Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1986 > Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities (4th Committee) > Report No. 33 - Aquaculture

A. INTRODUCTION

1.Aquaculture, or fish farming - the artificial rearing of fish - is a recent but rapidly growing sector in Ireland.* At the present time the European Community is considering updating its policy in this area and so the Joint Committee decided that this would be an opportune moment to ask the Sub-Committee on Agricultural and Fisheries Matters to consider the role of the Community in assisting the development of the industry, and to review Community legislation and proposals in this area.

The Sub-Committee considered the following documents:

-Commission Communication to the Council regarding Guidelines and Initiatives for the Development of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), as far as it related to aquaculture: COM (86) 302 final.

-Commission working document on Structural Policy in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector: SEC (86) 975 final.

-Council Regulations (EEC) 100/76 and 101/76 laying down a Common Policy for the fisheries industry.

-Council Regulation (EEC) 2908/83 on a common measure for restructuring, modernising, and developing the fishing industry and for developing aquaculture.

-Proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors (COM (86) 446 final).

2.These regulations cover ‘market support’ policies and ‘structural’ policies. The former fix prices in the markets, and establish intervention schemes which will allow the withdrawal of some supplies when over-supply threatens the income of producers. The latter are designed to keep supply and demand in long-term equilibrium. This means, on the supply side, encouraging investment which will create, modify, or modernise essential capital and infrastructure. On the demand side, it means developing the industry’s marketing skills so as to boost and diversify consumer demand.

As its present stage of early development it is the structural policies which are most relevant to aquaculture.

Acknowledgments

3.The documents were examined for the Joint Committee by its Sub-Committee on Agricultural and Fisheries Matters under the Chairmanship of Deputy Joe Walsh. The Joint Committee is indebted to Deputy Walsh and his Sub-Committee for their work.

4.The Joint Committee wishes to express its appreciation to Mr. Cathal Guiomard who, under the direction of Professor Robert O’Connor of the E.S.R.I., assisted the Sub-Committee in their work.

5.In the preparation of the Report the following were consulted: Mr. John Keohane, Mr. John Norton and Mr. Liam Hogan (Department of Fisheries); Ms. Majella Fitzsimons, Mr. Ronan O’Doherty, Mr. Pat Keogh, Mr. John Joyce and Mr. Terry Lee (Bord Iascaigh Mhara); Mr. Geoffrey O’Sullivan (NBST); Mr. John Bennett (Udaras na Gaeltachta); Mr. Liam Casey (NDC); Mr. Tim Tynan (YEA); and Mr. Gerard Keane (IIRS).

The Joint Committee also took into consideration a written submission from Udaras na Gaeltachta.

The Joint Committee wishes to express its thanks to these individuals and groups.

B. THE AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY

6.The modern development of aquaculture parallels that of agriculture. Until about the 17th century, agriculture was a largely unscientific occupation. For instance, there was very little breeding of species to produce animals with desirable agricultural characteristics, and there was poor knowledge of suitable diets. However the increasing application of scientific knowledge since that time raised productivity enormously.

Similarly, fishing is primarily hunting. There are many uncertainties regarding the weather, the location and size of fish stocks, the risks of over-fishing, and seasonality of supply. But by artificially ‘farming’ fish many of these problems can be reduced. Controlled breeding can take place, the weather need not be a problem, supplies can be obtained regularly, and production of fish can be greatly increased.

7.Of course this does not mean that there are no difficulties. Fish species which live in the wild are often unsuitable for fish farming unless adapted by breeding techniques: containers of one kind or another need to be built to house the fish (eg cages, nets, rafts, ponds, etc.): Farmed fish need to be supplied with specially prepared food: diseases spread very quickly in the crowded conditions of an aquaculture installation, many consumers believe some species of farmed fish to be of a lower quality to wild-caught fish, and the research costs in testing and developing the technology for fish farming are very substantial.

8.But the fast growth of aquaculture in Ireland, as well as in Europe generally, demonstrates that these difficulties can be overcome. With many kinds of fish species limited by EEC quotas (due to depletion of stocks) the share of aquaculture in the total fishery sector is certain to grow greatly. In 1985 aquaculture output in Ireland reached 11,836 tonnes at a value of IR£7 million. This was 13 per cent of the value of sea-caught fish in the same year.

C. COMMUNITY POLICY ON AQUACULTURE

9.The main instrument of Community policy on aquaculture has been Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2908/83 which was in force for the three year period 1983-85. Prior to its adoption the Community had relied on an interim Regulation which started in 1978 and was renewed annually up until 1982. This state of affairs was most unsatisfactory. Great uncertainty existed as to whether the Regulation would be renewed in any given year, and if so, what level of funding would be available. No medium term planning was possible. Council Regulation 2908/83 was therefore a great improvement in the Community arrangements for funding fish farming. It specified two decision periods, when applications for grants would be considered. These were in March and October of each year. Further to this, Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 378/84 set out a detailed application form which had to be completed before funds were made available to an aquaculture venture. Applications had to be received six months prior to a decision date (eg before March in order to be considered in October). When Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2908/83 lapsed at the end of 1985 it was decided to renew it for a further year. It appears that this was because other structural measures in the fisheries sector would be terminating in 1986, by an extending Regulation 2908/83 for one year all the policy instruments could be synchronised, and at the same time, assessed.

10.The European Commission and the Secretariat have issued a number of documents in the past number of months designed (a) to review the structural situation in the fisheries (including aquaculture) sector, (b) to reconsider the Community’s objectives in this area, and (c) to discuss the most appropriate instruments to be used. A certain amount of analysis of expenditure in relation to Council Regulation 2908/83 has also been published (see Section F - Investment in the Industry).

11.The Commission working document, “Structural Policy in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector” (SEC(86) 975 final), reviews developments during 1983-85. It considers that the impact of Community financial assistance to the fishing fleet is difficult to assess, but that it has been essential to aquaculture.

The trend in the Community has been for farmed fish production to expand greatly, although the species being cultivated in different Member States vary a lot (eg mussels salmon, trout, and oysters in Ireland and the UK, eels in Denmark and the Netherlands, bass, bream and mussels in Italy and France and so on). This is due to differences in climate, technology and consumer tastes between Northern and Southern Europe. The technology is more developed in the North, but the climate is less suitable and fewer species are of interest to the consumer. The objectives of the national governments also differ. In Spain, Italy and Greece the aim is to reduce fish imports. In Ireland the aim is to increase exports but a rise in domestic production of farmed fish could help to reduce somewhat fish imports which amounted to 35m. in 1985. There has been a noticeable variation in the percentage of projects approved for financing. Almost all the projects submitted by France, Greece, Ireland and the Netherlands have been financed, while a smaller percentage (30%-50%) of applications from other countries was approved. With a few exceptions the non-financed projects did not go ahead, reflecting the crucial impact which EEC funding has on the development of the industry.

The industry is seen to have considerable social importance because most of Europe’s suitable sites (the Highlands of Scotland, the Mezzogiorno of Italy, Andalusia in Spain) occur in underdeveloped areas of high unemployment.

12.Except for mussels all aquaculture species are reared for the luxury, if not the de luxe range of the market. In almost all cases, Community consumption exceeds Community production. The Commission working document argues that, except for freshwater species, “there would

(1) Approximately £2.5m relates to fishmeal imports.

appear to be no immediate or even medium term problem of over production of any reared species of fish or shellfish” and many of the products are sufficiently valuable to offer the prospect of high rewards. Because of the gap between production and consumption in the Community, and because of the location of aquaculture sites, the EEC Commission sees the promotion of fish farming as a means of reducing its trade deficit in fish and of helping underdeveloped regions. It estimates that Community production will grow 70% by 1990 with a total investment in aquaculture of about 420 million ecus (about IR£323m). The FEOGA fund will be asked to contribute 180 million ecus (IR£138m). This is a seven-fold increase in FEOGA spending on aquaculture compared to the period 1979-83.

13.These targets are very ambitious especially when it is remembered that mollusc output (which accounts for well over half of total community output) will not be increasing to any great extent. The Commission document recommends that this rapidly-changing sector be closely monitored, particularly as regards price trends. On the basis of the data given in SEC (86) 975, together with its own examination of the fisheries situation, the European Commission issued a Communication to the Council in June of this year entitled “Guidelines and Initiatives for the development of the common fisheries policy”. (COM (86) 302.

14.It reviews the 1983-85 structural policy and considers the impact of the enlargement of the Community to include Spain and Portugal. This Communication considers three themes: the Community’s internal resources, its external resources, and the economic and social environment. The first relates essentially to Community fish stocks, the second refers to access to fish stocks outside the Community’s 200 mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The third involves achieving consistency between structural aids and the objective of eliminating trade barriers, together with an awareness of the role of fisheries in regional policies and in the economy in general.

