Conor D McGuinness Urges Exploration of One-Stop Shop for Aquaculture

I'm going to put a number of questions myself, and just picking up on where Deputy Connolly left off with ALAP, I have to say, and commend you, looking at the figures here, it's very clear that there was a height back in 2020 of 131, but you've been doggedly bringing that number down year on year to the point last year, and I imagine this is a bone of some frustration, where you were down to two outstanding, and then 185 came in, so I take the point that many of them relate to the same site, but from your point of view, is there a way that they can be cleared quicker, and what is the process through which you adjudicate on those appeals? The appeals are dealt with as de novo hearings, they're looked at afresh, and they there are, of course, technical issues that can arise when you undertake such a process. The data that might have been relied on may have become out of date, there might be gaps in the data available on the file, and the whole process would have to be looked at afresh in a defensible way. It is the technical assessments and making sure that all the directives and legislation in the area has been actively engaged with and followed to make sure that we are making a defensible decision. It is the processes of getting the, to get it up to where the board itself can make a decision is where delays can incur in our process. Would it be fair to say that generally it's kind of a desk-based exercise, you're reviewing the existing documentation, and notwithstanding, as you said, that there might be something out of date, or is there an onus on the appellant to submit additional information, new information, and when you say de novo, to start from scratch in that way, or is it that you look at it afresh? Well, I'll ask Mary to deal with the delays that occur from the receipt of the appeal up to it getting to the board itself. Thanks, Deputy. As Shane explained, because we are looking at the appeals fresh de novo as such, it means then we must address all the aspects of the licensing process, so we have to look at requirements under Section 61 of the Fisheries Amendment Act, as well as, as has been mentioned, requirements under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, the Habitats Directive, and recently we've also been asking applicants for reports related to the Water Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, so we're covering a broad scope of environmental legislation, and we're taking the position that we're putting the onus on the applicant, and we're asking in one go to ask for everything, initially. Additionally, ALAB's obliged to take on board any procedural changes that arise from any national or EU case law, and particularly this has caused problems or procedural changes in relation to carrying out screenings for appropriate assessments, so there can be delays there from that. Thank you for that, and like I said, I mean, so close to getting down to zero last year, but these things happen. A question for IFA. I know IFA published a very comprehensive analysis of the aquaculture licensing regime in 2023, and you've been looking at Greece and Denmark and other countries. Do you think that the industry here would benefit from a single consolidated act, bringing it all together, benefit from the one-stop-shop model that you mentioned, is in operation in other countries? Is that something that you think could be worthwhile exploring, exploring, and if so, what ideas would you have? And then a second question, you'll be aware that your colleagues in the agricultural side of IFA, many farmers have benefited in the past from glass and now from acres schemes for carrying out environmental work on their farms. Is there an argument to be made, particularly given the environmental benefits of having shellfish farms, and the huge risks that operators take on board in terms of their investment, and then issues upstream coming into an estuary can cause issues? Is there an argument to be made for such a scheme for the aquacultural sector? Thank you, Deputy. Certainly, I think a one-stop-shop would be a major improvement. As I said, we're probably answerable to far too many systems, and the previous speaker from ALAB outlined that, basically, you have to start the process all over again, if you end up in an appeals process, and many of our license applications do. I'm not saying a one-stop-shop would probably solve the appeals problem, but I think it would. I think a one-stop-shop would be a major improvement, and on top of that, the Single Aquaculture Act would have to support that. And as I said previously, the monitoring compliance piece would have to be built into that Single Aquaculture Act, that would have to be robust and sufficient to be able to withstand that. And I would imagine you'd have to build into such a piece of legislation as well, certainty around timelines, because that fundamentally is a big part of our problem, as Finian said, around investment and certainty for the next generation to get involved in the sector. As regards your suggestion around similar scheme for for glass or acres, similar to what's in the agricultural sector, definitely. Something like that would be very, very welcome in the sector, because of the ecosystem services, particularly in the shellfish side, and in the seaweeds, and somewhat in finfish as well, that can be incentivized there. Carbon sequestration in shellfish. We are recipients of any upstream issues, as shellfish or water, filter the water, basically, and any issues that may come into the bay. We have to deal with them, and we do deal with them, sometimes at a great cost to the industry, particularly in the oyster sector, where oysters are eaten typically raw. We have to deal with those, and those are dealt with from a food safety regulatory point of view. But certainly, if there was any incentive to encourage producers to keep doing what they're already doing, in terms of environmental benefits and the ecosystem services, would be very welcome. Thank you. I have a question for the Marine Institute, and it relates to something that Ms McSherry mentioned earlier, I believe, in terms of a plan-led approach being utilized in other countries, and the carrying capacity of various bays. Is there additional capacity, or to what extent is there additional capacity around Ireland's coast for a fairly significant increase in aquaculture activity? And is there data to support that? And is there a ballpark figure for how much extra the industry can expand in a sustainable way? Thank you, Carol. So, just on the plan-led approach, Sinead mentioned earlier on that there is a project that will hopefully soon be supported on the plan-led approach, which is a feasibility study. It's effectively the way that the offshore renewable energy people are approaching the designation of space for offshore renewable energy. The hope is that this feasibility study would look at something similar for aquaculture. The challenge is that it's not a blank sheet of paper. You're not starting from an empty ocean. There are lots of activities