SAVE THE SWILLY - December 14 ,2001

RESPONSE FROM DEPT OF MARINE TO SAVE THE SWILLY'S LETTER REGARDING MINISTER OF STATE'S COMMENTS TO THE SEANAD:

Department of the Marine and Natural Resources
Office of the Minister of State

14 December 2001

Participation by Save the Swilly in the "CLAMS" process

Dear Mr Morrison,

The Minister of State at the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, Mr Hugh Byrne T.D. has asked to [sic] reply to your letter of 30 November 2001.

The Minister would accept that the main objectives of the CLAMS initiative both in Lough Swilly and elsewhere, are to ensure that those engaging in aquaculture do so:

• In consultation with local interests so that their concerns can be addressed;
• In accordance with best industry practice in relation to site maintenance, fish husbandry, the disposal of detritus and the minimisation of visual impact';
• In a manner which reduces or eliminates disturbance to wildlife and
• Having full regard for the rights of other users of the Lough such as fishermen, anglers and those involved in leisure sailing.

The Minister has never sought to suggest that the CLAMS process should be seen as a substitute for the statutory licensing process in accordance with the provisions Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 1997 [sic]. Under that Act, decisions to grant licences can only be reversed by the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board or the Courts.
As you will be aware, persons wishing to engage in aquaculture are required to submit a licence application. When an application is received it is referred to field staff who carry out site inspections of the area(s) in which the applicants propose to engage in aquaculture. The purpose of the inspections is to check the general suitability of the site(s) proposed and to ensure that applicants are made aware of potential problems, which may arise if it is located in proximity to known protected wildlife areas or in an area where water quality is affected by untreated sewage or other sources of pollution. In addition the inspection enables the Department to stipulate certain parameters relatiing to the position, orientation and density of structures such as longlines or trestles. These aspects are important in terms of the visual impact of the development.

These checks are a prel ude to public consultation, which involves the placement of a Public Notice in a local newspaper informing the public of the application and inviting comments or objections. In addition, a copy of the application is made available for examination by the public in a local Garda Station for a period of 28 days. Applicants are provided with copies of any objections received and are given an opportunity to comment on them.

The objections and the applicant's comments and the responses of the statutory consultees are then submitted to the Department's Aquaculture Licensing Advisory Committee. The Committee's membership which includes Divisional staff and technical and scientific experts from the Marine institute, An Bord Iascaigh Mhara, the Department's Engineering Division, the Marine Survey Office and the Central Fisheries Board considers the application from all relevant perspectives before making a recommendation to the Minister.

The legislation requires that the public be informed, once again by way of a Public Notice, of the Minister's decision to grant or refuse a licence. The Notice informs the public that they are entitledto appeal the Minister's decision to the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board. An applicant may also appeal against a refusal to grant a licence or against the conditions of the licence itself.

The Department considers that the licensing process is effective, thorough, and transparent and provides ample opportunity for interested parties to express their views and have those views carefully considered before a decision is reached.

Beyond the safeguards built into the licensing process, the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board provides a fully independent and objective review of licensing decisions and any party who is still unsatisfied is fully entitled to seek redress through the courts.

The Minister's view, therefore, is that the CLAMS process provides a valuable forum in which the concerns of local individuals or organisations can be voiced and steps taken by aquaculture operators to eliminate or reduce the reasons underlying those concerns. Far from being a "Trojan horse" designed to forestall the introduction of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM), the Minister sees the CLAMS process as a future cornerstone of ICZM in so far as the rational development of aquaculture is concerned and ensuring a satisfactory quality of water for all users of Lough Swilly.

The Minister is at a loss to know how decisions which are made following extensive public consultations and which may be challenged by way of appeal to an independent statutory body such as the Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board, can be portrayed as lacking transparency or fairness. The Minister would, therefore, vehemently reject the assertions to that effect contained in your letter.

As regards the percentage of the waters of Lough Swilly licensed for aquaculture you are correct in noting that the approximate figure quoted by the Minister relates to intensive aquaculture such as rope culture mussels or the growing of oysters in bags on trestles. In fact the total area licensed for these types of operation amounts to a mere 1.15% of the waters of the Lough. Areas licensed for bottom culture mussels represents about 7.5% of the Lough. This, however, still leaves 91.35% of the Lough entirely free of aquaculture. In any case most of the bottom culture licences date from the 1980's and patently have not had any significant adverse environmental effects on the Lough.

As regards factual errors, the Minister would wish to refute the assertion that "once a licence is granted be it on the surface or on the seabed, no other users may enter that area." In the case of bottom culture sites this is simply untrue. As this type of aquaculture requires no equipment in or on the water and is entirely sub-tidal, it presents no impediment whatsoever to other users who are fully entitled to traverse the area as and when they so wish. In fact the only activity, which is precluded with licensed bottom culture sites, is for obvious reasons, dredging of the seabed.

Equally, there is no foundation for your assertion that there is a belligerent drive for aquaculture development in Lough Swilly: the few remaining licence applications currently on hands [sic], which amount to approximately 280 hectares in total, will be considered on their merits, with no prior commitment to licensing any or all of them, as the law requires. While the Minister would acknowledge the action s being taken by other countries, he would point out that the Irish aquaculture industry is very small in comparison with countries such as Norway. More importantly, Lough Swilly benefits from a complete exchange of water from the Atlantic every few days unlike many Norwegian fjords.

Yours sincerely,

John Creaney,

Private Secretary

[back to top]

[Return to latest news]