Aquaculture enters into the first and third of these considerations. On the one hand, it has considerable potential to contribute to the Community’s fishery resources, while at the same time improving regional incomes and employment.

15.The Commission suggested that certain principles should guide Community policy:

(i)the policy framework should be stable and set for the medium-term,

(ii)financial allocations should be for shorter but multi-annual periods, and

(iii)short-term modificationsfor specific regional situations must be allowed.

At a meeting on 25 June, 1986 the Council examined the above Communication. Taking account of the views expressed at that meeting, the experience gained with previous policies and the new situation created by enlargement, the Commission in a Communication of 15 September, 1986 has made proposals for a Council Regulation on the subject. This provides a framework for Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sectors over the next ten years (COM (86) 446 final).

The main features of the proposal are similar to those introduced in 1983 except (a) the rules on the granting of Community aid are to be diversified and priority given to forms of financial assistance other than the payment of capital grants, such as interest rate subsidies, reimbursable advances, or guarantees on loans. These forms of assistance are very important for fish farmers, particularly salmon producers, where costs of smolts and feed are very high and such investments are tied up for long periods, (b) the rules also specify that special incentives in aquaculture will be made available for the redeployment of fishermen linked to the scrapping of operational fishery vessels, and (c) to qualify for aid a programme must relate to investments totalling more than 100,000 ECUs (IR£76,000). This may appear to be a large floor, but because of the capital intensive nature of aquacultural projects it is unlikely that anything smaller would be viable in the long run.

The proposed Regulation is to be welcomed in that it indicates strong support by the Commission for the fish farming industry and an appreciation of the need for longterm measures of financial support.

16.Community support for aquaculture is not confined to economic aid, but also extends to tariffs which are imposed on imports of farmed fish into the Community. The tariffs are at the following rates:

17. The development of Community policy towards aquaculture has been very significant in the last decade. The “second generation” of fishery policy measures (Regulations 100/76 and 101/76) made no mention of fish farming at all, but since then, it has come to play a steadily larger role in Community thinking on fisheries. During the rest of this century the trend is certain to continue.

D. THE INDUSTRY IN EUROPE

18.The extensive form of aquaculture - modifying natural bodies of water so as to trap young fish until they are large enough for harvest, and relying on the natural productivity of the water for food - has been practised in Europe for hundreds of years. Intensive culture developed much more recently. The industry is now one of the fastest growing branches of food production.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) estimates /that 1.3 million tonnes of aquaculture output were produced in Europe in 1983, and this employed 150,000 people in a part-time and full-time capacity. The main species in Eastern Europe are various forms of carp, while trout and molluscs predominate in Western Europe.

19.Table 1 (p.15) compares Irish production with that of other European countries in the cases of salmon, trout, oysters and mussels. The figures are for 1980 and 1985, with FAO projections for 1990. It is seen that in 1985 Ireland supplied 2% of mussel production and 3% of salmon production in Europe, and less than half of one per cent of trout and oyster output.

In one sense this might be seen as a good thing: it means that there are enormous markets for these products which Ireland could play a part in supplying. However, it must also be remembered that Ireland is very far from being the only European country which is expanding its aquaculture sector. If the FAO forecasts were to prove correct, then European salmon output will rise by 340% between 1985 and 1990, mussel production by 17% and oyster and trout output by 9% each. Unless the demand by consumers keeps pace with these increases, saturation could result with the consequence of falling prices. The Joint Committee believes that a development plan for Irish aquaculture must have a clear awareness of trends in European output.

Table 1: Estimated Production (tonnes) of Salmon, Trout, Oysters and Mussels in Certain European Countries in 1980 and 1985, and projections for 1990.

20.Norway will be the dominant producer of farmed salmon for the foreseeable future. The industry began there around 1966, almost a decade ahead of other countries. By 1980 there were over 300 fish farms, supplying over 4,000 tonnes of salmon. Estimates of current Norwegian production vary considerably. The FAO figures in Table 1 indicate production of 17,000 tonnes in 1985 and expected production of 80,000 tonnes by 1990. However, a Norwegian speaker at a Salmon Workshop at the recent (August 1986) International Fisheries Conference in Rimouski, Quebec maintained that nearly 29,000 tonnes were produced in 1985 and forecast production of 125,000 tonnes by 1990. Norway is, however, finding difficulty in locating new suitable sites along its coast. For this reason, and because Government policy favours local community involvement, a number of large Norwegian firms are investing in aquaculture projects outside Norway. There are over 50 such farms in British Colombia (producing Atlantic and Pacific salmon). Norwegian sales are directed at the US market in particular, but also at France and Germany. The Norwegian exports to the US have been very successful because the salmon are marketed fresh (they are air-freighted from Norway to the US); they are available throughout the year, unlike locally fished Pacific salmon; and they are not bruised and marked like wild-caught fish. Future Norwegian production will depend considerably on the scope for further growth in the US market. This will be affected by the success of attempts by American producers to initiate their own Atlantic salmon farm industry. At the moment winter water temperatures are proving to be a problem.

21.In Scotland there are over 200 salmon farms which produced some 7,000 tonnes of salmon in 1985. Production is expected to more than treble to about 25,000 by 1990. These enormous increases are all the more remarkable when it is remembered that total European output of farmed salmon was a mere 100 tonnes in 1970. Farmed output is now 2½ times greater than the wild catch in the North Atlantic (at about 10,000 tonnes) and 3½ times greater than the wild catch in the North Eastern Atlantic. The expansion of salmon production has been due to a suitable technology being available, a product that is well known to the consumer, the existence of export markets, and very aggressive marketing.

22.Trout production has increased much more modestly, and the trend is expected to continue. This is because trout is produced in all European countries, and most of them are more or less self-sufficient. The exception is Germany which is a large importer. Denmark and Italy are the principal exporters. The industry is a very long established one and is largely private without the considerable government and community supports that have been directed at other species. 95% of trout production is in fresh water. Because of Europe’s self-sufficiency in trout the Community has decided not to fund any further trout farms. The possibility of the same outcome occurring in the case of other species must be kept in mind.

23.The mussel industry is also an old one. The dominant producers are Spain, France and the Netherlands. An increase in production is considered very likely because of the well-understood technology, the stable prices and the growing market as consumer awareness of the nutritional value of mussels increases.

24.In the case of oysters, France is the main producer. This is in spite of its industry having been almost wiped out on several occasions during the last fifteen years. The original species (European or edulis oysters) were struck by two waves of disease which decimated the supply. To maintain the industry the French government arranged for the large-scale importation of a replacement species: the Pacific or gigas oyster. It appears that not enough attention was paid to disease control during the importation and the industry has again been plagued by disease which is still active. If this can be overcome a rise in production is again expected.

25.The European aquaculture industry encompasses, of course, many other species as well as the above four. FAO (1986) suggests that there will be expansion in most of these also. Growth prospects are thought to be very good for clams; good for sea bass, sea bream, turbot, cod and catfish; and modest for carp, shrimp, scallops, crayfish, and eels. Lobster and halibut are at the experimental stages.

26.At the European level, the expansion of the industry is being hindered by some of the same problems that face Irish fish farmers. In many countries the legal status of floating structures is uncertain. The application system for licences and permits can be slow and complicated. Regional and national planning bodies do not always give a high priority to aquaculture developments in remote areas. Insurance is often difficult to obtain or very expensive. Without good water circulation fish wastes can cause environmental problems. There is the usual tension between industrial and fish farming use of waters, with the added problem of acid rain acidifying rivers and lakes.

27.Nonetheless the FAO believes that the prospects for aquaculture are good. Provided that investors do not move too quickly from the experimental to the commercial stage, or neglect marketing, and provided that the R&D needed to adapt species to intensive farming continues to take place, then the industry can be expected to grow considerably. This will produce several benefits. For the consumer, there is the gain of a protein-rich, supply of food, which is also often a delicacy that has traditionally been in short supply. For the region in which the industry is located, there are gains in employment and profits and extra business for sectors such as the building industry, the transport industry (due to the remoteness of the location) and the feedstuffs industry. For the national economy there is an improvement in the balance of trade, due to the (likely) export of some of the farmed fish. There is also the possibility of developing a processing industry. Some smoked fish have a value three times that of fresh fish, though it must be remembered that a lot of aquaculture output is at its highest value when sold fresh.

28.An expansion in the intensity of fish farming will require careful monitoring and management to avoid environmental pollution. But the recent development of improved cage technology means that aquaculture will also increase in extent. Stronger cages mean that large parts of the coasts of France, Greece, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Turkey and Yugoslavia will now be suitable. It is self-evident that strong marketing will be needed to keep consumer demand for fish products growing in line with supply.

