Maidin maith, a chairde. Fearaim fáilte romhaibh go léir. Good morning. I welcome everyone to the meeting. Before we move on to the substantial topic of today's meeting, I want to bring to everyone's attention to the note on privilege, as I am bound to do at all meetings that are held in public session. In that context, witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee. This means a witness has a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at my direction. 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 witnesses outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from proceedings.

I advise 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. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. I ask any member partaking via Microsoft Teams that prior to making their contribution to the meeting, they confirm verbally that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Members are 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 and it is imperative they comply with any such direction I may make.

The agenda for today's meeting is a discussion on water quality and aquaculture. I welcome Dr. Jamie Downes from the Marine Institute, Ms Roni Hawe, Dr. Jenny Deakin and Mr. Noel Byrne from the Environmental Protection Agency and Ms Emma Armshaw, Ms Karin Dubsky, Dr. Elaine McGoff and Mr. John Murphy from the Sustainable Water Network. I also welcome Mr. Dolf D'hondt from SWAN, who is in the Public Gallery.

The opening statements have been forwarded to members. I will ask the witnesses to give a two-minute synopsis of same. We will then proceed to questions and answers. There are or ought to be countdown timers on the walls. Perhaps they are not working. If the witnesses try to keep their synopses to two minutes, it will help us to flow into questions and answers.

We will proceed in the order in which I named the witnesses and the institutions they represent.

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend. I am the Marine Institute’s section manager for fish health. My section works 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 providing services relating 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 the Marine Institute undertakes and our scientific work that supports aquaculture activities and water quality in Ireland. This work is consistent with the Marine Institute’s broad statutory role to provide the scientific evidence and technical expertise that can underpin policy decisions and robust management of marine resources. Our work supports the development of aquaculture and water quality on the basis of robust data and sound science.

In summary, the Marine Institute’s contribution to aquaculture and water quality takes the form of: assisting the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in the aquaculture licensing system through the provision of expert advice and assessment of aquaculture licence applications; assessing data submitted by aquaculture operators under aquaculture monitoring protocols for benthic or seabed conditions, water column monitoring and sea lice status; contributing to the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority, SFPA-led process that classifies aquaculture production areas; contributing to the recently constituted shellfish waters expert group; and monitoring and reporting on blooms of harmful algae and marine biotoxin status of all shellfish production areas with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, and the SFPA.

Our written submission further elaborates on key areas of Marine Institute activity that support aquaculture and water quality. I welcome the committee’s questions on this work.

I thank the committee for inviting the Environmental Protection Agency here today. I am the director of the office of evidence and assessment at the agency. I am joined by EPA senior management colleagues, Dr. Jenny Deakin, who leads the national water quality monitoring and assessment teams, and Mr. Noel Byrne, who leads the water enforcement teams dealing with both drinking water and wastewater regulated entities.

The EPA’s purpose is to protect, improve and restore our environment through regulation, scientific knowledge and working with others. Specifically related to water quality, the EPA’s responsibilities include: co-ordinating Ireland’s national water quality monitoring programmes for the purposes of meeting the water framework directive and parts of the nitrates directive; assessing the impact of human activities and pressures on water quality; providing advice and assisting in the establishment of environmental objectives, programmes of measures and river basin management plans; regulation of drinking water and wastewater treatment, industrial and waste activities; and oversight of local authority performance in terms of their statutory environmental functions, including implementation of their environmental inspection programmes.

We are the national competent authority for the State’s water framework directive responsibilities. Our monitoring programmes are focused on the assessment of general physico-chemical parameters including: nutrients, pH and temperature; biological parameters such as phytoplankton, macroalgae and invertebrates; and chemical pollutants, including pesticides, industrial chemicals and other priority substances. Together, these parameters provide an assessment of the overall condition of the State’s 4,800 rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters and ground waters. Several other public bodies assist the EPA in carrying out the water quality monitoring programmes, including Inland Fisheries Ireland, local authorities, the Marine Institute and Waterways Ireland.

I have given several details for the committee in terms of the assessments and reports we have conducted and publish regularly so I will not go into too much detail on those, but suffice to say we are happy to take questions on them. We also commission research and undertake climate change risk assessment, which include the challenges facing water quality in Ireland. We thank the committee.

A Chathaoirligh and members of the committee, we sincerely appreciate the invitation to discuss aquaculture and water quality today. My colleagues from Salmon Watch Ireland, An Taisce, Coastwatch and Streamscapes are here representing the Sustainable Water Network, SWAN, which is an umbrella of 26 of Ireland’s leading environmental NGOs working to protect and restore Ireland’s marine and fresh waters. We have a particular focus on achieving and maintaining the objectives of the water framework directive, WFD, and marine strategy framework directive, MSFD.

Last year, the programme for Government included a commitment to continue to support the sustainable development of our aquaculture sector. At a time when the Government is promoting the industry’s growth, we believe it is more important than ever to prioritise the restoration of nature and the improvement of water quality, ensuring those directive targets are met. SWAN and a working group of our member organisations developed an evidence-based policy position on aquaculture in Ireland and the MSFD and WFD. That policy position has been shared with the committee.

Activities in our waters must comply with the legal requirements of these directives and not compromise their targets. The main species farmed in Ireland are salmon in open-net pens, trestled oysters and rope-cultured and seabed-cultured mussels, with the impacts on water quality, wild species and sea-floor integrity differing based on the species and method. Salmon farming, as currently practised in Ireland, is particularly detrimental to water quality and wild species. Despite organic certification, salmon farming treats fish with antibiotics and pesticides, utilises chemicals on nets and all that enters the marine ecosystem, along with fish faeces and uneaten food which fall below nets.

As Ireland’s river basin management plan 2022-2027 recognises, the potential impacts from finfish farming can include impacts on water quality, biodiversity, the condition of local habitats, risks from the use of pesticides and threats from the introduction of non-native species. Escaped fish and sea lice from open-net pens also put serious pressure on populations of wild salmon, which in Ireland have decreased by 90% since the 1970s.

We will also be discussing mussel and oyster farming, which have the potential to benefit water quality and provide ecosystem services if practised responsibly. However, some forms of bivalve culture are also detrimental, such as through the spread of non-native species and using dredging to harvest wild sea mussels.

SWAN supports an ecosystems-based approach to aquaculture that takes the precautionary principle. We call for no new licences to be granted unless it can be demonstrated that the farming practices will not compromise the objectives of the water framework directive, WFD, and marine strategy framework directive, MSFD, nor impact the features protected within Natura 2000 sites designated through the birds and habitats directives. With Ireland’s nature restoration plan currently being drafted as well, the implications of aquaculture must also be considered on that. We call for significant reform of the aquaculture licensing and regulatory regime with a focus on water quality.

