The second motion for discussion reads as follows:
That Dáil Éireann approves the following order in draft:
Fisheries (Miscellaneous Commercial Licences) (Alteration of Duties) Order 2007,
copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 8 November 2007.
I welcome the opportunity to outline the reason for introducing this motion which seeks the committee's approval for the Fisheries (Miscellaneous Commercial Licences) (Alteration of Duties) Order 2007 which prescribes the licence fees payable in respect of salmon, eel and oyster commercial fishing and dealers' licences on and from 1 January 2008. This proposal is in keeping with Government policy to apply increases in line with the consumer price index. In previous years increases were proposed in accordance with the commitment first given when presenting the motion to the joint committee in 2003, that in future all increases would be applied in line with the consumer price index on an annual basis. In keeping with this commitment, the licence fee increases proposed for 2008 are set at a rate of 4.8% to allow for inflation since their last increase on 1 January this year. This increase will apply to wild salmon, eels, oyster fishing and dealers' licences. The proceeds from the sale of licences contribute to the revenues of the central and regional fisheries boards which are statutorily responsible for the conservation, management and development of inland fisheries in the State, including the fisheries to which the licences apply.
The management of the wild salmon fishery this year was aligned with the scientific advice and fundamental changes were introduced in the conservation and protection of the national wild salmon resource. As part of a suite of measures introduced by the Government, in line with the recommendations of the independent group on salmon, it was decided that a salmon conservation component would be applied to salmon rod licences and commercial salmon fishing licences from this year. The salmon conservation component represents 50% of the licence fee.
The concept of the salmon conservation component arose from recommendations by the independent group on the extent to which contributions from the main harvesters and economic beneficiaries of more salmon being returned to the rivers might be achieved. The revenue generated from the salmon conservation component is to be reinvested in salmon stock rehabilitation and habitat improvement as recommended by the independent group. The proceeds of the component are ring-fenced and designated for the purpose of prioritised investment in salmon conservation initiatives. To this end, the central and regional fisheries boards were issued with a ministerial direction last year in accordance with section 18A of the Fisheries Act 1980. The direction requires the Central Fisheries Board to co-ordinate the preparation and implementation of a programme for rehabilitation of salmon stocks, which is to be funded from the proceeds of the salmon conservation component. This programme will give priority to the following: rivers with stocks below their conservation limit; stocks in special areas of conservation; and stocks which have the greatest prospect of recovery.
Furthermore, the boards were also directed, in accordance with section 20(3) and 19(4) of the Fisheries Act 1980, to identify the part of their licence fee income generated by the conservation component in their annual accounts. They will also identify in their annual reports the rehabilitation programmes in their region funded from the salmon conservation component of the salmon licence fees. I am advised by the Central Fisheries Board that the conservation component of the licence fees has generated some €620,000. Some €180,000 has been allocated to 17 projects identified by the regional fisheries boards which were provided with an additional €1.25 million from the Department's Vote, over and above the allocation published in the Revised Estimates Volume for 2007, for investment in salmon management initiatives during the year.
I thank the Chairman and committee members for their attention and trust that the committee will recommend that the Oireachtas should pass the motion approving the licence fees for 2008.
I thank the Minister for outlining the proposal and I do not have a problem with the increases. In the light of our previous discussion some issues must still be teased out, for example, my earlier question on funding. We are talking about a sum of almost €2 million. Were any non-regional fisheries boards grant-aided in the last year or have grants gone only to fisheries boards and their projects? There are others who own systems and fisheries that we should consider.
I am not aware that we have a national salmon conservation policy and if we concentrate solely on management structures, we miss the point on overall policy. Whatever the structures, whether it is one authority, which the Minister no longer favours, it is important there be an agreed policy with which everybody in the country would comply. I would like to know what the Minister intends to do on this point.
On the management structure about which the Minister talks, is there a danger that we will have an insider arrangement, that those who are in place for seven years will determine the outcome of the discussions? I appreciate the Minister is new to the job and I am not trying to press him too hard, but there must be an overall concept of where we are going. Farrell Grant Sparks suggested the national authority. The view is that because of changes and developments that may not be the best way forward.