E. THE MAIN SPECIES AND PRODUCTION METHODS

29.There are four main species of fish which are farmed in Ireland: Atlantic Salmon, trout, oysters and mussels. These accounted for 45 per cent, 17 per cent, 13 per cent and 25 per cent respectively of the value of production in 1985. The share of salmon has been rising steadily.

Table 2: Aquaculture Production in 1985.

Source: BIM

(i) Atlantic Salmon

30.This is an attractive species for aquaculture because of the shrinking supplies of wild Atlantic salmon and the generally high prices. However, there is severe competition from other countries, particularly Scotland and Norway, which have been investing heavily in this sector. Norwegian production, for instance, grew from 100 tonnes in 1971 to almost 40,000 tonnes in 1986 (NORINFORM - September, 1986) and production is projected by the FAO to exceed 80,000 tonnes by 1990. Scottish production in 1986 is more than 7,000 tonnes. The production method used is the following: salmon smolts are grown in a hatchery and then transferred from the nursery to larger outdoor containers. The latter could be pond systems, floating sea cages, natural tidal enclosures or netting enclosures. In Ireland both on-shore ponds and floating sea cages are used. The fish are fed for about two years to reach a weight of one to three kilos. The cost of smolts and feed are high, while the cost of enclosures will vary. Floating cages (consisting essentially of a net bag suspended from a floating framework - see Figure 1) are easily assembled and expanded production can be achieved by adding more cages. However, they can suffer considerable damage by storms and waves, and are subject to fouling of the nets by marine organisms. On the other hand, concrete ponds give greater control over the environment, and are less subject to fouling and damage by the weather. However, high pumping costs of water and building costs of ponds and shore facilities make this method uncompetitive

with floating cages’ production. In recent years a much stronger cage has been developed, the Bridgestone Cage. A number of these have now been installed in Ireland. These rubber cages can withstand rough seas, and consequently they greatly increase the number of Irish coastal sites which are suitable for aquaculture. They can hold 100 tonnes of fish and cost about £100,000 each to purchase and install.

31.Two problems which have dogged salmon production are gradually being resolved. “Grisling” is a tendency of salmon reared in captivity to reach sexual maturity at an early age. They then stop growing. Since this can occur at one third of the salmon’s full size and weight, it greatly reduces the value of the fish. The problem is being overcome by importing late-maturing strains from Norway. Salmon farming requires a very large supply of smolts (juveniles). Adequate supplies have not been available. In 1985 the need was for about 1.5 million smolts, and perhaps 1.1 million were available. In 1987, 4-5 million smolts will be needed and 3½-4 million may be supplied. There will be an eventual need for 8-10 million smolts. Because of the commercial success of the salmon farming industry, there has been a recent growth in the number of salmon hatcheries. (The NDC recently helpted to establish two new hatcheries). Commercial demand has led to commercial supply. However, in the case of the less commercially developed aquaculture species, inadequate supplies of juveniles are a major constraint.

32.The overall prospects for salmon farming in Ireland are thought to be very good. The phenomenal increase in Norwegian and Scottish salmon supply must, however, lead to a fall in salmon prices, probably in the fairly near future. Few studies of the price elasticity of demand for salmon have been carried out, but those that have show high elasticities. The recent International Fishery Conference in Rimouski Quebec (August 1986) one speaker put the figure at 5.0. This means that a one per cent decrease in price would cause a five per cent increase in consumption. Hence, supply could rise quite substantially without a dramatic fall in price. For this reason salmon farming should remain a profitable investment in the coming years.

(ii) Trout

33.Trout are grown using similar techniques to those of salmon production. Initially they are reared in fresh water, or water with a low salinity level, and then transferred to an enclosure either inland or in the sea. Until very recently this sector was in the doldrums. The report of the Sectoral Consultative Committee (SCC 1984) judged the prospects for trout production to be poor. There have been disease problems and export difficulties due to lower cost production in some other European countries. Conditions for UK trout producers had not been good either, and given the limited Irish market, the low prices available in Britain had a dampening effect here. For these reasons many trout farms switched to salmon production and trout output has fallen considerably (see Appendix III).

34.However, there have been major efforts to improve the quality of UK production and this has resulted in a much better market price, so Irish production for export may be encouraged. Nonetheless, the profitability of salmon remains greater than trout. The small scale of the trout industry (about 600 tonnes) means that a packaging and processing plant has not been viable. The Joint Committee understands that if output were to grow by a further 1000 tonnes this would be an economic proposition. There are, therefore, some reasons to think that the prospects for trout production may have improved.

(iii) Oysters

35.There are two kinds of oysters grown in Ireland, the native (edulis) and the Pacific (gigas), with a strong market preference for the former, which sell for more than twice the price of Pacific oysters. The main European market is in France. Cultivation uses one of two techniques: extensive production involves the collection of spat and relaying it on the seabed, usually beside natural oyster beds. Thus the settlement area is extended. Harvesting involves traditional dredging of the beds. The much less commonly used intensive technique involves spawning oysters in captivity and growing the young oysters in nurseries, tanks or ponds. After about a year they are transferred to mesh bags and hung from rafts in the sea where they grow to maturity (see Figure 1). Extensive culture of native oysters can take up to four years, although raft culture may reduce growing time. Pacific oysters reach market size in just two years but the market is much smaller.

36.The main constraint on the expansion of oysters is the supply of good quality spat. During the spawning season large quantities of oyster larvae are released into the water over the main oyster beds around the Irish coast. But most of these are washed away by currents and only a small fraction settle on the beds. The supply of natural spat could be greatly increased by placing shell on the sea bottom or by suspending collector materials in the water. The techniques are available and must be implemented if the industry is to expand. Hatchery-reared spat are the alternative to natural supplies. Their availability and quality vary greatly, and they can be expensive. The Joint Committee considers it will be essential to the development of the oyster industry that further hatcheries be established to produce a large and consistent supply of quality spat. The Shellfish Research Laboratory (SRL) in Carna, County Galway has been developing low cost hatcheries and this should improve spat supply. Commercial hatcheries supplying pacific oyster spat have been reasonably successful but the native oyster hatcheries have not been able to produce regular supplies. This is, therefore, all the more reason to revitalise native beds.

37.The prospects for the oyster industry are related to the problem of oyster disease in France. At the moment the scarcity of oysters due to disease has pushed prices very high and demand has collapsed. In addition, it is no longer possible to continue the established practice of exporting native Irish oysters to France, storing them on French oyster beds, and extracting them for sale according to market conditions. The presence of disease in the beds rules this out. Consequently, the oysters are now exported in smaller quantities through Holland (with no storage). This raises transport costs and introduces a new “middleman”. If the French oyster diseases are overcome and the market returns to normal, prospects for native oyster production will improve.

As regards Pacific oysters, these are not exported to France because French production costs for these oysters are too low for Irish producers to be able to compete The UK is the main market with a limited summer market in Ireland. There is a need for further genetic research to improve stock quality with regard to meat, growth rates and resistance to disease.

(iv) Mussels

38.Like oysters, mussels can be grown extensively or intensively. In the extensive case, seed mussels are dredged from offshore sites and placed in shallower waters where growth is faster. The fully-grown mussels are then more easily harvested. At the turn of the century there was a large output of mussels in Ireland using such techniques, but overfishing caused a severe decline in output. In recent years the revitalisation of old beds and the development of new ones has boosted production. Intensive culture involves the collection of spat, which are placed in mesh stockings and suspended from lines, rafts, or poles. Rafts are more expensive than longline ropes (which are supported by floating barrels) but easier to harvest. The system of growing mussels on poles or stakes is called the Bouchot system. It requires a large flat intertidal area. The suspension system produces high quality mussels with thin shells and high meat yields.

Harvesting of both oysters and mussels is labour intensive. The shellfish must be gathered, washed and graded by size. A boat is needed as well as shore based facilities.

39.Cultivation of mussels by suspension techniques is relatively new to Ireland but it offers considerable potential. Further research concerning production techniques is underway. As the sector expands there will be a need for new sources of mussel spat. The prospects for bottom-cultivated mussels are good. There is a thriving industry in the Wexford area, and a considerable amount of processing for the UK market. Raft-cultured mussels are sold on the French market, where the mussel producing and purchasing trade is closely-knit, often through family relationships. As a result exports are possible only during short periods when local French supplies are inadequate. The Joint Committee feels that if these marketing obstacles could be overcome the prospects for intensively-grown mussels would be good.

40.Careful management of the mussel beds is essential - overfishing in one year will be followed by small harvests in subsequent years. Appendix III shows the large jump in mussel production in 1984 which was partly due to very heavy dredging of the Cromare beds near Dingle, County Kerry. As a consequence supply fell in 1985.

