Save The Swilly July 17, 2003

"RURAL DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY"

(Presentation given at Green Party public meeting, Buncrana, 17 July 2003, by John Mulcahy, Spokesperson, Save The Swilly.)

The United Nations defines sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

Some years ago, when we were planning the launch of Save The Swilly, I met a businessman involved in property development, and asked whether he was concerned about the damage to Lough Swilly, and what the legacy might be for future generations. He replied that he had overcome multiple obstacles to succeed in his business, and every generation had to solve their own problems.
This scorched-earth attitude to sustainable development, I have since discovered, is not unique. It is not even unusual. Why care about the next generation when we don't care about the next day?

While the title of the discussion tonight is "Rural development towards sustainability", my focus is on the coastal zone. Let's start with a definition: "The coastal zone is defined as a strip of land and sea territory of varying width depending on the nature of the environment and management needs. It seldom corresponds to existing administrative or planning units." It is estimated that up to 60% of the Irish population lives in an area that could be defined as the coastal zone. Its future, and the nature of development that might affect that future, is too important to leave to the politicians, with due respect to present company.

The above definition, contained in a Brady Shipman Martin study commissioned by the Irish government into Coastal Zone Management, goes immediately to the first apparently insurmountable hurdle preventing its introduction into Ireland. If effective coastal zone management must rely on collaboration between two or more government departments it is doomed from the start.
Is that too cynical? The report concerned was published in 1997, and heartily endorsed by the three ministers responsible for the relevant departments.

Marine Minister Michael Woods said at the time: "The government's key objective is to promote awareness and stimulate public debate on the policies and structures that can best ensure an integrated approach to the management of coastal resources and amenities on a sustainable basis." Environment Minister Noel Dempsey kicked in his view: "We must preserve the intrinsic value of the coastal zone while simultaneously availing of the advantages it bestows in the interests of local communities and the wider economy. Our rate of success will be dictated by the extent to which the principles of sustainable development inform management policy formulation and its delivery at local level."

I think Noel Dempsey was saying that we should find a way to establish what is best for the local community. So far, so good.
Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands Sile de Valera told us that "all along the Irish Coast there are many marine and maritime sites or habitats which are of national and international importance from a conservation point of view."

But that was back in 1997, so what is the report card? Where do we now stand on Integrated Coastal Zone Management?

Undoubtedly much must have been done, we have been told, even if there is more to do. So what stage have we reached?

First, the Department of Arts, Heritage, etc has disappeared and Dúchas has been absorbed by the Department of the Environment. The Department of the Marine and Natural Resources has been taken over by the Department of Communications, which has added Marine and Natural Resources to its name. In short, the joint report by the three Departments into Integrated Coastal Zone Management has become part of posterity. Will a completely new report now have to be commissioned that will take into account the new configuration of government departments?

In short, nothing has happened, but that is not the government's official interpretation of the position. "Legislative proposals to support the development and effective operation of integrated coastal zone management will be formulated in cooperation with the other public bodies concerned. It is the Minister's intention to have legislative proposals published in 2004." That comment came from Dave O'Donoghue, Assistant Principal in the Coastal Zone Management Division of the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources.
It is the Marine Minister's intention to have legislative proposals published in 2004. However, in October 2002 it was stated on the government's legislation programme that the Bill on Integrated Coastal Zone Management would be published in 2003. Why should we believe them now? And who is being spoken to about coastal zone management? When Save The Swilly provided the Department with a copy of the Scoping Study on Coastal Zone Management commissioned independently from the University of Ulster at Coleraine earlier this year, we were told that it would be considered "in the context of [the department's] broader work in terms of developing an ICZM national strategy." Except that the evidence of the "broader work" being carried out is thin on the ground. Is the "broader work" taking place in an office in Dublin? Do we wait with bated breath for the "desk job" of coastal zone management to be delivered?
How many of you have ever been asked by a government official about your views on the best way to manage the coast of Lough Swilly?
Perhaps Minister Dempsey should be given the job of introducing Integrated Coastal Zone Management. He has a certain facility with controversial legislation, a methodology known as legislate first, consult later.