in the ocean already. So, in terms of carrying capacity, there have been individual studies done on individual bays to see whether they're at capacity or over capacity or under. But it has never been done on a full national basis to establish, to arrive at the figure that you were seeking with your question. So, that's certainly work that we could consider, and it is a very laudable approach to try and understand what the total carrying capacity for all of Ireland's aquaculture is, and to have that number and to have that in mind when licensing decisions are being made. I think it would be a very useful exercise. If that could be built into some kind of plan or program, I think it would be a very useful exercise, and I imagine it would take input from all of the witnesses before this committee here today, and possibly others besides. I have a question for the department, and thank you for that. Is there significant differences between the delays experienced by applicants of different types? So, shellfish versus finfish, I think we've spoken about that, versus seaweed or algae, versus new applicants and renewals? And is there some data to that? And I think it might be complicated to explain that data verbally, but if that data exists, what are the key takeaways from it? And would it be possible that it would be circulated to the committee at some point? Thanks. I suppose the questions you pose are actually, it all depends. And I think in terms of timelines for different types of licenses, again, where did you apply for the license? Are you one of many licensees in a particular bay? They have to be grouped together in order to assess the impact on the whole bay. And two, or three, in terms of whether you're new or not, the renewals, I suppose, are people who are operating under 1984. If someone else wants to come into that bay, then that has to be part of the next assessment. So you can't do individual, I think Glenn spoke to that earlier, you can't assess an individual license in a bay, particularly when there's multiple inhabitants. Like in shellfish, you can't do that individually. You need to do it as part of an overall program where each individual license is assessed as part of all the licenses operating in the bay. So that's number one. And do you want to add to that, Glenn? So, Chair, the finfish renewals that we'd have on hand would be much older than the shellfish renewals because of the decision taken to clear the shellfish backlog back in 2017, 2018. Finfish renewals were parked to undertake that work. So now we're catching up with work that was put aside to clear the shellfish numbers. So those finfish renewals are the priority. When we meet with the Marine Institute, it's processing these finfish renewals is the first priority because they're old and they're, like I said, they were parked. So there is a difference in the shellfish renewals that we have on hand. The numbers were all cleared, you know, give or take six, seven years ago. So you have like 80% of the applications we have on hand now are less than five years old because of clearing that. But it's that 20%, that's where your finfish renewals, your longer stuff is. Thank you. And finally, for the department, the Marine Institute might want to come in on this as well. Is there, has there been any work or assessment analysis carried out on the impact that each additional full-time equivalent position working on this would make the dent that each individual person employed to work on this would make? Or is, again, is there kind of a ballpark or a rough figure of how many additional staff might be required in either organisation to be working solely on aquaculture licensing? So I think the exercise you described, Deputy, hasn't taken place. I do know that the team have worked with the MI in terms of trying to identify what would enable them to move forward. And I think Glenn has spoken to the increase in resources within the MI dedicated to aquaculture licensing. The resource that we have struggled with is that intensity of the scientific advice. And Brian spoke to the fact that we've taken in ecologists to work with us. Theresa spoke, I think it was Theresa, spoke to the fact that following case law, you have to do your screening for appropriate assessment, make that determination. Then you move to your next phase if required to a full appropriate assessment. They're all, I suppose, time that has to be taken to do that assessment. We have tried to take in resources ourselves to execute some of those assessments to move forward with having all the scientific available information available. So in terms of your original question, have we assessed it NFTs within the department? No, is the answer directly. However, we have sourced additional resources to complement the work of the MI because the scientific advice is what drives the determination primarily before you get into the other factors. Thank you for that. And then very finally, I realise that my clock has gone red. But I won't be back in for a second bite. So I may as well put the question to BIM. You're reading into my time, colleagues. It just relates to a question that I think Deputy Connolly was putting to you there at the end of his time regarding the difficulty that uncertainty causes for any investment in any sector. And in this one, there's no shortage of uncertainty because of the environmental impacts, because of the nature of the work, because of the weather and climate, but also because of the licensing delays. Do we know, has there been any analysis done of the impact of all these factors? Because I guess it's difficult to delineate, well, this is definitely down to licensing and not down to Atlantic storms. Also, do we know what the multiplier is for every euro invested in an actual aquaculture operation in terms of the trestles being provided, the machinery being bought in the local economy, the value added for maybe production and packaging on shore? Thank you for the question. And certainly investment is critically important. I'll just tackle the last part of your question there first. Just what we call is the GVA, which is the basically the money that goes into the local economy. So every euro, there is a multiplier effect of probably up to three euros. I don't have the exact figures, but it is published in our Aquaculture Bay report there. We give the actual multiplier effect for each euro invested there. And in those local small economies, it has a really significant effect. So coming back to the investment part, we have a business development team that works with the aquaculture producer. So each business case is individual to that business. So whether they want to go into export markets, whether they want to invest in machinery, whether they want to invest in depuration facilities. So we would work on those in each individual case. And we'd also help support them in terms of approaching the banks and approaching private investment as well. And so it's not just one issue with the license, it's the overall business. And BIM does support that business development program with each of the aquaculture producers.