We now move to questions and answers. I propose to take members in the order that they present here. They will have seven minutes in which to put questions and the opportunity to respond. I ask members to ensure they give sufficient time to our witnesses to respond within those seven minutes.

I will start with the Marine Institute. Could the Marine institute outline what procedures are in place in the event of a major fish kill in an aquaculture setting? What is the Marine Institute's role in responding to those events? Will the witnesses elaborate on the role of the Marine Institute's shellfish safety team?

Was it salmon farming the Deputy was asking about in terms of a fish kill or was it in general?

In general.

In general our role would be working with Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI. Our role when there is an undetermined cause for a fish kill is we will come and take a sample to try to determine a cause, whether that is biological, pathogen related, environmental or if disease is suspected. We will be involved from that point of view.

Our shellfish safety team has two teams, a biotoxin chemistry team and a shellfish safety section. Our biotoxin chemistry team works closely with the SFPA and the FSAI in testing for naturally occurring biotoxins in shellfish to ensure they are safe for marketing. Up to 2,500 samples are tested on an annual basis by our biotoxin team. Our shellfish safety team also works as part of the Food Safety Professionals Association, FSPA, and works on E. coli. It is the national reference lab for E. coli. It tests that as part of the classification of shellfish waters on an annual basis. It tests the oysters, provides the information to the SFPA and the SFPA then decides the classification.

In the event of a major fish kill, who alerts the Marine Institute? Is it the responsibility of some other agency before the Marine Institute can respond?

It will be IFI that generally informs us of a fish kill. After an initial assessment of the fish kill we will generally get a call if a source is not immediately defined. We will then go and make an assessment of whether it is disease related or to take a sample to determine a cause.

I want to ask something similar to the EPA. Could its representatives outline the procedures that are in place in the event of a major fish kill and the role it plays? What is its role in responding to such events?

I thank Deputy Gallagher. The EPA is also a signatory body to the recently formed fish kill protocol that is being led by Inland Fisheries Ireland. We have already adopted that as a procedure and a response. Our role would be in inspecting regulated sites. In our case that comes under industrial waste and water infrastructure, meaning drinking water or wastewater sites that could be a pressure or a cause of a pollution incident. We tend to do that in response to any evidence of a fish kill. Under the terms of the protocol, the significant test is there in response to a request from Inland Fisheries Ireland. Another element we can also support in, and have done from time to time, is if we are asked to help out in the ecological monitoring of the water body. If there are particular impacts there that our expertise is required on, we can assist on that too.

Is the EPA in a position to discuss the relationship it has with Irish Water? I know the EPA has prosecuted that organisation 35 times. It would not be a matter for me to ask and Ms Hawe to answer about each individual case, but I am asking about the general relationship between the EPA and Uisce Éireann.

We have a fairly consistent message on our position around Uisce Éireann, which is that we regulate it in terms of both its drinking water and wastewater activities. A big issue we have is in terms of working with Uisce Éireann on risks and priorities in both of those areas. Making sure the infrastructure is properly managed is a big one. That helps to ensure we avoid avoidable incidents through preventative maintenance activities and other activities. As well as that, we work with Uisce Éireann to prioritise its investment programme to line up with where the challenges are and where the environmental underperformance is routinely taking place. We are on record as having said that and as having emphasised the need to up the scale and pace of some of those activities to prevent incidents from happening in the first place.

SWAN's opening statement calls for a ban on open-net salmon farming. Can its representatives elaborate on that point?

I thank Deputy Gallagher for his question. Open-net cage farming is obviously harmful to wild salmonids. The most recent research from Dr. Paddy Gargan indicates that there is a 19% loss of adult salmon coming back to rivers which are adjacent to salmon farms. That is an average loss of 19% and is over a 20-year period. In effect, it can be much higher at scale. Secondly, there have been a number of escapes in recent years and with climatic influences coming to the fore, we expect that there will be more salmon farm escapes and introgression of genetics in wild salmon populations. I circulated a graph from the Marine Institute from Burrishoole regarding sea trout, which is a very near cousin of the Atlantic salmon. Members will see from that graph how the introduction of salmon farming in Clew Bay basically very quickly wiped out the sea trout population and it has not recovered to this day in the presence of salmon farming. In effect, there is no safe manner in which open-net cage farming can be carried out in this country without harming wild salmonids. In effect, with climate change and warming oceans, this is only going to get worse. From the point of view of the welfare of the farmed fish, the mortality figures are astounding on these farms. We recently won a case with the Office of the Information Commissioner to release data on mortality that were shielded from the public. One of those farms, data on which we have seen because of the Department failing to redact the data on the application forms, had 84% mortality.

I do not think it is really a situation where you can release the other 16% into the human food chain. Open-cage farming is just not suitable for Ireland, or any other country for that matter. It certainly will not be suitable into the future.

I might have an opportunity later.

You will.

I want to follow up on salmon farming. This might be a question for Dr. Downes. I understand our licensing regime differs quite significantly from the likes of Norway and Iceland. They also have significant salmon farming but I think the conditions and regulations are a lot more stringent. Is that correct? Has the institute ever done a comparison of Ireland and like countries when it comes to regulation of salmon farms?

It depends which regulations the Deputy is talking about, specifically. I am probably not best-placed to answer on the licensing as it is the Department of agriculture that deals directly with that. It depends on whether the Deputy has more specific questions on particular regulations.

I am thinking of the number of lice per fish that need to be notified to the authorities as well as stocking densities and that kind of thing.

Our sea lice surveillance programme has been running for quite a number of years. It is currently under review. There are 14 inspections carried out on any active salmon site per year to monitor lice levels. Those lice levels are publicly available on the dashboard of the Marine Institute and reported on annually.

I am trying to get into the nuts and bolts. There are 14 inspections per farm. Who picks? Is it a random selection of cages?

There is generally a standard cage selected and then a random cage selected when the inspector gets there.

Are farms notified when the inspections are going to happen?

They are generally notified about a week out as logistics to get to the site need to be arranged.

Would that not enable treatment to happen in advance of any inspection?

It would be quite difficult logistically to get treatment in. If it is a bath treatment with a well-boat, the logistics of getting that in place are quite significant. The surveillance programme is currently under review as well, so it can be updated.

I have no experience of any treatments at sea but I worked on salmon farms years ago and I did a lot of treatment of stock then.

Other treatments are in-feed treatments and they are regulated by the medicines section in the Department. All of those, if it is an in-feed treatment, have to be imported as well.

As for stocking density, all salmon farming in Ireland is organic so that keeps stocking densities to 10 kg per cu. m in each cage.

What are the regulations in order to be organic?

