JOINT COMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES debate -
Wednesday, 11 Feb 2009

Role and Functions: Discussion with Loughs Agency.

Chairman

I welcome from the Loughs Agency, Mr. Derick Anderson, chief executive, Mr. Gerry Mills, director of development, and Mr. John McCartney, director of conservation and protection. The joint committee has invited representatives of the Loughs Agency before it to discuss its operations.

Before we begin, I wish to draw everyone's attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it and the committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses. Further, under the salient rules of the Chair, members should not comment on or make charges against persons outside the Houses or officials by name or in such a way as to make them identifiable. I invite Mr. Anderson to make his presentation.

Mr. Derick Anderson

I thank the Chairman for the invitation. The Loughs Agency was formed in 1999 and emerged from what was the original cross-Border body, the Foyle Fisheries Commission, which itself had been established in 1952. The Foyle Fisheries Commission changed to the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission, which was to comprise two agencies, the first of which, the Loughs Agency, was formed. The second agency was to be the lights agency, which was to take on the responsibilities of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. However, this development has not taken place on the basis that it is more of an east-west body than a North-South body and the Loughs Agency has gone ahead on its own.

Fundamentally, we report to the North-South Ministerial Council. In sectoral form, it is formed by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, who usually is accompanied by one of the junior Ministers from the Northern Ireland Executive. We have a 12-member board that is chaired by Mr. Tarlach O'Crosain and vice-chaired by Ms Jacqui McConville and they can serve up to two terms.

In dealing with our customers, we have an advisory forum, which has 48 members and which covers the 12 sectors shown on the Powerpoint presentation. While it generally has two or three plenary meetings per year, it does most of its work in focus groups. Four such groups exist, dealing with salmon and inland fisheries, environment, shell fisheries and aquaculture, and marine tourism and angling development. They can co-opt additional relevant members, who can provide further advice and information. They consider our strategies, business areas and proposed regulations and advise us and provide us with critiques on their content.

The objectives of the agency are listed in the implementation bodies order in the British-Irish Agreement Act and we have a mission statement in which we seek to deliver the provision of sustainable development of the resources and the fisheries of the loughs areas. The key objectives are to conserve and protect salmon and inland fisheries in Foyle and Carlingford, to manage and develop those fisheries, to promote the development of Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough for commercial and recreational use and to license and develop aquaculture and develop marine tourism. We try to do so in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

Obviously, the areas we cover span both sides of the Border. In the Foyle area, it stretches from Malin Head to the top of the Barnesmore Gap and from Downhill to close to Fivemiletown. We also have responsibility for an area seaward of Lough Foyle that extends outward by 12 miles. Such responsibilities do not include matters dealing with the Common Fisheries Policy species but include such stocks as salmon, bass and tope. Our aquaculture functions are restricted to both loughs and we have responsibility for aquaculture licensing and development within the loughs. Members will note we do not have responsibility for a sea area associated with Carlingford Lough.

As for the context of our operations, we recently underwent a rationalisation of our commercial salmon fishing in which, by using the hardship package, we reduced it from 162 licences to 28. A total of 18 driftnet licenses still operate in Lough Foyle and ten draftnet licences operate in the tidal Foyle, between Lifford and Derry. The present catch of approximately 5,000 fish per year has dropped from its peak of approximately 35,000 to 40,000 some years ago. We believe this is mainly due to the sea survival issues that affect salmon throughout the north Atlantic.

As for recreational fisheries, we sold close to 12,000 angling licences in 2007, which constitutes an increase from 8,000 such licences in 2003. Consequently, there has been an improvement in the number of licences being sold and hence in the number of anglers who are operating in the fishery. We conducted some research in association with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, which is responsible for inland fisheries in the North, that assessed the economic benefits created by recreational fishing. This research indicated that in 2005, each local angler spent an average of £1,300 per year on his or her sport, while each tourist angler spent approximately £700 per trip. In 2007, approximately 50% of the licences were from within the Foyle and Carlingford areas, approximately 45% were from inside the island and approximately 5% were from outside the island. There is tremendous potential for development when one considers that in the region covered by the Central Fisheries Board, approximately 50% of the anglers come from outside Ireland. The same is true in Scotland, where 50% come from outside the island. It is our ambition to try to move the Foyle and Carlingford areas up to that level.

