether they are under, at or over capacity. However, it has never been done on a national basis to arrive at the figure the Cathaoirleach was seeking with his question. That is certainly work we could consider and it is a laudable approach, to try to understand what the total carrying capacity for all Ireland's aquaculture is and to have that number in mind when licensing decisions are being made and with regard to the impact on the environment.

It would be a useful exercise if it could be built into a plan or programme. I imagine it would take input from all the witnesses before the committee today and possibly others besides. I thank Dr. Nolan.

I have a question for the Department. Are there significant differences between the delays experienced by applicants of different types? We spoke about shellfish versus finfish. What about seaweed versus algae or new applicants and renewals? Are there data about that? It might be complicated to explain it verbally, but if it exists, what are the key takeaways from it and would it be possible to circulate it to the committee at some point?

I thank the Cathaoirleach. The answer to the questions he posed is that it all depends. Timelines for different types of licences depend on where people applied for the licence and whether they are one of many licensees in a particular bay. They have to be grouped to assess the impact on the whole bay. On whether it is a new application, the renewals are for people who are operating under section 19A(4). If someone else wants to come into a bay, it has to be part of the next assessment. Individual assessments cannot be done. I think Dr. Nolan spoke about that earlier. An individual licence in a bay cannot be assessed, particularly when there are multiple inhabitants, like in shellfish. It has to be done as part of an overall programme where each individual licence is assessed as part of all the licences operating in the bay.

Perhaps Mr. Batt would like to add to that.

The finfish renewals we have on hand are much older than the shellfish renewals because of a decision taken to clear the shellfish backlog back in 2017 and 2018. Finfish renewals were parked to undertake that work. We are therefore now catching up on work that was put aside to clear the shellfish backlog. The finfish renewals are the priority now. When we meet the Marine Institute, processing these finfish renewals is the first priority because they are old and they were parked.

There is a difference with the shellfish renewals we have on hand.

The numbers were all cleared, give or take, six or seven years ago, so 80% of the applications we have on hand now are less than five years old because of clearing that. However, that 20% is where the finfish renewals and longer stuff is.

I thank Mr. Batt. Finally, for the Department, although the Marine Institute might want to come in on this as well, has there been any work or assessment analysis carried out on the impact that each additional full-time equivalent, FTE, position working on this would make the dent that each individual person employed to work on this would make? Is there a kind of ballpark or rough figure of how many additional staff might be required in either organisation to be working solely on aquaculture licensing?

The exercise the Cathaoirleach has described has not taken place. I do know that the team has worked with the Marine Institute in terms of trying to identify what would enable them to move forward. Mr. Nolan has spoken to the increase in resources within the MI dedicated to aquaculture licensing. The resource that we have struggled with is that intensity of the scientific advice. Mr. Batt spoke to the fact that we have taken in ecologists to work with us. Ms Morrissey spoke to the fact that following case law, we have to do the screening for appropriate assessment and make that determination. Then, we move to the next phase, if required, to a full appropriate assessment. They all comprise the time that has to be taken to do that assessment. We have tried to take in resources ourselves to execute some of those assessments to move forward with having all the scientific information available. In terms of the Cathaoirleach's original question of whether we have assessed it and FTEs within the Department, the direct answer is "No". However, we have sourced additional resources to complement the work of the MI because the scientific advice is what drives the determination primarily before we get into the other factors.

I thank Ms McSherry for that. I realise that my clock has gone red. I will not be back in for a second bite so I may as well put-----

The Cathaoirleach is taking all the time for himself.

I may as well put the question to BIM.

You are eating into my time, colleagues. This relates to a question that Deputy Connolly put to the witnesses at the end of his time regarding the difficulty that uncertainty causes for any investment in any sector. In this one, there is no shortage of uncertainty because of the environmental impacts and the nature of the work and the weather and climate, but also because of the licensing delays. Do we know if there has been any analysis done of the impact of all these factors? I guess it is difficult to delineate that something is definitely down to licensing and not down to Atlantic storms. Also, do we know what the multiplier is for every euro invested in an actual aquaculture operation in terms of the trestles being provided, the machinery being bought in the local economy or the value added for maybe production and packaging onshore?