Volume and continuity are essential for export success. Without the volume it becomes uneconomical to transport the mussels by truck to France, while the French importers insist on a regular dependable supply.

(v) Other Species

41.There are other species that might be cultivated such as scallops, clams, eels, bass, sturgeon, lobster, shrimps and consequence suabalone. But it is generally agreed that the Irish industry should concentrate on the above four fish. In that way expertise can be developed, and the limited R & D funds can be directed towards improving the technology, knowledge of genetics and control of disease in those species.

F. THE AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY IN IRELAND

42.The aquaculture sector began to develop in Ireland in the mid-1970s. In 1977 the industry was still at an experimental stage (except for mussel production) but there has been rapid growth since then, as indicated in Table 3. Three points may be noted. First, the growth rates would be impressive in percentage terms but the tiny starting levels of all species but mussels, make such percentage calculations inappropriate. (It may, however, be seen that mussel production has increased almost four fold). Second, aquaculture output during these years has performed only moderately well when compared to a set of projections, made by the NBST (1982a) regarding the potential for growth (Table 4).

Tabel 3. Production of the Main Aquaculture Species, 1977 and 1985.

Source: NBST (1982a) and ‘Ireland: Aquaculture’, Department of Fisheries.

Table 4. Actual and Projected Output in 1983

Source: NBST (1982a) and Appendix 1.

43.The volume of production was almost exactly what had been projected, but its value was less than three-quarters of the projected level. This was because targets for the less valuable species (mussels) were more than attained while those for the higher priced species were not reached. The value of salmon and trout output was a little less than three-quarters of what had been hoped for. Oyster production was just under two-thirds. And in the case of mussels, more of the increase than had been foreseen occurred in the extensively cultured mussels (worth about £120 per ton in 1983) and less in the intensively cultured mussels (worth nearly £400 per ton in 1983). It must be stressed that the NBST figures were not a forecast, but an estimate of what could be possible if certain obstacles hindering the development of the industry were removed. Unfortunately, as will be seen in the next paragraph of this report, many of these obstacles are as serious now as they were five years ago.

Third, Irish output is still very small compared to the levels in other European countries (as was seen in Section D).

Obstacles Hindering the Development of the Industry

44.The fish farming industry has been studied in recent years by a number of public bodies and the reports which have resulted broadly reach the same conclusions. The obstacles facing the industry can be grouped under the following headings:

(i)The need for an overall plan for the industry

(ii)The legislative basis for aquaculture

(iii)The need for investment and the role of the European Community

(iv)The fragmentary state of research and development

(v)The importance of marketing and quality control

(vi)The role of training and advisory services

(vii)The need to maintain the quality of the environment

(viii)The shortages of supplies of juveniles

(ix)The role of local communities

(x)Inadequate compilation of statistics

(i) The need for an overall plan for the industry

45.At the present time there is no single body with responsibility for developing the aquaculture industry. On the other hand, there are as many as 23 bodies with responsibility for some aspect of the industry (eg legislation, licensing, conservation, R & D, advisory services, grant aid, marketing, employment creation, training and education, environment protection, food hygiene, etc., see Appendix II).

The Sectoral Consultative Committee (SCC) recommended that aquaculture policy be the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries, while a single agency be given the job of implementing this policy. This agency would review policy in consultation with the Department, produce an integrated development plan, and co-ordinate the activities of other public bodies involved with aquaculture. In the interim, the SCC suggested that a Steering Committee be established to co-ordinate the development of the industry.

46.The Dail Committee on Public Expenditure considered the state of the fish farming sector and also declared itself dissatisfied at the unco-ordinated way State agencies related to the industry. The Committee recommended that Bord Iascaigh Mhara (BIM) have overall responsibility for aquaculture.

To date, no agency has been given charge of the State role in aquaculture and there is no Steering Committee.

47.An overall development policy for the industry needs to be formulated. This should be done in conjunction with fishery policy in general, and be included in the Fishery White Paper currently in preparation. Special account must be taken of the Community’s aquaculture policies and programmes as well as developments in the industry in other European countries.

48.As might be expected, attitudes towards the problem of co-ordinating the industry vary between the different agencies. Some of the bodies which are involved peripherally criticise the Department and BIM for not having established a co-ordinating mechanism before now. These groups argue that they have become involved because they saw needs which the Department and BIM were not responding to. From the perspective of the latter organisations, however, it is pointed out that - judging by past experience - attempts to co-ordinate autonomous agencies will not be effective without the force of a government decision behind them. It is more efficient to obtain a package of decisions at one time, in the form of a White Paper, than piecemeal. Consequently, it is unlikely that there will be much improvement in this area until the White Paper appears, and so it must be urged that that will be soon.

49.All groups are agreed that the publication of the Fisheries White Paper will be of considerable assistance to the aquaculture industry. It will indicate a government commitment to fish farming, it will outline the level of public resources being committed to the industry and it should draw the attention of private investors to the aquaculture sector.

(ii) The legislative basis for aquaculture

50.The 1980 Fisheries Act requires shellfish and finfish farmers to obtain a licence. The licences may only be granted in areas that have been designated by the Minister for Fisheries as suitable for aquaculture. A local inquiry must be held prior to any designation. There have been serious difficulties in implementing both the designation and licence-issuing aspects of this legislation. As regards licences, a foreshore licence must be obtained from the Department of Communications, while a separate aquaculture licence is needed from the Department of Fisheries. This duplication is time consuming. The SCC and the Dail Committee on Public Expenditure reports called for streamlining to take place as a matter of urgency. Though negotiations are taking place at the moment between the two Departments, which are believed to be making progress, the matter is still unresolved.

51.The designation process has proved to be a hornet’s nest. Nine public inquiries were held in 1984, but only one led to a designation. This was because of conflict between the Department of Fisheries, local County Councils, the IDA and tourism interests regarding the conflicting use of coastal areas for aquaculture, sewage disposal, industrial purposes and tourism. Deadlock was reached for a period. However, more recently, the various bodies have come together and divided the coast into parts where its use for fish farming is not contentious and other areas where such use is disputed. This has allowed the Department to proceed with designation in the uncontentious areas. At present three areas have been designated for aquaculture:

(a)Blacksod/Eily/Broadhaven Bays, Co. Mayo

(b)Achill Sound/Finton Bay/Ballacragher Bay, Co. Mayo, and

(c)Killary Harbour, Co. Galway.

A further 6-10 designations are expected in the next few months by which time 22 public inquiries will have been held. This progress is to be welcomed, although the fact that it has taken six years to reach the present state of affairs indicates the long delays in even partly removing obstacles to the development of the industry.

52.In the case of disputed sites, such as Cork Harbour, negotiations are continuing between the interested parties. It is to be hoped that in these discussions local and tourism interests will note that fish farms have actually become tourist attractions in other countries, and that a fish farm is an excellent local safeguard against environmental pollution. Until now, aquaculture licences could not be issued because designations had not taken place.

53.As an interim measure however, draft foreshore licences and fish culture licences were granted. The temporary nature of the former has led to serious problems with insurance, while the latter licences only protects the fish farmer against prosecution for possession of out-of-season and undersized fish. It does not give actual rights in the sea. This has led to doubts about fish farmers’ rights of ownership of fish in floating structures, and their ability to seek legal redress against theft. For these reasons the legal position needs clarification and progress in issuing licences and continuing with designations is urgently required.

54.At the moment there is a backlog of more than 500 applications for aquaculture licences, 330 are for shellfish and 170 for finfish. Of course not all of these will necessarily be judged acceptable, but the scale of the present logjam is evident. In addition, the NBST (1982a) report on the industry felt that there was a need for legislation to control the movement of diseased shellfish from one site to another. Furthermore, the licensing and control of salmon fishing is in serious disarray. Illegal drift netting is commonplace with very serious consequences for the salmon stock. There is considerable conflict between fishermen and the Fishery Protection Service. The SCC report argued that a new licensing system, which is workable and had the support of fishermen, is a necessity. This is especially important because of the great value to the economy of tourist angling. In his Report “The Cost to Fisheries of River Pollution” (1986) O’Connor has estimated that the average expenditure by tourist anglers per salmon caught on rod and line in 1985 was £300 compared to about £14 for a netted salmon caught in the sea.

(iii) The need for investment and the role of the European Community

55.This aspect of the industry, is later discussed fully in the ‘Investment in the Industry’ section of the report.