As for shell fisheries and aquaculture, it provides a first sale value of approximately €25 million to €30 million per annum for Foyle and Carlingford, which represents approximately 31.5% of the island's total production. The presentation contains a deliberate error at this point, in that 207 people are directly employed in shell fisheries and aquaculture in the areas under the Loughs Agency's remit. Our sponsoring Departments may balk at the notion that the Loughs Agency employs 217 people.

Our strategy in delivering our business is summed up by the graphic at the top of the Powerpoint slide on display, which is entitled, "informed to sustain". We believe in evidence-based decision making and the sharing of such evidence with our sectors to ensure that even if they do not always agree with our actions, they at least understand the reasons for them. The various steps outlined in the aforementioned logo, namely, monitor, research, manage, consult, partner, develop and regulate, set out the manner in which we try to do our business. The agency comprises four directorates, namely, corporate services, conservation and protection, development, and aquaculture and shellfish. I will try to demonstrate to members how we go about our business in each area.

In the conservation and protection area, we prepare status reports on each of the catchments on an annual basis. These cover a habitat survey of the river to see how much nursery area there is, how many holding pools and how much spawning ground is available. We grade that because if we are to get the best possible habitat we know we need ten salmon eggs per square metre for adequate stocking. We base our real-time management plans on trying to deliver the right number of eggs for the catchment for each tributary. We then monitor the audit points. There are seven fish counters that allow us to check the adult movement as they come in.

Carcass tagging allows us to rely on catch statistics much more than was previously the case. Before carcass tagging was introduced around 3% of anglers would make returns. That had risen to 40% but it has recently dropped back down, although there were excellent returns this year which we are still processing.

Red counts make up the longest data series we have, going back to 1952 to the beginning of the Foyle Fisheries Commission. These are the spawning beds in the gravel made by the salmon. Electric fishing surveys were started in 1996 and we examine about 450 sites in the Foyle and about 150 in Carlingford each year. This is a five-minute fishing technique which we do on the same site, trying to use the same effort, year on year, and it gives us a useful measure of the survival of the eggs. Smolt tagging has been done on the Finn and the Faughan, giving us some indication of sea survival.

Recently we introduced water chemistry analysis on tributaries not covered by the other agency involved in water quality in the catchments, and invertebrate monitoring.

In 2001, the North-South Ministerial Council approved an investigation into the genetics of salmon. This work showed that each of the 11 sub-catchments on the Foyle could be differentiated by its DNA. We initially looked at this as a mechanism to regulate the commercial fishery in the lough, possibly being able to identify a period when one of our less successful river's stock was coming through with a view to inhibiting the commercial operations on that stock. It has been so successful, however, that it has formed the basis for the development of an international programme called the SALSEA-Merge programme, which is used to assess the survival of salmon at sea. We are one of 20 partners operating the system, which is principally led by the Marine Institute, which undertakes several cruises each year. Some of our biologists have been on those cruises and will be on them next year.

Deputy Liz McManus

The Marine Institute in Galway.

Mr. Derick Anderson

Yes. We are currently doing some new work on a pre-fisheries abundance model. This will allow us to predict the number of salmon that will return to the Foyle catchment by 1 January each year. This was developed in association with the Marine Institute, Glasgow University and the Institute of Agriculture and Economics in Rennes. It is due to be finished later this year.

I have not mentioned the nasty parts of the conservation and protection directorate. We do a lot of detection of illegal fishing, poaching and other issues. So far this year we have prepared 109 cases which are with our solicitors with a view to prosecution. Last year there were 123 cases and there will be probably further cases this year from 2008 as the files are processed. In 2008 we seized 136 rods, 14 boats and cars, 114 nets and 92 fish, an increase on the previous year in most cases but a fall from pre-carcass tagging days when we would have seized up to 700 illegal nets in the Foyle catchment and a few in the Carlingford catchment. Carlingford is more a coarse fishing area with a good sea trout population but not a significant salmon fishery, although we are trying to rebuild it.