There are EU organic regulations. The Marine Institute does not play a role in certifying those though.

What are they? Again, a long time ago fish were deemed organic if they had not received a treatment within a given period before harvesting. What happened prior to that was not necessarily part of the certification, as far as I can remember.

I suppose there are the organic regulations in that. I am speaking outside of my expertise. It is not our area. What happens with the organic regulations is preventative measures are met. It does not completely remove the use of antibiotics. That applies to both terrestrial and aquaculture. It looks to limit the amount that is used. I think it is one treatment in a 12-month period. Again, it is outside what we do.

Going back to the treatment for lice, how is that undertaken at sea? Is that still just a tarpaulin brought underneath to make a sort of bath around a cage?

It depends on the type of treatment. Those involved are generally trying to move away from medicinal treatment, but there are baths. That is generally undertaken in a well boat.

What is that?

It is a large boat with a big container that is filled with water.

The fish are taken in and treated on the boat.

Yes. It then the fish are removed and put back in the cage.

Do the farms have access to these well boats?

Yes. There are a number of them in the country.

How many cages would be on an average farm? I am trying to figure this out. If you are told you are having an inspection in two weeks' time, it would seem perfectly reasonable to get the stock involved treated for lice.

Well boats are very limited. There are only a handful in the country, and they are in use regularly.

All right. Does anyone from SWAN have any comments on that?

I just want to talk about the sea lice levels, trigger levels and so on. On the statistical analysis carried out, it is hardly statistically robust to be testing 60 salmon on a farm of 6,000 to 800,000 fish. No one has been able to demonstrate what the background level of sea lice is in a bay that does not have salmon aquaculture, and therein lies the problem. Telemetry studies, especially those run by Inland Fisheries Ireland in the Erriff catchment, will show that, basically, when farms are in production, they have a very detrimental effect on sea trout and salmon, and their survival falls in line with the time of the production cycle. Even though sea lice may look from the reports to be relatively low, at 0.2 or 0.3 or whatever, no one has been able to prove what is an acceptable level or what is a background level in a normal bay compared with an aquaculture bay. That is one of the issues.

On the organic status, we used to have the Aquaculture Stewardship Council, which audited all the farms. The principal operator, which I will not use the name here, has, for its own reasons, cancelled its certification. We do not know why, but we would hazard a guess that maybe the use of antibiotics and pesticides and mortality rates were all included in these audits. We do not have sight of this. We do not appear to have any publicly available audits from the organic standards bodies that are giving organic status to Irish salmon. There does not appear to be anything available for the public to look at.

I thank Mr. Murphy.

There are a couple of things to consider. The first is whether the levels that are set are sufficient with respect to the habitats directive. An Taisce is a prescribed body for aquaculture, so I review these salmon licence applications. What I know is Inland Fisheries Ireland has questioned the sufficiency of the trigger level for lice. In Ireland's implementation NASCO report, IFI also said, essentially, that it did not know if the level it is setting the allowable lice at is going to prevent any mortality in wild fish. Thus, the first point is that we do not know if the trigger level is good enough.

As tor the second point, I reviewed a salmon farm in Clew Bay that was up for renewal. Looking back over the past few years, I discovered that in one of the years the farm was in breach of the allowable sea lice levels 43% of the time. I accessed the Natura impact statement.

Salmon are highly protected. The impact statement indicated that because of the trigger levels and treatment, there will be no impact on salmon. The habitats directive requires decision makers to be able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that there will not be an impact. First, we do not know if the trigger level is good enough. Second, there seem to be breaches. Nobody is acknowledging those breaches when farms are being relicensed. There are a lot of questions about how robust, legally and ecologically, these assessments are.

In relation to the trigger levels, how do we compare internationally? Norway has a much lower trigger level than Ireland. I find it interesting that companies from other countries are coming here and that the regulations they have to operate under here seem to be a lot less stringent than those that apply in their own countries.

I will ask for a brief response to that question. We will come back to it because we are a little over time. I ask the witnesses to provide a brief response to finish out the point.

I do not think any of us knows the answer to that. We just know the Irish situation. I do not know how it is in other countries.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. There has been a clash between campaigners and the aquaculture industry in Ireland over many years. I want to get a sense from Mr. Murphy as to whether there an acceptable level of aquaculture. I am from Donegal. There is real employment in the county. Coastal communities have suffered greatly from the loss of fish quotas that primarily occurred as a result of the mismanagement of the Common Fisheries Policy. We need to create jobs in coastal communities, but we need to do so responsibly and in line with our environmental standards.

Will Mr. Murphy outline what standards would be acceptable for an aquaculture industry to be developed in coastal communities? Is he opposed to aquaculture in all circumstances? Are there standards he is seeking to have applied? Does he accept that the Marine Institute is carrying out that role? I want to get his view about the range of oversight that is required in order to have a designation of organic salmon. I want to get a sense of matters from his perspective. Next week, IFA Aquaculture will appear before the committee to give its perspective. It is the role of the committee to get all the perspectives and reach conclusions. I would like Mr. Murphy's feedback on that.

Our view is that we would, in the real world, like to see salmon aquaculture moved on land where the fish would not interact with the marine environment. New technologies are coming forward all the time, but the only safe way - and we have to stick to this - is to bring it on land. Whether that involves multinational companies that are operating here or unique artisan farms on land, they could realistically, with recirculating systems, be put in place across the country. This would create jobs and whatever, but the present circumstances where multinationals and our people are operating salmon farms and using open cage technology is just not going to work. It has not worked in the past. Mortality rates are getting worse. The effect on already depleted wild Atlantic stocks and sea trout stocks is enormous.

With a changing climate, this is not moving in a proper direction. This is going to collapse ecosystems. The farmers will not be able to operate in a changing environment. There will be more novel diseases, less oxygen, more harmful algal blooms and more jellyfish invasions. A terrible scenario is coming down the line. We have heard about El Niño this year. If we get marine heatwaves, there will be massive mortality on salmon farms. There is no way that this can be stopped. Let us put a stop to the arguments. Bring these people on land. If those multinationals want to be accommodated on land by means of recirculating aquaculture systems, that is probably a situation that could be tolerable, but there is a smaller industry there that could be unique and bring a lot of jobs through rural Ireland. I refer to the days of multinational salmon farms and huge salmon farms from abroad being here and laying waste to the marine environment.

They have done it in every other country. The industry here is small and wants to expand. The Dáil or the Government may want to expand it, but that is just not going to be possible. Looking at it from the legal point of view, the two most recent determinations of licences by the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board were quashed by the High Court on environmental grounds. I think 29 licences are up for renewal and review. A rocky road lies ahead, especially in regard to the precautionary principle, the impact of sea lice and whatever else. The road forward is not going to be easy for that industry. A decision needs to be made to bring it on land.

