AN COMHCHOISTE UM CHOMHSHAOL, CULTÚR AGUS GAELTACHT

31Ú DÁIL ÉIREANN / 24Ú SEANAD ÉIREANN

TUARASCÁIL ÓN GCOISTE MAIDIR LE TIONSCAL NA FEAMAINNE IN ÉIRINN A FHORBAIRT

MAY 2015

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT

31ST DÁIL ÉIREANN / 24TH SEANAD ÉIREANN

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON DEVELOPINGTHE SEAWEED INDUSTRY IN IRELAND

MAY 2015

31ECG017

Contents

1. RÉAMHRA / PREFACE......................................................................................................................2

2. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................................................4

3. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................73.1 Initiation of Report...............................................................................................................................7

3.2 Summary and key issues...................................................................................................................7

4 CURRENT USES OF SEAWEED IN IRELAND............................................................................104.1 The seaweed industry in Ireland................................................................................................11

5 REGULATION OF SEAWEED HARVESTING..............................................................................145.1 Seaweed harvesting, the Foreshore Acts, and licensing........................................................16

5.1.2 Operating without a licence....................................................................................................17

5.1.3 Licencing and investment........................................................................................................18

5.1.4 Ownership...............................................................................................................................18

5.1.5 Traditional harvesters.............................................................................................................18

5.1.6 Management of the harvest...................................................................................................19

5.1.7 Exclusivity................................................................................................................................19

5.1.8 Maritime Area and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill 2013............................................................20

6 POTENTIAL OF THE SEAWEED INDUSTRY IN IRELAND.......................................................216.1 International seaweed industry..................................................................................................21

6.2 Domestic seaweed industry........................................................................................................21

6.2.1 Expanding wild seaweed harvesting.......................................................................................21

6.2.2 Farmed seaweed.....................................................................................................................24

6.2.3 Issues at the scale of individual farms.....................................................................................26

6.2.4 Wider issues relating to seaweed aquaculture........................................................................27

APPENDIX 1 – RECORD OF HEARINGS/TRANSCRIPTS..................................................................29

APPENDIX 2 – LIST OF WITNESSES/CONTRIBUTORS....................................................................30

APPENDIX 3 – ORDERS OF REFERENCE OF COMMITTEE............................................................32

APPENDIX 4 – MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE.........................................................................................35

1

1. RÉAMHRA / PREFACE

Tá feamainn á baint agus á húsáid in Éirinn leis na céadta blianta anuas, nó níos faide fiú. Dá ainneoin sin, tá an Comhchoiste um Chomhshaol, Cultúr agus Gaeltacht den tuairim anois, de thoradh a gcuid comhairliúchán agus pléití, go bhféadfadh an fheamainn a bheith ina hacmhainn nádúrtha ardluachmhar agus nach bhfuil an saothrú is fearr is féidir á dhéanamh uirthi faoi láthair.

Chas an Coiste le roinnt páirtithe leasmhara ríthábhachtacha ón tionscal agus dhírigh sé i dtosach ar chúrsaí a bhaineann le ceadúnú agus rialáil bainte feamainne. D’fhonn tuilleadh eolais a chur ar fáil dá chuid pléití, thug an Coiste cuireadh do shaineolaithe ón earnáil labhairt ós a chomhair faoi réimse sonrach na feamainne saothraithe agus faoin bhféidearthacht atá ann i dtaca tionscal dobharshaothraithe a fhorbairt in Éirinn.

Áirítear ocht réimse moltaí sa tuarascáil seo agus tá súil againn go ndéanfaidh an tAire iad a bhreithniú. Is é tuairim an Choiste go mbaineann féidearthacht nach beag le tionscal na feamainne ó thaobh forbairt eacnamaíoch agus cruthú fostaíochta de, go háirithe sa Ghaeltacht agus i gcontaetha na Gaillimhe, Mhaigh Eo agus Dhún na nGall. Dá bhrí sin iarraimid go nglacfar le Straitéis Náisiúnta chun cabhrú leis an toradh is mó a bhaint as an acmhainn seo.

Tá sé ráite i Moladh 2 go gcaithfidh straitéis den sórt sin, d’fhonn an earnáil a chur ag fás, imeacht ón mbéim ar fheamainn na hÉireann a úsáid i dtáirgí mórmhéide ar luach íseal agus dul i dtreo táirgí ardluacha, leithéidí ábhar bia, cosmaidí agus teiripí. Díríonn Moladh 3 ar an saothrú feamainne, nó an dobharshaothrú, ar tionscal é atá fós i dtosach a fháis ach, mar thoradh ar thaighde agus ar fhorbairtí nua, a gcuireann deis iontach chun fáis ar fáil ach chur chuige comhordaithe ilghníomhaireachta a ghlacadh.

Tá roinnt moltaí eile ann a dhíríonn ar an réimse a bhaineann le tionscal na feamainne a cheadúnú agus a rialáil. Eascraíonn saincheisteanna atá casta, agus achrannach scaití, as an ábhar seo ach ní mór ceadúnú na hearnála a chuíchóiriú d’fhonn fás agus forbairt a éascú.

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis na daoine agus leis na heagraíochtaí go léir a chuir go mór leis an mbreithniú a rinne muid ar an ábhar seo agus gan an rannpháirteachas uathu ní fhéadfaí tuarascáil chomh cuimsitheach agus éifeachtach a chur le chéile. Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil

Seaweed has been harvested and used in Ireland for hundreds of years, if not longer. Nevertheless, the Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht has formed the view through its consultations and deliberations that seaweed is a potentially highly valuable natural resource which is not currently being fully exploited.

The Committee met a number of key stakeholders in the industry and focused initially on the licensing and regulation of seaweed harvesting. To further inform its deliberations, the Committee then invited experts in the field to address it on the specific area of farmed seaweed and the potential for the development of an aquaculture industry in Ireland.

This report includes eight areas of recommendation which we hope the Minister will consider. The Committee is of the view that the seaweed industry offers considerable potential for economic development and employment creation, in particular in the Gaeltacht and counties of the Western seaboard. As such, we call for the adoption of a national strategy to help realise this potential.

Recommendation 2 notes that in order to grow the sector, such a strategy must move away from the use of Irish seaweed in high volume, low value products, towards higher value products such as foods, cosmetics and therapies. Recommendation 3 focuses upon seaweed farming, or aquaculture, which is still in its infancy in Ireland but where new research and development has created a real opportunity for growth through a co-ordinated, multi-agency approach.

A number of further recommendations focus upon the areas of licensing and regulation of the seaweed industry. This raises complex and sometimes contentious issues, but the licensing of the sector must be streamlined in order to facilitate growth and development.

I would like to thank all the individuals and organisations who contributed to our consideration of this subject and without whose input it would not have been possible to produce such a comprehensive and effective report. I would like to thank the various stakeholders for their participation, cooperation and suggestions, many of which the Committee has included in this report.

2

leis na páirtithe leasmhara éagsúla as a rannpháirtíocht agus a gcomhoibriú, agus as na moltaí a rinne siad. Chuir an Coiste cuid mhór de na moltaí sin san áireamh sa tuarascáil seo.

Is mian liom buíochas a ghabháil le baill an Choiste as an obair a rinne siad agus an tuarascáil seo á hullmhú, le foireann Rúnaíochta na gCoistí agus le Seirbhís Leabharlainne agus Taighde an Oireachtais as an gcomhairle a tugadh don Choiste agus as cuidiú leis an dréacht-tuarascáil a chur le chéile.

Mar fhocal scoir, iarraim ar an Aire Comhshaoil, Pobail agus Rialtais Áitiúil scrúdú a dhéanamh ar an tuarascáil agus, go háirithe, ar na 16 mholadh atá curtha i láthair ag an gCoiste. Tá mé féin agus an Coiste ag súil le bheith i dteagmháil leis an Aire maidir leis an ábhar seo sar i bhfad.

I wish to thank the members of the Committee for their work in preparing this report and the staff of the Committee Secretariat and the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for their advice to the Committee and their assistance in compiling the draft report.

To conclude, I call on the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government to study this report, in particular the eight recommendations the Committee has put forward. I and the Committee look forward to engaging with the Minister on this subject in the near future..

__________________Michael Mc Carthy TDCathaoirleach28/04/2015

3

2. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

1) Seaweed is a potentially highly valuable natural resource which is not currently being fully exploited. The committee supports the adoption of a national strategy to promote the development of the seaweed industry, focusing in particular on the Gaeltacht and counties of the Western seaboard.