We use the same procedures in the aquaculture and shell fish directorate. We assess what is there and provide the evidence upon which our decisions are based. The responsibility for aquaculture and shell fisheries only came to us with the passing of the Foyle and Carlingford Fisheries Act 2007 and its mirror legislation, the Foyle and Carlingford Fisheries Order, which went through Westminster as the Assembly was not operating at the time. We are undertaking a strategic environmental assessment of the loughs at present. A carrying capacity model has been built for Carlingford and partially built for Foyle which allows us to assess the inputs and their impact on the productivity of the loughs.

We have participated in the "Rising Tide" report, on the bottom mussel growing area, and are actively involved in the roll out of its recommendations. We do not have a native oyster stock in Carlingford, which follows the status reports that we do on fresh water areas — our status reports in the oyster surveys and other reports are carried on our website and can be downloaded. We monitor for biotoxins, phytoplankton, E-coli and water quality, and carry out benthic monitoring.

We have recently sourced a new vessel to assist us. We received funding from the European Fisheries Fund predecessor, FIFG, for this but unfortunately we were not able to source a suitable vessel in Europe within budget. We found one in New Zealand and it will be leaving there on 4 March and back with us in mid-April — we are trying to ensure the shippers do not go past Somalia. We will maintain the same evidence-based approach, and we will share it with our stakeholders and draw up regulations on that basis.

We introduced oyster regulations for Lough Foyle for the first time last year. The fishery collapsed this year because Denmark got its act together and provided large quantities of oysters for the market at relatively low prices. While we set a minimum size for landing oysters in Lough Foyle at 75 mm in the regulations, the stakeholders came back and said they wanted to take the big hit now. We tried to get to 80 mm as the minimum size and will do so over a period of years. Since the market had collapsed for smaller oysters, they were happy for us to put the 80 mm rate in immediately.

For marine tourism and recreational fishing, we operate the same strategy. We audited all the facilities available and put in place a development plan in partnership with organisations such as the North West Region Cross Border Group, the eastern Border committee, Derry City Council and the Ports and Harbours Commissioners. We have built on those partnerships to move towards the delivery of the products we want to provide, along with the Cooley Peninsula group and the Mourne Heritage Trust.

We put our toe in the water by introducing a sustainable development fund in 2008 with a budget of £100,000 and we supported and delivered 24 projects, including fishing competitions and curragh racing events. We have a similar project that we are dealing with for 2009.

We have a major application with INTERREG and we are awaiting a letter of offer, which we believe will give us €4 million to deliver significant tourism projects. This will involve the Mourne Heritage Trust, the Cooley Peninsula and we are proposing to construct a new jetty close to the city centre at Lough Foyle, with a view to encouraging visitors on both small craft and cruise ships into the centre of the city. The project is ready to go once we get the letter of offer.

We have an extensive plan for the angling development issues. This will draw on the Irish sustainable development fund and the INTERREG fund. We must deliver various points including stock improvements, which involve improving existing targeted stock such as salmon, but also identify stock that is not used locally. For example, in the Foyle brown trout are not fished for but are perceived to be attractive to tourists. We initiated a bass fishery in Carlingford by undertaking salt-water fly-fishing. This is now an annual event. Some people from the Carlingford area, who used to come to Wicklow every weekend not realising that bass was available in the Carlingford area, participated in the event. This is what we are delivering in respect of stock improvement.

The role of the agency is to get out there and get known. We have established an annual angling fair, which was attended by 6,000 people last year from all over the island and from the mainland. Our last slide refers to infrastructure we have developed on the River Mourne, the Sna beat, to improve angling access. Many such projects are waiting to happen, particularly under INTERREG.

We are particularly keen on hospitality and accommodation. With the Internet and cheap flights, the landlady has become the tour operator. We have run seminars for these people to tell them about fishing, where it is available, where they can identify guides to help customers and where they can get the kit that the customer needs. These seminars have been successful.

I refer to the co-operation with the Central Fisheries Board, which is part of the area we were asked to cover. We jointly provide angling promotional literature. We recently published a new range of such books, covering coarse fishing, game and sea angling. We have worked with the Northern regional fisheries board on educational programmes and we are attending promotional shows internationally with the Central Fisheries Board and colleagues from the North. As part of the INTERREG programme, we hope to develop an e-licensing project. This will develop a swipe card licence, which would hopefully be an all-Ireland licence and would allow differences between rivers and management regimes for the rivers to be coped with by issuing of tags to that swipe licence. We also work closely on the water framework directive. The co-operation is quite widespread and I have listed the bodies we work with. Delivery of much of our work relies on this partnership approach, both in public and private.