(iv) The fragmentary state of research and development

56.The comparatively early stage of development of the industry means that there is a great deal of research required on biological, engineering, oceanographic and environmental issues. Fish genetics, nutrition and disease are issues about which there is still much to be learned. The seasonal occurrence of algal blooms (‘red tide’) in coastal water can cause heavy mortalities of fish life and even prove toxic. There is a need to monitor and study these blooms with a view to at least being able to forecast their occurrence. In the area of salmon disease, the ESB and Fanad Fisheries (Co. Donegal) arranged for the Institute of Aquaculture in Stirling University to supply advice on a consultancy basis. UCG also became involved. The NBST part-funded a Fish Disease Diagnostic Unit until 1984/85. An agreement was then reached between BIM, the IAA and Udaras na Gaeltachta that the industry would itself gradually take over funding the Unit. At the present time, the Unit is being funded by 6-9 Connemara fish farms, to whom the services of the Unit are now available. The establishment of the Unit has been a big step forward on the disease front but an expanded service is needed.

57.Many of the structures and equipment presently used in aquaculture in Ireland were designed and developed for other countries, to suit their specific conditions. This has sometimes meant that they are not completely suitable for Ireland and there is a need to investigate better design of cages, on-shore ponds and vessels. Similarly, the strains of salmon smolt being imported by Irish fish farms from Norway were developed to be ideal for Norwegian conditions. Though they are good in Irish conditions, genetic research could make possible strains that would be ideal here. Such research is extremely expensive, however, and quite slow. It is thought that this year alone, Norway could be spending up to £8m. on genetics research alone. Site selection has been studied in general terms by the NBST (1982b), but a more detailed on-site examination is now required. This is being done in a piecemeal way by two recently hired YEA Mariculture Officers, by Taighde Mara Teo. and by SFADCO. The general availability of the research is limited.

58.The NBST had a Marine Programme until 1982 but its involvement in research is now being scaled down. It part-funds the Shellfish Research Laboratory (SRL) in Carna, County Galway, but since its own budget is shrinking its support for the SRL will fall also. Consequently, the SRL is moving towards making charges for contracted research. A study will shortly be published by the NBST on an integrated aquaculture system using Kilkiernan-Bertraghboy Bay /County Galway as a model. The idea of an integrated system is that different parts of an estuary or bay could be used for the production of different aquaculture species at various stages of development. Water quality is, of course, essential to aquaculture, particularly as shellfish are eaten raw. However, the monitoring of the marine environment is minimal. Research is needed on the effect of aquaculture itself on the environment, as well as the regular collection of data that would assist in pinpointing the source of any pollution which might be occurring.

59.At the moment the funds available for research are modest. The SCC estimated the total spent on fisheries to be about IR£1.784m in 1983. Not all of this sum is spent on aquaculture research, naturally, so R & D in the fish farming industry is smaller again. It is therefore very serious that the research effort should be so fragmented and unco-ordinated. The SCC strongly recommended that R & D be centrally controlled. The various research needs could then be listed and prioritised, and funds directed accordingly. The SCC suggested that 75 per cent of R & D monies be targeted at the priority species: salmon, oysters and mussels.

60.At the moment there are very many separate bodies engaged in research. They include:

-The Fishery Research Centre in Abbotstown.

-The Shellfish Research Laboratory in Carna (attached to UCG).

-The School of Marine Sciences in UCG (involving the Departments of Zoology, Oceanography, Botany and Microbiology).

-The Marine and Coastal Research Group in UCC.

-The Salmon Research Trust.

-The Regional Technical Colleges in Galway, Letterkenny and Tralee, where the training of aquaculturists takes place.

-Taighde Mara Teo., funded by Udaras na Gaeltachta.

-The ESB.

-Bord Iascaigh Mhara.

-The NBST.

-The Marine Division of the IIRS.

These bodies are geographically separated and lack any institutional ‘umbrella’. Research is divided: many staff have other responsibilities (teaching or supervision); and facilities are inadequate.

61.The SCC concluded that there was a need for a Marine Institute which would organise a national research effort for the fishing industry, including fish farming. In such a setting it would be possible to encourage interdisciplinary studies, to compile a data base, and to organise research in a multi-annual programmatic way. Environmental studies could be conducted to establish the effects of aquaculture on the marine environment and wildlife, and to examine the carrying capacity of water for various forms of fish farming. The Institute would monitor the incidence of fish disease as well as coastal, river and estuarine pollution. Because of the applied nature of much of the research it would be essential to establish liaison between the industry (the users of any research) and the scientists (the producers). In this way there could be feedback to the researchers and guidance as regards future research needs.

62.The question of a marine institute is currently under consideration by a Marine Task Force under the aegis of the Department of Industry and Commerce which is to make recommendations on the appropriate framework for marine R & D. The Task Force will have available to it a consultant’s report on the organisation of marine research in Ireland, which was commissioned by the NBST in 1986. That Report reviews a number of recent studies which have made various proposals regarding the appropriate Departmental structures for fisheries, and the best relationship between a fisheries department and publicly funded marine research. The Report also discusses the organisational structure and funding arrangements for marine R & D in Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands and the kind of research which a Marine Institute might conduct in Ireland. It analyses the different institutional arrangements under which Irish marine research could be developed.

63.The NBST consultant’s report is very relevant to the question of how aquaculture R & D can best be co-ordinated, because it addresses some of the considerable difficulties involved. The range of different kinds of organisations presently involved in R & D - University departments, private companies, public companies, and laboratories linked to third level colleges and to government departments - is so varied that a structure which could successfully accommodate them all is very hard to imagine. In particular, there is the problem of having a structure which would incorporate civil servants as well as other public servants and private employees. An arrangement best suited to one group may have difficulty accommodating the others, and vice versa. In addition, any co-ordinating mechanism would have to be in control of the finances for the work it co-ordinates. This would mean control over part of the discretionary budgets of the bodies concerned. It would not be easy to get autonomous organisations to yield such financial control, but without it, the co-ordinating committee would have no power.

64.In the interim the SCC argued for the establishment of an Aquaculture Research Coordinating Group. Such a committee, representative of the various research bodies and the industry, would set priorities and allocate research tasks according to an agreed tendering system. No such committee has, however, been created, although an ad hoc co-ordinating group has been established by the NBST to advise the SRL, regarding research priorities. There is also a separate need for research in the sphere of marketing. Two studies were conducted for BIM, in 1979 and in 1980 (Glude, 1979 and Landell Mills Associates Ltd., 1980). While the SCC noted that BIM was conducting research into priority markets it urged that such efforts be stepped up. Target markets and target levels of sales need to be set jointly by BIM and CTT, and special efforts made to develop and promote new products.

It was estimated that technical R & D work would cost IR£1.4 million (in 1984 prices) over a five year period (see Table 5 p. 49).

65.The Dail Committee on Public Expenditure also criticised the state of fishing (including aquaculture) R & D. It stressed the waste in failing to properly organise the efforts of skilled and costly researchers, and feared that failures in as important an area as R & D would have far reaching effects. The Dail Committee on Public Expenditure noted the observation made by the Management Services Unit of the Department of the Public Service ,that competition for funds had obstructed the co-ordination and free exchanges of information between research bodies. In addition, the research objectives of at least some of these bodies are not well defined, perhaps partly because of the absence of a national R & D policy. The Committee felt that the aquaculture industry (along with the fishing industry in general) should be contributing more private funding to R & D. It also recommended that BIM be given responsibility for marine research, while the Central Fisheries Board (CFB) should look after fresh water R & D. However, the research

Table 5:Estimated Costs of R & D Work in Aquaculture over a Five Year Period

Source: Sectoral Consultative Committee, Appendix 47.

activities of the two agencies should remain in close contact.

66.The duplication at a national level of aquaculture research is mirrored at an international level. The European Commission is concerned at this fact and is anxious to harmonise R & D efforts. At present there are a number of co-operative studies taking place within the framework of COST 46 (European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research). The International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) is also promoting international aquaculture research, but there is great scope for further work of this kind. The Commission is anxious to increase the harmonisation of research efforts in the different Member States.

67.The unavoidable conclusion is that the task of co-ordinating the aquaculture industry, in respect of research and otherwise, is an ambitious undertaking fraught with many genuine difficulties. Recommending co-ordination, and achieving it are very different things and it will take a major effort, backed by a strong commitment to achieve an improvement in the present state of affairs. But if it is correct that the fragmentation of the research effort is seriously impairing the results (and there seems little doubt about that), then the importance of increasing co-ordination is clear.

(v) The importance of marketing* and quality control

68.The role of marketing is central to the development of fish farming. Based on a regular supply of quality produce, there needs to be product development and consumer education.

The Dail Committee on Public Expenditure felt that quality control was an industry responsibility and should therefore be part-funded by the industry. Unless high standards are maintained it will not be possible to achieve prices high enough to cover the large investments. The SCC recommended that the renewal of fish farm licences should be linked to the satisfaction of national quality standards. In particular, exporters should be licensed in order to maintain a good image for Irish output. The SCC recommended that a producer organisation be established for finfish and shellfish. The objective would be for these bodies, in conjunction with BIM and CTT, to establish a national brand image, maintain quality standards and take responsibility for export marketing. Happily, in the case of salmon, such an organisation has been set up. The Salmon Producers’ Sales Group (SPSG) was formed with the help of NDC funds in January 1985. Its first year has been judged a success with sales of 190 tonnes of salmon, mainly to France. The intention is to place marketing in the hands of skilled salespeople and leave the aquaculturists to what they are best at: fish farming.