The Minister must tell us where he sees the discussions on which he is embarking leading. What will be the end product? Rather than getting together for a love-in, let us define our aim. How will the national policies on, for example, salmon conservation be devised?
Another issue that has been highlighted and which touches on the general points the Minister made is the specific issue of the Corrib where a world wildlife site has been abused in the most terrible way. The fisheries boards and individual fishermen have been significant in their approach to what must be done. How is that issue to be dealt with? The Minister said it must be dealt with. How does he envisage that will be done?
The salmon conservation scheme is channelled through the fisheries boards; it does not go through any other structure.
I know that, but I asked whether the funding was maintained within the boards?
No. The funding comes from the regional fisheries boards to the central authority for reallocation to projects approved on the basis of set criteria--
Are the projects outside of the fisheries boards which have responsibility--
They are outside the fisheries boards, but are channelled--
How many?
There are 17 projects to date and a number of projects that have been assessed on those criteria.
How many of the 17 are outside the boards in terms of the allocation of funds? Have the boards been the receivers of those funds in all cases?
The boards undertake physical projects in habitat and river management.
Nothing has gone outside them?
That is an issue.
On the question about salmon conservation policy, we should aim for abundance. Mr. Orri Vigfússon of the North Atlantic Salmon Fund, an NGO involved in salmon conservation, always says we should get beyond conservation towards the concept of abundance.
We are not there yet. We are talking about conservation. Perhaps we could stick to it.
I know we are, but I am setting out the policy vision--
Before we talk about vision, I am asking the practical questions.
Vision is important. Practicality is achieved by the move towards a single stock management system. That was a crucial policy change and is a fundamental, core part of policy delivery on that objective.
We are also involved in NASCO and the scientific tagging system. The Marine Institute, the central and regional fisheries boards and BIM are all engaged in extensive scientific analysis using tagging and other measurements to monitor the movement of salmon. The requirements set out in the habitats directive and NASCO are the fundamental ways in which we can achieve that ultimate objective. Supporting that are the quota and tagging system, which applies on a river-by-river basis rather than the old district basis. That provides for bag limits, catch and release schemes and tagging. Detailed policy structures are in place to achieve the overall objective, which is difficult because it relates to habitats maintenance and ocean issues, over which we have less control. However, a clear policy structure is in place supported by scientific research.
The management structures are important because they determine how effectively we implement and communicate. I am meeting the chairmen of the various regional fisheries boards on Friday. The Deputy said it is a not a major development for us all to get together but it is important that all the representatives of the interest groups and the executives of the fisheries boards recognise that unless they get together, they will be unable to progress their own agendas because co-operation is required. Fundamentally, clear lines of authority will also be required which will liberate regional fisheries boards because they will know exactly whether the authority lies centrally and otherwise. Adopting a co-operative approach will be the first and most important development. Within that, it will be easier to resolve the structural issues.
I agree with the Deputy that the water quality issues on the Corrib are significant. The interdepartmental group set up following a Government decision in October comprises high level civil servants from my Department and the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, which could have a major role in development facilities, and Arts, Sport and Tourism. It is a valuable group to ensure co-ordination between Departments on the water quality issue.
The EU framework directive will require my Department and the inland fisheries boards to play a key role in environmental water quality testing. We will have to fund biologists to test water, which will benefit fisheries, but it will also have a fundamental role in providing information on water quality. A cross-departmental approach is needed. It must be recognised that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will have obligations relating to planning issues such as sewage treatment.
I cannot find a national salmon conservation policy and I am unclear from the Minister's reply where it is and who is responsible for drawing it up, if it is not in place.
The implementation of the habitats directive under our primary legislation contains an integrated, holistic response in terms of policy. Much of the policy work in this area emanated from the work of this committee in recent years. Its reports provide a useful policy analysis for issues such as single stock management.
Is the Minister saying the policy is an EU directive? Is that were the policy lies?
My Department sets out a strategy document.
I will read it.
Within that we will set out clear strategic objectives my Department has on inland fisheries management, based on the conservation of salmon as a primary strategic aim. The means of achieving that are tagging, quota systems and our involvement in NASCO and on an interdepartmental committee. I am satisfied the strategic goal and means of implementation are clear. We need to work on the management structures in the central and regional fisheries boards to deliver it.