I appreciate Mr. Murphy's honesty in saying that he is opposed to it happening in the water, full stop. That is appreciated. In terms of the challenge of providing fish and seafood as a vital source of nutrition and protein to people around the world, due to the Common Fisheries Policy, there is industrialisation of fishing. We are dealing with marine protected areas and a much reduced supply. In terms of environmental campaigners, would Mr. Murphy accept that we have a requirement to produce fish? How do we do that?

I am from a coastal community. While it is one thing to have jobs and wealth, you also need to have sustainable fisheries. This needs to be done to environmental standards. What I am trying to establish here is whether there is a middle ground. My understanding is that the way in which we are doing salmon farming is unique. I understand that there is not organic salmon farming universally across Europe or around the world. There has been attempt to address the legitimate concerns of environmental campaigners, marine biologists and so on. In fairness, Mr. Murphy has answered that. He stated that as far as he is concerned, there is no solution other than trying to bring it on land. Could he paint a picture of how that would look? How would an on-land aquaculture operation deliver the scale of food we require in Ireland and globally? If Mr. Murphy is against it being in the water, what would it look like on land? How do we reach the scale that is required on land in order to feed people?

I will hand over to my colleague Ms Dubsky.

The Deputy hit the nail on the head by putting the social and environmental together. We need a total transformation of our aquaculture. We need to focus on those at the bottom of the food chain as opposed to at the top. We need to reclaim our wild salmon as a salmon of knowledge, as the emblem of Ireland, and try to restore conditions such that we bring back ecotourism and angling once a restoration has taken place. I lived in Czechoslovakia for six years. I looked at its fish farming. That was a lazy fish that swims around in a pond and does not mind eating vegetarian food with the odd other bit thrown in. Our salmon takes 5 kg on average of wild fish in order to get 1 kg of salmon. We are doing things the wrong way round. If we want our wild fisheries to recover and for our inshore fishermen and other fishermen to recover, we need that for human food, not for salmon food.

Ms Dubsky has brought me to my next point. There are many causes of the decline, and it is tragedy that it is declining. I watched a documentary about Connemara recently. The salmon is central to our identity as a people. There are many causes, including pollution of rivers, agricultural pollution of rivers and the terrain that salmon are operating in being damaged. There are many reasons for the decline of the salmon fishery. In Mr. Murphy's expert view, what are they?

Could he spell out the various reasons? We will be working with the environment committee jointly so it will help us in our work if we could look at what is the big picture as to why salmon has declined so seriously.

Obviously, there is a complexity about it all. I will go back to one point about salmon aquaculture. We have the-----

Could Mr. Murphy just answer my question?

I will answer the question but I-----

There are many reasons salmon are decline. The increasing seal population is also a reason. I would just like a sense of that. Net fishing has been banned. We were told salmon would recover if net fishing was closed down. Could Mr. Murphy give us a sense of what is going on?

I was involved with the then Stop Salmon Drift Nets organisation a long time ago. We suggested that stopping interceptory drift netting would allow the fish breathing space and we could get more of them back in to spawn. That only happened in one year after the ban. Since then, there has been a decline but that decline has been all over the north-east Atlantic Ocean, not just in Ireland.

The reasons are complex. The ocean is not as productive as it was in the Norwegian Sea and off our coast. There are climate implications. Water is warming. There appears to be more Atlantic water in the Norwegian Sea, changing plankton assemblages all across the area where salmon migrate and feed. However, there are a number of things we can do. We can improve our rivers. We heard about fish kills. Agricultural pollution is causing enormous problems. There is pollution from wastewater treatment plants and the destruction of habitat. Coming back to salmon farming, this is one thing the State licenses. It has been proven now without doubt, and it is peer reviewed, that we are losing an average of 19% of returning adults due to the effect of aquaculture in those bays. That is something the State is licensing and should not be licensing at sea. That is an average figure of 19%. It can be 50% in some years. That is one issue we can address that will help.

The other issues are very complex. Whether we can get over those in the long term, who knows? One scenario in which we can influence salmon survival by an average of 19% is if we take salmon aquaculture out of the sea in areas adjacent to those rivers.

I thank all of the witnesses for coming in today. On a sustainable water network, why has An Taisce called for a ban on open net salmon farming? Are there other forms of salmon farming that have a lower environmental impact that An Taisce would recommend?

Open cage salmon farming is open to the marine environment. Whatever disease or parasite grows on that farm escapes into the environment and it is harmful to wild Atlantic salmon, as we have seen from the 19% average figure. The Deputy can see it on the graph we sent in to the committee on sea trout. On other forms of farming, on land aquaculture has proven to be quite effective. The food conversion ratio is very good. The recirculating system means there is virtually no pollution from it. There are no sea lice getting into it. There are no real diseases getting into it. It is a very controlled environment. What is happening out at sea, with climatic influences coming on board now, is oceans are warming and there is less oxygen. There are more harmful algal blooms. There are invasions of jellyfish into the farms. For the fish in those farms, if they were wild fish, they could get out of the way but they cannot because they are enclosed in a cage, so they die at scale.

If aquaculture is brought on land, whether at the scale members spoke about or a smaller scale, it would probably work out a lot better. It would certainly work out a lot better for the environment. One of the other members asked about our fishing.

We have to fish for wild fish to feed these farm fish. It is hardly a sustainable model, going forward.

I listened to Ms Dubsky's contribution. I am an islander. I lived off the coast of Donegal on Arranmore Island where, for generations, salmon fishing, in the one month of the year that we did it, was part of our culture and community. It no longer is. In Ms Dubsky's estimation, was that more environmentally friendly than what is currently happening?

Yes, of course. It was way more environmentally friendly but that option is no longer available. It depends on the method of fishing as well. I have been around the islands a lot and looked at the traditional, wise ways of managing catch, for example, oysters were caught for one month in some areas, including Lough Foyle. The fishermen decided between them what size of oyster to catch, what flesh weight the oysters should be and when to do it. All of that traditional management needs to be respected and brought back.

On it being brought back, the way things have gone is unfortunate. We have gone into reverse and caused more damage culturally to communities in rural Ireland.

I will move on quickly to the EPA. It said it has prosecuted Uisce Éireann 35 times. What types of offences is the EPA prosecuting the company for? Are any of those for repeat offences? In what timeframe were those 35 offences committed? Were they committed within a certain period of time?

We have prosecuted Uisce Éireann 35 times for wastewater discharges. A number of those were related to management issues at particular wastewater treatment plants, that is, failure to have the plant operating properly. I will hand over to my colleague Mr. Noel Byrne, who is the manager in the relevant team, for further details on some of those. We might not have the details of all 35 with us.