69.As well as the SPSG there is the industry’s overall trade body, the Irish Aquaculture Association (IAA), which was set up in 1976. Membership of the IAA had been confined to fish farmers and so an Irish Marine Farmers Association was started in 1980, which admitted people involved in an indirect way with the industry (eg researchers, processors, etc.). Merger plans between the IAA and the IMFA are well in progress and the amalgamation may occur in 1987. There have been tentative movements towards establishing organisations for mussels and oyster farmers and it is to be hoped that these will materialise.

70.At the present time, quality control is divided between the Department of Health (which has responsibility for food hygiene) and the Department of Fisheries (which should enforce handling, storage and transport regulations). But with only 12 Inspectors such enforcement does not in fact take place. Although there are negotiations between the two Departments to rationalise the situation there has not been much progress. A separate but important aspect of quality control, relating in particular to oysters and mussels, is the question of water quality. At the moment Irish fish products have the advantage of a high quality aquatic environment and it is very important that this be maintained. Sewage discharge, industrial effluent and the growth of certain algae can seriously affect the quality of shellfish and even pose a risk to public health. Investment in quality control at later stages in the production process will serve no purpose unless the quality of the product is protected during the initial growth phase. The SCC was able to identify in principle, the major opportunities for aquaculture exports, as well as the present constraints. These are summarised in Table 6.

71.In the main, these opportunities are for frozen steaks and fresh and frozen Atlantic salmon directed at European and world markets; smoked rainbow trout for sale in West Germany; and frozen and marinated mussels for the German and US markets. In the case of mussels and salmon, it is important that the fish be developed into new products and promoted in the various markets. The SCC urged that BIM devise a new marketing strategy for aquaculture, with the emphasis on greater value-added than at present. The bulk of aquaculture output is now

Table 6: Export Market Opportunities and Constraints for Irish Aquaculutre Produce

Source: Sectoral Consultative Committee, Appendices 55 and 56. sold fresh, with the exception of mussels where perhaps half of bottom-cultured output is processed. As the supply of salmon and oysters increases there will probably be some smoking of the fish. This is desirable since the value of fish when processed can be increased many-fold.

72.The opportunities sketched in Table 6 need to be quantified by market intelligence, and the resulting information widely disseminated to the industry. The involvement of producers in the marketing effort is highly desirable and the producer organisations could play an important role in this regard. The NBST (1982a), reviewing the marketing studies produced to date, felt that there were indications of excellent market outlets for live as well as processed produce. But this could only be realised if there is a steady flow of information concerning supply, demand and price conditions for aquaculture output, both on the domestic market and internationally. In the absence of this kind of market intelligence, as at present, producers who discover unexpectedly that they cannot sell their output have to attempt to make personal contact with foreign traders, to discover if the latter are interested in buying the output. Similarly, domestic retailers may have difficulty finding domestic producers and discovering their likely level of production. The SCC noted that Irish shellfish producers face very high transport costs in getting supplies to the main European markets. There is a clear case for seeking special Community aid to assist producers in peripheral regions to overcome this handicap.

73.As regards the consumer education aspect of marketing, a major effort will have to be made in this area if the domestic market for aquaculture output is to expand. The strongly conservative attitude of the consumer to fish products will need to be changed. This can partly be achieved by the production of fish in the ‘convenience food’ form in which other foods are now available (ie steaks, frozen food, etc.). However, the availability and distribution of produce is also important. The fairly recent decision by the major retail chains to seriously promote fish products may produce a change of attitude on the part of consumers towards fish in general. But smaller retailers will need to be advised about the best ways of handling, storing and presenting aquaculture foods. However, retailers of all kinds will not be interested in selling such produce unless regular supplies and strict quality control can be guaranteed. Furthermore, by encouraging the catering industry to make greater use of fish, the domestic market for aquaculture products could be greatly expanded.

74.A major asset of fish products, which must be emphasised in any marketing drive is their importance from a health point of view. Consumers everywhere are becoming more aware of fish as a health food and this aspect is being stressed by the marketing people. As certain meats become less acceptable on medical grounds there will be a major opportunity for increasing fish sales, though the Sellafield scare in the Irish sea has not helped fish consumption in Ireland in the past year.

(vi) The role of training and advisory services

75.To attain the levels of production and employment in the industry which were projected by the SCC there will be need for an adequate training programme and for well-organised advisory services. At the moment there are a number of training courses available: Galway RTC has a two-year National Certificate in Aquaculture, which includes practical experience during the summer. The course is now oversubscribed by a factor of 20. Fifty graduates were produced between 1976 and 1985. After a further two years it is possible to gain an Honours B.Sc. in Aquaculture. European Social Fund Grants are available for students under 25 years. Letterkenny RTC offers a one-year Certificate in the Technology of Aquaculture. UCG organises graduate courses based at the Shellfish Research Laboratory: a 20 month Diploma in Applied Science and an M.Sc. UCC also offers an M. Sc. degree. This proliferation is causing some conceern, as it is seen as third level colleges attempting to offer ‘relevant’ courses without any linkage to the industry’s needs.

76.Training at the operative level is needed in skills such as fish handling, and grading, quality assessment, hygiene and presentation. BIM hopes to have organised a National Training Scheme to satisfy these needs by the end of this year. Both the NBST (1982a) and the SCC urged that consideration be given to setting up a national demonstration fish farm. This could be used for training courses as well as serving R & D purposes.

Finally, because many of our European neighbours have a more developed aquaculture industry, much can be learned by visits to fish farm installations in France, Spain, Norway and elsewhere. Sponsorship for such tours, as part of training courses, could be very beneficial.

77.Meanwhile, advisory services are the point of contact between R & D work and its commercial implementation. A nationally organised but regionally basied advisory service has played an important role in the development of the industry in other countries. This is especially important for small firms. The large companies are often able to look after their own needs. There is a particular need for advice in the areas of:

-disease diagnosis

-environmental monitoring, and

-aquaculture engineering.

78.A serious deterioration in water quality, or the outbreak of disease, can mean catastrophic losses for an aquaculturist unless it is dealt with promptly. This means that a regionally based service is essential, with access when necessary to specialist skills. At the moment the provision of advisory services is divided between the Department of Fisheries, BIM, the NBST, and in Gaeltacht areas, Udaras na Gaeltachta. This means that a fish farmer seeking advice might phone BIM and be given some advice, and then be referred to the Fisheries Research Centre (FRC). From there s/he might be referred to the NBST, the SRL, Taighde Mara Teo., and so on. This ‘doing the rounds’ is very wasteful of the time of the staffs of the above bodies, as well as being inefficient and possibly frustrating for the fish farmer. The resources for an advisory service are currently divided between many organisations and there is a very strong case for a re-organisation in a more rational way.

79.It was the view of the SCC that advisory services should be made self-financing within 5 years.

(vii) The need to maintain the quality of the environment

There is a two-way connection between aquaculture and the the marine environment. For fish farming to be successful it is essential to have careful controls on the environment in the vicinity of farming operations. Use of the foreshore and water in these areas must be restricted to maintain water quality. This can result in conflict with the users of coastal lands, with tourism interests, inshore fishermen and Co. Council waste disposal activities. Equally, freshwater farmers need controls on other water users, particularly upstream. From time to time these interests clash.* Conversely, aquacultural activities - especially if on a large scale - may pollute the marine environment because of the discharge of waste matter and effluent from the fish farm. However, very little is known at the moment regarding this possibility. With the present and projected growth of the industry it is important that such effects of fish farms be studied in advance. There is a need for continued research on such matters, as well as routine monitoring of water quality, and the identification of the most suitable parts of the coast for aquaculture.

(viii) The shortage of supplies of juveniles

80.Quite obviously, an adequate and secure supply of high quality juveniles is essential to the aquaculture industry.

At the present time there are problems with regard to the adequacy, consistency and quality of supplies. This is a major constraint to the expansion of the industry. The situation with regard to salmon was discussed in section D (i). The quality of such smolts could be crucial - ideally they should be resistent to disease, have a good growth rate and be slow to mature. Norway recognised the importance of the supply of juveniles early in the development of its aquaculture industry and concentrated a lot of effort in that area. It is now reaping the benefits. Ireland faces the conflict that at the moment many salmon smolts are used to re-stock rivers.