Regarding the benefits of interagency work, the genetics work we pioneered in the Foyle is now part of the management regime for salmon throughout the island and the north Atlantic. I refer to the work on the water framework directive with the Central Fisheries Board. Much of the data we collect as status reports is directly applicable to the water framework directive. Five minute electro fishing sampling is now spreading throughout the islands. We share information and advice on invasive species such as zebra mussels and on emergency pollution response. My colleague, Mr. McCartney, recently organised a desktop exercise on pollution response in the Carlingford area. We had many participants from both areas, including the port authorities from Greenore and Warrenpoint, the marine and coast guard agencies from North and South, Louth County Council, the environment agencies from the North and South and other stakeholders. It demonstrated that both jurisdictions have excellent plans to deal with pollution incidents but they do not quite fit in a cross-Border waterway. Loughs Agency will work to overcome these minor issues, which could be improved to ensure that we cope well if a pollution incident occurs.

I refer to the slide on the interpretative centre, Riverwatch. We want to deliver the resources of the catchments to all communities. With this in view, the North-South Ministerial Council approved the development of the interpretative centre. It is mainly to target school children and educate them on what they have in their rivers and streams, how to use them and how they could help us to protect them. We have had close to 60,000 people through Riverwatch and from that we have developed outreach programmes such as adopt a stream and a hatchery in the classroom where the pupils take 100 salmon or trout eggs into the classroom, hatch them and stock them in the local stream. It then becomes their stream. Junior angling academies utilise the facilities in the interpretative centre.

Chairman

Thank you, Mr. Anderson. I invite all members to contribute before the delegation answers questions.

Deputy Simon Coveney

The delegates are warmly welcomed here. This is the first time I have had the opportunity to have a discussion with a cross-Border agency, which is essentially what this body is. It deals with concerns on both sides of the Border. This is the first opportunity the committee has had to do so and it is welcome. I apologise for my colleague, Deputy McHugh, who was the main instigator of bringing the agency here. Unfortunately he must be at the funeral. He is embarrassed about this situation but that is the way it is.

Regarding conservation and the fish stock protection area, the number of licences is increasing and demand is increasing yet stocks are falling. Presumably, there is an intensive effort to control commercial fishing while increasing the number of recreational rod licences. Is that the strategy to move away from commercial fishing with nets to recreational tourism and rod fishing? Clearly, the return per individual fishermen and the pressure on stocks suggests that this would be a sensible strategy. At the same time we must respect the livelihood of commercial fishermen.

Has the Loughs Agency taken the same approach in the areas for which it has responsibility in respect of the ban on drift netting and strict limitations on draft netting? I am familiar with the policy on draft and driftnet fishing in the Republic of Ireland. I am impressed by the level of detection and number of cases brought for prosecution for illegal fishing. Does the agency see an increasing trend in poaching in the waterways for which the agency is responsible? We have heard much anecdotal evidence to the effect that the number of poachers has increased in recent years, primarily because of increasing Irish and non-Irish populations. Those in the latter group do not understand our fishing rules and see a river as an opportunity to catch free fish. Education is necessary. This is not an anti-immigrant statement. Rather, it is an educational matter with which the fisheries boards have struggled. Is the Loughs Agency facing the same problems?

I am interested in marine tourism. As with inland waterways, be they loughs or rivers, the Loughs Agency has responsibility for a part of the coastline. Do the agency's marine tourism and recreational fishing activities extend to encouraging the development of other recreational activities, such as sailing, windsurfing, canoeing and other lifestyle activities that could be considerable, untapped growth industries? The lack of strategic thinking in developing the south and west coastlines, from where I come, and their immediate inland waterways for recreational purposes is a great failing. What are our guests' experience in this regard and will they outline the details? The focus has been on fishing, stock-taking and so on.