2) At present, Irish seaweed is mostly used in high volume, low value products such as animal feeds, fertilisers and agricultural products. Any strategy to grow the sector into the future must instead co-ordinate the efforts of people involved in the seaweed sector with those of bodies such as Enterprise Ireland to focus instead upon higher value products such as foods, cosmetics and therapies.

3) The vast bulk of seaweed harvested in Ireland currently is naturally grown and manually harvested. Seaweed farming, or aquaculture, is still in its infancy. However, following considerable research and development work in the area by Bord Iascaigh Mhara (“BIM”) and scientific experts, a real opportunity now exists in Ireland for the growth of seaweed aquaculture. The key to exploiting that potential lies in resolving licensing issues, providing grant aid to the industry and encouraging private sector investment. It requires a co-ordinated approach, with relevant Government Departments, universities, BIM, Údarás na Gaeltachta and Enterprise Ireland working closely with stakeholders in the industry, particularly in the areas of technical development, processing, marketing and public information.

4) Management of the seaweed harvest is a key issue. The application for harvesting licences of large quantities of seaweed by a number of companies has raised the issue of the apparent lack of regulation of harvesting in Ireland. Traditional harvesters have informal rules governing their behaviour, but greater regulation is now required to manage the competing interests of private companies and individuals, and ensure the sustainability of the resource. In other jurisdictions, harvesting is regulated by various means, including harvesting by zone, individual quotas by boat, harvesting size and rotation systems. A national strategy for the seaweed sector must bring relevant State agencies, academic experts and stakeholders together to devise a new approach to management of the harvest.

5) Harvesting techniques: There are essentially two main seaweed harvesting techniques - manual and mechanical. Mechanical harvesting has not been widely used in Ireland. Concerns have been expressed regarding a potential threat to the livelihood of traditional hand harvesters, in addition to concerns about over-harvesting of seaweed. Thus, licencing of mechanical harvesting has been kept to trials. An up-to-date study should be commissioned on the effects of mechanical harvesting on the quality of the seaweed harvested and on the wider ecosystem, as well as the potential benefits and efficiency gains. A separate licence category for mechanical harvesting could be introduced if it is felt it could benefit the growth of the sector without having negative impacts.

4

6) The licensing of the seaweed sector must be overhauled and streamlined. The harvesting of seaweed on State lands requires a foreshore licence from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. This process can take up to two years. As such, the committee recommends that:

Overall responsibility for the licencing of seaweed harvesting should be moved to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, as proposed in the General Scheme of the Maritime Area and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill 2013;

The actual issuing of licences should be done either by local authorities or by Údarás na Gaeltachta, who are better placed to weigh up local factors, albeit in line with national policy or strategy;

The current licencing system is non-exclusive. Licences can be issued to individuals or companies to harvest in the same areas. Whilst issuing exclusive licences to Arramara Teoranta or other companies may be desirable in preventing commercial over-harvesting, it could harm the livelihoods of traditional seaweed harvesters. Instead, consideration could be given to licencing arrangements which are quota-based and incorporate clauses requiring companies to employ the services of individual harvesters (who are fully licenced and compliant with legislation) to obtain a certain amount of their product;

The uncertainty surrounding the granting of harvesting licences is a barrier to the growth of the industry. Investors are unlikely to provide or secure capital funding on the scale needed to develop the industry without long-term guaranteed access to the raw material to be processed. Licenses for businesses to harvest seaweed should therefore be of a minimum 15 to 20-year duration. The terms and conditions imposed upon commercial licensees should not be unduly burdensome, albeit ensuring that the interests of traditional individual harvesters and the wider environment are protected;

The regulation of harvesting would appear to be inadequate at present. While there are hundreds of harvesters, few seem to have licences to remove seaweed from the foreshore. Persons harvesting small quantities of seaweed for their own use are currently exempted from the requirement for a licence. Whilst this is desirable, the rules should be clarified and the area better regulated;

Certain landowners along the foreshore were granted historical “seaweed rights” allowing them to harvest seaweed along the boundaries of their lands. Legal clarification is required as to how these rights fit in with current legislation;

Future licences should include “use it or lose it” clauses to ensure the resource is exploited and that those who choose not to harvest do not block harvesting by others;

5

Consideration ought to be given to attaching quotas to approved licences in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource; A quota system would have to be informed by the carrying out first of a national inventory of seaweed and/or other aquatic plant resources.

7) Considerable effort will be required to manage the diverse priorities of various stakeholders in the seaweed sector. This will require effective communications, consultative fora and information campaigns, at least at local and regional level, to ensure that seaweed aquaculture is fully understood by local communities and that an opportunity is presented to entrepreneurs to engage with the sector to ensure that community benefit, ancillary job creation and return on investment are maximised.

8) An initiative similar to the Seaweed Health Foundation in the UK ought to be encouraged in Ireland. This is described as “an independent and not-for-profit forum for research, and to raise awareness of the benefits of human food quality seaweed for food and health.” It conducts commercially focused research and works to increase awareness, understanding and successful application of seaweeds for food, health and body care. It also provides a forum for members to promote their own products (see www.seaweedhealthfoundation.org.uk ).

6

3. INTRODUCTION

3.1 Initiation of Report

At its meeting on 8 July 2014, the Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht considered the topic ‘Licencing and Harvesting of Seaweed in Ireland’. The committee met a number of key stakeholders in the industry and focused on the licensing and regulation of seaweed harvesting.

On foot of these deliberations, a briefing paper on the seaweed Industry in Ireland was prepared by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service and submitted to the Committee for its consideration. It was agreed that the briefing paper had raised an important issue the Committee should consider - the employment potential and the potential for economic development that this industry offered in Ireland, especially in regard to the farming of seaweed rather than just collecting seaweed from the wild – and that the committee would develop a full report on the subject.

To further inform its deliberations, The Committee agreed to invite experts in the field to its meeting on 2 December 2014 to address it on the specific issue of farmed seaweed and the potential for development of an aquaculture industry in Ireland. The Committee received detailed written submissions from representatives of Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Irish Seaweed Research Group, based in the Ryan Institute, NUI Galway, which it included in its consideration of this issue.

3.2 Summary and key issues

The report is divided into sections as follows:

Introduction: this section outlines current uses of seaweed and the scale of the seaweed industry in Ireland at present, including the role of Arramara Teo, the country’s main processor of seaweed.

Regulation of seaweed harvesting: this section discusses the regulation of seaweed harvesting in Ireland, examining the current licensing regime and the issues raised at the JCECG meeting of 8 July.

Potential of the seaweed industry in Ireland: this section considers the potential expansion of the seaweed industry in Ireland, in both the traditional harvesting and farmed sectors. It also includes a box on harvesting techniques.

Seaweed has been harvested and used in Ireland for hundreds of years, if not longer. Currently, its main use here is as animal feeds, plant supplements and specialist fertilisers. However, there is some higher value activity, such as foods, cosmetics and therapies.

7

Almost all seaweed harvested in Ireland is wild. Farmed seaweed, which makes up the bulk of worldwide seaweed production, is negligible in Ireland. Harvesting of seaweed is a traditional occupation in many coastal communities. The bulk of our seaweed is harvested for and processed by Arramara Teo, which until recently was a company owned by Údarás na Gaeltachta.

The harvesting of seaweed on State land needs a foreshore licence from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Foreshore licences for seaweed harvesting take up to two years to process. Currently, most harvesting seems to be unlicensed. A number of seaweed processers have applied to harvest a sizable amount of seaweed, raising concerns from traditional harvesters that their livelihoods are under threat.

On 8 July 2014, the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht met stakeholders in the industry. This meeting focused on the licensing and regulation of seaweed harvesting. A number of key issues arose from the meeting for the Committee to consider. These are listed in box 1 below and should be considered with section 5 on the regulation of seaweed harvesting.

BOX 1

Key Issues What type of harvesting techniques should be allowed? (see Box 2)

. The current licencing system is non-exclusive (licences can be issued to

individuals/companies to harvest in the same areas). Should this continue?

How should applications to harvest in the same area be dealt with?

How is the policing of harvesting in order to ensure compliance to be arranged and funded?

Should there be different regulations for traditional or individual harvesters than for companies?