I would like to know if there were any issues or prosecutions in Donegal.

I will need to have a think about Donegal and then come back to the Deputy on it. As he correctly said, there have been 35 prosecutions. They have been taken in the period from 2017 up to as recently as last week. There were three cases taken last week. There is roughly a 50-50 split between operational issues and infrastructural issues. One of the key issues the agency has gone after is the elimination of raw sewage. There were 50 locations around the country where there were raw sewage discharges. That is currently down to 11.

A number of cases in Donegal have been resolved. There were 11 locations in Donegal where there were raw sewage discharges, including Rathmullan and a few places around there. A lot of those have been resolved. I think there are two still to be resolved in Donegal. There may not have been a prosecution in these cases, although I think there was a prosecution in Kilmacrennan, if I am right. That is the only one in Donegal that comes to mind at the moment. All the cases are available on our website if the Deputy wants to have a look. Kilmacrennan was one of them.

That is perfect. On the River Finn, from Porthall into Lifford and Strabane, there have been large volumes of fish kill. When people are dealing with this, they find that there seems to be a lack of communication between the Loughs Agency and the EPA. For example, when something happens on the River Finn, people contact me and I go down and see it. They will tell me that it happened north of Strabane but nothing gets done. I try to encourage as much reporting as I can but we still find we hit a dead end. I am trying to find information on that, if I can.

As my colleague Ms Hawe said, there is an emergency response protocol within the agency. We deal with any instances from our EPA-regulated facilities, and those include wastewater and industrial waste. We call out to those, inspect them and take samples.

If something happens north of Stranorlar and we contact the EPA, does the agency then contact its counterparts in the Loughs Agency? We looked into this and found a real lack of communication.

It is a serious issue and it recurs every now and then. It is basically detective work but where one person is here and another person is there. There does not seem to be communication going on such that we can resolve the issue.

We do have regular interactions with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. We have cross-Border meetings. We often have collective ones on a range of issues. Water quality is only one of our shared issues on this island, but we have meetings on that where we align with each other and try to keep each other informed of what is happening and activities. We have shared activities in terms of research that we might be conducting and other things and we are participating in a number of cross-Border activities with the agency.

I too welcome our witnesses. Since this committee was formed, I and others on it have been raising aquaculture licences and the length of time it is taking to process them, up to 20 years in some cases. What progress, if any, has been made since the committee was formed? What actions have been undertaken? Can someone explain why it is taking up to 20 years in some cases to process these aquaculture licences? It beggars belief. Do the witnesses believe this is acceptable? What, in their opinion, is an acceptable timeframe? How long more will it take to see movement in this area?

When all is said and done, these delays are delaying progress, business plans and the creation of jobs in all our coastal communities. I think, at home, in Kerry, of areas like Cromane, Valentia and Kenmare and right around our coastline, as well as areas that have been hit the hardest of all in the context of fishing and the industry itself.

We do not have the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine before us, nor the Minister, who would probably be best placed to answer those questions. I share the concerns you have highlighted, Deputy. If you would like to direct some of those questions at one of the three sets of witnesses in particular, it might be helpful.

Would anyone like to-----

Yes, just briefly. I do not have the law in front of me but I remember that there was a section - I think it was in the-----

Section 19A(4).

No, not section 19A(4). There is a section which allows for the Minister to make a decision within three months, and that section was not commenced in the Fisheries Act - if it is the Fisheries Act - for the licensing of aquaculture. If this Dáil were to ensure that that section was commenced, the Minister would not have the opportunity to take 20 years. After three months, or if he thought he could not do it within that period, he would have to get back to the applicant and explain, just like with An Coimisiún Pleanála or local authorities. A system was set up, but that part of the legislation was not commenced.

I will make two comments, if I may. Speaking as An Taisce, which, again, is the prescribed body for aquaculture, we have no control over the length of the licence but we do comment on licences. Twenty years, from an environmental perspective, is not acceptable, particularly because, as regards some of these licensees, if they have had a licence and then it goes out of date, there is a section in the Fisheries (Amendment) Act, section 19A(4), under which, as long as they have applied for a licence, they can continue operating until that licence is granted. In some cases we have mussel, oyster and salmon farms operating for years and years with no licence because they are in this limbo - a legally allowed limbo - but there has been no environmental assessment of that. We have discussed this with the European Commission. It is very clearly unlawful, and I am surprised it has not come before the court yet. That cannot be allowed under EU law. Legally, they have landed themselves in a lot of trouble.

In terms of expediting the licences, however, a certain amount of caution is needed because we do need robust environmental assessment. What we have seen in the planning space, with strategic infrastructure and strategic development, is that when this was expedited, it led to a huge slew of judicial reviews because flawed decisions were being made. There is a balance to be struck between doing the robust assessment and having a decision in a timely manner. I think we can all agree that 20 years is not that balance.

I understand that the Dáil was going to put forward a sunset clause for section 19(A)4, which, initially, would be brought in for one or two years. That is under the worst-case scenario. I understand that commitment was given.

That question would probably be best answered by the Minister, to be fair on Ms Dubsky. It is a concern that all of us, I think, have shared, and we have ventilated it at this committee on a number of occasions.

I have a number of questions, if nobody else wishes to comment on the licensing issue. I have a number of-----

Will there be a second round?

There will be a second round. I have a couple of questions to put myself before we get into that second round.

The first is for the Marine Institute. It relates to the role of the Marine Institute in providing assurance to aquaculture operators, particularly in the shellfish sector, around water quality and the role the institute can play when there are mortality events. I am thinking in particular, you will not be surprised to hear, about Dungarvan Bay and the many oyster farms there that have been hit two years in a row now and are, as you can imagine, very anxious about a potential third mortality event this summer.

I will speak directly on Dungarvan. We have received reports of quite high mortality in both half-grown and full-grown oysters in the past two years. With the Minister of State, Deputy Dooley, we put together an inter-agency group on that which is being led by BIM. We are carrying out a thorough investigation, looking at everything in terms of the mortality from the perspective of the fish health unit. On the mortality in this case, we tested them. There is Vibrio aestuarianus, a bacteria that causes mortality. It can cause mortality on its own, but then if there are other stressors, it will also cause mortality there.

At what stage is that investigation? Can you tell us more about that bacteria and its sources?

It is just ubiquitous in the environment. If we test an oyster farm, generally 12 months a year we will find it within the population. We generally carry out a mortality investigation if we get a report from an oyster producer that they have had mortality. We will take a sample to test it for a number of listed diseases as well as some production diseases like Vibrio aestuarianus. We will provide that service with them and information on that.