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the question. Certainly, investment is critically important. I will tackle the last part of the question first. On what we call the gross value added, GVA, which is basically the money that goes into the local economy, for every euro, there is a multiplier effect of probably up to €3. I do not have the exact figures, but it is published in our aquaculture bay report. We give the actual multiplier effect for each euro invested there. In those local small economies, it has a really significant effect.

Coming back to the investment part, we have a business development team that works with the aquaculture producers. Each business case is individual to that business whether they want to go into export markets, invest in machinery or invest in depuration facilities. We would work on each of those as an individual case and we would also help support them in terms of approaching the banks and private investment as well. Therefore, it is not just one issue with the licence. It is the overall business, and BIM does support that business development programme with each of the aquaculture producers.

I thank Mr. Donnelly very much. I am not that much over my time. We will go to a second round in the interests in fairness and keeping Deputy Mac Lochlainn onside.

That is no problem. They were good questions. I do not want to interrupt the Cathaoirleach's flow.

In terms of the legislation, in the spring legislative programme that was published recently, we have the fisheries amendment Bill. It is not a priority piece of legislation. That could be a long time, so people have time to reconsider. What I am asking about is this issue of the European Commission's strategic guideline. It states:

Streamlining - and harmonising where possible - legislation and administrative guidance on aquaculture. Ideally, this streamlining should be carried out by adopting a single piece of national legislation gathering all relevant aspects. This legislation should set clear procedures and timeframes for dealing with applications for new licences or licence renewals.

That is the European Commission's guideline. Obviously, a big part of today is about being cognisant of European regulations and the law as it pertains. I just want to establish whether the Department will look at this single piece of legislation that pulls everything together rather than these limited amendments. The witnesses have heard about the one-stop shop. Would they be open to that as a Department? Obviously, much of the work they have done would probably fit nicely into that objective. If not, how does their approach align with the European Commission's clear direction in all of this?

I thank the Deputy. I will start and then defer to Mr. Batt. In relation to the one-stop shop the Deputy mentioned, that was something we were operating in terms that we were running concurrent foreshore and aquaculture licensing determinations. That was determined not to be the way forward by a judicial review outcome, so now we are doing them sequentially. That is one issue.

The other piece in relation to the vires of our Minister in respect of foreshore is very limited to the piece that we do, and it is under the Foreshore Act.

In terms of the strategic guidelines in aquaculture or any environmental omnibus that would propose specific deadlines, it needs to be cognisant of what it is trying to consolidate. One of the issues that regularly occurred to us was that people could have - I was going to say six months, but that could be difficult - 12 months to do the aquaculture licence. However, in doing the appropriate assessment, they are obliged to have two years of birds data, which does not exist by the time they get the application. They then need to go ahead and collect their two years of ornithological data in order to inform the appropriate assessment. Therefore, by default, in their compliance with one regulation, they have then gone and missed their timeline that was introduced. I can understand why they are introduced. It would give certainty. However, each case has to be taken on its merits and comply with the grounding directive. What I am saying is that while we would like to see those guidelines applied, not every case is similar. If people have to have just that example of ornithological data, they cannot produce two years of data in six months if it is a site that has never been assessed before. That is just a bit of context on the Deputy's question. I do agree that it is a great ambition, but it is actually the realisation that when people consider all the other pieces of obligations that are on them, it might be less achievable.

I will defer to Mr. Batt of he wants to add to that.

In relation to the Bill the Deputy referred to and the reason we are repealing section 19(A)(4), which is the primary focus now of what we are amending, we met with the Commission last November and the Commission has really run out of patience with us on repealing this. At the time when this legislative amendment was suggested, we were looking at other sections and other pieces of work that could all feature in this, and now the legal advice is that we have to repeal section 19(A)(4) as a matter of priority. Everything else in that pretty much has to be kicked down the road as nice-to-have whereas repealing section 19(A)(4) is the must-have. I said that a memo should be going to Government in quarter 1 of this year for provision to draft a Bill. That Bill will primarily be on repealing section 19(A)(4) with some provisions in relation to the functioning of ALAB, which come from the Shot Head judicial review. There are a couple of amendments to the Foreshore Act as well that need to be in.