Should the application process be different depending on how much seaweed is to be harvested?

Should there be “use it or lose it” clauses?

Should the licencing of seaweed harvesting be moved from the Department of the Environment, Communities and Local Government as proposed by the draft scheme of the Maritime Area and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill 2013?

If so, who should issue the licences - local authorities, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine or another body?

8

At its meeting of 2 December 2014, the Committee focused on the area of farmed seaweed and the potential development of an aquaculture industry in Ireland. A number of additional issues in this context arose for the Committee to consider. These are listed in the box below and should be considered with section 6.2.2 on farmed seaweed.

BOX 2

Key Issues Whether Ireland has the potential to develop a farmed seaweed or

seaweed aquaculture sector;

The current extent of seaweed farming in Ireland, and whether the scientific research and development is sufficient for seaweed aquaculture to develop;

The model of seaweed farming most appropriate to Ireland – should we adopt the model favoured by some European experts of parks in coastal zones or offshore which integrate seaweed aquaculture, shellfish and finfish aquaculture and wind energy generation? Or does Ireland’s opportunity lie in a mixed industry which integrates seaweed farming with the conventional aquaculture industry, such as mussel farming?

Whether the current licensing system is adequate, or if it needs to be reformed and made more efficient to facilitate the development of seaweed aquaculture;

Which types of products or markets should Irish seaweed farmers seek to cater for?

How can we best combine the efforts of scientists, industry, funding bodies and individuals involved in seaweed farming in order to grow the sector most effectively?

Are there any risks or downsides to seaweed aquaculture in terms of environmental impacts? Are there are potential benefits for the ecosystem?

9

4 CURRENT USES OF SEAWEED IN IRELAND

The current uses of seaweed in Ireland include:

Sea vegetables - Seaweeds, when used as food, are generally referred to as sea-vegetables. The main species used in Ireland at present are dulse, carrageen moss, and various kelps and wracks.

Agriculture and horticulture - Historically, the use of seaweed on farmland was confined to coastal regions. Research conducted since the 1950s investigated the active growth components of seaweed, which are now refined into liquid extracts, making it more widely available as a fertiliser.

Bodycare and cosmetics - Irish seaweeds are rich in vitamins, trace elements and iodine, all of which play a part in skincare. A number of Irish companies make seaweed body-care products including seaweed baths, bubble bath, shampoo, shower gel, moisturisers, face masks, scrubbers, wraps, and foot-baths. Carrageen (Chondrus crispus) is used to prevent inflammation of the gums and to prevent scarring; dillisk (Palmaria palmata) has antiperspirant qualities; kombu (Saccharina and Laminaria species) is rich in iodine, which boosts the metabolism; the coralline alga Lithothamnion is rich in calcium carbonates and trace elements; species of the brown alga Fucus, which includes the common seaweed known as bladderwrack, have medicinal qualities and are also used in hair care and seaweed baths; and Knotted wrack (Ascophyllum nodosum) is used in slimming products, shampoos and shower gels.

Thalassotherapy - takes its name from the Greek word for sea, involves treatment with seawater or seaweed and has been used in Europe for many years to treat liver complaints and cellulite, promote weight loss, and relieve depression. It has found a modern re-invention in contemporary spa treatments. Seaweed bath therapists claim that seaweed hydrotherapy baths are great for softening the skin, reviving and improving circulation, and draining the lymphatic system.

Biotechnology - Current research in seaweed biotechnology is exploring the potential of seaweed as a ‘functional food’, which is a food that claims to have health-promoting or disease-preventing properties beyond the function of supplying basic nutrients. Marine functional foods are products formulated with naturally occurring chemicals (or combinations of chemicals) found in marine resources, such as seaweeds. They aim to provide a health benefit, to lower the risk of certain diseases, or to affect a particular body process. This research is based on studies that have shown that seaweeds are unrivalled sources of compounds with the potential to maintain and improve health. However, Ireland has a great diversity of marine life and, as yet, there has been only limited activity aimed at exploiting these resources for inclusion in foods.

Biomedicine - Seaweeds are also used in the pharmaceutical industry. Carrageen is used as a suspension agent and stabiliser in other drugs, lotions, and medicinal creams. It has also been used as an anticoagulant in blood products and for the

10

treatment of bowel problems such as diarrhoea, constipation, and dysentery, and to make internal poultices for the control of stomach ulcers.

[Adapted with minor edits from “How Seaweed is used in Ireland” by Stefeb Krann: http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Marine/Seaweed_Poster_2010.pdf ].

4.1 The seaweed industry in Ireland

The seaweed industry, to the extent that it has been developed, is closely linked with the Gaeltacht (particularly counties Galway, Mayo and Donegal) and mainly based therein with two processing factories in operation, Arramara Teo and Oileán Glas Teo.

Recent analysis by NUI Galway, as reported to the Committee on 2 December 2014, suggests that the value of the industry is approximately €18 million per annum, about €6 million of which goes to exports, with employment of 185 full-time equivalents. It was added by a representative of BIM that “it may be justified to speculate, based on the number of new entrants and reported expansion, that annual value and employment in the seaweed industry has increased since 2010, when those volume and employment numbers were last collected. On the other hand, seaweed aquaculture production in Ireland is in its infancy. It is estimated at current volumes to be less than 300 tonnes per annum, and at the moment there are less than ten full-time equivalent posts in the sector”.

Approximately 40,000 tons of seaweed is harvested in Ireland each year, with over 95% naturally grown. Almost all of the harvest is manually cut. The main type of seaweed, representing over 75% of the harvest, is Ascophyllum nodosum. Most (80%) of the companies are micro-enterprises employing less than five people (see Walsh, M (2012), Seaweed Harvesting in Ireland: http://www.netalgae.eu/uploadedfiles/WALSH_M_(EN).pdf).

The product range is mostly limited to high volume, low value products such as animal feeds, plant supplements, specialist fertilisers and agricultural products. A smaller proportion (approximately 1%) goes into higher value products such as foods, cosmetics and therapies. However, this 1% generates 30% of the value generated.

The main processor is Arramara Teoranta (see Box 3), which processes 25,000 to 30,000 wet tonnes of seaweed per annum.

BOX 3

Arramara Teoranta

Arramara Teoranta was set up in 1947 in Galway by Alginate Industries Ltd., a British firm, in partnership with T. McDonogh & Sons Ltd., to harvest, dry and mill searods previously exported unprocessed. In 1949, McDonogh decided to withdraw, and to prevent the closing of the company and the resulting loss of employment, the Government

11

purchased a 51% shareholding. Alginate Industries Ltd. held the remaining shares.

The company was restructured in 2001/2002 with the closing of its Donegal operation (which was established in 1968). At that stage the State and the then minority shareholder, ISP Alginates (UK), made an additional investment in the company to fund redundancies and develop the Galway site. The Arramara Teoranta (Acquisition of Shares) Act 2002 allowed the State to invest up to €1.2 million in the company. The restructuring reduced the minority shareholder’s stake. In 2006, Údarás na Gaeltachta took full control and ownership of the company during a further restructuring.

Arramara Teo is a seaweed processor specialising in ascophyllum nodosum. It is supplied by a network of independent harvesters in Mayo, Galway and Clare. It processes approximately 25,000 to 30,000 wet tonnes of seaweed per annum. It supplies 20% of its production to the Irish market mainly to three smaller companies. Arramara Teo’s processing plant is in a building leased from Údarás na Gaeltachta.

The sale of Arramara Teo to Acadian Seaplants Ltd. (a Canadian company) was approved by the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta on 1 March 2013 subject to ministerial approval. This approval was given on 29 July 2013 subject to a number of specific conditions being fulfilled. The sale was concluded on 7 May 2014.

The sales process involved Údarás na Gaeltachta selecting consultants to identify potential strategic partners within the seaweed industry for Arramara Teo. The potential partners had to fulfil a number of requirements including financial, ability and experience criteria, as well as to be able to support local employment and be compliant with and sensitive to environmental regulations and issues.

Nine potential partners were identified and invited to submit expressions of interest. Six did and three were shortlisted and ranked. The first ranked company did not proceed with a bid. Acadian Seaplants Ltd. was second ranked. This process took place between July 2010 and February 2013.