I have no difficulty with eel and oyster commercial licences because eel and oyster fishermen will be allowed to operate during the coming year. I have a difficulty in regard to the salmon licence. I am not sure of the exact figure, but I understand the Minister proposes to charge fishermen approximately €350 for a salmon driftnet licence and may then tell them they cannot fish. If that is the proposal, I have significant difficulty with it.
I would have thought there should be a nominal fee of, perhaps, €20 for people who want to maintain their licence until such time as the conservation limits have been reached on various rivers. More driftnet licences would have been taken out of the system were it not for the derisory and insulting amount of compensation offered to fishermen, many of whom have been in the industry for many years.
The Marine Institute promised to introduce counters on rivers within a period of approximately 12 months. Counters would be a means of providing real scientific advice. That has not yet happened and it means there is no proper scientific advice on the management of salmon. When will we see the promised counters?
I agreed to a large extent with the report on single stock management of salmon. However, last year fishermen were not allowed to fish the River Blackwater in west Waterford even though it was above the conservation limit. Fishing was not permitted because a subsidiary river, which is never fished anyway, was below its conservation limited. Anglers were allowed to take 4,500 salmon from that river in the current year. I do not have a problem with that. However, there were plenty of salmon for commercial fishermen as well because the conservation limits have been reached. What will be the position in 2008? I accept there are other areas where the conservation limits have not been reached and fishermen will have to wait until such time as they have. Perhaps the Minister would deal with those points.
The fee for a draftnet licence is €398 and will be effective from 1 January 2008. In regard to what we discussed earlier, there is no driftnet licence to be applied for because they are issued on a river-by-river basis. In the case of west Waterford, the rivers there are below the conservation limits so there are no applications for driftnet licences.
That is fair enough but how do the people who hold licences at the moment and who do not want to buy out, maintain their licences until such time as they can reapply?
The licence does not belong to anyone. It is something that is applied for each year. It is issued year-by-year on the basis of conservation and scientific advice. There is no multi-annual or long-term commitment by the State in terms of issuing licences because it depends on the conservation level on any river.
Is the Minister saying that somebody who decides not to avail of the current package might not necessarily get a licence in a few years when salmon fishing improves?
There is a prioritisation system whereby somebody who previously had a licence would have priority if a river opened up. That does not necessarily entitle people to a licence on any particular river. That also answers the question in regard to a specific river. That has to be subject to scientific advice, which will evolve here. We are dealing with a complex system and a myriad of rivers and tributaries of rivers which must be treated on a separate case-by-case basis. The scientific advice will be delivered before the opening of fisheries on 1 January on a river-by-river basis to show whether a river is above or below its conservation limit.
Why were anglers allowed to fish on the river this year?
I do not have last year's advice on that particular river.
The advice was that it was above its conservation limit.
That is why angling would have been allowed.
Yet the Minister did not allow commercial fishing.
I do not have detailed information on that particular river but I will ask my officials to speak to Deputy Kenneally on the matter.
I have written to the Minister.
I will come back to Deputy Kenneally on that matter.
I thank the Minister.
With regard to fish counters, it is important that we have accurate information. Funding for the salmon conservation scheme will not only be spent on fish counters, but also on surveying and tagging systems that will provide much greater information on movement, which is needed as part of a single stock management system. Approximately 17 counters are currently in operation under the management of the fisheries boards and another 15 are about to go into operation. Additional counters are managed by the ESB and private individuals. However, continuing investment is needed to ensure accurate counting. Many angling communities do a great amount of surveying work each year walking rivers and counting reed beds. This also provides accurate information.
The licensing of rivers is done on the basis of scientific advice. If we can move towards a system where we are opening up rivers rather than restricting them, that will be seen by the public and the angling and commercial netting communities as a response to and an effect of a positive move towards a single stock management system.
When will we see the additional 15 counters?
They are going to the rivers at present. Setting in and monitoring performance is an ongoing process. Some counters are in rivers and others will be in rivers within a number of months.
That concludes our consideration of the subject matter.