My remaining questions are more specific. How much does running the agency cost and who pays the bill? It is applying for INTERREG III funding, but I presume that it receives funds from the Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly. How does the funding structure work? The agency is answerable to cross-Border bodies, but what is the reporting system? For example, the Central Fisheries Board is required to attend the Oireachtas to go through its budgets and to explain its activities. I presume that its Northern counterpart must do the same, but the Loughs Agency straddles both areas. Given that today marks its first appearance before the committee, I would like a sense of how its budgetary system works, how it sets targets, how it stands over them, to whom its reports are sent and how the feedback is incorporated into the system.

I like the e-licensing idea. Will the agency send the committee more details in that regard instead of going through all of the technical information now? That someone from the United States of America, France, Canada or Spain would be able to tell the difference between Northern Ireland and the Republic is nonsense. People view us as the island of Ireland, a place to go fishing. They are not interested in the politics. This is a good example of a type of co-ordinated North-South management that could benefit both areas.

I would like our inland waterways and marine tourism angling industry to develop in co-operation with the North. The Loughs Agency is a good place to start in terms of setting an example of how it could be done. In this respect, the e-licensing project makes a great deal of sense, particularly if the North and the South are to share their international marketing strategies to attract anglers and tourists to our natural resources. I again welcome our guests.

Deputy Liz McManus

I welcome the delegates and congratulate the Loughs Agency on its good reputation. Long before the rest of us got sense and signed the Good Friday Agreement, the agency was the focus of North-South co-operation. It is a tribute to the local efforts that ensure people work together for the best outcome. When I lived in Derry in the late 1960s, I remember the old Foyle Fisheries Commission. It was cited as an example of matters on the ground being different from matters in the ether. I congratulate our guests in that respect.

The Loughs Agency could act as a model of North-South waterways co-operation where conflicting interests require an integrated response. I have in mind Lough Corrib and the quality of Galway city's drinking water. Central to the matter was the absence of an overriding body to deal with issues relating to aquaculture, angling, water quality or tourism. The Loughs Agency model is worth some study.

What is the agency's relationship with district or local councils when conflicts surrounding, for example, developments, rezonings and temporary sewage plants arise?

The agency's remit extends quite far out to the sea. Does its remit include consideration of ocean energy, the new thing and in respect of which we are investing money in research and development? Is the matter relevant to the agency? When we visited the Marine Institute, I was impressed by the project researching "broadband" as it were, around the bottom of the ocean in Galway Bay and beyond. That infrastructure provided an opportunity to conduct a significant range of research. Is the agency in a position to become involved in the renewables area?

Given the delegation's comments, the number of salmon catches seems to have decreased. There are many relevant issues, but what is the answer? The possible conflict between aquaculture and wild salmon has been discussed. Was the agency involved in the north Atlantic salmon research project, which may still be ongoing?

The committee was told how many people the Loughs Agency does not employ, but how many does it employ?

Senator Joe O’Reilly

As a representative of an Ulster county, I am delighted to welcome our guests. As my colleague, Deputy Coveney, stated, our colleague and friend, Deputy McHugh, is upset that he cannot attend. However, he was anxious that the delegates be welcomed properly.

It is good that the Loughs Agency has a broad remit, which it is clearly implementing well. There is evidence in the form of anecdotes and figures to the effect that the level of angling tourism has decreased. Will the delegates expand on their experiences? To what degree is there a deficit or how are the angling tourism figures holding up? I notice work is being done on the issue of access. How big a factor is this, either in the decline or the efforts to increase angling tourism figures? Some cite access as a significant issue, with a lack of paths, etc. I am interested in hearing the views of the delegates.

The issue of conservation was mentioned, with policing along the river. Are there difficulties with the local authorities or agricultural interests in this respect? What state is the river in and what strategies are being used? Is it a partnership model among the groupings involved? In County Cavan we used a partnership approach in monitoring activities on Lough Sheelin, which was controversial. However, it has proved very beneficial, although the optimum results have never been reached. A partnership model with farmers and local interest has improved matters significantly but what is the experience of the delegation in that respect?

An interesting point was raised by my colleague, Deputy Coveney, relating to poaching. We have all had anecdotal evidence but as the Deputy noted, the last thing we want to do is turn it into a racist issue. It is not such an issue. What strategies would be helpful in that respect?