81.As regards mussels, Ireland relies on natural (as opposed to hatchery) spatfall. While good supplies are available in Killary Harbour it will be necessary to develop new sources for expanded production in the future. Reliance on natural spatfall can be risky. The SCC recommended the establishment of a national spatfall monitoring and forecasting service which would allow optimal exploitation of the supply of spat. As with other species, the relationship between mussel spatfall and marine conditions is not well understood: there may be heavy spatfall in one area and none very close by. But careful management of mussel beds can greatly increase the collection of spat. The NBST (1982a) felt that collection of spat is falling far short of what is possible using certain techniques, (see Section D (iv)) and it is urged that local communities be educated and encouraged to increase spat collection. The SCC recommended a monitoring and forecasting service for this species also. Hatchery produced mussel spat are mainly imported from the UK and supplies are not always dependable because of heavy demand from other European producers. The NBST warned that the supply of juveniles was the single most important factor restricting the development of the industry.

(ix) The role of local communities

82.The areas which are suitable for aquaculture ventures are mainly characterised by very poor economic conditions. Incomes are lower, and unemployment higher, than the national average. Agriculture takes place on poor soils in small farm units. Physical infrastructure is very poor, and industrial development often limited. The local fishing industry is often small and inshore. The arrival of fish farms in these areas offers some promising opportunities. There is scope for direct employment, the eventual development of processing and other downstream activities (there are now three cage production companies in Ireland), and a general improvement in economic circumstances in the areas. However, it is also possible for relations between the community and the aquaculture ventures to turn sour if the matter is badly handled. For instance, it may be believed that fish farms will interfere with inshore fishing and vice versa.

83.The development agencies, Bord Iascaigh Mhara and Udaras na Gaeltachta, should encourage the involvement of local communities, who will possess relevant fishing skills, in the new enterprise. This is the surest safeguard against misunderstandings occurring. It is easy for opponents of aquaculture projects to get a lot of press coverage and for suspicions and bad feelings to develop from these. At a policy level the Joint Committee considers that the State needs to decide how much of the expansion in aquaculture it wants undertaken by large (perhaps foreign) companies and how many local initiatives it wishes to encourage.

(x) Inadequate compilation of statistics

84.From the point of view of the development agencies (as well as marketing organisations) it is essential to have nationwide data on the number of aquaculture projects, the annual production of the different species, the prices prevailing, the levels of employment, the markets to which farmed fish are exported, and the origins of fish imports. The SCC remarked on the poor information presently available. For instance, in the preparation of this report, considerable efforts were made to try to discover the level of public funding of aquaculture R & D in 1985. These efforts were largely unsuccessful. It is not possible to engage in proper planning for the industry without adequate data being readily available. There is the possibility that the European producer organisation for aquaculture FES (Federation Europeene de la Salmoniculture) will set up a computer database on prices and production later in 1986.

Investment in the Industry

85.The set up costs of an aquaculture venture are very considerable. However, substantial funding is available from State and EEC sources. The European Agricultural Guarnatee and Guidance Fund (FEOGA) can provide grants up to 40% of the capital costs and BIM will supplement this by 10%. In Gaeltacht areas Udaras na Gaeltachta may pay additional grant aid of between 5% and 25%. At present projects in the Bantry area can acquire a 20% supplement from BIM. These grants are administered by BIM and - in Gaeltacht areas - by Udaras na Gaeltachta. Funding is also available through the NDC and the YEA. Table 7 presents figures on the extent of public investment in Irish aquaculture between 1975 and 1985.

86.It is evident that investment began in a serious way in 1979, and increased seven-fold between then and 1985 when almost £½m. were spent in support of fish farming. The share of the money coming from Europe has varied considerably over the years. Up to 1983 four-fifths or more of the funds came from the EEC but the proportion has fallen steadily since then and was down to one-tenth last year.

Table 7: State and EEC Grant-Aid to Aquaculutre Ventures 1975-1985 (Approvals)¹ IR£’000.

Source: Individual Organisations.

There are two reasons for this. On the Irish side, the number of agencies providing funding has increased, with the involvement recently of the NDC and the YEA. This, together with an increased level of funding from BIM and Udaras na Gaeltachta (particularly the latter), has meant a rise in State investment in aquaculture from £600,000 in 1983 to £3m. in 1985.

87.On the EEC side the level of funding has declined sharply from nearly £900,000 in 1983 to £325,000 last year. It is maintained that this was due to a lull in aquaculture investment for a few years because of the severe shortage of salmon smolts which made it impossible to set up salmon farms. Recent investment by BIM and the NDC has however led to several new salmon hatcheries being built and they should come on stream in 2-3 years. There are believed to be a large number of applications for FEOGA grants being processed at the moment and so the level of EEC finance for aquaculture is expected to rise sharply this year and to remain at a high level. In the past three years, during the period of operation of Council Regulation (EEC) 2908/83, the Community spent 26 million ecus on aquaculture support (ie, approximately IR£20m. *). Table 8 (p. 71) gives a breakdown of the investment by country and year. Ireland was the second highest recipient of EEC funds, obtaining about 15%. Italy received the most, 43%.

88.The data presented in SEC (86) 975 suggest that total investment in European aquaculture (both EEC, private and other), in projects for which EEC financial aid was sought, totalled 86 million ecus (about IR£66m) over 1983-85. This was made up of about 20 million ecus in 1983 and 1984, jumping to nearly 40 million ecus in 1985. In Ireland the total investment in projects for which EEC financial aid was sought, was 11 million ecus (or about IR£8½m): 3.5 million ecus in 1983, 3 million in 1984 and, again, a sharp increase to 4.5 million ecus in 1985. Table 9 (p.71 ) compares EEC investment in the fisheries sector and the aquaculture sector in Ireland. A substantial proportion of EEC monies have been directed towards fish farming. This is to be expected given the constraints on the expansion of the catching sector set by fish quotas, which have resulted from depletion of fish stocks. The percentage of EEC fisheries investment in Ireland devoted to aquaculture (47%) is more than double the percentage of EEC fisheries investment going to aquaculture across the whole Community (20%) during the years 1983-85.

89.It is gratifying to note that the Commission has proposed to the Council that it may continue to grant Community financial aid for aquaculture projects over the next ten years and it is hoped that this proposal will be adopted.

Up to and including 1983, the flow of financial support to aquaculture from Europe was one of the crucial factors in the expansion of the industry. Since then support has declined but it is essential that it be increased again in the coming years. The rapid growth in public investment in aquaculture during the 1980s will continue as the sector expands. As the prominence of the industry grows, and as events such as the forthcoming Fisheries White Paper draw attention to the potential of fish farming, private investment funds must also be encouraged to become involved in developing the industry.

Table 8: EEC Investment in Aquaculture (million ECUs) in the Member States*, 1983-85.

Table 9: EEC Investment 1 in Fishing and Aquaculture in Ireland 1983-85 (million ecu)

Employment and Growth in the Industry

90.A survey conducted by BIM and the Irish Aquaculture Association (IAA) suggests that direct employment in the industry during 1985 might have been 1,228 people. Of these, about 200 were full-time and the remainder part-time. Clearly, fish farming is not an industry with high employment. However, given that the coastal regions which are suitable for fish farming are often remote and underdeveloped, the local employment impact of aquaculture development can be significant. Even 20 people employed in one of these regions could make an important contribution to the economy of the district. Increases in employment will depend on the degree and form of the expansion in fish farming. Growth could be in the form of a large number of small firms (as in Norway) or a small number of large firms (as in Scotland). The former approach should produce higher employment and integrate more easily into the local community. The Norwegian government, in choosing this strategy, passed a law in 1981 which limits the size of a fish farm to 8,000 cubic metres. A farm of this size employs 4 people and produces 200 tonnes of salmon per annum.

91.However, the cost of establishing, for instance, a salmon farm is very high. Landell Mills (1981) estimated it would have cost £165,000 a year in capital expenditure in 1975 together with several years operating costs of £245,000 a year. The average investment in today’s money would be about IR£600,000 for a farm producing 200 tonnes annually or IR£3,000 per tonne. It would not be easy for a small local community to raise these funds except through the formation of a co-operative society or some such body. The advantages of the large farm strategy are that bigger firms can cope better with the capital problem and with rapidly changing technology. They also have the marketing resources to break into European and world markets. A closely related question is the involvement of large foreign firms in the Irish industry. These firms can bring substantial investment funds and very valuable technical know-how, but much of the profits will probably be sent back to the home country.