On the ground, or in the water, we have seen no evidence at all that the Department of Marine is consulting on ICZM. In fact, it is difficult to see how the Department is consulting on anything. It continues to issue licences for aquaculture development without knowing what the carrying capacity for these activities might be. How much bottom-cultivation of mussels can Lough Swilly support? How much cultivation of Pacific oysters can the Swilly support? How much farmed salmon can the Swilly support? What is the overall plan for Lough Swilly?

How is it possible to assess whether an activity is sustainable if we are not prepared to calculate what economic activity will generate the best return, in economic, social and environmental terms?

The Coordinated Local Aquaculture Management Systems (CLAMS) process has been widely sold as the means to accommodate aquaculture seamlessly into Lough Swilly. But what has the CLAMS approach achieved for anyone other than its own members? It is there to serve the interests of aquaculture, and has no other reason for existing. That is not my interpretation - it is stated in the CLAMS launch document. And take a look at the detailed planning the CLAMS process provides: The launch document for CLAMS in September 2001 contained a section called "Way Forward". This is the full text of that section:

"The CLAMS group will review the development plans on an annual basis, formulating detailed development plans and ensuring that the necessary state funds will be made available for the continued development of aquaculture in Lough Swilly."

So that's the plan. Every year the group will look at its plans, see how much money they need and ask the government for more grant-aid.
And how has everyone else done since the Brady Shipman Martin report was tabled in 1997? Aquaculture has had Irish government and EU aid equivalent to more than 20X the investment in other sectors.

Competition for ground, or seabed, in Lough Swilly is more intense than most people realise, with local fishermen seeking mussel ground to supplement declining white fish income, up against large corporate interests, favoured by the State. The secret concern, which is no longer secret, is that everyone in the industry knows that the Department is over-licensing, but no one will tell Dublin because Dublin does not want to hear that. It wants to hear expansion of tonnage, and any vacant piece of water will do - in fact, there are times when even water that is not vacant is given over to this colonisation of Lough Swilly. The problem is that mussels require plankton to survive and grow, and a quantum leap in the competition for a finite food source will translate into less fleshy shellfish. Less fleshy, less valuable, so the strategy is self-defeating, but at great cost to the balance in this area.

An issue as yet unresolved in Lough Swilly has been the aquaculture seeding of mussel beds in areas that have long-established wild oyster fisheries. A substantial portion of the Lough Swilly wild oyster fishery has been licensed for this seed mussel cultivation, and a significant section of the wild oyster fishery has already been destroyed by the subsequent harvesting by dredgers. Successive ministers have been dismissive about this issue, which has arisen only because the Minister for the marine issued an aquaculture licence in a wild oyster fishery, an action that is expressly prohibited by law.

There are serious issues surrounding the environmental risks of salmon farming being voiced throughout the world. We are talking today about sustainable development. How sustainable is an industry whose very existence results in a net loss of fish protein? Every pound of farmed salmon sold to the market has needed three pounds or more of wild fish to rear it to that stage. This high-intensity factory operation commonly requires a range of chemicals, including pesticides and antibiotics, to produce fish in a high-density environment. It is the marine equivalent of the battery chicken producers.

And, like the producers of chicken, some are good and some are bad. In Inver Bay, more than 50,000 mature farmed salmon suffocated in their cage. The reasons have never been publicly disclosed, and the fish farm responsible has never been penalised for what was at the very least poor husbandry. The same operation has received millions of euro in grant money, and has produced profits exceeding _9 million in recent years. Should the taxpayers of Ireland and Europe in general be subsidising a business which is flouting good bay management practices and profiting handsomely from its activities? Surely the funds deployed in this way would be better used improving inshore fisheries or marine tourism in the area? We don't know, because no one is prepared to compare the likely results of investment in one area of activity with another.