One of the conditions of the sale agreement was that the supply, on reasonable terms and conditions, to the three Irish companies was to continue. This was confirmed by representatives of both Údarás na Gaeltachta and Acadian Seaplants Ltd at the Joint Committee meeting of 8 July. Arramara Teo must continue to supply the three companies on terms at least as good as they were when Údarás na Gaeltachta owned Arramara Teo for up to five years, or as long as Arramara Teo is supported by Údarás na Gaeltachta - whichever is greater (correspondence between Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee, 3 July 2014).

Arramara Teo does not have any harvesting rights currently. However, it has applied for a foreshore licence to harvest up to 40,000 tonnes of

12

Ascophyllum nodosum annually.

At the Joint Committee meeting of 8 July and in correspondence received by the Committee, a number of questions were raised regarding the sale including:

The absence of an open tender process.

The future plans of Arramara Teo / Acadian Seaplants Ltd regarding:

o mechanical harvesting,

o investment in the industry,

o its harvesting licencing application,

o The impact of the sale on current and future employment,

o The future of the current harvesters who supply Arramara Teo,

o The impact on the Irish companies who rely on Arramara Teo for their supply of processed seaweed.

13

5 REGULATION OF SEAWEED HARVESTING

The foreshore is the land and seabed between the high water of ordinary or medium tides and the twelve nautical mile limit off the baseline, approximately 22.24km (this section is based on A New Planning and Consent Architecture for Development in the Marine Area (Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government), 2013). This equates to 9.7 million acres, or 36% of Ireland’s land area. The vast majority of the foreshore is owned by the State and, in accordance with the State Property Act 1954, there is a general presumption that ownership of the foreshore is vested in the State unless evidence to the contrary can be produced.

By virtue of the Foreshore Acts, the Minister of Environment, Community and Local Government negotiates the terms and conditions on which the State is prepared to enter into a property contract with the proponent of a development, including such matters as the lease/licence rental fee. Currently, both the development consent and estate management aspects of a foreshore lease or licence are addressed simultaneously by the Minister when determining whether it is in the public interest to grant a foreshore lease or licence. In practice, the one lease/licence document executed between the parties serves as both the property contract and the development consent, incorporating the environmental conditions as a schedule to the document. In the case of development proposals on privately-owned foreshore, the Minister performs only the development consent function.

Certain applications for development on the foreshore must be made and decided upon by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. These are for works undertaken on the foreshore which are deemed to be:

any function in relation to a fishery harbour centre;

any function in respect of:

o an activity which is wholly or primarily for the use, development or support of aquaculture, or

o an activity which is wholly or primarily for the use, development or support of sea fishing, including the processing and sale of sea fish and manufacture of products derived from sea fish.

The foreshore legislation, which pre-dates planning legislation, was originally designed to address the property aspects of foreshore estate management. The role has evolved over time, particularly with regard to the various environmental assessments required under national and EU law. These requirements have been incorporated into legislation governing the foreshore over the years.

There have been a number of criticisms levelled at the operation of the foreshore consent process, many of which reflect the fact that the legislation is dated. The foreshore legislation was developed long before the advent of significant offshore infrastructural developments, including renewable energy technology, oil and gas pipelines and modern port infrastructure.

14

The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is the owner of the State foreshore and has statutory responsibility for disposals (sales). The Ministers for the Environment, Community and Local Government and Agriculture, Food and the Marine are empowered to grant leases and licences but have no statutory authority to sell foreshore. In addition, the Minister for Environment, Community and Local Government is vested with a range of general functions related to the management of foreshore.

BOX 4

Seaweed harvesting regulatory regime in Canada

Each coastal province in Canada has its own regulations dealing with seaweed harvesting.

The British Colombia Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for the management of the commercial harvest of marine plants in British Columbia. The guidelines for the harvest of marine plants are as follows:

“Before an application can be considered, the applicant should be able to demonstrate that the product will be used for a viable business. The applicant should provide a comprehensive outline of the proposed harvest operation and processing arrangements. As well, the applicant should be able to provide information from market research that indicates product type, sales volume and price, and marketing channels.

When an application is approved, a licence quota may be set based on the amount of product requested and historical inventories (where they exist) of the aquatic plant resources in the area. In all cases, the conditions of licence will stipulate that no more than 20% of the total biomass of an aquatic plant bed may harvested. Other conditions related to particular species of aquatic plants may also be imposed. These measures ensure the long term sustainability of the resource and minimize the impact to fish and fish habitat” (BC Ministry of Agriculture (n.d.) Harvest of Aquatic Plants in British Columbia).”

As stated, other conditions related to particular species of marine plants may also be imposed. These include paying a royalty, restricting the harvest to certain times of the year, mandating how harvesting is to be conducted (e.g. by hand or specific tool), consulting with First Nations (i.e. native tribes), informing the Ministry of when harvesting is to take place, what data to collect and record etc. (for example, see BC Ministry of Agriculture (2014) Information On Licensing The Harvest Of Beach-Cast Seaweed).

In the case of the State of Nova Scotia in eastern Canada, the State leases out an area and the company (for example Acadian Seaplants, the new owners of Arramara Teo) awarded the lease is responsible for sustainable harvesting of the seaweed. The legislation and regulation for harvesting Ascophyllum nodosum include:

15

Exclusive areas by lease;

Leases for up to 15 years;

The need for a detailed management and commercialisation plan;

The advertising of the application for the lease;

Setting a minimum height of the plant to be left;

Setting a fee and a royalty;

Allows for some exemptions from having a lease such as persons harvesting less than four tonnes per annum for their own use in agriculture and persons harvesting less than one tonne per annum for scientific research.

5.1 Seaweed harvesting, the Foreshore Acts, and licensing

The Foreshore Act 1933 prohibits the removal of beach material from any area of the State foreshore. The definition of "beach material" in the Act includes “seaweed whether growing or rooted on the seashore, or deposited or washed up by the action of tides, winds or waves.” Under the Act, individuals or companies seeking to harvest wild seaweed from the (State) foreshore require a foreshore licence from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

This is done with an application to the Foreshore Unit of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government based in Newtown Road, Wexford. The application process for seaweed harvesting is the same for any other application to the Minister of the Environment, Community and Local Government for a lease or licence under the Foreshore Acts. However, according to the reply to a recent parliamentary question:

“Foreshore consent applications are processed strictly in accordance with a prioritisation framework focusing on major infrastructural projects e.g. wastewater treatment plants and offshore energy applications. The application in question [for seaweed harvesting] falls within the lowest priority level.” (Reply to question no 458 of 30 April 2014 [18929/14]).

An application for a foreshore licence requires detailed maps and charts and grid co-ordinates of the area to be developed or, in the case of seaweed, the area to be harvested. It is not unusual for more detail on applications to be requested. Environmental concerns need to be addressed in the application where applicable.

As of the 1st May 2014, there were ten outstanding applications for licences for seaweed harvesting, with four applications complete and being assessed. One application was at the preliminary review stage, and there were five applications where more information was needed in order to process the application. Since then, two further applications have been

16

added. A complete application does not mean it has been approved, only that there is enough information available for it to be considered. Even then, further information can be requested.

Table 1: Recent seaweed applicationsDate of receipt of application Quantity of seaweed applied for per

annumApplication (complete)22 January 2014 Up to 12,500 tonnes18 November 2012 Up to 9,000 tonnes12 September 2012 Up to 10 tonnes16 December 2013 Up to 14,000 tonnesApplication (at preliminary review stage)21 March 2014 Up to 40,000 tonnesApplication (awaiting further information)5 May 2012 Up to 10 tonnes23 April 2013 Up to 30 tonnes approx.21 June 2013 Up to 46.5 tonnes approx.9 August 2013 0.5 tonnes30 August 2013 Up to 20 tonnesSource: Written reply to P.Q. no 114, 1 May 2014, [19767/14].

According to BIM, it is normal for a five-year licence to be issued ( see Walsh, M (2012) Seaweed Harvesting in Ireland). There is a nominal of €127 per year if less than 100 tonnes of seaweed is harvested per annum. The fee structure for greater quantities is decided on case by case basis. Many agencies are consulted during the process. The process can take a long time – over two years in some cases. In addition, licences can be non-exclusive, i.e. it is possible to apply for a licence where one has been issued to another harvester.

