Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I welcome Robert Walsh from the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force (NIMTF). We have received your paper, Robert, but members may not have had time to read it. You may refer to it, but members might need to check through their emails to grab it, if that is OK. The floor is yours.

Mr Robert Walsh (Northern Ireland Marine Task Force): Thank you very much. For members who have not had a chance to read through the submission, I will go through its points anyway. I preface my briefing by saying, for those who are familiar with the Marine Task Force, that we have a section in our marine vision that refers to "sustainable fisheries", not to eradicating fisheries. We are aware that many people hand-gather periwinkles in Strangford. There are other areas, such as Belfast lough, where prohibitions are already in place.

Our concern with the regulations either not going ahead or being limited to Strangford lough is that that has the potential to push gatherers further afield and put pressure on other areas. In the areas that are affected, we may not have the data that we require to make an informed decision. Therefore, existing pressures in those areas could be exacerbated. In Belfast lough, the prohibitions fall under section 42 of the Belfast Corporation Act (Northern Ireland) 1930.

As the industry is unregulated, if there were an increased proportion of hand-gatherers doing it across the year, that could quickly become unsustainable for wild populations, which would guarantee increased pressure on available food webs and food sources for intertidal species such as seabirds. Wild populations are drivers of food webs that support intertidal species, such as waders and seabirds that face declines. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee's (JNCC) current seabird count highlights that nearly 60% of breeding seabird populations in the UK have faced declines. Those include a 70% decline in Atlantic puffin, which, I know, may not eat periwinkles, and a 75% decline in roseate terns. Strangford lough in particular is a known breeding ground for terns.

The closed season is based on the Irish Sea's influence on reproductive seasons. As has been highlighted, Strangford lough is an enclosed system compared with other areas of the UK, where the established closed seasons and spawning times are different. Enabling the closed season to go ahead would support not only wild populations but the sustainability of the industry. It would also support the food webs and provide an ecosystem-based approach, which is required under the joint fisheries statement of 2022.

Periwinkles are only part of the picture. Regulation needs to be in place for other species that are hand-gathered. Taking periwinkles out of the system can apply pressure to other species, such as mussels, oysters, razor clams and cockles. We highlighted that in our consultation response to the amendments to annex A of the joint fisheries statement in December 2024 and in the call for evidence on intertidal hand-gathering in 2022. We know that those other species are to be addressed through work on the intertidal hand-gathering of shellfish fisheries management plan (FMP), which is to be published in 2027 and in which we continue to be a stakeholder. In the 2022 response, we supported other recommendations and proposals, but we can all agree that, whether we had come here today with one measure or with six, there would still have been a level of pushback.

Climate change impacts on shellfish are viewed as cumulative. There is, therefore, already a risk to gatherers based on the shell structure. The closed season will be a key step in the right direction to ensure that marine environmental protection and the continuation of an ecosystem-based approach to a currently unregulated activity can continue moving forward and provide that sustainability. NIMTF would like to see the closed season remain NI-wide and receive pragmatic enforcement to ensure that it can be successful.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you, Robert, and thank you for coming at such short notice.

I have two questions for you, the first of which comes out of your report. You pointed out that oysters, blue mussels, cockles and razor clams will be dealt with in the intertidal hand-gathering of shellfish FMP, which will be published in 2027 — next year. What is the rush on periwinkles, if we will deal with all the other shellfish in 2027? The Department's paper uses the word "abundance", and some of the organisations suggest that there is an abundance.

Mr Walsh: The common name for the periwinkle is the "common periwinkle". It was given that name because it was found pretty much everywhere. The problem lies with the different pressures on it, including the level of gathering, climate change and being a food source for wild populations of seabirds. There is a lot of need and usage of it as a resource, which quickly starts to lower the pot, as it were. Without protecting the spawning season, there is a risk that the pot will eventually run dry and not be replenished.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): OK. I do not want to be hard on you, but you used the words "potential to" and "could" a couple of times. Is there any evidence to suggest that the intensification of the gathering and picking of periwinkles at the moment is having a negative impact? Has there been a decline in periwinkle numbers?

Mr Walsh: I am not certain on whether there has been a decline in periwinkle numbers, but I know from their shell structure that, with climate change, their numbers are guaranteed to decline, if we cannot change what is taking place in terms of ocean acidification. That will be an additional pressure for the gatherers.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Would that not then be similarly true of oysters, blue mussels, cockles and razor clams?

Mr Walsh: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I will go back to my first question, then: why is there a need to treat them differently, when all the species will be impacted similarly by climate change and the environmental factors? It seems increasingly odd to me that the Department wants to push this one through.

Mr Walsh: As I said, this is the starting step in addressing wider ecosystem-based approaches for this FMP. If, for example, periwinkles were wiped out, the next species would be blue mussels, oysters, razor clams and cockles. If the measures are not in place for those species in a timely manner, we risk losing those species as well.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Is there a pyramidal or hierarchical system of those species? This is my last one, guys, so be ready. Does one hold the other up? Just to be clear, I was down with you on my birthday last year, and I did not get out to look at the oysters or something that we were supposed to be looking at, so I have to get down again. I understand the absolute need for that. There is an unarguable and calculated deficiency there, but I have yet to be convinced that this is the same, because no one has convinced me that the abundance does not exist. I am not sure where the evidence is, and I will maybe have to return to that.