The Dungarvan investigation is being led by BIM. What we are looking at doing there is a wide review of everything going on within the bay. From reviewing information we have on the waters in the bay, I think the inner bay is of moderate status and, as regards mussel production, the outer bay is of good status. In terms of physiochemical things, pH is on a downward trend, which is just ocean conditions anyway, and temperatures are generally on the gradual increase. As to what we have reviewed, there have not been any huge issues in phytoplankton in Dungarvan. Looking back at last year, there was a period of high temperatures in early July that coincided with big tides, which would have increased exposure of the oysters in the two weeks prior to when the mortality occurs. As to what we are looking at, we are coming at this with a blank slate and trying to review everything that is happening within the bay.

From a fish health point of view, we are taking regular samples to look at the disease profile within the oysters. We are also working with Technological University Dublin, which is looking at biomarkers within the oysters. This is looking at neurotoxicity and genotoxicity. These are biomarkers that should indicate if there are other environmental stressors, such as pollution, acting on the oysters. That will tie back directly to what we are seeing from a pathology point of view within the oysters. We are co-ordinating with the industry in that they are looking at the condition index and the growth rates of the oysters. Phytoplankton is being looked at on a continuous basis within the institute. BIM is looking at E. coli additionally within the bays, rivers and streams. They are also taking fortnightly samples for surfactants and nutrients, which are being tested. The Marine Institute chemistry section has passive samplers out in the bay which are looking at various chemicals and carrying out a sort of risk assessment to try to target potential chemicals that are used within the area. Waterford County Council, LAWPRO, the EPA and Uisce Éireann are all feeding information into that as well.

Thank you. I have a similar and related question for the EPA on its role in ensuring that oyster farmers and other aquaculture providers have clean waters. I would like to know more about its engagement with some of the agencies, with the interagency group that has just been mentioned and with the industry to ensure that.

First and foremost for us, aquaculture is both on the receiving end of pressures and in a small number of water bodies - a limited number of finfish farms - is a pressure itself. In terms of our overall role in water quality protection and the information we publish, we keep pointing out that the same kinds of pressures - agricultural practices, as Deputy Mac Lochlainn mentioned earlier - are sometimes, regretfully, a pressure on a lot of water bodies. That is our most significant one. As one of my colleagues puts it, water quality in Ireland is often death by a thousand cuts. All of the small practices that are not managed effectively accumulate in a water body and cause downstream impacts. Agriculture is one and wastewater treatment is another. That can be domestic wastewater, in terms of our septic tanks and whether we have them routinely emptied and cleaned, and check that they are operating properly, or, if we have had an inspection done by the local authority, that we are acting on that. We report on that. Sometimes the figures can be a bit slow in terms of seeing non-compliances closed out. We know that the Department of housing has responded to that and upped the grant aid that is available to people to take action if they need to; for example, if their septic tank has come to end of life or is in significant need of revision. Those are a couple of the practical things.

In terms of urban wastewater, I know our colleagues in Uisce Éireann would be at pains to point out to people to be careful about what they flush, to help them in terms of their maintenance. We also see problems in terms of the maintenance practices that can be there and the infrastructural needs that exist. We document and report on those.

Specifically on Dungarvan, we are supporting that expert group in terms of our catchment science and advice. We have also added two priority substances sites this year in terms of pesticides, again to try to add to the body of evidence to help to diagnose the situation.

The issue in Dungarvan is of huge concern. A large number of individual enterprises there are economically and socially important, but also environmentally important. To pick up on something Ms Hawes said, in some cases aquaculture relieves the pressure in terms of water filtration and contributing to water quality. I think oyster farming certainly helps in that regard.

My final question is for SWAN. Where aquaculture can assist water quality and the environment in those areas, are there best practices that could be promoted? We are probably talking about shellfish here rather than finfish.

Our report talks about a lot of different alternative aquaculture approaches. There was a paper by Masuda et al. in 2022 that discussed these alternative forms. What we have in Ireland is primarily commercial aquaculture.

However, there are forms that do provide conservation purposes which would include species recovery, habitat restoration and offsetting the impacts of the wild capture. That would be conservation aquaculture, restorative and regenerative. This is mainly around bivalves, as the Cathaoirleach mentioned. This is how restorative aquaculture can positively affect the ecosystem services and offer ecological benefits, create opportunities for local communities as some of the Deputies have mentioned, and address climate change through the adaptation and mitigation aspect. With bivalves, oysters in particular can provide water filtration, nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, protection from waves and storms and species habitat provision. However, much of the oyster farming that occurs in Ireland is the non-native Pacific oyster, the gigas species. There have been issues of that species taking hold in our native ecosystems, particularly in Lough Swilly, which Ms Dubsky may wish to come in on. With mussels as well, as I mentioned in the opening statement, there are issues around dredging for mussel seed. While there absolutely can be ecosystem benefits from the bivalve farming, there are issues with those as well.

We were asking what is the most sustainable. We have an opportunity now with nature restoration law to really focus on the knowledge of traditional fishermen and aquaculturists to turn that around to get our nature restoration targets, which are really onerous, to focus on that. Dungarvan is not the only place. Waterford Estuary had seven oyster farms, one has left. The Marine Institute did come down and see mass death and stressed organisms, not just the aquaculture which we are focusing on but also wild organisms like the cockles. With climate change, what we are doing at the moment may not be the wisest way to go. To restore our native oysters, to do really good management of the invasive gigas oyster which started in Lough Swilly but is now taking hold right around the country, is labour intensive. We cannot do it by machine. To kill those, let the crabs eat them and give space for our own native species to increase. The gigas oyster is far more powerful as a filter feeder than our native oyster. In Lough Foyle, the native oyster is going down and down, while the gigas unauthorised aquaculture has increased.

This area is going to be really heavily impacted by climate change. I imagine it already is. There is a real opportunity and I absolutely agree with my colleagues that it is such an important employment. It got me through college: two or three years working on fish farms paid for my college. I think there is a risk that unless we get ahead of the impacts of climate change and are more innovative in how we farm, there will be a real risk to the industry. Coastal communities really need this industry and this opportunity. The closed or semi-contained systems are an opportunity to move to a more sustainable way of farming. It is being done in Scotland, Canada, Norway and the Faroe Islands. This not completely beyond the realm of possibility. It is possible and it is being done. It would also give Ireland an opportunity to have a niche product, a really good quality, organic, superior product that we could market overseas. It is an area where the Government should really be focusing. Norway is incentivising companies to go to these kinds of systems where the licensing is much easier because it is a closed system, but also from a grant perspective. This is certainly something the committee should be pushing for. It does not necessarily have to be on land. Closed containments can be at sea as well. It is my understanding that they are self-contained. It is certainly something that we should be looking at. We hear a lot about agriculture being at risk from climate change and production methods having to change. Aquaculture is equally at risk.