5.1.2 Operating without a licenceIt should be noted that while there are hundreds of harvesters, few seem to have licences to remove seaweed from the foreshore. Údarás na Gaeltachta, in its evidence to the Oireachtas Joint Sub-Committee on Fisheries on 30 April 2013, stated:

“The State has an obligation to regulate this resource for everybody’s benefit. … 38,000 tonnes of seaweed is harvested annually … However, if one goes to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and inquires as to who has a licence to harvest seaweed, only the maerl harvester and one other harvester, which harvests laminaria in Kenmare Bay, have licences. Although the laminaria harvester has a licence, which took two years to obtain, he is not harvesting. Therefore, how is it that 38,000 tonnes are being harvested if there are no licences? This seaweed is being harvested on a very simple basis. It is being done by individuals through a hand-cut process and is deemed to be for personal use.”

17

According to evidence at the Joint Committee meeting of 8 July 2014, there is little or no policing of unlicensed seaweed harvesting. Údarás na Gaeltachta stated:

“The greatest threat to the seaweed sector comes from unregulated over-harvesting. Údarás na Gaeltachta is of the view that commercial, competitive harvesting can be managed through a regulated environment where full exploitation of an ecological, environmental and economically sustainable basis can be optimised.”

One of the harvesters stated:

“Due to the apparent lack of regulation within the industry, our business is constantly under threat from individuals who harvest seaweed during the summer and sell it for a quick buck at fairs and markets.”

5.1.3 Licencing and investmentAt the Joint Committee meeting on the licencing of seaweed harvesting on 8 July 2014, many of the industry stakeholders cited uncertainty surrounding the granting of harvesting licenses and the terms of licences as a key barrier to the growth of the industry. This uncertainty is a barrier to attracting investment to the industry, according to one, as “investors are perturbed that we have no long term guaranteed access to seaweed resources”. Investors would be unlikely to provide or secure capital funding on the scale needed to develop the industry when uncertainty surrounds the supply of the raw material to be processed.

5.1.4 OwnershipThe majority of the foreshore is owned by the State. According to Netalgae (2012) Seaweed Industry in Europe:

“In Ireland, in the 19th century, some landowners were given “seaweed rights”, allowing them to harvest seaweed along the foreshore alongside the boundaries of their lands. These rights, given during the British dominion, are still valid if landowners are able to produce the title.”

The ownership of and permission to harvest seaweed in such areas rests with the landowner. It is not considered that this area is large.

5.1.5 Traditional harvestersAt the Joint Committee meeting, the rights of traditional harvesters were brought up. This was especially in the context of Arramara Teo’s application to harvest up to 40,000 tonnes of seaweed at 21 sites along the Mayo, Galway and Clare coast. It was the view of many of the harvester representatives that licences should only be issued to individuals, and not to companies.

In addition, concern was expressed that if Arramara Teo’s application was approved, then one company would effectively have a monopoly on the harvesting of seaweed in the traditional harvesting areas in Galway, Mayo and Clare. One of the harvesters stated:

18

“The one thing people wanted was to keep the seaweed rights they have had for all these years. They do not want one big business to take over the seaweed from us.”

5.1.6 Management of the harvest This could be regarded as a key issue – how should the State manage the resource, the competing interests of private companies and individuals and police the resulting regulations? According to the Netalgae report on the Seaweed industry in Europe, management tools differ by country, but also by species and the harvesting technique.

“Seaweed harvesting is regulated with different tools: licenses or harvesting authorizations, quotas by harvesting zone, individual quotas by boat, harvesting size and rotation systems.”

In France and Norway for example, each harvesting area for Laminaria hyperborea is closed for four or five years after harvesting to allow for the renewal of the stock.

With regards to Ireland, the Netalgae report states:

“There are no legal rules concerning the type of seaweed that can be harvested. Harvesters follow the traditional and informal rules of harvesting which are often limited to the size of plants required by the processing industries.”

Many stakeholders at the JCECG meeting expressed concerns that the failure to implement some type of regulation for the management of the resource will lead to its depletion.

The commercial companies represented at the meeting stated that it was not in their best interests to over-harvest wild seaweed. Without access to the resource, their business would fail. It was in their best interests to harvest sustainably. Concern was expressed over unregulated and unlicensed harvesters who harvested the entire plant (see above). In addition, some felt that regulation was becoming a necessity:

“The onus is coming from regulations and from Europe to harvest the seaweed sustainably and to be able to show records that we are following best practice. The cost of this will make it economically unviable for individual harvesters to comply with the regulations.”

Traditional harvesters have informal rules governing their behaviour; where and when they harvest; and how much of the plant is removed. These harvesters are in the main currently not licenced. The application for harvesting licences of large quantities of seaweed by a number of companies has raised the issue of the apparent lack of regulation of harvesting techniques in Ireland.

5.1.7 ExclusivityExclusivity was also an issue raised at the JCECG meeting, i.e. whether, when granted a licence to harvest seaweed in an area, a company or individual should have sole rights in that area, to the exclusion of all others. This is a sensitive issue in traditional seaweed harvesting areas, as evidenced by current tensions surrounding the application by one seaweed company for an exclusive right to harvest Ascophyllum nodosum in Clew Bay.

19

The views expressed by many stakeholders at the meeting were that exclusivity was necessary for accountability and to prevent over-harvesting. However, again concern was expressed about giving one company exclusive rights to harvest over large areas.

In his comments, a representative of Acadian Seaplants Limited and Arramara Teo stated:

“Licences should be granted to cover a specific geographic area on an exclusive basis. Exclusive licences are needed to avoid competitive commercial harvesting in the same geographic area. Having said that, individuals should be permitted to harvest seaweed for their own personal use as long as it is not for resale. Unregulated, competitive commercial harvesting leads to the over-harvesting of the resource, which consequently leads to the loss of harvester jobs and the closure of manufacturing facilities and habitat degradation. The licence holder must be held accountable for the economic benefit to Ireland, including to the harvesters, and for the sustainability of the resource.”

In addition, the question of issuing licences to those who choose not to harvest, blocking harvesting by others, was mentioned at the meeting. Licences may need a “use it or lose it” clause to ensure that the resource is exploited.

5.1.8 Maritime Area and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill 2013The General Scheme of the Maritime Area and Foreshore (Amendment) Bill 2013 has been published and been considered by the Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht which has completed pre-legislative scrutiny on the general scheme. This proposed Bill affords the opportunity to address many of the concerns and issues that arise in seaweed harvesting. Head 21 of the general scheme of the Bill would suggest that the regulation of the removal of beach material (including seaweed) be moved from the Department of the Environment, Communities and Local Government and rest with (coastal) local authorities. The scheme states that:

“It will also be necessary to create new enforcement powers for local authorities in relation to these matters including e.g. issuing of enforcement notices, prosecution of offences, penalties, payment of fines, injunctions and offences by bodies corporate will apply in respect of the new functions.”

20

6 POTENTIAL OF THE SEAWEED INDUSTRY IN IRELAND

6.1 International seaweed industry

According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), the seaweed industry provides a wide variety of products that have an estimated total annual value of over $6 billion. The greater part of this value relates to food products for human consumption (about US$5 billion). Substances that are extracted from seaweeds (hydrocolloids) - account for a large part of the remaining US$ 1 billion, while smaller, miscellaneous uses, such as fertilizers and animal feed additives, make up the rest (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (2003) A Guide to the Seaweed Industry FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 441).

The farming of seaweed has expanded rapidly as demand has outstripped the supply available from natural resources. Commercial harvesting occurs in about 35 countries, spread between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, in waters ranging from cold, through temperate, to tropical. The majority of seaweed is cultivated in South East Asia.

According to the FAO, the production of aquatic plants, mostly seaweeds, reached 24.9 million tonnes in 2012, of which aquaculture produced 23.8 million tonnes (96 percent) valued at $6.4 billion. Carrageenan seaweeds (including Kappaphycus Alvarezii and Eucheuma spp.) are the main cultured seaweeds (8.3 million tonnes), followed by Japanese Kelp (5.7 million tonnes). Only 1.1 million tonnes of wild seaweed is harvested. Chile, China and Norway are the largest producers of wild seaweed.

6.2 Domestic seaweed industry

It has long been considered that Ireland has the potential to develop a larger seaweed industry especially a farmed seaweed sector. Expanding wild seaweed harvesting is also possible given that not all the annual resource is currently harvested.