92.A balance has therefore to be struck between large-scale and small-scale development of the industry, and between national and foreign involvement. The Joint Committee believes that a national plan for the industry would involve deciding just what the balance should be. It is important, and urgent, that the Government decides what way it wants the industry to develop rather than letting matters take their own course. Employment increases presuppose increased production. A number of output projections have been made by such bodies as BIM, the NBST and the Department of Fisheries regarding the growth that could be achieved over the next fifteen years, provided that the constraints facing the industry are tackled. Table 10 (p.75) gives the Joint Committees’ projections for aquaculture output in 1990, based on the output of 1985 and the trend in recent years (see Appendix III). The table also includes actual output in 1985 and the NBST’s projection of production in the year 2000.

93.Table 11 (p.75) gives a breakdown by county of the employment in aquaculture on the basis of the IAA/BIM survey of Spring 1985. The output growth projected in Table 11 will mean increases in employment. The Department of Finance (1985) estimated that employment might grow to 280 people full-time and 1,400 part-time by 1993. On the basis of the present growth, and the number of new licences being sought it seems possible that these numbers will be reached sooner, perhaps by 1990.

Table 10: Actual Output in 1985 and Projections for 1990 and the Year 2000

Source: 1985(BIM), 1990(the authors), 2000(NBST 1982a).

Table 11: Number of People Employed Full-time and Part-time in Aquaculture, 1985

94.So, it seems possible for the aquaculture industry to grow from a £7m. industry in 1985 to one worth £27m. in 1990 and probably £173m. in the year 2000 (at 1985 prices). If this happens the importance of aquaculture relative to fishing will rise steadily. The wild fish catch was worth £53m. in 1985, but because of EEC quotas this is expected to reach only £80m. at 1985 prices, by the year 2000 (NBST (1986)). Thus, aquaculture, worth 13% of the wild fish catch in 1985, could be worth more than twice the wild catch by the turn of the century. As a final comment, it must be said that a large increase in fish consumption will have a depressing effect on the demand for meat, since there is bound to be some substitution. This may prove serious for the Irish economy because of the importance of beef and cattle to the farming industry. Thus, the net gain to the economy from the expansion of aquaculture could be less than the gross gain from fish farming. However, we have little option but to press on with the expansion of aquaculture. The growth in fish farming in Europe will affect Irish agriculture anyway, and so we must try to compensate for this to the greatest extent possible.

G. VIEWS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE

95.The aquaculture industry is in a buoyant state and has grown at a very fast rate in recent years. Fish farming is emerging from a decade of research and development and many operations - particularly salmon farms - are showing considerable profitability. The growth and profit records of the Norwegian and Scottish industries demonstrate the potential of aquaculture, and likewise Irish output can be expected to continue to expand at a very fast rate. We have substantial resources of unexploited production sites, together with an image of a pollution-free food producer. There are generous State and EEC financial aids which provide a powerful incentive towards the development of the industry. The technology required is being steadily improved, particularly as regards cage design and disease diagnosis and control. The establishment of a salmon producers’ marketing agency is a major step forward and should be followed by other producers.

96.But the Joint Committee feels that there are still some serious obstacles, which were discussed in depth in Section F. Although the greater part of the stimulus towards the development of the industry has come from public bodies, the co-ordination of public sector involvement has been poor. This problem was identified in the Sectoral Consultative Committee Report on the Fishing Industry in 1984 but very little progress has been made since then. The Joint Committee believes that it is therefore crucial that the Fisheries White Paper be published at the earliest possible date and its more important recommendations implemented.

97.The Joint Committee is very concerned that there are also serious deficiencies regarding aquaculture legislation, research and development, marketing, the provision of training and advisory services, and the supply of juveniles. It must be said that these problems have been studied and highlighted several times over (the SCC Report, the Dail Public Expenditure Committee Report, the NBST (1982a) report, and the present report). What is needed now is the political will power to address the problems and to implement solutions. The Joint Committee is pleased to note that the main political parties have recognised this problem in their recent policy programmes.

98.It is also essential that private investment be attracted into fish farming. To date this has been hampered by the short history and small size of the industry. These two factors have meant that the sector lacks a significant track record and lending institutions have little experience of it. The industry also involves quite high risks: there are biological, climatic and environmental hazards, the enterprise is technically complex, and much of the investment in this capital-intensive sector is tied up in highly perishable stocks. There is also a delay of several years between the initial investment and commercial sales giving rise to a heavy demand for working capital. For these reasons public financial support to the aquaculture industry has been crucial.

H. CONCLUSION

99.The Joint Committee believes that the scope for expansion of the Irish fish farming industry is very great but action is now required in a number of areas. Because of the importance to aquaculture of Community finance the Joint Committee urges the Department of Tourism, Fisheries and Forestry to closely monitor the Commission’s current deliberations regarding Community structural policy for aquaculture, and to ensure that all proposals in this area are well publicised.

100.The publication of the Fisheries White Paper is a matter of the greatest urgency. The Joint Committee feels that the White Paper must propose ways of removing the obstacles to the development of aquaculture which have been identified in this report. These proposals must then be implemented vigourously and without any further delay.

101.The lack of planning and of co-ordination of State involvement in the industry must be addressed. A single agency must be given responsibility for the implementation of a development plan for fish farming. A priority for this agency will be to end the duplication of public R & D efforts and to reorganise research in a rational way.

102.The process of designating aquaculture sites needs to be greatly accelerated, and the backlog of aquaculture licences numbering more than 500 speedily cleared. Furthermore, the Joint Committee feels that the Departments of Communications and Fisheries must end the duplication of licensing which they have so far failed to do.

103.The importance of marketing must be recognised. Unless the market for fish products expands as quickly as the supply of fish the future of the industry could be jeopardised. Therefore a successful marketing effort should be organised by the development agency in conjunction with Coras Trachtala (CTT).

104.The training and advisory services for aquaculture are at present poorly organised. Training courses have proliferated in a somewhat disorganised way and are not linked to the industry’s needs as closely as they should be. Advisory services are poorly developed and fragmented and require expansion and improved coordination. The inadequate supply of juvenile fish has been one of the biggest single constraints impeding the industry. Without a substantial increase in the production of juveniles the industry will be unable to expand. A vital task of the development agency for the industry will be to arrange plentiful supplies of juveniles.

In view of the importance of this Report the Joint Committee specifically requests a debate thereon in the Dail and Seanad.

References

Bord Iascaigh Mhara. “Five Year Development Plan for the Fishing Industry 1985-1989” (1984).

Dail Committee on Public Expenditure. “State Support and Services to the Fishing Industry” (1986).

Department of Fisheries, “Ireland: Aquaculture”, Pluri-annual Guidance Programme in Respect of Aquaculture prepared in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No. 2908/83. (1985).

European Commission, “Guidelines and Initiatives for the Development of the Common Fisheries Policy”, Commission communication to the Council. COM (86) 302 final. (1986).

European Commission, “Structural Policy in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector”, Commission working document. SEC (86) 975 final. (1986).

FAO, “Development of Aquaculture in Europe”, (1986).

Glude, “An Evaluation of Coastal Aquaculture in Ireland with Recommendations for an Aquaculture Development Strategy, Report prepared for BIM, (1979).

Landell Mills Associates Ltd., “Marketing and Economic Aspects of Fish Farming Development”, Report prepared for BIM (1980).

NBST, “Science and Technology for Aquaculture Development”, (1982a).

NBST, “Survey of Mariculture Activities and Potential Around the Irish Coast”, Aquaculture Technical Bulletin No. 7, (1982b).

NBST, “The Organisation of Marine Research in Ireland”, (1986).

O’Connor “The Cost to Fisheries of River Pollution”, Consultancy Report for Atlantic Salmon Trust. (1986) unpublished.

Sectoral Consultative Committee, “The Development of the Fishing Industry”, (1984).

NORINFORM, Norwegian Information Service (PO Box 241 Sentrum OIO3 Oslo) (15-23 September, 1986).

* Throughout this report ‘aquaculture’ is used to refer to both freshwater and seawater fish farming. The term mariculture, applying to the latter activity only is not used.

* Not available. Source: FAO (1986) except for Irish data. Note that FAO estimates are by local consultants and are not official figures.

* 1983 prices.

* At the time this report was finalised BIM was awaiting the arrival of two consultancy reports on the marketing of aquaculture products.

* At the moment An Oige and An Taisce are objecting to the placement of sea cages in Killary Harbour (eg, Sunday Tribune, 17th August 1986.)

1 Notes: 1 Not all approved funds are actually “drawn down” and there can be a considerable delay between approvals and payments.

* Since 1978 the EEC invested 49million ecu, or about IR£37m, in fish farming.

* Spain and Portugal joined in 1986. Source: SEC (86) 975 final.

(1) Under Council Regulation 2908/83. Source: SEC (86) 975 final.

1 Very tentative because of the number of different species involved.

2 Tonnes.

* At experimental stage only.

4 This estimate comes from NBST (1986) which revised upwards the salmon estimate of NBST (1982a)

3 £’000 at 1985 prices.