We are not working on the one aquaculture Act in the short term. The short term involves repealing section 19(a)(4) before Ireland finds itself in trouble with the Commission again.

Okay. Much of what we are dealing with is European regulation and law. Other member states do that within a better timeframe. Earlier, I asked about a work plan. I am not aware of any such plan that I can read. That was a recommendation from the independent report in 2017. My understanding is that the Government agreed to implement that report.

Are the witnesses in dialogue with other member states and their counterparts in departments in other member states? Are they in dialogue with the European Commission? The European Commission has spelled out what it is looking for in terms of the approach to agriculture across the European Union. On the one hand, we are trying to adhere to its regulations, and rightly so, in terms of the environment and so on, but on the other hand it is telling us the legal approach it would like us to take. How do the bodies work together? Have the witnesses had engagements with the European Commission and other counterparts to determine how our legislation works?

The length of time it takes to deal with licensing is just not good enough. I appreciate I asked a question about how long an appropriate assessment takes, and the answer was fine because it was somewhat like asking how long is a piece of string is. It is not an exact science. If it was said in any job of work, "Take as long as it takes", that would never happen. There has to be some degree of a timeline and timeframe that can be worked to. That is the case in other member states, but it is not the case here. We all operate under the same European law and challenges.

I am deeply frustrated by today's hearing. I have listened to the entire meeting. I do not think there is a sense of urgency or an acceptance of the failure and the lost opportunities for coastal communities which are struggling in the wider fishery sector. We have faced a profound crisis which has been referred to as an economic Armageddon. I am again being clear. We need to adhere to the environmental standards and give people a right to object. All of those things should be done, but surely to God we can do things with a sense of urgency. I get no sense of urgency from any of the State agencies here today or acknowledgement or acceptance of the utter failure to do things properly within a reasonable timeframe so that people can have livelihoods and jobs and, God forbid, some wealth in communities. That is the framework.

People need to get around the table together, sort this out and give a clear timeframe. We will be back here again. The committee is one of the strongest things happening for the fisheries and seafood community and the wider issues around the marine for a long time. The witnesses will come before us every couple of months and listen to the same frustrations. I appeal to them to start to work more tightly together, engage with the European Commission and talk to other member states to see whether we can come up with a system that does things better and within a reasonable timeframe. If a body says it will do something within a year and does it within 13 months, nobody will fall out with it. However, there should be some sense of a timeframe that people can work to, both those who are objecting and those who are trying to build an industry. Is there engagement with European Commission and other member states around all of these matters?

I will take that question, if that is okay. I work in the area of aquaculture policy and funding. We engage with the Commission and will participate in Commission meetings on the mid-term review of the aquaculture guidelines and things like that. From interacting at EU level, it is clear that most member states are seeing stagnation in the development and growth of their aquaculture sectors. This is not a phenomenon that is unique to Ireland.

The other piece that is important is that meaningful work has begun on implementing the national strategic guidelines for sustainable aquaculture development in Ireland. There has been quite an intensive level of activity over 2025. We established an implementation steering group, comprising colleagues from the Marine Institute, BIM and multiple divisions in the Department, along with Bord Bia.

That is helping to progress things. In the context of that work, there are a number of things we are trying to progress. In terms of comparisons with other member states, the consenting frameworks in those member states and timelines, it became evident to us, and this is a conversation I had with colleagues in BIM, that it is not that easy to establish clear comparative data because we do not want to compare apples and oranges. We need to make sure we are comparing like with like in terms of the levels of environmental protection and the various factors Ms McSherry has already covered in detail. BIM will go to market to contract a piece of specific research to sit down and map the consenting frameworks. Perhaps Mr. Campbell might be able to speak in a little more detail to that. That is one important piece of work that we are actively progressing to get done.