Mr Walsh: Absolutely. People can take a personal bag limit. I cannot remember the exact size or weight of it, but we have sent images to the Department of a bag far bigger than a personal bag consumption taking place. There is also wildlife disturbance, with people collecting those things in areas where seabirds are overwintering. Whilst mussels and oysters form that reef species, combined with the periwinkles they form the food sources for other wild populations that are attracted to those reef species. If you remove the mussels or the oysters and you take away the reef bed habitats, there is a risk that you will also lose those other species.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I remember what you said about reef beds.

Mr Walsh: Yes, they attract and improve biodiversity.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): This is my final, final one before I let Declan in. If I was minded that I would rather see them picked up in the FMP for 2027, what is the risk?

Mr Walsh: The risk of it not —

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Waiting until we get an agreed way forward for the FMP 2027 with the other shellfish.

Mr Walsh: When this first went out to consultation in 2024, it was about just periwinkles. It would be easy to work on just a single species because of the complexity of the food webs and having them aligned with one another moving forward. It would be harder to push something through if you were to suddenly come with legislation that talked about four different species all in one go and tried to push that forward. Perhaps bringing individual measures through that align with one another to protect the food webs is the best way forward.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Thank you very much.

Mr Blair: Robert, thanks for the information you have been able to give us. You have explained this, but I want you to do it in — you know where I am coming from — as clear a way as possible so that we can have it absolutely clear in our minds and so that the record of the information given will also be as clear as possible. Is there scientific proof and information that differences in tidal movements and ecological conditions around the shores of these islands, plural, mean that by their very nature — pardon the pun — there will be differences in any closed season that would be implemented, related directly, I assume, to the life cycle of the periwinkle that we are talking about?

Mr Walsh: Yes.

Mr Blair: Can you tell us a bit more about that?

Mr Walsh: I do not have that information to hand.

Mr Blair: That is OK.

Mr Walsh: The hydrology is different because of the Irish Sea. Northern Ireland will see different breeding seasons from Lyme Regis, which is at the southern end of England. You will not see the same time periods in Northern Ireland as you would in the rest of the UK, because of the way in which the Irish Sea brings in that influx of hydrology, nutrients and upwelling temperatures, which have an influence as they come through to Strangford lough. It is therefore possible that tweaks will need to be made for the species other than periwinkles.

Mr Blair: In plain speak, if I can call it that, spawning times can be different in different regions, and the science supports that.

Mr Walsh: Yes.

Mr Blair: OK. Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Do members have any other questions? Gareth?

Mr Wilson: I am just curious. As the Chair and others have said, there seems to be not an element of doubt but, in my mind, a lacking. What measures are you using to calculate periwinkle numbers generally around the coasts of Northern Ireland? How do you monitor the numbers to know that there is pressure on the periwinkle? Is it just future-proofing to eliminate potential pressures?

Mr Walsh: The question on what data collection is coming in might be for the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), rather than for me. My background is in marine environmental management, which involves things such as climate change and cumulative impacts that have been seen in other areas. Those pressures can mount if measures are not put in place.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): Are you happy enough, Gareth? As happy as you can be on a Monday morning.

Robert, thanks very much — sorry: go ahead, Aoife.

Ms Finnegan: Just a quick question about the differences when it comes to the ban. What is the ecological difference between Strangford lough and Carlingford lough?

Mr Walsh: That is a good question. I do not think that we are aware of the number of hand-gatherers in Carlingford or the rest of Northern Ireland — the north coast, for example. I do not have the numbers for periwinkle abundance or collections in front of me, but I am aware that there is a large special protection area in Carlingford lough, where there are periwinkles on the intertidal rocky surface. They can also potentially be seen feeding on the aquaculture trestles there.

Ms Finnegan: There is no ban in the South. That is the thing.

Mr Walsh: No.

Ms Finnegan: Is that something that you plan to do, to try to get the numbers to match up?

Mr Walsh: Yes. If there were a closed season, that would allow us to see what the population sizes could be. That could be a question for AFBI as well in terms of the data collection format.

Ms Finnegan: I agree. Thank you very much.

Mr Walsh: No problem.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you for your presentation. It struck me from your opening remarks and the paper that you submitted, that you are essentially suggesting that there may be no compromise on this.

Mr Walsh: There are other proposals in the 2022 FMP, such as a minimum landing size, a registration system, a personal bag consumption limit, a code of practice for gathering and a night-time curfew. It is for the Department to work out the logistics of those proposals. We have supported the closed season, among those other proposals, since 2022. Other measures may need to be brought in, but it is about managing the sector. The information is there for Strangford, but the problem is that we do not know what added pressure that will cause more widely, so we have concerns about displacement.

Miss McIlveen: Would you be content for them to revisit the question of when the closed period may take place, even if it is on an interim basis? The last witness talked about May to August perhaps being a better option for the industry.

Mr Walsh: It might be better for the industry, but there is a concern about the biological reproductive cycle. If you allow gathering to take place when species are reproducing, there is a potential that you remove the next generation of periwinkles, which can have a knock-on effect further down the line. That is my concern about a later season.

Miss McIlveen: Thank you.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): I have a final question. That is a very interesting point. The spawning window is the same all round Northern Ireland. It has been indicated that the spawning season is different in Lyme Regis, and that is why it is there. For example, if this was on the north coast, would the spawning season still be from January until the end of March or the start of April? If we move further south to Carlingford, will it be absolutely —.

Mr Walsh: Apologies for throwing it to AFBI again, but that might be a question for AFBI.

The Chairperson (Mr Butler): That is useful in itself.

Thank you, Robert. You are always a great witness. You are very honest, and I appreciate that. We are done, but you can stay and listen.