I want to focus on the EPA and water quality issues. I mentioned agriculture. We, or certainly I, spend a lot of time highlighting water quality impacts from agriculture but equally there is a huge amount of water quality impacts from water treatment and the mismanagement of water treatment plants. I am looking at the EPA’s documentation. I want to make sure I am correct on this. There are 504 active licences with Uisce Éireann.

That is the correct figure. It is 505.

And 59% of them failed consistently to meet the EPA’s licensing standards. That was just last year.

Yes.

Sometimes when we think about Uisce Éireann we think these are really large infrastructure projects, and it will take us a long time to fund them and get them up and running, but what I found most worrying is that 40% of those failures were operational and management issues. Some 118 or 119 were just because someone was not doing their job properly or the system that was in place meant they could not do their job properly. When the EPA talks about operational management issues can Ms Hawe outline the kind of things it is talking about and how simple these things are?

I think I mentioned “preventative maintenance” earlier as an example of one of those things that could be done. It is routinely servicing things. We see things like pump failures as something that is avoidable and definitely could be. I will ask Mr. Byrne to fill in on some of the further ones.

Fifty-nine per cent were non-compliances with the supplies last year. That can vary from one sample being failed in the whole year to repeated failures through a number of months. It can very much vary across the different types of plant. From our assessment of the data, half of those are operational related and half are infrastructure with a need to upgrade the plant. Wastewater treatment plants have a lot of pumps so preventative maintenance becomes key. What we have found is that not enough preventative maintenance is happening on Uisce Éireann sites to stop these pumps from failing. On occasion we find pumps are let run to failure, is how they describe it, and then there is an incident or breach that can impact on water quality.

Another simple example is desludging, which is a routine practice on site. You have to take away the sludge at a regular frequency. If you do not desludge at the right frequency you might end up with breaches of the limits. We have found these. The agency takes a very strong stance on operational failures. We do not think it is acceptable. If someone has the kit they have to be able to operate it properly. We took three cases last week in the courts which were all operational related. We will not stand for it. If Uisce Éireann has the kit then it has to operate it properly.

There were 118 or 119 for 2025. Is that number going down, up or is it stationary?

I have not seen the figures yet for the assessment for 2025 but-----

Sorry, that was 2024.

We will have the report on the 2025 data at the end of the year and will do a further analysis at that point. There is a whole changeover happening at the moment with the transformation process. A lot of staff are moving from local authorities to Uisce Éireann so potentially new staff will be trained in on Uisce Éireann sites. That creates a potential risk for operational issues to happen. We will really monitor that closely this year to see that level but we will be looking to drive it down. That is what we need to see from Uisce Éireann.

Mr. Byrne said there were three cases but three out of 118 is not a lot. What I want to see here is accountability. We have an organisation where the CEO and the management team are paid very well and there were 118 cases that could have been prevented by simple maintenance work. It is absolutely unacceptable because each of those failures could have been catastrophic, I imagine, for the receiving waters they are flowing into. It is very difficult as a politician to stand there and say to farmers that they need to do X, Y and Z. The agricultural sector does need to step up in some instances – I am very clear about that – but it is not acceptable that in a State agency, with people who are paid very well to do their job, there are issues with simple things not happening around operations, resourcing, training and management of those sites. There are three out of 118. That seems very low. What other levels of accountability are there?

To qualify that, that was three that were just last week.

Okay, perfect. This year, out of that 118 how many are there?

If Deputy Whitmore does not mind, I will return to the scale of the issue. There has been that level of non-compliance but they are all assessed on a scale of significance. A lot of them are minor, as we would describe them. All this is available on our website if anyone wants to see the data. A minor breach of the limit, which is something that is reportable, is counted as an incident and it is in that percentage.

I can understand that but a minor breach of a limit could potentially be a major breach of a limit. If part of a component is failing, if a pump is failing, it is only pure luck that it is a minor breach, I would imagine, and not much more significant. I think there should be zero tolerance on this. I can understand if you are looking at huge sums - tens of millions for infrastructure - and there is a need to delay to get that right but when it comes to simple training of staff or just making sure you have the right equipment and that it is being maintained, there should be zero tolerance for that.

To clarify, our report goes into much more detail on the range and nature of incidents. Some of them can be of very short duration. They might not have a huge impact in terms of their outcome. It is more that if we detect them or notice them on inspection, they are documented and captured. That could be things like blocked or broken sewers or overflows or where there is untreated wastewater from collection systems. There is a range of things. They do not always result in a pollution incident, to be clear, but we do document the failings when we see them on site. Some of that is about us trying to get them to correct it, so there is not a pollution incident itself down the line.

That is obviously really welcome. What I am trying to say is that there could be. If you have a failure, it is only by pure chance that it does not result in a pollution incident. Did I see somewhere there were 35 fines?

Thirty five prosecutions.

Does Ms Hawe know what was the total fine?

We might finish on that question. I will let Ms Hawe respond but we will move on.

I do not think we have the figures off the tops of our heads.

We do not have the figures. The level of fines would vary. Typically, I would say they are €10,000 on average per court case. All that detail is available on our website.

I would say we agree, in that we have a very strong stance on operational performance at Uisce Éireann. If the Deputy looks at our last report, we called out very clearly that it was not accepted by the EPA and Uisce Éireann has to up its performance at treatment plants and make sure it complies with its licences.

Accountability needs to be looked at. It is very easy for Uisce Éireann to pay fines because it is not its money; it is our money. It is the people’s money it is using to pay fines when it does not do its job properly. That is something we should look at.

I do not normally but I will make a comment at this juncture. I wholeheartedly agree with the Deputy. I share the concerns about that, not just the impact of that lack of investment, lack of funding and lack of oversight and accountability when it comes to aquaculture but on our maritime environment more broadly. It is something that this committee, as we engage further on this issue, will have to have regard to. I will seek the committee’s support for having Uisce Éireann appear before the committee as a witness and to invite the Minister for Climate, Environment and Energy to answer questions on that because it is a huge issue that affects coastal communities from the environmental side as well as the social side in terms of holding back the development of housing. There are myriad issues that are the business of this committee that we need to deal with. While Uisce Éireann and that particular Minister, Deputy O’Brien, are not answerable to this committee, I think that is an oversight when it comes to an issue of this gravity. I want to make that comment and call.

When Mr. Murphy was commenting on the open net salmon farming and asked about alternatives, he said there were new technologies but he did not elaborate on that. Will he elaborate on the new technologies he referred to? Can the committee also be told about the decisions of the High Court? Who appealed to the High Court? Is that information available?