I was impressed by the interpretive centre. It seems to be a very good concept and it is interesting that there have been 60,000 visitors, with a link to schools, which is good. How is it working in practice? I hope to visit the centre at some stage and that it is a good showcase for the Foyle catchment area. I am interested in these issues in so far as we can share experiences in that respect.

Mr. Derick Anderson

I will answer some of the questions raised and ask my colleagues to deal with others.

Deputy Coveney asked about conservation, protection and recreation with reference to falling stocks. The real-time management system we deliver has targets for the escapement of salmon. On the River Mourne our escapement target is 9.7 million salmon eggs, the number we must stock upstream at the fish counter at Sion Mills.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Is that based on measurements taken year on year?

Mr. Derick Anderson

It is based on the habitat available upstream of Sion Mills.

Deputy Simon Coveney

In crude terms, as stocks fall, egg numbers are increased.

Mr. Derick Anderson

If we can improve the habitat, we will increase the number of eggs required. We conduct a habitat survey to identify how much nursery area is available for salmon upstream of Sion Mills. We do this for the entire catchment. This allows us to calculate the number of eggs needed to stock the river — 9.7 million which equates to 6,700 salmon. We add 25% to this number to allow for poaching and recreational fishing. We manage the stock to deliver the right number of eggs.

Even with falling stocks, we have been able to maintain a limited commercial fishery. We introduced a hardship package similar to the one on the rest of the island but because we had stocks which were achieving their conservation targets throughout the catchment we were able to offer a limited residual commercial fishery. Our target was to have 30 nets on the lough; the fishery outside the lough was an interceptory fishery, in which fishermen were taking stocks that were trying to reach other rivers that were not achieving the conservation limits set. We had a target of 30 driftnet licences for the lough but were content to allow the 50 draftnet licences remain in place. On the basis that we were anticipating a further decline in stocks because sea survival rates were so poor, we offered the hardship package on a voluntary basis. We had 112 driftnet licences and all but 18 of the licenceholders opted to accept the package. We had 50 draftnet licences in the tidal area and all but ten of the licenceholders opted to accept the package. We have a residual commercial fishery.

With the status reports, we are monitoring to ensure we are achieving the conservation limits set on all rivers. If numbers fall below the conservation limits set two years in five, we will take action to restrict the commercial and recreational fishery, changing the system to purely catch and release. If stocks drop further, we will bring forward regulations to close the rivers. We are managing the declining stocks and moving towards catch and release in the recreational fishery. We are reducing bag limits on a regular basis and will continue to do so, if need be.

I will ask the conservation and protection director, Mr. McCartney, to deal with the detection of poaching. We are encouraging marine tourism on the coast. Mr. Gerry Mills, director of development, might add to what I say in this regard. Among the activities we have supported through the sustainable development fund is traditional currach racing, with teams coming from as far away as New York to participate in the event in Carlingford. We have also supported a number of events in Carlingford in the J24 yacht class. Those involved are quite hopeful of attracting the world championships to Carlingford in 2012 and we will be behind them in trying to secure that honour.

In Foyle we are looking at interesting developments related to mammal and bird watching. Basking sharks are regular visitors to the area at Inishtrahull and so on. We are speaking to the Commissioner of Irish Lights about the potential for development in the area. I am sure Mr. Mills will be able to provide more information.

With regard to costs and the reporting system, our budget for 2009 has been set on the basis of a business plan that we provided for our sponsoring Departments. It is considered by the Department of Finance in the North and the South and approved by the North-South Ministerial Council. The budget last year was £5.7 million, which included £420,000 for the hardship package and £650,000 in funds drawn down from the European Union.

Deputy Liz McManus

Is that in sterling?

Mr. Derick Anderson

Yes. The funds drawn down from the European Union included those for the monitoring vessel. The budget is split evenly between the sponsoring Departments, with 50% coming from the communications Department and 50% from the agriculture Department. We are audited internally by the Departments' internal auditors at least once a year. We are then audited by the Comptrollers and Auditor General, North and South. There is a rigorous audit. On one occasion we had the internal auditors, the auditors for the Comptrollers and Auditor General and the European Union auditors in the office on the one day. As they were all looking for the same files, it was an interesting day.