The government's own report on Integrated Coastal Zone Management stressed in 1997 the need for a management plan. They summarised the need for a management strategy as follows:

• "Increased competition for the use and control of coastal resources, which may give rise to levels of potential conflict greater than those of the present;
• Increasing pressure for development which is placing many coastal landscapes under threat, and extending areas of development into parts of the coastal zone that hitherto have enjoyed a measure of protection due to their location;
• The obligations and requirements of membership of the European Union (Directives, etc) and the need to collaborate with other Member States;
  
• The need, as a result of changing conditions, to re-appraise land-use and development policy in tandem with coastal protection policies;
• The need to maintain and develop the coast as a 'highway' for navigation, together with the networks of navigation aids, emergency services and port and harbour infrastructure;
• Anticipated sea level rise, changing weather patterns, surges, changes in prevailing winds, etc, exacerbated by global warming, leading to loss of agricultural and other productive land, threats to coast infrastructure and coastal tourism and impacts on flora, fauna and ecology."

We have not sat on our hands and waited for the government to do something. Last year, Save The Swilly commissioned a Scoping Study for an Integrated Coastal Zone Management Strategy for Lough Swilly. The study was conducted by the Coastal Studies Research Group at the University of Ulster in Coleraine. This is the body that produced for the Donegal County Council a study on rural beach management, and it is recognised as an authority on the Irish coast-line.

At the core of the recommendations by the University of Ulster is the need for information. "Without accurate information decisions will be based on arbitrary or personal criteria. Long-term values may be sacrificed for short-term gain." Most important on the list of issues requiring accurate information is carrying capacity. "The carrying capacity for each use (fishing, tourism, aquaculture, waste disposal, recreation, etc) should be considered from physical, ecological and social perspectives."

Other recommendations are:

• Economic appraisal - "The economic benefits of all existing and potential (but realistic) uses of the Lough and its surroundings should be assessed in order to guide and inform the discussion process."
• Conflict assessment - "The cultural setting within which any activity takes place is important to its success. What may be acceptable in one location may not be acceptable in another, although both may be legal."
• Identification of players - "A representative selection of players from all sectors and levels of administration is required for a forum to work effectively. They need to be identified and encouraged to participate."

So what else should we do? We have provided the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources with copies of the Scoping Study. We have sent copies of the study's recommendations to all elected representatives in the Donegal North-East constituency. We have organised a public meeting at which Dr Andrew Cooper, the author of the report, explained Integrated Coastal Zone Management.

We are not advocating a policy that would stop all development in its tracks. That is a convenient cop-out used by vested interests who feel their own positions are threatened. Our argument is that all options for developing the coastal zone should be assessed in a transparent, coherent and systematic way. We are happy to let the chips fall where they may, as long as the issues of rural development are considered in a genuinely objective way. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this is the current way of doing things.

The proliferation of holiday homes on the coast of Donegal is evidence of major planning issues that must be addressed. Human and industrial effluent are not being monitored and treated effectively. It is apparent during a good summer that tourism has enormous potential, largely untapped. Rural areas such as Inishowen and Fanad should be a priority for the extension of the broadband loop. It is an opportunity, finally, for remote areas to be provided with a form of industrial infrastructure that is comparatively quick to install. If the Irish government is sincere in its claims to care about sustainable development in rural areas it needs to demonstrate that it is thinking laterally. Millions of euro are being poured into aquaculture every year, while commercial fishermen and inshore fishermen are forced to operate from inadequate piers, such as Inch, or are harassed and intimidated by encroaching mussel dredgers, which has been the plight of native oyster fishermen in recent years.

It is time that some balance is restored, so that the indigenous users of Lough Swilly are given absolute priority, and development must take account of the preferences of the public. Save The Swilly is in the process of exploring funding sources for a comprehensive ICZM strategy. We are communicating with several like-minded groups elsewhere in Ireland, and in Europe, so that a coordinated approach to coastal zone management is adopted from the start. It is our view that the type of development allocated to remote rural areas is often inappropriate and most unsustainable.