The other piece which Dr. Nolan alluded to was something we sought from the Marine Institute last year, which is the inclusion of a project in a research call on the implementation of a plan-led approach to aquaculture. The Commission is very much in favour of moving all member states to plan-led approaches for aquaculture development. From an initial analysis, there are potential benefits as well as drawbacks. It is something we discussed with IFA Aquaculture. There is a clear agreement between us as the State agencies involved and the IFA that the last thing we want to do is introduce a new level of consent or procedure that ends up lengthening the licensing processing time. We need to evaluate who is using a plan-led approach, how it is working and what benefits it is delivering. We need to have that information to inform what we do. We have a good viable project proposal in under the funding call. I understand from Dr. Nolan, who alluded to that earlier, that the sign-off on that should be fairly imminent. That piece of work is estimated to take between nine and 12 months.

I hear the frustration of the Deputy. All I can say is that a lot of work has been going on in the background in the last year to start to examine what we need to move forward, what our evidence and information gaps are, how we fill them and then taking steps to fill them. We work with BIM to increase resources in Dr. Nolan's area to support aquaculture licensing and appropriate assessments. We are definitely doing our best and we have a lot of activity. We would engage with IFA Aquaculture, probably not as frequently as Mr. Batt's team does, but certainly I would meet them from time to time. It is not something we are going to resolve or it is going to take time to resolve, but we have made a lot of positive progress. We are starting in the right direction. I can only start from where we are at.

I will stop because I am conscious of time. I do not know if the Deputy wants Mr. Campbell or Dr. Nolan to speak to the research that will be done.

We might come back to it. We are pressed for time and there are two more speakers.

I want to go back to a point Mr. Batt made earlier. In 2017, a decision was made to clear the shellfish renewals rather than finfish. Is that correct? Was that a policy decision of the Government?

It was a decision taken at the time that the Department would use all of its resources to clear the shellfish backlog. The renewals had built up to 500 or 600. Part of that was that the finfish renewals were not progressed.

The potential environmental impact of finfish farms versus shellfish farms is quite significantly different. I will have to look into that. I do not know whether there was any environmental basis for that decision or whether it was about speed.

I am conscious that nobody at this table was there then. I understand it arose from a discussion with the Commission on the birds case judgment and the roadmap that was set out. Due to the fact that the volume of shellfish was much greater than finfish, it was agreed in that roadmap to address that volume first and that appropriate assessments could be done on a collective basis. At the time the finding was made, I do not believe the sites had been designated or objectives identified. It took some time and the quickest way to achieve compliance for Ireland was to address the large numbers first.

There is huge potential in Ireland to expand our aquaculture sector. As I said, it would need to be done within environmental limits. Countries like Canada, Denmark and, perhaps, Norway are moving in this direction and are moving to closed finfish systems in acknowledgement of the fact that the environmental impact is high.

Indeed, even simple things like the length of time assessment takes is a factor. If there were a closed system, it would be much quicker and there would be a lot more certainty for the producers regarding getting approvals on licences.

What is the Government's position on closed salmon farms and is there any incentive in that regard? At the moment, we seem to be going headlong into the use of open sea cages when other countries are stepping back from that. We will be a beat behind the curve once again if we do not start dealing with it now. There are opportunities. In Norway, my understanding is that there is incentivisation through much lower fees for applications for closed systems. It is much easier and less costly to have a closed system. Are we doing or planning to do anything in this regard or have we even looked at the issue?

Údarás na Gaeltachta has been trying to develop a closed system and has run into huge difficulties getting planning permission, which is the first step. The aquaculture licensing part does not come into play until planning permission has been granted. It certainly is being looked at.