He referred to wild fishery and the drift netting. I am around long enough to remember very well when the Government took the decision around drift netting. We were told by those representing anglers, although maybe not by Mr. Murphy, that the angling fishing of salmon would flourish and that every one caught by anglers would be worth about ten times the price of one caught in drift nets.

That never happened. We were promised by someone from Iceland, whose name I do not have to tell the witnesses, who was going to make a huge investment into the sector that was so badly affected. I come from Burtonport. I can visualise the thousands of fish which were landed there over the years. As Deputy Ward who came from the island rightly said, many of the half-deckers from the island depended on salmon but now there are very few of them. They cannot even land pollock. Could Mr. Murphy refer to those? Does he have any difficulty with the Government deciding that it would reintroduce drift netting on a very limited scale for islanders?

On the first point about open-net salmon farming, I did mention new technologies. Deputy Whitmore suggested semi-closed containment at sea. There are issues with this technology because they are taking water in from the environment and discharging it out the other side. They are not able to screen out harmful algal blooms and various toxins or parasites coming in. They have had some success with the control of sea lice all right but it is not really a proven technology as of yet. That is why, if you bring it on to land, you do not have any of those problems, especially in recirculating systems because you can control everything from pH to temperature and whatever and it is a very good system. The feed conversion ratio is very good. There is no waste food. The various feces and whatever, and waste food, if there is any, obviously can be taken out and distributed on land or whatever.

Second, Deputy Gallagher did suggest the High Court. There were two cases; one involved the Shot Head salmon farm in Bantry Bay, which was a new farm. That was appealed by Inland Fisheries Ireland, Salmon Watch Ireland and the Federation of Irish Salmon and Sea Trout Anglers and a number of other people from the Bantry region. The case went on for four weeks in the High Court, which is a very long case in the High Court, but the decision was quashed on a number of grounds in relation to the water framework directive, scarers for dolphins and various other environmental factors.

Let us face facts in regard to the management of our rivers: wild Atlantic salmon have collapsed in Ireland, along with the UK and most of their distribution in the north-east Atlantic and the north-west Atlantic. That is the reality we are living with. This is a really changed reality from 2006 when drift netting was banned. We went from a system where we were to manage each river on an individual basis. As to the suggestions made by anglers or by anybody else that this was going to revolutionise salmon, the commercial fishermen themselves knew, and from discussions with them we did know that they knew, the stock was in severe decline. The decision was made on a legal basis because of a reasoned opinion from the European courts that we were not managing our special areas of conservation for salmon in this country and in the UK, France and various places like that where salmon were coming off our coast and were being caught indiscriminately. The State decided at that stage to go to a management regime which basically managed rivers on an individual basis. Unfortunately, now we are at a situation where even the smallest exploitation may not be possible in the future. We are coming to a situation where every salmon is nearly required to be allowed to spawn in our rivers. We could not countenance even a limited scale driftnet fishery. The legality of that would be severely challenged. It is just not correct to say there is even a harvestable surface at sea.

Certainly there are some rivers that have stocks which are marginally above their conservation limit but they are marginal. They are not anything like when the decision was made to ban drift netting. Our rivers now are basically in a state of collapse.

To put the record straight, I remember very well that those representing anglers at the time - I will say it cautiously - must have been deceitful when they were reminding those in rural areas that were depending on wild net salmon that it was going to flourish. Those were the words that were used. It is fine to say it now in 2026, 20 years afterwards that they did, but they did say that. They were using that as an excuse to placate those in the areas where salmon was important. I want to set the record straight. I do not need a response.

Okay, but there was a legal imperative.

My memory is a good one as well.

Yes, okay.

My question is again for the EPA. It is a really brief one. What is its communication like with Uisce Éireann?

I might ask Mr. Byrne to come in on that because he is probably one of those who engage most frequently with Uisce Éireann. At a management level we would meet as well just to communicate the overall priorities. Mr. Byrne might take that question.

We have various levels of engagement - at senior management level, operational level and regional level. We meet at all levels and we have interaction with it. The places we have most interaction with it is at site level. Last year 287 site inspections were completed around the country. That is where we obviously have face-to-face engagement with the people on the ground about the operation of the site. Meeting on the ground is nearly the key location but we also have engagement for all the layers of management right the way up to our director general.

And also on drinking water.

Yes, also on drinking water.

On the ground there is no issue but let us say if we go the next step up, what is the communication like where there is an issue and it has to be taken higher?

We do not have the details on all the different functions and interactions we have with it but in terms of things like licensing schemes for instance, when it is developing new ones we have discussions with it about that and about its priorities. Mr. Byrne's team works with it in terms of what our priorities would be, and what we would like to see advancing in terms of investment in infrastructure, but when it needs to come to us as a regulator for a licence as well, there would be engagement in terms of where it is with those and when it comes in to us to deal with it.

At a management level too, in terms of our overall engagement and how that is working and where we do and do not see problems, where we need to do that, we would escalate them.

Do the witnesses from the EPA feel it has a positive interaction with Uisce Éireann, that it is good, or is there room for improvement?

I think what we would call it is necessarily robust engagements.

We would have good communication channels, whether it is always in a positive framework, as we do have to take issue on some of the things at times with Uisce Éireann. We have a standing fortnightly meeting at senior management level with Uisce Éireann and then if we need to have additional ones beyond that. We are the regulator, so there will be robust discussions. If we find something that we are not happy with, we will make that clear to Uisce Éireann. We say these are some of the findings on the ground. That is the key link between our inspections and what we have to feed back to Uisce Éireann.

It comes back to our earlier conversation with Deputy Whitmore, in that, as we presented in our report, these were our findings from 2024 and we will produce a report for 2025 as well.

I thank the witnesses.

That comes to the end of our question-and-answer session. All that is really left for me to do is to thank the witnesses who have been here today. We have had a really good discussion. I think we have heard different perspectives and got quite a lot of information. It is important to point out that this is the first of what is effectively a two-part meeting. We will be returning to this issue next week when we will have IFA Aquaculture and some bivalve aquaculture operators as well presenting and giving evidence.

It is important to point out as well that this committee takes a real interest in matters relating to the marine, fisheries and aquaculture not only in how they relate to what happens at sea but we all understand that water flows from streams to rivers to estuaries to the sea and both are interlinked.

To that end, while the committee would like to be able to consider matters relating to inshore fisheries as part of its remit, that is not the case at the moment. We will engage with the committee that has oversight of that. We have a number of joint engagements with that committee coming up, where we will examine matters of common concern in that environment. I think it is important to let members and the public know that.

As there are no further matters for discussion today, the meeting will adjourn until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 23 June.