We will send the committee more detail on e-licensing but our motivation is simplification. It will give us an opportunity to capture a database of anglers in order that we can communicate with them, tell them what we are planning and notify them of events, etc. It is a two-way process. In the North, and in the Foyle and Carlingford areas, licences are required for brown trout and coarse fishing but they are not required in the rest of the island and getting over this will be interesting. A new suggestion from Europe is that sea angling should also be controlled but there are many issues in this regard.

Deputy McManus raised the matter of relationships with county councils and these occur on two or three levels. They are heavily involved in the development of tourism in areas and we try to deliver a strategic approach on tourism and recreation. We try not to stand on the toes of others and ensure we each have an area on which to focus to give the best overall delivery.

Developments that might affect our areas of responsibility include sewerage works, wind farms and so on and we take the line that our statutory function is to conserve the fisheries of the area. We ensure that information brought for consideration addresses such developments. We examine environmental impact assessments, EIAs, to see that relevant measures are included and that proposals take account of fisheries in an area with regard to water quality, associated habitat and so on. We are consultative and earnest in ensuring we deliver the protection needed.

We prosecute in the case of events occurring as a consequence of councils' involvement, including accidental and negligent acts. We have several cases against Northern Ireland Water, we have taken cases against councils North and South and we follow through on such matters.

Ocean energy does not fall within our remit.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Which legal jurisdiction applies?

Mr. Derick Anderson

This is the beauty of the Foyle and Carlingford Fisheries Act 2007; we can operate irrespective of jurisdiction. For example, if we found the Deputy poaching in Northern Ireland, we could prosecute him in Lifford because he is resident in the South. If the offence occurs in the Foyle or Carlingford catchment areas we can prosecute in either jurisdiction.

As I said, ocean energy is not part of our remit but we try to ensure that such developments allow us to deliver on our responsibilities relating to the conservation and protection of fish stocks.

On salmon catches, I mentioned the NASCO SALSEA research programme, in which we are participating. The programme is trying to find out what is happening at sea because salmon seem to be smaller and coming back later than was the case historically. It has been suggested that, as the ocean warms, the front between cold and warm water that holds the food the salmon seek is moving further north. Consequently, it is suggested it is taking salmon longer to reach the food, they have less time to feed and take longer to return. They are later and smaller than previously and the explanation seems to fit but it is only a suggestion.

The SALSEA project is following the smolts as they migrate through the ocean. The Irish Marine Institute is conducting two surveys from its vessels, relatively close to our releases, and the Norwegians and Canadians take over as the project moves further north. They are trying to ascertain what is happening at sea and to study whether the suggested explanation is correct. Whether we will be able to address the issue when we discover the cause is another matter but at least we will understand the problem better.

We employ 53 members of staff and this is supplemented during the summer with around 25 temporary fishery officers to deal with poaching and data collected.

Senator O'Reilly mentioned a fall in angling tourism but we feel that, for historical reasons, it was never at a high level in either jurisdiction. We aim to catch up and believe we are well placed in having responsibility for jurisdictions that use sterling and the euro. People who want to fish in euro land can do so and people who wish to fish in sterling land may also do so. The economic situation may make the Foyle and Carlingford areas more attractive.

One of the big difficulties, in terms of access for visiting anglers, is that we must encourage the development of areas not used by existing anglers, because they have traditionally benefitted from the low usage of the rivers. Tourists will want to own a piece of river for a day or week so they can fish and take rests and this is what we aim to deliver in terms of game angling. We have identified new areas that we are developing, including a section called the Green Braise, for which we hope a regulation will be approved in the near future.

I will leave the matter of policing rivers and associated language difficulties to Mr. McCartney. Mr. Mills might speak on the interpretive centre.

Mr. John McCartney

In answer to Deputy Coveney's question, we are working hard on the conservation and protection of fisheries. The principal poaching offences relate to either rods or the illegal use of nets. The past two years have seen a marked increase in rod-related offences, principally because of the growth of angling in the area and the decline of commercial fisheries. A certain proportion of the people we have taken to court were foreign but I do not have the exact percentage. Unfortunately, those people suffer from equality in reverse because we have a zero tolerance policy and we apply the law equally in the Foyle and Carlingford areas so people who break the law are punished regardless of race, religion, creed or nationality. Some people may have language difficulties but I have written articles that were translated into Polish and Lithuanian to help educate local communities regarding angling rules.