But everyone is groping in the dark. The starting point must be first-class and objective scientific and economic research. We do not need research patently designed to support a particular point of view. We know where everyone's bias is. We need to know the facts, so that decisions taken now are not deeply regretted in the future. The tragedy is that this process is not being embraced with a passion by our own government. We should not stand by while our beautiful coastline is destroyed by greed and incompetence.

SAVE THE SWILLY contacts:

Email: info@loughswilly.com
Phone: Tony Morrison (353) 07493-63733
Phone: John Mulcahy (353) 07491-59113; (353) 086-2808636
Address: c/o Buncrana Anglers Association,
Castle Lane, Buncrana, Co. Donegal
Website: www.loughswilly.com

[back to top]

Archived Press Releases:

September 25, 2006
Oyster crisis exposes "shambles" in management of Swilly

August 23, 2004
Which part of "No" don't they understand?

June 2, 2004
Coulter calls for political change in Donegal

December 15, 2003
Portsalon salmon-farming licence refused by ALAB

November 05, 2003
Sea Trout and Wild Salmon have been Victims of 'Ethnic Cleansing' - FISSTA

September 24, 2003
Prime Time Exposes Aquaculture's Shortcomings

July 24, 2003
Save the Swilly Calls for Farmed Salmon Mortality Monitor

July 21, 2003
Another Disaster in Inver Bay - Inquiry Essential

July 17, 2003
Rural Development Towards Sustainability

February 8, 2003
Save the Swilly Meets Inishowen Politicians

February 3, 2003
Blue Flag Beach Threatened by 80-Acre Fish Farm

January 29, 2003
Save the Swilly 10,000-Signature Petition Accepted by Europe

January 28, 2003
New Alliance Formed in Swilly

December 16, 2002
"Stop Ripping Up the Swilly" Indigenous People Demand

December 13, 2002
Lough Swilly's Indigenous Fishermen Speak Out

October1, 2002
Public Meeting to Discuss Integrated Coastal Zone Management

September 25, 2002
Save the Swilly Welcomes the Strategy on Coastal Zone Mangement

August 12, 2002
Integrated Coastal Zone Management Proposal Launched

August 2, 2002
Questions over decomposing salmon in Inver Bay

June 3, 2002
No Room for Tradition in Lough Swilly

May 3, 2002
Save the Swilly opts for "Swilly First"

May 3, 2002
Save the Swilly/Green Party candidate withdraws

May 1, 2002
Save the Swilly/Green Party candidate to contest Donegal North-East

April 18, 2002
Coulter to be "Ambassador at Large" for Save the Swilly

March 25, 2002
Save The Swilly presents 10,000-signature petition to EU

March 12, 2002
Study of Lough Swilly launched

November 30, 2001 STS letter to Hugh Byrne, Minister for State for the Department of the Marine

November 27, 2001 ICZM and OSPAR - not Clams - for Swilly

October 17, 2001 Salmon farm wants still more licences inshore

September 17, 2001 Save the Swilly meets Labour Party

September 13, 2001 Save the Swilly meets Minister of State Byrne

September 1, 2001 Save the Swilly begins fundraising drive

August 28, 2001 Save the Swilly welcomes I.F.A. initiative

May 15, 2001 Expansion of salmon farming tragic for Swilly

April 9, 2001 Mussel barrels adrift in Lough Swilly

March 22, 2001 Save the Swilly presents petition

March 13, 2001 Save the Swilly questions Minister Byrne

March 11, 2001 Save the Swilly reaffirms call for moratorium

February 20, 2001 Launch of Save the Swilly website

January 24, 2001

January 16, 2001 Delegation meets Minister Hugh Byrne

January 9, 2001 Save The Swilly
(from looking like Mulroy Bay)