6.2.1 Expanding wild seaweed harvesting

BIM has stated that the global demand for seaweed raw material is very strong. International prices can be higher than $1,000/tonne. A Survey (BIM (2011), Aquaculture Explained No. 27: Cultivating Palmaria palmate) carried out in the late 1990s suggested that there was an annual resource of approximately 70,000 tonnes of Ascophyllum nodosum, which is the most commonly-processed seaweed.

Údaras na Gaeltachta, in evidence to the Joint Sub-Committee on Fisheries in April 2014, cited the case of Japan, where approximately 43,000 people make their livelihood from seaweed processing. Údaras na Gaeltachta estimated that this would probably equate to a livelihood for 3,000 people in Ireland. It contended that there is no reason Ireland should not have 1,000 people involved, and €500 million sales:

“I have seen French products that cost €100 per gramme because of the use of a little extract from a seaweed plant. That is where we need to be,

21

rather than drying and milling stuff and sending it all over the world as a commodity product. The potential is enormous, but if we do not have regulation, we will not have investment to unlock that potential.”

Údarás na Gaeltachta identified to the JSCF that the principal issue in developing the seaweed processing industry is the regulation of supply.

In Ireland, with wild seaweed, the raw material is abundant, but questions remain over legal access, licensing and the regulation of the resource. These issues were discussed in the previous section.

The Joint Sub-Committee on Fisheries recommended that:

“The sub-Committee recommends that the Departments of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) and of Environment, Community and Local Government (DECLG) resolve the regulatory licensing issues that pose an impediment to the development of the seaweed industry and that the research being carried out should be utilised in the introduction of a sustainable management plan.” Recommendation 29 (p.182) of Report of the Joint Sub-Committee on Fisheries.

BOX 6

Harvesting techniques

There are essentially two main broad harvesting techniques: manual harvesting and mechanical harvesting. With these broad methods there are various techniques.

Manual harvesting

The Netalgae report on the Seaweed industry in Europe states that:

“Harvesters gather either the cast or cut seaweed at low tide. Seaweed gatherers use specific equipment to harvest seaweed, for example knives, rakes, pitchforks, sickles, nets, etc. The seaweed is cut and put in bags or onto a boat to be transported to the land. Some gatherers use small boats that they load with seaweed and then pull them to the beach with the help of the rising tide. In Ireland, for example, when the harvesting is finished, and when the tide rises, the bundles of seaweed (Ascophyllum nodosum) float to the surface and the harvester then takes a small boat out to pull the bundles ashore. Diving is another way to harvest seaweed manually and is practiced mainly in Portugal.”

Manual harvesting has existed in Ireland for generations and the harvesters usually cut to a certain distance and leave the plant to regrow for up to 5 years before cutting again. This has allowed for the sustainable harvesting of up to 28,000 tonnes annually of wet Ascophyllum nodosum for Arramara Teo.

22

Mechanical harvesting

The Netalgae report on the Seaweed industry in Europe states that:

“Mechanical harvesting is undertaken by boats and is mainly practiced in Norway (Rogaland to Sør-Trøndelag), France (Brittany), Spain (Galicia and Asturias) and to a lesser degree in the Basque country (France) and Ireland. The development of the mechanization of seaweed harvesting occurred in the middle of 1970s in France and Norway in response to the increasing demand for raw material for the alginate extracting industry. In Norway, Laminaria hyperborea and Ascophyllum nodosum are harvested by boats using respectively a seaweed trawl, a paddle wheel cutter or a vaccum-sucker. In France, Laminaria digitata is harvested by a boat using a gear called “scoubidou” which looks like a hook that turns around itself and turns out.”

Mechanical harvesting has not been used widely in Ireland. Objections by both traditional hand harvesters over concerns to their livelihoods and the National Parks and Wildlife Service over concern that the removal of seaweed from the marine ecosystem, was “not compatible with the conservation objectives of, and should not be permitted in Natura 2000 sites” has meant that licencing of mechanical harvesting has been kept to trials.

An Irish study, Impact Assessment of Hand and Mechanical Harvesting of Ascophyllum nodosum on Regeneration and Biodiversity, published in 2001, concluded that:

“traditional hand harvesting was clearly more effective and cost efficient than the mechanical harvesting. However, it is recognised that this trial was a first of its kind for mechanical harvesting of seaweed in Ireland and as such could be expected to encounter various operational and design difficulties that with modification could result in greater harvesting efficiency in the future.”

Other results of the pilot included that the quality of the mechanically harvested seaweed was lower than the manual harvested seaweed but that mechanical harvesting had less of an environmental impact than hand harvesting at a local scale. The report recommended more study and refinement of mechanical harvesting techniques to improve its efficiency and quantify its impact.

The main reason that mechanical harvesting was considered at the time was a worry over the age profile of the harvester labour force. Approximately 80% of Arramara Teo’s harvesters in Connemara were aged 41 or older in 1998, with 2.3% aged under 30. Given the changes in the labour market at the time, it was felt that a shortage of harvesters may arise in the medium term. However, a move to mechanical harvesting could have conflicted with Arramara Teo’s support for its harvesters and it goal to maintain employment in peripheral regions.

23

6.2.2 Farmed seaweedThe concept of developing a farmed seaweed sector has been under serious consideration for some years. However, the latest developments include BIM, in conjunction with NUIG and Queen’s University Belfast (QUB), carrying out practical research (funded by An Foras Mara | the Marine Institute) between 2008 and 2011 into the rationale for and possibility of farming different species of seaweed:

“Limited seaweed farming activity has been taking place in Irish coastal waters over the last ten years. This has involved the species Alaria esculenta and only one licensed site in the south-west. Now, with funding provided under the Sea Change Strategy (2006) for the project…it has been possible to dedicate three and a half years to the development of culture techniques for two identified species, Palmaria palmata [an edible red algae] and Laminaria digitata [the large brown kelp]. Three hatcheries have been used to establish the early stages of these species and material has been grown out at five sea sites around Ireland” (see Watson, L. and Dring, M. (2011) Business Plan for the Establishment of a Seaweed Hatchery & Grow-out Farm.)

The same source states that the need for seaweed product has been identified as “significant” and that, for example, feeding abalone and urchins in culture in Ireland would require 2,000 tonnes of raw material per year at full capacity. BIM points out that this sector has not yet reached its potential value but that, by identifying more products of higher value, greater returns could be realised.

BIM notes that farming seaweed allows for the production of a standardised product in a controlled environment but that sites must be licensed. Sites must also, generally, be near the shore (seaweed can be farmed at mussel longline sites) and adjacent to a pier and access roads. Seaweed is already being commercially farmed by a number of companies involved in trials overseen by BIM. Kelp is now easily manipulated in the hatchery and the techniques developed provide for the establishment of spore cultures when the seaweed is fertile. Other species have been investigated with a view to perfecting cultivation techniques.

In terms of licensing, a foreshore license would be needed for a development to farm seaweed, as well as an aquaculture licence (under section 6 of the Fisheries (Amendment) Act 1997). Such licences are administered by the Aquaculture and Foreshore Management Division of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. This division also processes the companion for such developments (as opposed to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, which normally processes foreshore licences).

At its meeting of 2 December 2014, the Committee specifically considered the issue of farmed seaweed and the potential for an aquaculture industry in Ireland. It was addressed by experts in the field from both BIM and the Irish Seaweed Research Group, based at NUI Galway.

It was noted by the representative of BIM that the global production of seaweed stands at just under 24 million tonnes per annum at present. China and the Pacific rim dominate global seaweed production in terms of absolute output and in terms of aquaculture production of seaweed. In Asia, seaweed is mainly produced using aquaculture with little reliance on the harvesting of natural stocks. The situation in the rest of the world is quite

24

different, where the harvesting of naturally-occurring resources dominates commercial exploitation, and that is the situation in Ireland at present. Seaweed production in Latin America, Canada and Europe is almost completely dependent on natural stocks, mainly Ascophyllum nodosum and various kelp species. Aquaculture in these territories has generally been focused on achieving production of low-volume, high-value species and on attempts to overcome scientific and technical obstacles to increasing the production of edible seaweeds like Palmaria palmata or Porphyra umbilicalis.