We try to do our work as effectively and efficiently as possible and this means many of our anti-poaching and anti-netting activities are intelligence-led, rather than sporadic. To integrate an answer to Senator O'Reilly's question, we spoke of partnerships and the Loughs Agency and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency have taken joint prosecutions in the courts against people. We have conducted at least one case jointly with Donegal County Council; we both acted as authorities and pooled our investigative resources to take a joint prosecution. We also work with the police forces and angling clubs.

We prosecute for a range of offences that might surprise people. They would understand that we prosecute for rod offences, illegal net offences and for breaching licence conditions relating to the commercial operation of nets. However, we have prosecuted a number of people for causing water pollution, damaging habitats and the sale and disposal of fish through dealers and hotels. Recently we introduced regulations prohibiting the removal of gravel from river beds, particularly when it is an important spawning resource for salmon. My enforcement officers will continue to enforce the statutes in respect of the broad range of offences covered.

Mr. Gerry Mills

One of the questions was whether marine tourism and angling extended to other activities. Our remit covers water-based recreation and leisure and we are involved in a number of projects, a few of which the chief executive mentioned. We have supported the Carlingford oyster festival, events organised by the Foyle Punt Association and Culmore Yacht Club and the restoration of the Galway Hooker. We also engage in environmental education, particularly shore-based activities designed to animate the shore line. We and our colleagues in Donegal County Council are part of the wider Sail West project, which creates a necklace of inshore recreational vessels along the coastline from Sligo across the north of the island and across the sea to Argyll and Bute.

Deputy Coveney asked how INTERREG, under which we have a raft of projects, was funded. It receives EU funding to the tune of 25% and the remaining 75% is funded equitably, North and South, by central government, with 12.5% coming from the Republic and 12.5% from the North. There are two principal projects under INTERREG IV. One is a marine tourism project, which the chief executive mentioned, on which we hope to receive a letter of value worth €4 million. The other is a research project with colleagues in the University of Glasgow, for which the current bid is €3.7 million though the project itself is worth substantially more.

Deputy Coveney touched on a simple principle in respect of the on-line licensing project, which is that when an angler decides to come to Ireland to fish that is what he or she wants to do. We are trying to make it as accessible as that implies. In association with our colleagues in the Central Fisheries Board, the regional boards and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, we produce guides on game, coarse, sea and pike fishing in Ireland. It is based on the principle of a centre of excellence where a set of baseline statistics are made available, such as whether there is accommodation in an area, whether it is possible to catch fish and whether other activities are offered. The guides show if it is possible to get a packed lunch and if there is a drying room to hang up wet gear. All fisheries throughout the country have been assessed using that benchmark and those which underperform can improve and step up to the mark so that we can expand the guide. The guide is used by colleagues in Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland to promote angling in Ireland.

We would be happy to prepare a paper for the committee or make another presentation specifically on the on-line licensing project. It is quite complex and I could talk about it for the next few hours but I will spare members the details.

Deputy Simon Coveney

That is why I made the point. I am sure it is very complex.

Mr. Gerry Mills

It should have a big impact and offer a wider saving.

We are very proud of the fact that the interpretive centre had 60,000 visitors and we have plans to expand Riverwatch to phase III, which will include additional aquaria. It will hopefully be supported by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, to which we have submitted an application. The location will be our headquarters in Derry and we hope to mirror the facility with an equally impressive one in the Carlingford catchment though it is, of course, budget driven. We hope to carry out phase III this year if we can attract the money, which is as important as spending money.

All of the activities in which we are engaged are backed up by our outreach work. We do not just provide a centre for people to visit but go out to schools and provide education programmes, as our chief executive mentioned.

Chairman

As there are no further questions, I thank the delegates for their contribution. I wish them every success in what is a challenging area, particularly in the field of conservation.

The next meeting of the joint committee will be attended by An Post.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.15 a.m. until 9.45 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 February 2009.