From a policy perspective, I would not say we have a definitive position. We are open to the development of closed systems but we note that the cultivation of organic farmed salmon is not compatible with a closed system. Closed systems can be used for the cultivation of the smolts but not for the adult fish. This is an initial reaction, but from a policy perspective, we are a relatively small country and where we compete on the global market is in terms of quality and selling a premium product into markets both at home and overseas, with organic certification being very important. This is not something I have explored with the salmon producers in terms of whether there is demand to move to or develop closed systems. Certainly, our very clear USP around the organic status of our sustainably farmed salmon would not be compatible with closed methods of production.

What elements of closed systems preclude organic certification? If we are looking for more environmentally friendly methods, closed systems are that.

I was just looking at the organic standards this morning. I am not sure what the rationale is but it is very clearly set out that closed systems are not accepted. Mr. Campbell is making eye contact with me. He might have more technical insight to offer.

That would be great.

It is primarily to do with the use of artificial light. With closed systems, the fish tend to be in sheds, which generally requires giving them 24-hour artificial light. That is not compatible with the organic standard that prohibits the use of artificial light in the raising of the fish.

Closed systems can be on land and at sea. I assume that issue would not apply in the latter case.

It would apply to both. When talking about closed systems, we are generally talking about recirculating aquaculture technology and the vast majority of those systems tend to be on land. Generally, all over the world, they tend to be land-based systems. In Norway, we are seeing some closed systems in some fjords, which are generally being used for the production of post-smolts, that is, larger smolts that can go to open pens. It is a way of shortening the sea cycle. It reduces the amount of time the fish are at sea and that shortens the production cycle.

Who sets up the organic standards?

The standards are drawn up independently, generally based on an EU regulation. There is an EU regulation that is often transposed into national legislation. Then there are a number of third-party organisations such as Naturland that have their own mix of the European standard and going above that standard. Producers can either use the national standard or go to one of the third-party providers.

Is it the case then that countries moving to closed systems will not be able to have organic certification?

We have been talking about salmon but BIM, since as far back as the 1990s, has done closed systems. We had an eel culture in Arklow, for instance, back in the nineties.

I was not even aware of that.

We also had Arctic char in Sligo and turbot on Achill Island. These closed systems have been there going back a while. The issue is the comparative cost of production and, obviously, that we are targeting an export market. However, we are constantly looking at them. We have even looked at perch more recently. The technology of those systems is advancing and we are constantly in contact with that. We are also looking, with investors, to set up systems.

There is an area of activity in those closed systems. It is not necessarily just for salmon but salmon could be a possibility. Other species have been very successful in other countries as well.

Does BIM provide grants for that?

Yes.

Okay.

We would also couple that with access in terms of bringing them to private investors and doing the whole business case for that as well. BIM would support that.

Does the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board turn down appeals mostly due to wildlife conservation? What is the main reason the licence would not be granted?

The statistics for aquaculture appeals are hugely varied. As the Chairman pointed out, one application might give rise to 147 appeals. One finfish appeal might give rise to years of work. Coming up with averages is going down the wrong road.

If there is a finfish appeal, that could take up to a year to be heard. Would there be scientific evidence and everything to back up what the board is dealing with? If somebody comes to the board and is looking for a licence but has been turned down on some kind of technicality, the decision is based on science.

Absolutely, yes. As Ms Hegarty pointed out, it is about the AAs, the EIAs and environmental information. The gaps in that give rise to problems in the appeal and to delays in the appeal.

I have a question for BIM. Does it fall 100% to the applicant to pay for the technical studies and assessments that might need to be done before an application is made?

No. We assist them in that. We have a lot of scientific work. In fact, a lot of our regional development officers are scientists as well so they have access to the scientific data and information. We would very much assist applicants in that way and guide them through the whole process.

Is there a cost for the applicant for BIM's assistance?

No. The BIM services are paid for by the State and it is a free service.

What is the formal fee for making an application?

I have to refer to the expertise of the Department on the fee.

I can get that for the Deputy.

That concludes the question and answer section of this meeting. I thank all of our witnesses for being here, for their answers and for their engagement during the meeting. It was informative. I have certainly learned a lot. It has given us all a lot of food for thought. We hope we have given the witnesses some food for thought as well. I thank the members for their participation in the meeting and their good conduct throughout.