In Ireland, there are currently seven licensed seaweed aquaculture sites and 23 licence applications for seaweed cultivation in process. The main focus of Irish seaweed aquaculture operations has been on the production of edible seaweeds, however some production of non-edible seaweeds for cosmetic products has occurred in the past. To provide some context, the Irish seaweed industry is dominated by the harvesting of wild resources, mainly Ascophyllum nodosum. Annual production of this seaweed is already approximately 25,000 to 30,000 tonnes per annum. Recent analysis by NUIG suggests that the value of the industry is approximately €18 million per annum, about €6 million of which goes to exports, with employment of 185 full-time equivalents. It may be justified to speculate, based on the number of new entrants and reported expansion, that annual value and employment in the seaweed industry has increased since 2010, when those volume and employment numbers were last collected. On the other hand, seaweed aquaculture production in Ireland is in its infancy. It is estimated at current volumes to be less than 300 tonnes per annum and at the moment there are less than ten full-time equivalent posts in the sector. Ireland has been at the forefront of attempts to develop seaweed aquaculture in Europe. Ireland enjoys considerable advantages in terms of the favourable conditions for seaweed aquaculture and there is a high level of scientific expertise within the various third level institutions and development agencies. Ireland also enjoys strong development and research links with other European nations engaging in seaweed aquaculture, particularly, France, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark and the UK.

Practical tools including cultivation manuals have been produced for the industry. BIM and many other agencies and institutions continue to work closely with the industry in terms of aquaculture processing, new product development and innovation. BIM has worked very closely with the Irish seaweed aquaculture sector in terms of providing crucial supports at establishment and early commercialisation stages.

The development of seaweed aquaculture faces challenges. Some European experts have supported a model in which seaweed aquaculture, shellfish , finfish aquaculture and wind energy generation could all be integrated into what they describe as parks in the coastal zone or perhaps offshore. In the view of BIM, the scale, cost and complexity of such parks may present difficulty in terms of costs and a possible displacement of or interaction with other coastal zone stakeholders. The proposal, while attractive on the face of it, is unlikely to be suitable for Ireland for a number of reasons.

BIM believes that Ireland's opportunity is more likely to lie in a mixed industry comprising of three distinct elements: first, integrated multi-trophic aquaculture, better known as integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (“IMTA”) - a form of seaweed cultivation in collaboration with finfish and shellfish operators; second, on-shore tank culture of very high value species; and third, conventional long-line marine aquaculture in bays where there are long-line farms. IMTA is particularly interesting in that it would allow integration with the conventional aquaculture industry, such as mussel farming which already has access to appropriate culture sites, the relevant expertise and have completed the significant investment in terms of labour, vessels, equipment and infrastructure. BIM is confident that

25

the Irish farm seaweed industry could reach a harvest volume of between 2,000 to 3,000 tonnes per year and that this level of development is feasible in the next five years or so, particularly if private investment is available for aquaculture development, processing and product innovation. This would generate a first sale value of €10 million per annum and would generate employment for some 150 people both directly and indirectly.

BOX 7

Integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA)

Integrated multitrophic aquaculture (IMTA) is the term given to the co-culture of species for environmental and economic benefit. In these systems species which are fed or intensively farmed (for example Atlantic salmon) are grown alongside species whose culture results in nutrient (or energy) extraction (for example sea urchins, mussels or seaweeds). The aims are for greater efficiency in resource use: feedstuffs, space, labour and a reduction in the environmental impact of the aquaculture process (Dr Maeve Kelly - See more at: http://www.sams.ac.uk/ )

The key issues to realise this vision, BIM believes, are the resolution of licensing issues, the provision of grant aid to the industry and encouraging private sector investment. Private sector investment will also be required to stimulate growth. The development agencies BIM and Údarás na Gaeltachta will continue to engage closely with the industry particularly in the areas of technical development, processing, market development and public information.

Significant effort will be required to manage the diverse priorities of various stakeholders and effective communications, consultative fora and information campaigns will be necessary, certainly at least at local and regional level, to ensure that seaweed aquaculture is fully understood by local communities and that an opportunity is presented to entrepreneurs to engage with the sector to ensure that community benefit, ancillary job creation and return on investment are maximised.

6.2.3 Issues at the scale of individual farms

In its written submission to the Committee on 2 December 2014, the Irish Seaweed Research Group also expressed the view that the most effective measure to grow seaweed aquaculture from being just a niche industry would be the efficient granting of new licenses, enabling a critical mass of producers to develop. The current licensing system does not differentiate between animal and algal aquaculture, the different potential impacts.

They further stated that it is difficult to generalise about the likely sizes of future farms when successful economic models for Western Europe are not yet widely established. The ISRG is of the view, however, that seaweed farms in Ireland are likely to be unsustainable if coupled to a bulk market (e.g., milled seaweed or alginate). Such markets are subject to global price variations and strong competition from countries that can harvest at lower costs. The opportunity for Ireland, as recognised in a number of reports, is in developing high value products:

26

“This may be possible with a single product (e.g. the product Hana Tsunomata), but in many cases may require a diversity of income sources from each harvest. Sometimes this is referred to as a biorefinery concept: where a series of high value products are extracted from the source material.

Reaching the goal of a product or products from seaweed requires teams working across the value chain, including investment in developing the markets for products. The potentially long lead-in to generating profit makes this proposition difficult for small businesses. Developing markets is generally not something that universities do, or are funded to do. The nature of research tends to focus research on problems in specific fields. More broadly, there are issues in sustaining capacity and knowhow in areas like aquaculture research. Funding for activities like new species development is limited and instruments like the Societal Changes pillar of Horizon 2020 are more focused on policy issues.

We feel that it is important to have funding that integrates research teams and industry, but have not found that the existing models are particularly accessible to the development of new products, particularly where this contains an element of risk and the likely industrial partners have little scope to make long term investments.

A potential initiative could be activities that bring members of the research and commercial community together. This could include facilities that are established on a cooperative basis (e.g. drying halls, processing equipment etc). An approach slightly broader than a trade association may be useful. There is a model in the UK that seeks to generally raise the awareness of seaweed for health while raising the profile of members’ products (Seaweed Health Foundation). A similar initiative may be possible in Ireland, recognising that participation may require a bottom-up approach and that any financial costs of membership should not be so high as to exclude small or new businesses.”

6.2.4 Wider issues relating to seaweed aquaculture

Speaking in advance of a November 2014 BIM conference on farmed seaweed, food writer Sally McKenna argued that “Seaweed farming works in harmony with nature and the demand for seaweed from our clean Atlantic waters is a global one. Seaweed farming is good for rural coastal communities and actually benefits the environment.” (see www. fft.ie).

The general view is that whilst large scale wild harvesting of seaweed could impact negatively on the environment, seaweed farming has potential benefits for the ecosystem. The Irish Seaweed Research Group, in its submission to the committee, had the following to say in regard to broader environmental issues:

“The existing Irish harvests, primarily of Ascophyllum nodosum, appear to have been sustainable. Expansion to a very large scale wild harvesting of Ascophyllum or other species may not be sustainable and is likely to have ecosystem impacts, particularly where the algal production would otherwise be transferred to important fish, shellfish or bird species. These sorts of subsidies are not well understood. As many potential harvest areas are protected under the EU Habitats directive, the need for appropriate assessments and the precautionary principle may limit the scope for licensing extensive harvesting.

27

In comparison to some fish aquaculture, seaweed aquaculture currently has a relatively benign image. The ecosystem impacts of seaweed aquaculture are the subject of investigation within the group. As growing algae take up nutrients, they may reduce issues related to excess fertilisation of coastal waters (eutrophication). Seaweed farms may provide additional habitat for species, including nursery areas for fish. Seaweeds are grazed by invertebrates and supply dissolved and particulate organic material to the adjacent system. This may boost the local productivity of an area.

The ecosystem roles of farmed seaweeds have already been raised in the context of what is known as Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA): the idea that growing a mix of species in close proximity provides a synergy that may reduce the environmental impact of traditional forms of aquaculture, such as finish production, while providing additional sources of revenue for the farmer. For example, salmon excrete nutrients that are taken up by seaweeds, with particulates from salmon cages and seaweeds sustaining invertebrates like mussels.”

28

APPENDIX 1 – RECORD OF HEARINGS/TRANSCRIPTS

A webcast of all public hearings, including invited witnesses who did not make written submissions during the public consultation phase, can be accessed on the archives pages of the Houses of the Oireachtas Service (www.oireachtas.ie).

The links to the record of the hearings are:-

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=26869&&CatID=127&StartDate=01January 2014&OrderAscending=0

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=28007&&CatID=127&StartDate=01January 2014&OrderAscending=0

The links to the transcripts of the hearings are:-

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/ENJ2014070800003?opendocument#C00100

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/ENJ2014120200003?opendocument#E00400

29

APPENDIX 2 – LIST OF WITNESSES/CONTRIBUTORS

The following individuals attended at the the Joint Committee’s hearings on the seaweed industry and/or made submissions that informed its deliberations:

BioAtlantis LtdMr John O’Sullivan, Chief Executive Officer,Mr Brian Fanning, Engineering ManagerDr Kieran Guinan, Chief Research BioanalystDr William O’Connor, Ecofact Environmental Consultants Ltd.

Brandon Products LtdMr Paul Mullins.

Carraig Fhada SeaweedMr Damien MelvinMr Frank Melvin

MB Quinn LtdMr Micheál Quinn, Managing Director.

Ocean Harvest TechnologyDr Stefan Krann, Managing Director.Simon Faulkner, R&D Manager

Arramara TeorantaJean-Paul Deveau Uasal, Cathaoirleach,Dónall Mac Giolla Bhríde Uasal, Bainisteoir GinearáltaAn Doctúir Raul Ugarte, Taighdeoir Sinsearach, Acadian Seaplants Ltd,Rex Hunter Uasal, Leas Uachtarán, Bainistiú Acmhainní, Acadian Seaplants Ltd,Linda Theriault Uasal, Stiúrthóir, Caidreamh Poiblí agus Rialtais, Acadian Seaplants Ltd,

Cearta Cladaigh ChonamaraJohn Bhaba Jeaic Ó Conghaile UasalMáirtín Ó Murchú Uasal, Rúnaí an Choiste

Irish Seaweed Processors LtdMr Tony Barrett, Chief Executive OfficerSeán Ó Mocháin Uasal.

Údarás na GaeltachtaSteve Ó Cualáin Uasal, Príomhfheidhmeannach, Séamus Mac Eochaidh Uasal, Bainisteoir Fiontraiochta.

Bord Iascaigh MharaMr Dónal Maguire, Director of Aquaculture

Ryan Institute, NUIGProfessor Mark Johnson, Irish Seaweed Research GroupDr Maeve Edwards, Irish Seaweed Research Group

Voya/Voya Seaweed BathsMr Mark WaltonMr Neil Walton

Lir Environmental ResearchMr Peter Walsh

Mr Richard O’Donnell

30

APPENDIX 3 – ORDERS OF REFERENCE OF COMMITTEE

a. Functions of the Committee – derived from Standing Orders [DSO 82A; SSO 70A]

(1) The Select Committee shall consider and report to the Dáil on—

(a) such aspects of the expenditure, administration and policy of the relevant Government Department or Departments and associated public bodies as the Committee may select, and

(b) European Union matters within the remit of the relevant Department or Departments.

(2) The Select Committee may be joined with a Select Committee appointed by Seanad Éireann to form a Joint Committee for the purposes of the functions set out below, other than at paragraph (3), and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Select Committee shall consider, in respect of the relevant Department or Departments, such—

(a) Bills,

(b) proposals contained in any motion, including any motion within the meaning of Standing Order 164,

(c) Estimates for Public Services, and

(d) other matters as shall be referred to the Select Committee by the Dáil, and

(e) Annual Output Statements, and

(f) such Value for Money and Policy Reviews as the Select Committee may select.

(4) The Joint Committee may consider the following matters in respect of the relevant Department or Departments and associated public bodies, and report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas—

(a) matters of policy for which the Minister is officially responsible,

(b) public affairs administered by the Department,

(c) policy issues arising from Value for Money and Policy Reviews conducted or commissioned by the Department,

(d) Government policy in respect of bodies under the aegis of the Department,

(e) policy issues concerning bodies which are partly or wholly funded by the State or which are established or appointed by a member of the Government or the Oireachtas,

(f) the general scheme or draft heads of any Bill published by the Minister,

(g) statutory instruments, including those laid or laid in draft before either House or both Houses and those made under the European Communities Acts 1972 to 2009,

(h) strategy statements laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas pursuant to the Public Service Management Act 1997,

31

(i) annual reports or annual reports and accounts, required by law, and laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, of the Department or bodies referred to in paragraph (4)(d) and (e) and the overall operational results, statements of strategy and corporate plans of such bodies, and

(j) such other matters as may be referred to it by the Dáil and/or Seanad from time to time.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Joint Committee shall consider, in respect of the relevant Department or Departments—

(a) EU draft legislative acts standing referred to the Select Committee under Standing Order 105, including the compliance of such acts with the principle of subsidiarity,

(b) other proposals for EU legislation and related policy issues, including programmes and guidelines prepared by the European Commission as a basis of possible legislative action,

(c) non-legislative documents published by any EU institution in relation to EU policy matters, and

(d) matters listed for consideration on the agenda for meetings of the relevant EU Council of Ministers and the outcome of such meetings.

(6) A sub-Committee stands established in respect of each Department within the remit of the Select Committee to consider the matters outlined in paragraph (3), and the following arrangements apply to such sub-Committees—

(a) the matters outlined in paragraph (3) which require referral to the Select Committee by the Dáil may be referred directly to such sub-Committees, and

(b) each such sub-Committee has the powers defined in Standing Order 83(1) and (2) and may report directly to the Dáil, including by way of Message under Standing Order 87.

(7) The Chairman of the Joint Committee, who shall be a member of Dáil Éireann, shall also be the Chairman of the Select Committee and of any sub-Committee or Committees standing established in respect of the Select Committee.

(8) The following may attend meetings of the Select or Joint Committee, for the purposes of the functions set out in paragraph (5) and may take part in proceedings without having a right to vote or to move motions and amendments—

(a) Members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies in Ireland, including Northern Ireland,

(b) Members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and

(c) at the invitation of the Committee, other Members of the European Parliament.

b. Scope and Context of Activities of Committees (as derived from Standing Orders [DSO 82; SSO 70]

(1) The Joint Committee may only consider such matters, engage in such activities, exercise such powers and discharge such functions as are specifically authorised under its orders of reference and under Standing Orders.

32

(2) Such matters, activities, powers and functions shall be relevant to, and shall arise only in the context of, the preparation of a report to the Dáil and/or Seanad.

(3) It shall be an instruction to all Select Committees to which Bills are referred that they shall ensure that not more than two Select Committees shall meet to consider a Bill on any given day, unless the Dáil, after due notice given by the Chairman of the Select Committee, waives this instruction on motion made by the Taoiseach pursuant to Dáil Standing Order 26. The Chairmen of Select Committees shall have responsibility for compliance with this instruction.

(4) The Joint Committee shall not consider any matter which is being considered, or of which notice has been given of a proposal to consider, by the Committee of Public Accounts pursuant to Dáil Standing Order 163 and/or the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993.

(5) The Joint Committee shall refrain from inquiring into in public session or publishing confidential information regarding any matter if so requested, for stated reasons given in writing, by—

(a) a member of the Government or a Minister of State, or

(b) the principal office-holder of a body under the aegis of a Department or which is partly or wholly funded by the State or established or appointed by a member of the Government or by the Oireachtas:

Provided that the Chairman may appeal any such request made to the Ceann Comhairle / Cathaoirleach whose decision shall be final.

33

APPENDIX 4 – MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE

Mr James Bannon TD (Fine Gael)

Senator Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)

Mr Noel Coonan TD (Fine Gael) Leas-Chathaoirleach

Ms Ruth Coppinger TD (Socialist Party)

Ms Helen McEntee TD (Fine Gael)

Mr Barry Cowen TD (Fianna Fáil)

Mr Robert Dowds TD (Labour)

Mr Michael Mc Carthy TD (Labour) Cathaoirleach

Mr Tony Mc Loughlin TD (Fine Gael)

Ms Michelle Mulherin TD (Fine Gael)

Ms Catherine Murphy TD (Independent)

Mr Fergus O’Dowd TD (Fine Gael)

An t-Uasal Seán Ó Fearghaíl TD (Fianna Fáil)

Mr Brian Stanley TD (Sinn Féin)

An t-Uasal Peadar Tóibín TD (Sinn Féin)

Senator Cáit Keane (Fine Gael)

Senator Denis Landy (Labour)

An Seanadóir Fiach Mac Conghail (Neamhspleách)

An Seanadóir Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fáil)

Senator Ned O’Sullivan (Fianna Fáil)

34